Updating links

By Steve | October 27, 2007

Robert Pearson’s recent post about updating his blog links reminded me to do the same on mine.

Secrets of Grandpatzer chess just recently posted a very informative series on how to use the opening repertoire feature of ChessBase. I’ve already started to try it out with one of my White openings.

Castling Queen Side is one of the most enjoyable blogs I’ve read in a while. I particularly enjoy her humorous tournament descriptions.

Links on the right.

3 Responses to “Updating links”

  1. erik Says:
    October 30th, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    steve: i’d love to get in touch with you and talk about the FEN image parser - i couldn’t find your contact info anywhere on the site!? :)

  2. Steve Says:
    October 30th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    Erik - I sent you e-mail.

  3. Farbror the Guru Says:
    November 7th, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    Steve, the ChessImager is just what I have been searching for! Thanx for sharing.

Comments

Interaction between time management and concentration

By Steve | October 10, 2007

I just don’t understand how some of my fellow bloggers do it. Some are posting lengthy, almost daily essays, and apparently inhaling books like My System in a sitting or two. Others are dissecting USCL games and insults, or USCF politics.

Me, I’m just going to keep on keepin’ on, at my own pace, posting maybe a couple of times a month, on those rare occasions when I have a thought about learning chess that seems worth writing down.

Lately life has severely interrupted my chess hobby, darn it. My oldest son just turned 16 and needs help both with learning to drive and with school work. My youngest son needs help keeping up his workout schedule for the Physical Fitness merit badge, plus transportation to baseball three times per week. My wife’s graduate classes are keeping her frantically busy, and so I want to help her as much as I can. At work I’m preparing for several upcoming presentations at different universities, plus there’s the usual routine of urgent development deadlines every other week. Any finally, pressure is heating up to make progress on the 2nd edition of DIPUM.

(So why are you writing a chess blog anyway, you dope! Hey, chill.)

Phew, glad to get all that off my chest.

Now, about time management and concentration. Something very interesting happened in both my club games last month that I want to share.

First a little personal history regarding time management. In club and tournament games, I’ve been writing down my time remaining after each move for several years now. This accumulated record of my own time management has left me with several impressions.

I have concluded previously that I would be better served by a much more even move-making pace. (Neither of my instructors seemed to have much sympathy for this view, but I’ve decided that in this instance I have a better understanding of myself than they do.) But it’s been hard to break the habit of taking long, unproductive thinks.

Earlier this summer, Dan mentioned to me a time management rule of thumb I hadn’t heard before. Use only 20% of your first time control to make your first 15 moves. (I think he attributed this rule to Bronstein, but I can’t remember for sure.) In a 40 / 90 time control, this corresponds to roughly a minute per move, less than half the overall average time per move, and much faster than I usually make the first 15 moves. I don’t remember the way Dan expressed the logic of this rule, but I think the idea is basically that, although it may be difficult to find your way through the opening, the moves still tend to be easier to calculate than what often goes on during the middle game. There are often several reasonably good moves to choose from, and choosing the 2nd or 3rd best often isn’t a critical error.

This notion stuck in my mind, and when September came I was ready to try one more time to alter my move-making pace. I decided that I wanted 10 minutes left at the end of the first time control, instead of 0, and that I would make the first 15 moves in 15 minutes. In between, I would make each set of 5 moves in about 13 minutes. I marked these goals on my scoresheet in advance.

Making the first 15 moves in 15 minutes felt very fast to me, but I managed it. It seemed to help me establish a good two minute per move pace for the rest of the first time control, and I did get to 40 moves with about 10 minutes left. No long thinks at all. I think the longest time I took on any move was around 4 minutes.

I won the game against someone rated 150 points higher. But that isn’t the really interesting part.

When the game was over, I looked up the from board around the rest of the room. It was 11:40 PM, the game had taken just over four hours, and only one other game was still going out of about 35 boards. And I had no idea! I was totally oblivious to what time it was, or what was going on in the room around me.

