Played against a NM last night (well, a 2100 NM, ldo) with black for my first rated OTB game in 5 years.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game....php?id=101585

Brag: The chess club's current location is not depressing like the previous two locations
Beat: I lost
Variance: Last month's "Wednesday Knighters" featured GM Mauricio Flores. Should have signed up for that one!

My analysis is below. I'm not going to put it in spoilers but maybe it's best in case anyone actually wants to look at my game untainted by my whining:

2. ... cxb4 — So I've never played against this move. Well, I probably have in blitz but do not remember it. I know it's called the wing gambit. I know I have seen the part of the book discussing it, I did not remember the slightest thing about how to set up against it except it's supposed to be unsound.

3. ...d6 — I spent a lot of my clock in the opening. Too bad I didn't just play d5. I thought about it for quite a while but was worried about "sharp lines". I am putting that in quotes b/c I have no idea what they would be, just that it's an unsound gambit I don't remember anything about and assumed opening the center would = "sharp lines". In retrospect, d5 is a pretty clear move to make and there's nothing about it that leads to unnecessarily sharp anything.

7. ...g6 — So I play the accelerated dragon and after thinking too long I elected to go for this vs. e6 and Be7. Of course, this begs the question, "If you play Accelerated Dragon, why have you not played d7-d5?! Do you actually play the Dragon? Perhaps you just play both of them, just very poorly."

11. ...Nd7 — With the tactical shot of Nxd4 if white castles. Before this move it seemed worth preparing for

12. ...Nxd4 — So I spent another longish think here realizing I could not evaluate the resulting position very well. It seemed to me if black could mobilize his pieces or find a plan to lock the center and/or blunt white's attack, he'd have a big advantage. That is as far as I got. I had spent quite a while looking at this so just played it. I had 36 minutes (from original 70) at this point.

16. ...b6 — I looked briefly at Qa5 but was worried about devoting another 3 minutes or more on a move given my clock and didn't want to play this without being more confident white couldn't trap it and/or kick it around to a really bad place. Playing this move would likely have solved a lot of my cramped issues that I spent 4 minutes thinking about on the next move and then playing something bad

17. ...e6 — The beginning of the end imo. I was desperately trying to find a way to mobilize my pieces. I didn't think I could just hang out with small improvements. I felt white could seize the a1-h8 diagonal and go for a kingside attack which would be deadly if I waited. This move was inspired by a thought at the end of my 4 minutes of trying to find ways to make e7-e5 work that I could play Nf6 and then d5 instead. I'm not sure if I miscounted tempi or what but obv that doesn't work.

21. ...e5 — I really didn't like letting white play e5 here. I feel despite the two passed pawns black is positionally busted after that and will just slice and dice my rooks and pawns up to shreds. Unfortunately ...e5 was not an improvement on that evaluation and seems like a clear mistake. I feel black is clearly losing here. Not so much from losing the d pawn as from letting the knight and rook come alive in the center of the board. I had 25 mins at this point and felt I couldn't spend too much time thinking on moves, though.

23. ...Rad8 — I remember literally thinking "Hmm, what is the purpose of Qg3. Well I guess it's to pin the pawn against my king. If fxg6, fxg6 I can take Nf5 with my rook. Given his knight I was fine with that at this point. I didn't fully consider other tactical implications (although I doubt without 5+ minutes I would have been able to calculate out the actual line to the end). My plan with Rad8 was to play Nf6. But of course white didn't let me.

25. Bg5 — I completely missed that move, oops. Although, then I realized I could block with my knight and if Nf5 my g pawn wasn't pinned anymore. Yay! I thought I might kind of get out of the attack.

28. Qh4+ — Lol, ** **ing. This is what makes the entire line crushing rather than black being able to weasel his way out of it. My opponent did not see out to this move when he played 24. fxg6. So I at least took a bit of solace in that. Although maybe it would've been better if he had b/c then I'd just feel like I had no chance of beating him if he was seeing lines like that in just a couple of minutes OTB.

