|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 897 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-10-14 | | Alien Math: Having fun across the board? :) seems like exciting day of chess, hopes have you rest enough, appear to earn a day of rest ^.^ |
|
| May-11-14 | | Alien Math: Even with reassure, this are more a challenge than Tên appear to make English easy, still hopes random sentence makes sense |
|
May-11-14
 | | Open Defence: I like a good bull run,
congrats on the wins! |
|
May-11-14
 | | Domdaniel: <alien math> Yes, it makes very good sense, thank you. In fact, "earn a day of rest" was almost exactly what my mother said when I phoned her after the games. Mothers, I think, tend to worry whether their adult children are getting enough rest... |
|
May-11-14
| | Domdaniel: <open defence> Thanks ... nice to see you back here again ... |
|
May-11-14
| | Domdaniel: OK, then, the games. Both opponents had (Irish) ratings of about 1850, roughly 100 above me. And both had beaten me in our previous games, which made this sweeter.
First of all, I played a Classical Dutch vs 1.d4. In my earlier game against this opponent, I'd played a QGD Orthodox Def and eventually lost the ending. This time I was determined to be sharper and more complex ... if I had to lose again, it was going to be in a crazy position.
So we started with 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 ... and eventually reached this position:
click for larger view |
|
May-11-14
| | Domdaniel: In this position, Black has been cramped, but now breaks out:
28.Ng6 Qa5!
29.Be7? Bb6+
30.Kh1 Bf5
31.Qd6 (White's best chance is 31.Bd5+)
31... Ne4
32.Qe5 Nf2+
33.Kg1 Nd3+
0-1 |
|
May-11-14
| | Domdaniel: Here's the other one, after 35...Bd4 (I was White, played a Reti, offered a draw on move 18, which was declined; then things got interesting:
click for larger view36.Rxc8 Rxc8
37.Rb8 Bxe3+
38.Kxe3 Qe6+
39.Kf2 Ba8
40.Qg5+ Kh8
41.Qxh5+ Kg7
42.Qg5+ Kh8
43.Qh4+ Kg7
44.Qg5+ Kh8
45.Qa5 Kg7
46.Qa1+ Kh6
47.Rxc8 Qxc8
48.Qf6+ Kh5
49.Qh4+ Kg6
50.Bd3+ Kg7
51.Qh7+ Kf6
52.Qh6+ Ke7
53.Qg5+ Kd6
54.Qf4+ Ke7
55.Qb4+ Kf6
56.Qd4+ Ke7
57.Be4 Qh3
58.Qe5+ Kd8
59.Qd6+ Ke8
60.Bg6#. |
|
May-11-14
 | | Annie K.: <offered a draw on move 18> Who do you think you are, a GM?!
Oh... ok then. ;)
PS - I'll catch up with games tomorrow. :) |
|
May-12-14
| | Domdaniel: <offered a draw on move 18> ... fully expecting to be rejected, of course... it's a useful strategy, sometimes. Hmm. "Expecting to be rejected" can also become a way of life. Perhaps not advisable. |
|
May-12-14
| | Domdaniel: When Ivanov's dodgy wins against GMs were being discussed last year, one particular kind of position drew a lot of attention. It was pointed out that in a number of games where Ivanov got an advantage he chose a super-sharp route to a win. It was argued that a computer would play like this - 'seeing' that the opponent's counterplay would come to nothing - but that a human player would choose a slower, but safer, path to a win. This principle guided my play in the 2nd game here, with multiple checks. At a couple of points I could have gone in for winning lines which allowed Black counterplay in the form of checks. I preferred to keep control, making threats (I was well ahead on the clock), in the expectation that he'd cave in. Which he did.
I missed one 'easy' winning chance - 51.Qe7+ instead of Qh7+ - but other winning chances gave Black too much counterplay. Even if it was doomed to fizzle out, it was too risky -- too unnecessary -- to allow. |
|
| May-12-14 | | Thanh Phan: You had some good fun games I see :) glad to know your days can improve |
|
May-12-14
| | Domdaniel: <Thanh Phan> Thank you. I'm also glad ... it was some time since I'd had a couple of wins like this. |
|
May-12-14
| | Annie K.: <Hmm. "Expecting to be rejected" can also become a way of life. Perhaps not advisable.> Definitely not advisable. ;p
Very nice games, way to wrap up the season! :) |
|
May-13-14
| | Open Defence: do you smile when you offer a draw ? |
|
May-13-14
| | Domdaniel: <Deffi> No. If anything, I wince. |
|
May-13-14
| | Domdaniel: Actually, I don't offer draws very often. And when I do, it's often in an endgame where one player or the other has just seen their winning chances disappear. In these cases, I just say "draw?" as I make my move.
