|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
baronderkilt 17-Apr-11, 12:22 |
 CHESS Thoughts ... In General This is the place for anything tho. Tho Chess Jokes or Poems or ideas . . . hey go for it !! |
||
|
baronderkilt 17-Apr-11, 12:53 |
Today ... I had a great fun blitz match Finally I get += ending on him with a lot of technical troubles & a bit less time too. But after facing everything he can pull out of the defensive bag, I got to come thru in the end and score the point, with much satisfaction. Alas, next game I drop a piece and manage to get in my "Resigns" click before my last second can tick-off. And you know, it felt good~! To be able to show my worthy opponent that bit of respect in time. But we play another block of see-saw games and most are much better than that. Until fatigue begins to take its toll. And YET in one last game (little did I know it was the last at That Moment tho ) I get to pull off a Queen-Sac that is perfectly sound, to win a pawn as the coup de gras to it all. yes yes, I got to "see one move further" on That one! And now I really know I've got HIS RESPECT, if that nice ending technique of the previous game did not do it. Naturally I sit beaming, with thoughts like "too bad my camera is not on; so he could see the G r i n on MY FACE!" You know, the one from that "Cheshire-Cat-Within" us. I see he decides to struggle on a few more moves, despite my showing of ability when up-a-pawn, earlier. "Going to test my technique Again, eh Chessfriend ?! Well have at it~!" {I am thinking that to myself, in between self-congratulations} So he pops out some move there ... And so I just SAC My Queen AGAIN ~!! Oh. Hey wait, That was NOT the Plan. Lets see ... I maintained the dominating position on ... Qd4, he attacked d4, and I ... well ok, call it a Deperado Sac I guess. Actually a Passive Desperado Sac to be precise; since I decided to ignore his pitifull Knight attack upon my Queen, in order that I could O-O ... ah yes, long live the King, but the Queen IS Dead. Sigh. "LOL" ... "I believe it is breaktime. Thx for the great games" gg's " R E S I G N S You see, I always put the smiley face and the gg's in the message since many do not speak English but "gg's" seems to be getting universally known. And as said by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young ("Wooden Ships" ) "If you smile at me, I will understand; because that is something everybody does in the same language." www.youtube.com www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rG2ME4sAc |
||
|
baronderkilt 19-Apr-11, 15:15 |
S I G H ****************************** ( We miss you T/A ~! ) |
||
|
Hi Craig... Arrived early, watched the player list being drawn up. I was seeded maybe 14th in a field of 32 or thereabouts. The field included New Zealand's strongest player, IM Ortvin Sarapu, and several other notables. It was the traditional 5-round Swiss chess tourney. The organisers decided upon 'Grade prizes', for the best performers of the under 1750 and under 1600. Actually, I don't recall the actual grade eligibilities, but I do know that the first line was drawn directly beneath my own name. No grade prize for me, then. After a win in Round 1, I ran into one of the eventual main prize winners, and lost a hard-fought game - a standard K+P vs K ending. In Round 3 copped another strong player, who for some reason annoyed me about something. Then I went and blundered a pawn about move 9. Incandescent with rage, I started playing well, won his queen and forced his resignation a dozen or so moves later. I always found that anger concentrated the mind, and played much better, but it was a state of mind I could never call upon at will. In an Easter Tournament in Wellington a few years later, my final round opponent remarked as he tipped over his King: 'You were pretty enthusiastic in that game. You been having a bad tournament?' Ooh, yeah! Round 4 was an exciting game in which I nearly blew when I chickened out of a fine rook sacrifice... So we entered the final round. At this stage the 4 leaders were on 3.5/4; and there were just 2 players on 3, one NM (no names, no pack drill) and myself. NM was another with a rating stratospheric compared with mine (under 1800 at the time). There was also that about him that for some reason no one wanted to share the prizemoney with him, or to be overreached if one of the leaders lost and NM beat me. Between rounds I was hearing all sorts of expressions of hope that I might (by some miracle) hold NM to a draw. Things did not go per spec. I had the Black pieces; my opponent opened with a King's Indian Attack - a favourite of his at the time. After some 40-odd moves of rather sorry looking chess by me and even sorrier by my opponent, my bishop pinned a rook against his King, and, already two pawns behind anyway, he resigned. So I finished with 4/5 - a guarantee of some prizemoney at least. Lo and behold if both games involving the 4 leaders weren't drawn - one quick, the other a protracted struggle. Unbelievable! So I ended up sharing the prizes in a 5-way tie for First! I never did hear what the others thought of that... Of course, splitting the main prizes 5-ways didn't make for a super-large cheque, by any means, but it was sure lord welcome... When I next played in the Auckland Labour weekend - some 6 years later - I repeated the 4/5 score. Not good enough for a piece of first prize this time... Cheers, Ion |