Now this was very unusual for me. It seemed to me that I had achieved a significantly deeper level of focus and concentration than ever before. After reflecting on this, I made a tentative connection to my altered pattern of time management. I wondered if adhering to a stricter pacing discouraged indecision and mental laziness, as well forcing a more urgent attention to the board on each move.

Now for most chess players, if it happens in one game it’s an indicative trend, but if it happens in two games in a row it must be an ironclad fact!

Sure enough, the next week I tried this quick opening moves, no long thinks allowed, even move pacing routine again. I scored my 2nd 150-point upset in a row. And again, when the game ended after 11:30 PM, I was totally oblivious to the time and to the rest of the room.

I really enjoyed playing these two games, and I looking forward to my next opportunity to try this time management approach.

Note that I don’t intend this post as a recommendation for anyone else to follow. I’m certain, in fact, that many players will react to this post by quoting Colonel Sherman Potter - “Horse hockey!” As I said, this experiment was based largely on a few years of personal observations about my effective and ineffective use of time in my own games.

My recommendation to others would simply be to get in the habit of always recording your time on your scoresheet. Over the course of many games, then, you will be able to form your own conclusions about your strengths and weaknesses in this aspect of the game.

5 Responses to “Interaction between time management and concentration”

  1. ookwelbekendalsemc Says:
    October 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    …I just don’t understand how some of my fellow bloggers do it. Some are posting lengthy, almost daily essays, and apparently inhaling books like My System in a sitting or two. Others are dissecting USCL games and insults, or USCF politics.

    Sometimes i ask myself the same thing ;-)

  2. Abie Weiler Says:
    October 11th, 2007 at 8:09 am

    Steve , I have not succeeded with the chessimager. My problem is, I think, that I don’t know or rather I am not sure how and where to insert and how to insert the url of the diagram.

    Blessings
    Abie
    p.s. incidentally , I came to know your site through your comment on Susan Polgar’s chess puzzle

  3. Blue Devil Knight Says:
    October 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Wow, that does seem fast for 15 moves! But I like his logic. When I discussed this topic before, I was just trying to divide my time into thirds and be done with move 12 after a third of my time off the clock, then 2/3 after move 24, etc.. My games usually average about 30-something moves, so this seems to work OK.

    As for the opening, it depends. If it isn’t sharp, if I am familiar with it, then I just go pretty fast. But there are some very sharp openings that demand some thinking (for me anyway) starting around move seven or so. Kooky lines I’ve never seen that are obviously a mine field. I try to apply time-management logic to moves rather than portion of the game I’m in: quiet positions don’t need a lot of thought. Sharp positions demand a lot. On the other hand, as a general rule it sounds very smart: it is indeed true that middlegames are a lot more nasty than openings as far as complexity. Plus, it sounds like it is working in practice, which is the ultimate argument that you should do it!

    Tempo is a machine. That explains his bloggging.

  4. Derek Slater Says:
    October 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    Hi Steve - clock management is very hard indeed (i.e., I stink at it). Believe me, 7 minutes for the last 10 moves of time control is luxurious!

    One thing I find myself doing is thinking about forced moves. Terrible habit, makes no sense. I know I have to play Qf4 but I still sit burning my clock trying to figure out the ramifications. Trying to break myself of that one.

  5. Steve Says:
    October 14th, 2007 at 8:50 am

    Abie—In raw HTML, inserting a ChessImager image works by inserting an IMG tag, like this:

    <img src="http://www.eddins.net/steve/chess/ChessImager/ChessImager.php?fen=5N1k/6p1/7p/4P3/pp2Q3/4q3/1P4PP/2b4K/">

    Of course, most people don’t use raw HTML, but some sort of post editor. Usually there’s a way in the editor to insert an image into your post, and when you do, the editor puts up a dialog asking for the “source” or “location” of the image. Then you would enter this as the source:

    http://www.eddins.net/steve/chess/ChessImager/ChessImager.php?fen=5N1k/6p1/7p/4P3/pp2Q3/4q3/1P4PP/2b4K/

    If that doesn’t work for you, then tell me a little bit more about what your interface looks like for composing a post, and I’ll try to help.

