Sunday, June 12, 2011

A Hard-Fought Victory in 15 min.

I dropped two pawns in this game due to my own carelessness, but managed to muster an attack in the middle game that led to checkmate. I'm proud of the latter portion of this game. Other than the first ten moves, I think I played well, planning far in advance for an attack on my opponent's King side using my Queen's rook.

Perhaps I stumbled upon a gambit of my own making. I harvested some tempos from my sacrificed pawns. I've noticed that dropping a pawn or two in the opening tempts one's opponent to be lazy and look for nothing other than opportunities to trade down. By the time I checkmated Mr. 1895, he had a whopping 9:23 (out of 15:00) remaining on his clock, while I had only 2:59 on mine. That smacks of lazybones. Perhaps he was contemptuous of me because of my lower rating and opening blunders.

[White Anonymous]
[Black me]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1895"]
[BlackElo "1797"]
[ECO "A45"]
[Time "11:19:18"]
[TimeControl "900"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 d5 3. Nf3 c5 4. dxc5 Nc6 5. a3 e5 6. Bb5 Bxc5 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. Nxe5 O-O 9. Nxc6 Qc7 10. Nd4 Ba6 11. Nc3 Rfe8 12. Nce2 Rab8 13. c3 Ng4 14. h3 Ne5 15. O-O Rb6 16. b4 Be7 17. Nf4 Rd8 18. Bb2 Bxf1 19. Qxf1 Nc4 20. Qe2 Bg5 21. Nd3 Rg6 22. Kh1 Qc8 23. Rg1 Rh6 24. f4 Bf6 25. Bc1 Bxd4 26. cxd4 Qf5 27. Ne5 Qe4 28. Qd3 Rxh3# 0-1

It is always good to develop mating threats, whether or not they are serious, because in time-controlled games a player is apt to overlook them. My opponent should have played 28. Qf3, forcing a trade of Queens. My attack fizzles after that. We were even in material. He had the better pawn structure and an excellent knight, while I had active rooks. Whether I could have won the end game is doubtful, given his tremendous time advantage. I gambled with Qe4, and my gamble paid off this time. Was Qe4 the best possible move for me? Probably not. Nevertheless, it won the game.

The trouble with long games--considered to be as little as 15 min. per side--is that some players do in fact cheat. It's too easy using a computer program in another window. It seems pathetic, and I disapprove of the practice. A few players in the online chess community are suspicious of inconsistent players like me. More than one has accused me of cheating, and I've had a regular spectator who is rated 2200+ and never makes any comments. It makes me wonder whether I'm being investigated. I've never cheated, and I don't even have a chess program installed on my computer. I've never even looked up an opening on the Internet to find good moves during a game--that, too, is cheating. It is my policy to only use my brain. The purpose of chess is to exercise the mental faculties.

I can certainly understand those who think I am cheating. Sometimes I play like I'm 1650, and other times, 1950. It just depends on the cycle of the Moon. I play better sober, obviously, but also, any disturbance reduces my quality of play. Lack of sleep, unwelcome news, insufficient exercise, inadequate diet, lethargy, depression--these things have an impact on my concentration. Chess is an intense and demanding intellectual sport. All the cylinders have to be firing at the right time. A misfire here or there loses a pawn, a piece, or the game.

I do consult sites on the Internet in order to research chess openings. But I don't use a chess program at all and feel myself to be in the minority in that respect. I'm old-fashioned. My way is to set up my chess board on the kitchen counter and analyze openings myself. From long experience, I've gotten good at that, and it is how I have refined my responses to certain opening lines. Although a chess program offers many advantages, I feel it is the lazy man's way, and I prefer to do things the hard way. After all, the chess program will not be there to help during an actual game, so one should not get used to relying upon it. Besides, it is quite pleasant to get away from the computer and operate in three dimensions for a change.
by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

No comments:

techlorebyigor is my personal journal for ideas & opinions