||
|
lighttotheright 20-Apr-11, 19:35 |
Instead I tried a simple pawn fork - knowing full well that it should not have worked. He moved the wrong piece! The next move, I grabbed his Queen and was up 2 full pawns. I didn't make another mistake in that game and went on to win easily. OTB, anything can happen. I don't give up. I won't resign unless there are too few pieces on the board to make a come back even possible. Of course, that's subjective. Real playing strength of my opponent makes a big difference in that interpretation. |
||
|
coopershawk 21-Apr-11, 13:56 |
Age 15 and lucky people. I was full myself, and decided that my best chance for a win was to make the game as complex as possible and hope he made a mistake. Well into the middle game, we were even in material and my position was almost 100% defensive, I shamelessly offered him a pawn, which if taken would lead to the loss of his rook several moves later. To my surprise he took the pawn! The rook was the key to his attack. When he came around again and I made my next move, my hand was quivering. He saw his problem instantly after I moved, muttered something about "cheap" and pushed the pieces into my lap. I was ecstatic! But stayed cool as if it was no big deal for me. I kept the score sheet for years but seem to have lost it now. The guy had a bad day lost 3 other games and drew 2, probably just lost concentration after loosing to a kid. |
||
|
cascadejames... Years ago I knew a guy on the staff at Wellington's Victoria University - a keen though not overstrong chess player - an average to above average club player as I recall. Yet rumour had it that he had beaten a GM - Larry Evans or Sammy Reshevsky, someone at that level - one-on-one in a tournament game. Well, this dude was from the States after all, so it was at least plausible he got the opportunity. So one day I asked him about it. Yep: it was true. Beat him in 9 moves. Come again? The GM (I think it was in fact Reshevsky) apparently had blundered a piece right in the opening and resigned on the spot. The way Teddy described it, he was so nervous at having acquired a free piece for nothing against a GM (!), he felt sure that all the GM had to do was stay there and he (Teddy) would shortly have found a way to lose it all back again, if he didn't die from apoplexy first. I did wonder a bit why the GM didn't stick it out. Apparently it was just sheer disgust that moved him to exit the game right there. Contrast that with one GM David Bronstein in a match for the Championship of the world. Blundered a rook against Botvinnik, and kept on going. Here's the plot: White: M. Botvinnik Black: D. Bronstein Match Game 9; 1951: Dutch Defence 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.d5 Bb4! 7.Bd2 e5 8.e3 d6 9.Nge2 a6 10.Qc2 Qe8 11.f3 ... White was planning e3-e4, but the move blocked the B at g2. 11... b5 12.Qb3 Bc5 13.cxb5 Bd7 14.Na4 Ba7?? This is gonna hurt... Here's the situation, with White to play: w 15.b6! Bxa4 16.b7 Bxb3 17.bxa8=Q Bb6 A whole Rook down, but you wouldn't know it from Black's demeanour... 18.axb3 Qb5 19.Nc3 Qxb3 20.Rxa6?? ... I can only put this down to impatience. There was absolutely no need for White to concede any of his material advantage. 20... Nxa6 21.Qxa6 Nxd5 And now the deficit is pawn for bishop. That central majority seems to go some way to bridge that gap as well. 22.Qa4? Qxa4 23.Nxa4 Bxe3 24.Bf1?! Ra8 25.b3 Bxd2ch 26.Kxd2 Kf8 27.Bd3 g6 You'd just about start fancying Black's chances by how, wouldn't you? w 28.Rc1 Rb8 29.Nc3 Nb4 30.Be2 Ra8 31.Na4 c6 32.Rc4 Rb8 33.Bd1 Ke7 Already Black looks pretty comfortable... 34.Nb2 d5 35.Rh4 h5 36.g4 hxg4 37.fxg4 f4 38.g5 Rf8 39.Rh7ch Kd6 40.Rg7 e4 41.Rxg6ch Ke5 With the time control reached, the players agreed to split the point. There still seems to be a lot of play left in the game, though! |
||
|
coopershawk 21-Apr-11, 21:00 |
@Ion Apprentice." I have been intimidated by the book, but this game may inspire me to tackle it. |
||
|
coopershawk 21-Apr-11, 21:32 |
@Ion again |
||
|
@cascadejames Cheers, Ion |
||
|
Bronstein's SORCERER'S APPRENTICE As is his CHESS SELF-TUTOR. In Pachman-Bronstein (KID, Prague 1946), Bronstein shows how to make a complicated position simple by looking at its zones of combat. In Tolush-Bronstein (KID, Moscow 1944), he illustrates how to coordinate attack with defense while conducting an attack. |