Comments

Another upset win

By Steve | September 12, 2007

Before this month, my USCF tournament record against players in the 1700s was 9 losses and 2 draws. So I’m excited to start the club September tourney off with two wins in a row against players in the upper 1700s.

The comments and variations below are not intended to be a detailed analysis. Instead, I have tried to record roughly what I was actually thinking as the game progressed.

While I was entering the moves into ChessBase, it occurred to me that I made several tempo-wasting moves in the opening and early middle-game, and I think this was the root cause of my difficulty along the e-file. I came close to losing the game there.

The endgame is a possibly instructive example of knight vs. bishop imbalance, and how a bishop isn’t always better even when there are pawns on both sides of the board.

In John Nunn’s Secrets of Practical Chess, he talks about dogged defense, and how sometimes players fail to recognize when a position calls for you to patiently do nothing. Well, that’s how I felt about the endgame position between about moves 35 and 45. I had no winning chances, so I made my position as solid as I could, preventing White’s king from penetrating. Then I basically shuffled back and forth, waiting for White to do something.

The situation changed significantly when White gave me the e4 square for my knight and began to shift his king toward the queenside, which allowed me the chance to penetrate on the kingside. In this phase of the game my knight was able to dominate White’s bishop, and I was able to gain a passed pawn and then the game.

3 Responses to “Another upset win”

  1. Chris Garos Says:
    September 15th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    28…Re8 would have been fine, because his king is only optically better - he has no targets and he’s not going anywhere - the lines would be much like those in the game.

    The really disastrous idea for white wasn’t 47. f4, which would be fine if followed by 48. f5 (the shuffle continues). 48. Kd3? is evidence of a desire to win that bears no relation to the position at hand. There’s no possible breakthrough on the kingside, against almost any reasonable line you could take. Then 49. Bh4?? displays a complete lack of understanding of the position - h4 is the worst square on the board for the bishop, and practically begs you to carry out your winning plan. If he wants to break through, he has to at least try moving the kingside pawns. If he realizes there is no breakthrough, he may as well come back with 49. Ke3 (you still have a pull, but he can probably draw).

    At the same time, you played well to not create any additional weaknesses and make your problematic pawn structure unassailable. However, you might have obtained winning chances much sooner if you played Nxc3 in the early going instead of allowing Nxd5 and the boring symmetrical pawn structure. It looks like the most boring exchange french in history. The total lack of available active plans flows naturally to allowing the weakened pawn structure/N vs. B ending.

  2. Steve Says:
    September 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Chris—Thanks for taking the time to look at the game and comment. I had the same impression about 48. Kd3. I thought about playing Nxc3. I’m not really sure why I didn’t, except that I’ve unfortunately come to mistrust my instincts about exchanging pieces. :-)

  3. Steve (Chessiq) Says:
    November 18th, 2007 at 8:29 am

    Nice game. I hope you will remember the lesson from this game when you become a GM and you are playing with a lower rated player: Don’t push for win when the position doesn’t justify it! You played really well, especially when you consider how (relatively) fast you have been playing recently!

Comments

A good start to the September club tournament

By Steve | September 5, 2007

After some atrocious games in July and early August, I decided I needed a break. No club games (or blog posts) in August.

For the September club swiss I decided to play up a section, in the Under 2000. I had a nice upset victory in round 1. It seems like mostly I post my losses, so here’s a win for a change. The comments are intended to reflect my thoughts during the game. I haven’t had a chance to go over it in detail yet.

3 Responses to “A good start to the September club tournament”

  1. Steve Says:
    September 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    The comment on move 32 should have been “Allowing the bishop to land on e4 uncontested would have been fatal.”