I'm sure I will be looking over this with my coach but all general thoughts/advice are welcome. I was fairly okay with the result after the game but this morning looking over things I was more down about my play and the loss.

Specifically, it's clear I had no idea how to proceed in that imbalanced position. I kept thinking I needed to play e5 or d5 or something and resolve the pawn situation in the center and/or gain space to get my rooks connected and king-side rook over to support the pawns. But maybe the way to go is to react to white's threats while slowly trying to take over the c-file, getting my pieces supporting my pawns and then pushing them. I don't know.

Cool game. Spotting the Nd7/Nxd4 idea is pretty sweet.

The resulting position for Black actually looks gross to me -- never a lot worse objectively, but such a pain to play.

Yeah 2 pieces are so much better than a rook. No matter how many pawns the rook has. I think that's a big part of the education of an intermediate player.

Thanks!

I think...

Yeah, that is a problem. Not sure how helpful it is too even spot that tactic if playing the resulting position sucks so much, lol.

I did learn quite a bit. One other reason I went for it is simply because I wasn't sure how to evaluate the position and wanted to find out.

I don't know about "no matter how many pawns the rook has," I'm at least not quite convinced of that yet, . But yeah, it sucked. I also think it could be crushing if queens were off the board and my pawns were more advanced and there were fewer pieces (e.g. my knight for a bishop or something). Ok, that is a lot of "ifs" , but still. Definitely seemed tricky to play and I did not play it particularly well either.

What do you mean by "I think..."?

I think it's helpful to be capable of spotting the idea.

I mean I am pretty sure you are giving me a compliment but the tactic is like 10% as difficult as the problems you always post so I wasn't sure it was a compliment completely or not.

Plus the fact that I think I probably shouldn't have played it

Ok, you've helped convince me there is a positive takeaway from this game. Thanks!

It is very hard for me to figure out if I should be encouraged or discouraged by this game. Usually it is pretty clear to tell when you lose. Even if you have a "moral victory" it is usually some amount of disappointment. Or, you get completely steamrolled by a tough opponent. It didn't really feel like that happened either.

5/7 log
15 mins tactics: 37/40 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem
15 mins calculation: 2/2 on standard problem set

Afterwards I realized I set a PR in standard rating — 1933. I was all worried about my rating after achieving 1928 and watching it fall. But I haven't paid much attention the last few days. Obv just doing that and being patient is the way to go, .

30 mins opening training (CPT) — I can tell this will be really useful. I can already remember some important moves in what I reviewed. Before I can just train this, though, I really need to finish putting in lines for at least one major opening rather than training completely random lines that I haven't finished mapping out.

I wish I could be okay with the "free" version but I think if I do a couple of weeks of spaced repetition assisted training I will not want to and just pay the enormous price tag for this software. Obv it's not enormous, but since starting chess again it feels I am literally hemorraging money now lol.

The tactic itself is totally easy, but the brain activity associated with "Okay, White wants to castle" -> (a) "hmm, if he did, and if our knight wasn't in the way, we could play Nxd4 and win material" or (b) [firing of neurons whereby the d4 square lights up as a point of tactical convergence for our pieces and moving the knight out of the way becomes indicated] requires a higher degree of strength. It seems comparable in difficulty to maybe the easier half of the prophylactic maneuvers that pop up in Dvoretsky's stuff, so it isn't a cupcake.

Of course, it might suggest itself a lot more readily when you have an intimate in-game familiarity with the position, but I still like the idea anyway.

Also the difference between solving a tactical problem that you know is a tactic, versus finding a tactical idea over the board, should not be taken lightly.

5/8 log
15 mins tactics: 41/41 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem
15 mins calculation: 6/10 on standard problem set

5/9 log
15 mins tactics: 47/48 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem
15 mins calculation: 0/1 on standard problem set

30+5 games: 0/2. Super frustrating. Managed my time horribly in the first game even though I got an advantage in the opening. Second game I made a mistake he didn't see and then developed a crushing position which I then blundered in one more in time pressure.

