I started off with a decent win, but the next game was ten minutes after the first one finished. This is the downside of playing in two day tournaments in the US and the reason many older players stop playing weekend events. Fortunately I'm young and healthy and don't have too much trouble recovering between games- all the better since my next game was a real test of my nerves.
Sacramento City Championship 2015 (A/B section)
Sort:
We have the same initials , good luck with analysis
In round 3 I played the only other undefeated player in the 2 day section. I confess I was already ready for a rest and a bite to eat, but the accelerated schedule didn't give me enough time for that. The result was my first "grandmaster draw" in a while. After the game I realized I had a promising position and could have continued, but in the end I don't really regret accepting my opponent's draw offer as I was starting to miss tactics and my intensity level was flagging a bit. The quick draw allowed me to grab lunch, check into the hotel, and recharge my batteries before the fourth game.
@Equiv thank you!
The fourth game was the "merge"- the two day and three day sections were merged into one big section. This was my first game at G/90, +30 time controls and I was much more comfortable than in the earlier controls, which feel like glorified blitz to me after a while. Maruvada was my toughest opponent to this point, and the game was an interesting and balanced struggle.
In the first game I think you confuse the line. First, as a finesse, it's better to play cxd5 after que plays Bb7, as playing it before gives him the extra option of Be6, that is a better position for the bishop. But, more important, I think that if you like to play Ne5 then shold play as Pilsbury, with Ne5, f4, Rf3 and a kingside attack (so, the move Re1 is perhaps not so good)
In the first game I think you confuse the line. First, as a finesse, it's better to play cxd5 after que plays Bb7, as playing it before gives him the extra option of Be6, that is a better position for the bishop. But, more important, I think that if you like to play Ne5 then shold play as Pilsbury, with Ne5, f4, Rf3 and a kingside attack (so, the move Re1 is perhaps not so good)
I don't really see a problem with your openings.
I don't really see a problem with your openings.
@FMCouch thank you very much for the analysis and ideas! That's interesting, I thought opening up e6 after he played b6 was OK since he's essentially telling me that he wants his B on b7. But you're right- there's no hurry, I can play cxd5 next move if I want. I like the Pillsbury setup a lot, but I was afraid of ...f6 (I played f3 against his similar setup in the first game. Should I be afraid of that move?
As for my openings, I think as White I've become good at avoiding what I don't know (Sicilian structures, open games, KIA stuff) and playing what I know (quiet lines, queenside expansion, closed centers). I think I need more depth and more breadth, but most of the time at this level I can get away with not knowing theory. Anyway, the input is much appreciated- it's not every day an FM stops by to help me out!
The first four games were on Fourth of July. After the game, I watched some fireworks, went to the hotel's pool, watched TV, and relaxed for the rest of the day. On Sunday I ran to the local country club, went swimming again, and had breakfast just in time for the fifth round. I was playing a tough local player who was coming off a nice tactical win in the previous round.
In this last game I think that the problem with Bg4 is that after Qd3 (not Qd2) Nc6 f5 your bishop is jailed and will be taken (with h3, g4, or Qg3 and Bg5). Then I suppouse you confuse the words "White" and "Black" some times. Who won? After the variación with Rxc7+ you are a rook up.
Your theory knowledge I think is very good for your level and a level up. For that matter, I don't think you reach a bad position for your "poor" knowledge. If you feel unconfortable with some of the positions that arise or you feel that you are clueless after the theory, you must focus in typical manouvres, typical piece position, typical plans and táctica of your openings. And to do that you need to review a bunch of games.
@FMCouch you're right again, the end of the game should read "0-1, White resigned" because Black has an easy win at the end of the variation. Sometimes I get a little loopy at the end of a long day!
After Bg4, if Qd3 I had prepared Be2, if the queen moves then Bxc4 threatening Bxf1 should win material... shouldn't it?
Thanks again for the advice- I've got a long way to go but am enjoying it all so far.
My parents were on the way home from Reno, so I met them for lunch between rounds and relaxed some more. My fifth round game had been relatively short, and I stayed away from the tournament hall to keep fresh for the last game (Botvinnik never stayed to watch any other games during the World Championship tournament in 1948). I was paired against a good junior player who I've wanted to play for a while due to his solid positional style and discipline. As he was the second seed (I was seeded sixth) I was determined not to go down passively. I knew that a draw would likely suffice for a first place tie, while my opponent needed a win.
kclemens wrote:
Here I present my six games from the 2015 Sacramento Chess Championship, which was played earlier this month. Botvinnik recommended analyzing one's games publicly, so that other people can improve on one's analysis and suggest improvements and other ideas. I played two B players and four A players and really enjoyed all the games, although I'm sure they're far from perfect. My two biggest weaknesses, in my opinion, are board vision and openings, but I welcome comments on any and all parts of these games. These games were fun and interesting to play- feel free to rip them apart and post your own analyses.
