Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


Final Score Report of Chess Exam and Training Guide

May 10, 2012, 3:57 AM 2,715 Reads 2 Comments

After working on IM Igor Khmelnitsky's Chess Exam and Training Guide for four days long (spent some time in each day with an average speed of 5-10 minutes for each diagram's questions), SmileI finally went over the whole 100 questions and spent a long while fuguring out my general rating and all specific ratings. After calculated out my score report, I tried to remember some of the greatest and worst games I played in last year's tournaments. and I just can't agree more with what my score report demonstrates. Here is my score report(dropped down from the first 40 questions overall rating 1900+ to the final 1800+).


Overall: 1857, Class A

Attack: 2019, Expert

Counterattack: 1287, Class D

Defence: 1884, Class A

Opening: 1542, Class C

Middlegame: 1850, Class A

Endgame: 1933, Class A

Tactics: 1749, Class B

Strategy: 1870, Class A

Calculation: 1827, Class A

Standard Position: 1830, Class A

Recognizing Threats: 1629, Class B

Sacrifice: 1639, Class B


In general, my detailed ratings all well match my overall 1857, except my counterattack rating, 1287Frown(if just with this rating also closed to Class A, then my overall rating won't drop to below 1900). Soon after I figured out I only got a 1287 of counterattack. I tried to argue with this low rating (obviously, 1200+ is too frustrated). Nonetheless, three USCF games I played in last year suddendly remained me my awful skills on counterattack. The most memorizing worst game was in 2011 Pacific Open's third round. My opponent(peak rated 1900+) sacrificed a rook for my knight in order to making a mating net toward my king, but my solid defence finally made his sacrifice totally a gift for me and the game transposed into an endgame I was up a knight and only down one pawn to my opponent(I had 3 pawns on king side, he had two pawns on each side but without any other piece rather than a king and 4 pawns; all pawns on the board were yet to push more than two squares). I was pretty relaxed and thought that I had a happy winning endgame which should be finished in 30 minutes. Unfourtunately, after played several casual moves, my pawns were basically yet to threaten him even just a little bit, while his pushing pawns were ready to make a nightmare for me. Yet, several weeks after the Pacific Open, one of my club friends (rated 2100+) helped me to reviewed the game and pointed out for me that in that position, my knight was still able to stop his crazy running pawns and I could just keep focusing on promoting my pawns. I apparently didn't play what he afterward pointed out. Instead, my awkward counterattack dragged me out of playing in the rest of the game. All I played after I calculated out that his pawns were hard (while actually not as hard as it looked like)to stop were alike rubbish moves and he finally successfully promoted his poor little pawn. I was deteriorated. The conclusion is, I showed good defence and calculation in the middle game and it ended up in a endgame with my material advantage, but I lost playing direction easily after he pushed his pawns together with his king ahead; then my followed by bad counterattack ultimately sent my opponent's pawn onto the exciting promoting way. The other two games I played were in USCF rated weekend tournaments, of which one I gained material by a great tactic (against a 2100+) in the middlegame and another one gained huge space and attack advantages in the opening (against a 1600+). Just like the horrible game I played in Pacific Open, I became very stressful and totally lost mind about what to do right after my opponents began to strike back. Some other similar way losing and drawn games came into my mind after I thought about these three frustrated games. 


That's why I finally totally agree with the what score report shows. Considerring some minor difference between the multiple choices are not clear for me to tell, such as significantly better VS better, in my opinion both could use to be described some positions; my actual counterattack rating should be at least 1400+, or I couldn't ever surivive in the matches against players rated above USCF 1800+, while the truth is not; yet, counterattack skill of 1400+ is still very weak for a Class A player. Clearly, I feel very uncomfortable while playing counterattack positions, so now I decide to pratice more counterattack games.


Anyway, it's good to see from an estimated rating that I've made progress through last 5 months study. I am also glad to be told what detailed skills I must spend more time to develop.


Finally, Smile thanks to the great author, IM Igor Khmelnitsky.

Online Now