5+0 games: 1/2. Hey, at least I won one of these! Steamrolled my first opponent then had a nice attack in the second game, didn't see a crushing continuation so went into a pawn up endgame which I then botched down on time.

5/10 log
15 mins tactics: 41/44 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem
30 mins calculation: 3/5 on standard problem set

Also had a good lesson. Summary of distinct items to learn from:

1) Don't need to accept a gambit.

2) Keep in mind difficulty of playing resulting positions in my evaluation. If material/position is relatively equal even if I have a slightly tougher game, there's no reason to guide the game into something even trickier to play for just a slight material advantage. I.e. don't "gambit" my own position unnecessarily.

5/11 log
Went over some Barry Attack/150 attack games from the Summerscale book.

5/12 log
15 mins tactics: 38/40 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem

4.5/11 blitz games: Made a lot of blunders in between generally playing okay. First game was a pretty good example where I won material, then my opponent moved his queen next to mine and I moved some other piece randomly although my queen was undefended.

(Note to self: do not play blitz unless our new dog is actually relaxing or doing something else)

5/13 log
Went over anti-colle lines from Summerscale.

1/1 70+30 OTB game. Here it is: http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game....php?id=101710.

I couldn't pull the trigger on dxc5 at several points of the game although I don't mind my idea of doubling the rooks. I still probably should have played it either with the idea of Bxf6 & Bh5+ or with the idea of playing b5 before doubling my rooks.

I don't think cxb4 is bad for white but it doesn't seem as good if black plays strongly.

I also should have considered not trading queens. I made that move almost instantly (we were both under 10 mins at that point and I felt it was a good idea to move quickly if I kne what I wanted to play) but mainly thought moving my queen back would leave his queen looking "scary" when really I will be kicking it around and still have all the same pressure/threats but with a queen instead of without one.

One big note to mention is that on move 27 he picked up his King before realizing he needed to take back with the pawn. I think some part of his mind was preparing to capture on f7 once I took. Although my plan was to play Bd5 next and likely not take the rook until he released the pin.

5/14 log
15 mins tactics: 61/63 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem.

How helpful have the easy tactics been?

That is an excellent question. I'm not sure of the answer nor am I sure how to figure it out easily. I'm pretty sure they aren't hurting except of course it could be a waste of time...

My "feeling" is that they are helpful and keep me slightly sharper than I otherwise would be. My plan at some point is to combine all the ones I got wrong or took a long time on (if I can sort by solve time) and group them into a much smaller set that I will then do spaced repetition on until I dominate.

Then bump up the rating but continue to try and solve in under 20 seconds or so.

Any advice at this point?

Yugo, I have 0 advice for you.

5/15 log
tactics: 56/59 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem

5/16 log

tactics: 23/25 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem

5/17 log
tactics: 18/18 on nonmate problem set 15-20s/problem

5/18 log
tactics: 176/183 on previously missed problems and problems that took > 20 seconds
calculation: 6/13 on standard problem set. Got sloppy after a while as it was close to bedtime and I was tired and rushing. Really seems no point to do more than at most 10 standard problems in a day but I guess I just couldn't resist, lol.

5/19 log
tactics: 43/47 on previously missed problems and problems that took > 20 seconds
calculation: 2/2 on standard problem set.

5/20 log
tactics: 16/16 on previously missed problems and problems that took > 20 seconds
calculation: 0/1 on standard problem set.

Also, my OTB game against another 14xx player. I missed tactics, but didn't miss the last (and thus most crucial one), thankfully, lol: http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game....php?id=101820.

I'm working my way through the problems I missed from basic problem sets (not many) and problems that took me over 20 seconds. I'm not missing many of the missed problems but it's clear some of the problems that took longer than 20 seconds still rate to be trickier than others for me. None are taking me 1+ minute or anything but I've missed a few of them rushing to solve them in under 20 seconds. I suspect some are a bit tricky for me to see and I need to work on that theme but others simply involve more move checking before being sure about playing the right move.