In the rare cases where I offer a draw earlier, I tend to say something like "Would you like a draw?". I've found that this polite form means that people are more likely to reply. I don't like it when one player says something like "I offer draw" and the other moves without replying. |
|
May-14-14
 | | Richard Taylor: Hi Dom Thanks for your pointing out the data bases. I have one of those. I don't think I ever looked on this forum, I may have read your notes once. Re William Gibson I sell s/h books but I need room here so I either pull books off for myself or sell them at very low prices (especially since 2008), so that I saw a Gibson (forget the title) and knowing he was "someone" I thought of adding it to my rather large library (in this rather run down house I own); but I sold it to a fellow for a cup of coffee and a muffin (I think it was worth - possibly NZ#40 or so or even more - but while it was in great condition it was unsigned and they are - well they are out the door and off! I started selling on US EBay ca 2000 and I auctioned a First of 'Origin of the Species' for nearly NZ$2000. Low price as he reprinted (and changed so it was a ("first thus")) the book about 5 times I think. Still the very first copy is v. valuable. Re Kasparov: I think I would be interested to see him lecture, but what I have read him say (once in New In Chess he wrote a pretty long thing where he predicted that Carlsen was the man (as if that was something anyone would be surprised about, Carlsen was old news even then, I think about a year or so after K had retired) but I can imagine his interviews etc are relatively boring. What I did find fascinating was a VHS video I found at my local chess club of one of the KK matches (started in NY). The analysis of both players was fascinating, and when Kasparov talks about his own games he is interesting. Karpov was too: a very likeable man on camera. What I liked about Karpov was the semi-dramatic way he turned up to each game a few minutes late! The FIDE (these days) with all their stupid rules are ruining the fascination of the eccentricity and quirkiness that is the secret of chess! |
|
May-14-14
| | Richard Taylor: This one made me laugh:
"Brutality is out of date."
- Aron Nimzowitsch
!! Nimzo always strikes me as being an earnest but rather naive fellow. He once won a tournament and then gave some (many good, some gauche) pointers on how to play to win or do well in tournaments. One of his pointers was: "Don't get nervous."!! |
|
May-14-14
| | Richard Taylor: I was following that game you won (with all the checks) on Komodo and indeed most of your moves were good although as you say sometimes unnecessary. Ivanov, was that who Kingscrusher was talking about? I saw him discuss someone winning vs. GMs but I wasn't convinced the relatively lower ranked player was cheating as his wins weren't too hard to find. One move supposed to be nearly impossible except a GM I found almost immediately myself. I think it can happen that players play "uncharacteristically". I started back into chess in 2005 and my local rating was 1460 or something but by 2010 it was 2067. Now in the meantime, in the early days I was beating players much higher rated (and losing also of course) and it was suggested I was stonewalling or whatever. But what someone did was to take into account the previous and subsequent ratings of players so (because I had lost to players who had increased their rating in some cases from say 1600 or so to 2000 or 2200 (young players mostly) I also picked up points as their "real rating" was calculated. I'm not sure how that happened but a lot of people went up 100 points. But just prior to 2010 I was studying a lot - on here, on YouTube, the games of Dennis Monokrousos (esp when he paused and one had to work out the moves) and I seriously started trying to work on my openings (in the past I hated studying openings, I'm still not keen on studying them), buying a book on the French and one on the Nimzo and so on. This and some luck meant that I went up another 160 points. Then after the NZ Champs where I came last I lost my nerve. I stopped playing club chess where I was blundering too much and played only in the odd tourney that was near where I live. So that is the trajectory of "improbability". No sign of serious cheating or stonewalling there! To this day I have no idea how to cheat as such (except maybe by having some opening notes, but one would have to be a magician!?) - and I don't have to worry about switching off, or not even having on me, my cell phone: as I don't have one, and never have had. Well that is the down side of the ego in chess. The up side of chess are the many beautiful games and problems so we spend a lot of time working out the weekly puzzle by Barden or playing games by Smyslov or whatever Master we are looking at.... |
|
May-14-14
| | Domdaniel: <Richard> Thanks, many interesting points, as always. If you're interested in the Ivanov (aka Bigfoot, because he apparently hid a computer in his shoe) cheating scandal, check out the page for <Boris Ivanov>. I was talking recently to a chess friend who, like me, had given up playing around 1990 and returned around 2005. We had both been rated 2000+ in the old days -- but, on returning, I was given a rating of 1900, while he was restarted at about 1500 - no idea why. But the upshot was that I had a few poor results and dropped down to about 1750 (where I still languish), but he rose steadily from 1500 to 2000. There's a lesson there somewhere. I like your line about eccentricity and quirkiness being the secret of chess. Feel free to drop back here anytime... |
|
May-15-14
| | Richard Taylor: Hi Dom. Thanks. Yes, the ratings thing. I fell from grace after a disastrous result in 2013. Seem to be recovering a bit - touch wood. One thing I gained from that video of Kasparov and Karpov was when Karpov had to retract a move and was asked if the great Karpov could bring himself to relocate a piece (he realised he had misplaced). His reply was: "Of course, otherwise you getta crush!"
So I used that in some games. The other thing was to not agonize over results in each round. I had better games in a way BTW when I was playing in the B Grade. In the groups above 1800 I didn't have quite so many "brilliancies". Being on a low rating has its advantages. Even the "kids" get nervous as they have to report back to their coaches. And losing to their mates or an old codger like me is really sad for them! So it can work both ways. Some players only "play the board' (or they seem to). But chess needs its quirks and quarks. I found out by chance that quark had a meaning (before Joyce used it in FW) that either Joyce took or he didn't and maybe thought he had invented it. Of course the word really got off the ground via Finnegan's Wake...and the Physicist who read the book. (Does anyone read FW? I heard JJ reading it (on old vinyl) in his 'Anna Livia Plurabelle' part - very beautiful. |
|
| May-15-14 | | Alien Math: Some well games <Domdaniel> :) there are good days |
|
May-16-14
| | Domdaniel: <Richard> I read a book by the physicist who coined the term 'quark' after reading Joyce -- it's interesting that many scientists have a wide cultural knowledge, while relatively few literary types understand much about science. I tend to be interested in both worlds - or both 'cultures', as Snow said. |
|
May-16-14
| | Annie K.: I'll call it the Snow-Berry theorem. You come up with some justification for this name plz, as I don't ackshly know anything such persons may have said. ;p |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 897 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