  2. Navan Says:
    September 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    Nice game. In the analysis after 17. … Bd7, after 19… Qe7 there is Qxc8. But even if black does not play Qe7, I think black is lost in this line.

    Off topic: Pressing tab on the forms for comments behaves strange. If you press tab from the Name text box, it first cycles through all the Name boxes in the page before going to the Mail box. This is in firefox.

  3. Steve Says:
    September 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Thanks, Navan. When I get a chance, I’ll look into the tab ordering issue.

Comments

No such thing as “drawish lines” for us club players!

By Steve | August 1, 2007

When I was paired last night against a player rated about 200 points down, I decided to take Simon Webb’s advice and play a solid, positional opening. I entered the Queen’s Gambit Declined as Black intending to play the Orthodox variation. MCO-14 says “[The Orthodox variation is] used today by very few players because of its lack of active counterplay and the small likelihood of Black getting any winning chances.” (I get the feeling the author was just itching to use the word boring here.)

Well, White varied first by playing an early e3, blocking his queen bishop. On move 13, White decided to castle queenside:

So much for boring! I responded with 13…c5 and we were off to the races! My pawns arrived first, and White felt compelled to give up a piece to stop their advance. That was enough to win the game. (See below for a replayable game board.)

I ended the month with 3 wins (all against lower-rated players) and 2 half-point byes. That earned me part of a four-way tie for 2nd in the Under 1700 section, which was worth $20. Maybe I’ll retire early now!

Congratulations to fellow blogger Steven Wollkind (Strong Among the Weak), who picked up 70 rating points with his strong performance. He lost only to the first place finisher in the U1700 section.


Replayable game

9 Responses to “No such thing as “drawish lines” for us club players!”

  1. Matt Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am

    I like your 39… g6 to avoid any crap with the breakthrough he was obviously playing for. Of course it was moot with the extra bishop (in fact, you could have picked it up and thrown it across the room and still won at that point), but it’s nice to see their faces when the only, slim, faint hope they have is squashed.

    :)

  2. Steve Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 am

    Matt—Yes, I figured at around move 35 that he was playing for a breakthrough as his last desperate chance.

  3. Edwin 'dutchdefence' Meyer Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 1:53 am

    Is it me, or don’t the VCR (replay) buttons work? How did you get to implement this chessviewer into WP anyway?

  4. Steve Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Edwin—It’s not just you. I just realized that the VCR buttons don’t work when you view this page with IE 6. (I use Firefox.) The VCR buttons work better if you go directly to the game replay page, which is here. I’ll try to figure out how to the VCR buttons to work when embedded.

    To answer your “how” question—I use Palview.

  5. Chessiq Says:
    August 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    I was wondering why on move 17 you didn’t play 17… bxc3. May be your attack wouldn’t have been as strong?
    Was 20.Bxb4 forced? I would rather have played Nc3 which still loses but I think it is a lot slower ;-)
    Nice game! Quite a relentless attack from you.

  6. Steve Says:
    August 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Chessiq—I never really thought about 17…bxc3. It looks playable: 18 Bxe8 cxd2+ 19 Qxd2 Rxe8. No, I don’t think 20 Bxb4 was forced, and I was surprised that White played it.

  7. Jack Le Moine Says:
    August 12th, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    I tried to send you a message but this system didn’t take it. Would you please contact me?

    Jack Le Moine
    jacklemoine.blogspot.com

  8. Steve Says:
    August 13th, 2007 at 7:45 am

    Jack—I sent you e-mail.

  9. Steve Oldner Says:
    August 31st, 2007 at 7:18 am

    And I thought I was the only old Steve (52 acutally) starting over again. My 10 year old daughter beats me oftern, my oldest son gave up chess because I wasn’t a challenge. What ingrates!! Anyway, my question is - Who has improved the most, or gained the most in ELO, after 50?

Comments

« Previous Entries Next Entries »