Either way, next week I'm going to start in on standard problems that are 1200-1500 rated. I have no idea what to shoot for in terms of solve time, maybe under 30s? Or never take longer than 30 seconds and see how far my % falls? We'll see.

Btw, what up SS. Sometimes no advice is the best (only( advice, .

Nope, I'm all out. Pump Up Your Rating has some pertinent ideas on the subject, if you are amenable to further reducing the weight of your wallet. Or, at the very least, Google "the woodpecker method".

I was able to "liberate" that book and will check it out. Also, rest assured, the irony of you recommending a book to increase one's rating is not lost on me, either, .

Seems I'm kinda/sorta doing some of what he recommends anyway but I haven't really looked into the material yet. Thanks!!

Rei — I really think "pump up your rating" is going to be a really good book for me since it is training oriented. At least until I move on to the Jussupow series (if I ever do, which I should/want to).

I was at my parents last weekend and brought back almost all of my other books. So now I have tons of books I am not utilizing, lol. So I have to keep fighting just trying/wanting to study every book and not getting anywhere.

5/21 log

Went over my game and looked at the dutch a bit (iirc). That game on 5/20 was pretty complex. Still pissed I missed f5, that was the main thing I ldo am capable of seeing and seeing it 99% of the time is going to make a big difference vs. 80% or 90% of the time or whatever.

5/22 log

tactics: 21/31 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)
calculation: 3/8 on standard problem set

Went over a bunch of the dutch on a plane to CA.

5/23 log

tactics: 6/7 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)

Played my Dad in a 12 minute game. Lost by managing my clock super weirdly. Lol at me.

I did smoke some good good earlier in the day. Which I haven't for many years and never did that much. Man I feel stupid afterwards. Sure I seem to have the patience to look for a brilliant move but it's too easy to miss everything else.

5/24 log

Played my Dad in two blitz games, won one and lost one (hung something). More lol at me. More weed. My friend who grows/distributes medical marijuana is not good for my chess.

30 mins or so on the dutch.

5/25 log

2+ hours on the dutch while on the plane back to MN.

5/26 log

tactics: 32/38 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)

5/27 log

tactics: 15/18 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)
calculation: 2/6 on standard problem set

Spent ~30mins looking for a game of my opponent against the dutch. Found one against the lenningrad. Looked like he played classical setup but without c4. Although against me (as you can see if you want) he played c4 and played a classical setup although not precisely (I'm sure I didn't either).

Anyway, I ended up winning, against an 1899 player. Here is the game: http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game....php?id=101919.

I finished 3 points out of 4 for the tournament and got 2nd place overall. This was the field:

2107
1971
1899
1810
1800
1778 (me)
1600
1514
1385
1376

I lost to the 2107 in the first round, beat the 1385 and 1514 (this guy's rating had just gone up ~100 points and he felt like he was at least a B player), and then beat the 1899 (not 1896) in the last round.

My rating looks like it went from 1778 to 1810 (mainly due to the win last night). Hopefully they don't bump me up to u1800 for the National Open, although I guess if they do I shouldn't be upset about it. It's just that I have a much higher chance at some sort of money prize in u1800 vs. u2000.

5/28 log

tactics: 21/27 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)

5/29 log

tactics: 46/54 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)

5/30 log

tactics: 30/33 on intermediate set (1200-1500 standard rating)

I need to get back to doing more than just tactical problems. I did have one decent game playing the Dutch but if I really should keep studying it (and probably also my other openings) before Las Vegas.

Yugo you're one of my favorite people

That's high praise!

You do realize I live with a dog, though, right?

After Axel Smith's finish to his game today, remember that Pump Up Your Rating is a "do as I say, not as I do" book

http://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2015-...ien-Smith_Axel

Lol, looks like he was lost anyway. But, yeah, that seems a tad embarrassing, .

not all dogs are bad. one of them was a schoolbus for a couple of my friends, growing up.

Are you sure it was a school bus?

that pic is scary. i don't post in the highly trafficked subforums because i don't want to get hit by a car.

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon in this vid.