| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
baronderkilt 01-Jun-09, 07:04 |
 Do you ever have a day ... So I Resign because I didn't have another piece to drop. If I HAD another piece to drop, I could have "gambit" it to "Takes" as well and perhaps create the illusion "I have the Swine Flu". But no such luck. Do you ever get a game like that? Have a day like that? }8-O |
||
|
Here's a happy ending... I had the Black pieces. The opening was beginning to merge into the middle game, and carelessly I dropped a piece. OK, says I, time to guts it out and go in for all out assault; carry the fight to the opponent. Thinking thus, promptly dumped a second piece. For nothing. Of course, I go roaring into a central attack, the d-pawn penetrating to the 6th and eventually the 7th rank. Meanwhile the enemy wasn't lying down, and carried out a strong attack of his own. Finally, the inevitable happened, as you would expect when I was two pieces to the bad. White has a mate two. We both missed it! White threatened something else, but that oversight was the turning point. That advanced Black d-pawn proved decisive in its effect and I went on to win the game. Great days... Cheers, Ion |
||
|
A week ago... Apparently I thought ( quite reasonably) that I had already won, because I proceeded to give the 2 pieces back within a couple of moves. Upset because of the two big blunders I became very careful not to give even more away. At the following point in the game I forgot my clock while thinking and to my huge surprise I noticed that I now actually have less time than my opponent. Panicking, I gave away my queen and at the end I lost on time in a losing position. After this terrible game I was in such a state that I proceeded to lose 6 games in a row, before I finally won a game (With a correct queen sacrifice and smothered mate; chess is so strange). |
||
|
|
||
|
Making a blunder when the opponent... Club tournament, Wellington, 1976 or '77. I had gone to the ... gents' ... and upon my return found my opponent sitting at the board having made his move. I hadn't even reached my chair when I could see that he had blundered a knight to a 2-move shot that he must have been looking at for the last 5 minutes. The thing is, my opponent that day was something of a hero of mine, one Zyg Frankel, whom I had first read about in a chess column back in the mid-60s when I was still at school (a district high school at Waitara, about as far away from any chess playing centre as you could imagine). Mr Frankel had played - with the Black pieces - an obscure line in the Ruy Lopez that gambited a whole piece for the attack, this against one of the strongest New Zealand players of the day, one F.A. Foulds. Frankel won a brilliant game! Ten years later, Zyg Frankel was not in the best of health, and sitting at the board I felt sad that my erstwhile hero had come to this. Didn't stop me snipping of the knight and winning quickly, though. Zyg was still a hero for mine. By not one twitch or grimace did he indicate that he had blundered. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
yusuf_prasojo 06-Jun-09, 15:47 |
Chess is so strange I always won my position step by step. Winning a position, creating an isolated pawn, winning the isolated pawn, winning more materials, but at last blunder a piece or a rook. Getting forked is fine, but often it is worse than that. The worst was threatening opponent's queen with a rook while the rook itself has no defender at all. And it was not a blitz at all! So, I'm reliefed to know that those people on the "major boards" are actually, I think, not better than me, so I think I still have big room for improvement. But it doesn't stop happening!!! |
||
|
yusuf_prasojo 06-Jun-09, 16:20 |
After writing previous post.... I needed to make a move and I analyzed two major options. In option#1 I found a branch with a "no, its a blunder" and continue with calculating other branches till I found an acceptable position for option#1. Then I calculated option#2 till I found an acceptable position for that option. But I couldn't remember or couldn't decide which one is better so I recalculated option#1. And you know it, I suddenly found a great move I thought I haven't seen before, and that's the blunder... Now, it is good to know this... Next time I think I know when I need to be alarmed... |
||
|