I played in that tournament. I suck. I scored 1/2 point playing in the kids division. :-( . Playing Fresno next month. Actually playing up a section to get away from the kids.
Hahaha, I just blunder! Yes, you are right, Qd3 is just a ?? move.
This time I'll try to do it better
Against Dahlgren I think there were some inaccuracies:
-13...Qc8 is a rather strange move, not connecting the rooks and putting your queen in an open file. I think that since that move you are a little worse. 13...Qd7 is just the logical AND better move. There is no problem with the Nc5, there are no tactics, and you are going to play Rac8 defend it in the next move (and also making the queen x-ray)
-Perhaps it's better to play 16.Qd2 and then 17.Nf4 so as you don't have the reagrupation as in the game (you can't play 16...Qd7).
-I think White played too direct with Rfd1 and Ne4 when he should have maintain the tension. With more tension in the board (perhaps something like 18.Qg4) you have more pieces and it's not so easy to see where to put them to defend your weaknesses. Also, when he plays with direct threats your moves are easier (you have to defend), but when there are lots of opportunities for both players it's more difficult to decide (I'm writing a blog post about that that I'll try to publish today, if you want to deepen that concept)
-21...Rf8 seems to "status qou". You must "stir the waters" with 21...e5, gaining space and activating your pieces. Also, there is no more 'e6' weakness!
-23.h3! is a really good move, showing you the poor position you have. Not a losing one, but a very passive one. BUT, he should have paid more attention. Because with your manouvre Nb6-c4-e5-c6 you closed the open-file and active your knight, minimizing your disadvantages. So, I was close to suggest 23.b3! as the accurate move. It's a common pattern to remember, as the pawn controls the Nb6 moves and make it a "bad piece". I'm not sure if Tarrasch said that "the Knight in 3N [in the old notation] is always bad". But... (see next comment)
-23...Nc4? is the start of a good manouvre (as I said before), but it just blulnders a pawn after 24.Nxd5! (tactics rule the chess world!). A typical case of tactics "ruining" a good plan.
-28...Nd8 is a good defensive move, but sometimes the best defense is a good counterattack. 28...Qf6! is better, as White is almost forced to play 29.Rf1, after which Black can play again 29...Qe7, with a defensible position.
In all, an interesting game! And a well deserved draw.
@Nevada2012 remember- chess is a very hard game! Last year I played this tournament, having never played anyone over 1600, and it felt like I had gotten hit with a steamroller- one win in five games. Keep your head up, studying and practicing tactics can do wonders. I personally study games or do tactics on the bus to work in the morning- that way I practice finding good moves when I'm tired. Best of luck with future endeavors!
In the first game, 6c4xd5 is old main line, if black wants to play the position after 7....Nxd5 8BxB QXB 9NxN pxN putting the bishop on e6, then flicking in h6, Bh4 earlier would be better because white can gain a tempo attacking h7. So as played probably 6...pxd5 was best for black.
In the second game, white knew a bit of theory because nb3, followed by Qe2, Be3,and queen-side castling is currently very popular for white. Carlsen as played it a few times, and their was a recent game Hawkins v Flear in British Championship.
@FMCouch:
You've raised some interesting points which made me think about where I am as a player these days. As for 13...Qc8, I think I was being either a little lazy or disorganized in my thinking. I couldn't get over leaving a piece unguarded and decided on an awkward placement so I wouldn't have to worry about tactics. Then it backfired when I played ...fxe6 anyway and had to play ...Qd7 later.
Your comment about my 21st move ...Rf8 was interesting- I was actually trying to maintain the status quo, because I was playing for a draw. This is a bad idea and even though I tried to play actively the "draw compulsion" was always in the back of my mind. I was too afraid to play an active move with a pawn because I feared having an isolated pawn. It's rare for me to fear my opponent's positional skills, but I did in this game.
I totally missed that tactic Nxd5! It's quite a nice move and just goes to show what moves like h3! do to one's opponent psychologically.
That being said, I didn't really like White's repetition with 29. Nd3 and 30. Nc5. I think that kind of thing belongs after the time control- once I saw that move I easily repeated and made the control.
It shows my frame of mind that I never even considered 28... Qf6. I only wanted to defend everything and stopped thinking about pushing my own agenda. Jeremy Silman would not approve! It seems I need to work on my mental game a little bit more, which is never easy. Again, thanks so much for your ideas and analysis- I think these notes will really help my game in the long run.
Here I present my six games from the 2015 Sacramento Chess Championship, which was played earlier this month. Botvinnik recommended analyzing one's games publicly, so that other people can improve on one's analysis and suggest improvements and other ideas. I played two B players and four A players and really enjoyed all the games, although I'm sure they're far from perfect. My two biggest weaknesses, in my opinion, are board vision and openings, but I welcome comments on any and all parts of these games. These games were fun and interesting to play- feel free to rip them apart and post your own analyses.