If you mean leaving a piece in en prise without any compensation, I can only think of a handful of times that I have done so since I started playing chess at the age of 4. I simply don't do it. You have to force a piece "out of my cold dead hands!" One time I did leave my Queen in en prise. My opponent took it, and then left his Queen in en prise too! I went on to win the game. Another time when I was teaching my brother how to play chess, he immediately grabbed his Queen and captured on f7 while saying "Isn't this checkmate?" Boy, was I embarrassed!!! Fortunately it was not during a real game. My mind was distracted on teaching a few finer points of opening strategy. I taught my blind nephew how to play chess; and he is good. He beats most sighted players. He has never played in one of those "Blind" chess tournaments; but he could give the current blind world champion a run for his money. The only time he has beaten me was when I allowed him to take back a losing move on his part. So giving my opponent an undeserving 'mulligan' was another blunder on my part. Discounting that game, I'm the only person he has ever played and not been able to beat. He still claims that one of these days he will win a fair and square game against me. I tell him that it might happen when I'm 90 years old and senile! |
||
|
yusuf_prasojo 07-Jun-09, 07:11 |
|
||
|
yusuf_prasojo 07-Jun-09, 08:04 |
Today I started to think, is this game really for me? I experienced this problem since 2000 (I hope it has nothing to do with the Y2K issue). In 2000 I used to play chess with Chessmaster2000 (in tournament level), and I was better than that software. When I started to play against human, yes I often won "half" of the game but then blundered the other half... (well, for small amateur clock-less tournaments I usually be the winner, but that's not enough against the pro) I believed that what I need to do is to transfer my skill in long time control environment to the shorter time control environment. When I played against the Chessmaster2000, I usually calculated every possible moves, just like computers. Now this skill is useless and I need to learn new skill. I also like to play complicated games (against computer, you cannot win if you don't create somekind of imbalance). This doesn't work in shorter time control. I often have the chance to simplify things (while I'm winning) but I didn't. I think these formed a habit I cannot break so easily. Or may be I should stop thinking that I'm a blunder maker? When I sit in front of my opponent, I know that I'm far better than him, but still I don't think I can easily win the game because of my track record with blunders... |
||
|
bhidragon 07-Jun-09, 09:19 |
Don't Worry ... Be Happy Drink wine, play chess, take care of my family ... and try to do each just a little better each day. The Dragon |
||
|
These days, I play less trappy and more for position. |
||
|
Blunders... Just leaving a piece "en prise", or moving a piece "en prise" is the most straightforward error. Here we "en prise" to mean "liable to be taken at once for nothing, or at least less than its nominal value". It also implies that there are insufficient temporal and spatial compensations. Experience will gradually eliminate - or reduce to a rarity - such errors from one's play. The worst type of immediate mistake is to leave open a mate "on the move". But how about the error that leaves one liable to equally serious loss after some kind of tactical sequence? Among experienced players, such mistakes are hardly to be distinguished from the straightforward leaving the material "en prise". But there is a bit mor "chess" to such mistakes. The opponent has to find the move sequence that wins the material. Such tactical sequences can be short or quite long and convoluted. In fact the refutation of the "mistake" might not be readily apparent during the game at all. Not for nothing did Savielly Tartakower once remark: "who wins the game made the second to last mistake". Here's something from the Interzonal tournament, Portoroz, 1958: White; M Tal; Black; M. Filip w In this situation, Black's K-side looks pretty well defended, but White, rather than give up notions of K-side attack, figured that by giving up a bishop he would get 2 pawns and plenty of attacking possibilities. 28.Bxh3 gxh3 29.Qxe5 ... Looks good so far... 29...Be7! 30.Rd4! Rxd4 31.cxd4 Kh7 32.Rd1 ... With the idea of driving back Black's pieces with his centra pawn phalanx, before resuming his K-side assault. After 32...Ne8, Black went on to lose. Black's 32nd was later found to be a mistake: he could have drawn by 32...Qg7 33.Rg1 Qf8, and a repetition. But then, some months later, it was found that the analyst had gone wrong: Black ought to have won! 32...Qg7 33.Rg1 Bd6!! (34.Rxg7+ Kxg7 and White's Q is trapped!). But what does that mean? It calls into question Tal's whole concept from move 28. But if it was mistaken as it transpired, is it correct to call it a mistake? I guess it depends how much subjectivity you put into the word. Objectively - yes it was a mistake, but Chess contains more of subjectivity than you would think - and it lies in the minds of the players. Tal tried something that his opponent failed to "disprove" on the day. The subsequent analysis tells us the objective background against which the subjective decisions were made. I'm not really making a whole lot of sense, am I. Too near dinner time, I suspect. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
A slip up: 28.Bxh6 gxh6. Comes of translating Descriptive Notation into Algebraic... |
Log in 
