My first FIDE rated tournament

This is the last game (sixth round) from a FIDE rated tournament I'm now playing. 

I've been posting this as a blog entry, but for some reason I don't see as much readership/commentary as when I post forum topics - so maybe this format works better. 

Next, I'm going to bring here my third- and first- round games (I didn't post the games from rounds four and five, and round two was a bye. Due to an odd number of players - every player gets a bye, on different rounds), and paste the original introduction. 

So - after this sixth round (which was my fifth game) I'm with 3 out of 5, against opposition averaging in the 1930s. A solid 2000 performance - not quite what I was hoping for, but not a disaster either. 

I didn't post games 3 and 4, which were rather disappointing. 

In game 3, my opponent made a bad piece sacrifice, which I took - only to be blasted off the board in 19 moves!

Houdini later showed that the piece sacrifice wasn't so easy to exploit... and I have my doubts about it still. Maybe I will still share that game at some point, if there is enough demand for it...

In game four, I won, pure and simple, due to a one-move blunder of my opponent at move 16. I got his Q for a R, and the rest was plain sailing, as I just ate pawn after pawn, creating mate threats and dominating the whole board until he resigned on move 31. 

If he didn't blunder, the position would be very comfortable for me, and exactly the kind of game I like to play, but nothing more than that. 

Game five, played last Monday, was a gem. 

My patience wore out at the end and I blundered - but my opponent didn't see it, which is lucky. It's amazing how you can spoil a whole game's work just by one move, where you didn't see a certain move of your opponent three moves into the variation - but you'll see for yourself...

(an important edit of the last paragraph, helped by Houdini: in fact, my 30th move wasn't a blunder. It was a strong move, and so were my 31st and my 32nd - provided that I saw the incredibly tough to spot 33...Nxd3+!!. This was seen by Houdini only. The idea was, that after the capture of this knight, the Rook would come to d3, and this added pressure on f3 would just be too much - as the reader can verify for himself)

A note that I have omitted to post in the PGN, was that if he played 32. Nxe6, then ...Qxf3+ 33. Kg1 Nh3+ would be rather unpleasant. 

My rather disastrous second round 

posted some interesting analysis and ideas as a response to my first two games. It will be reproduced here as well, and also my response to it will. 

After I play a tournament game, I generally write my own analysis to it, without consulting stronger players and/or my 3000-rated free version of Houdini. 

Later I always do a Houdini check, but it is generally not reproduced in the analysis posted here (although exceptions exist). 

So this is human analysis, with all of its well known limitations. Feel free to contradict it!

This was my original introduction to the blog (slightly edited):

So finally I found a tournament here in Belgium - or actually, the tournament found me. 

For an unrated player (no, they still don't respect chess.com ratings), it isn't easy to get into a strong tournament, especially as there aren't too many of these (to the best of my knowledge) here in Belgium. 

So I had to enter a tournament where there are nine players in all, seven of whom have FIDE ratings, and they average 1924.

This could have been a lot worse - but I would prefer the average to be a hundred points higher, as if I finish with 4.5 out of 7 against these players (a likely result, based on what I consider to be my actual strength), it will give me an initial rating of 1954 according to the rating formula for new players, rather then 2026 which would be my actual performance. 

I had three rated games, with a 2119 performance but which would only count as 2009 - but curiously enough, they were played in the year 2009, and won't be counted - which means that I will need to play 2 more rated games by June 2015, to get that initial rating at all... it's about time, at my advanced age. 

So I will be posting the games here, once every week (except next week, which is a bye). Comments and contributions are, as always, intensely welcome. 

The following was <Dragonflyhunter>'s input on my first two games:

I think that the problem might be caused by using more than one analysis board per post.  Anyway, to summarize my comments about the games:

That particular Grunfeld gained a lot of popularity during the last Karpov Kasparov WCC match.  Karpov stubbornly tried to win a pawn with Bxf7 and the overall result seemed to show that white is probably not too bad in that line.  If you haven't looked at their games, that would be a great resource for this opening.

I also play the Grunfeld, though sometimes the Dutch too.  Personally I think that it is for people who want to play positions that theory has a hard time with.  The active piece play in the exchange variation is something that can unnerve many players.  Long term plans give way to concrete variations involving 5 or more consecutive queen moves! LOL

As for your French game, I end up playing against the Rubenstein quite a bit via the Tarrasch: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Nf6.  Here white can play Bd3 as in your game but with Nf3 already played.  Or he can just take on f6.  Either way this position does free black a little because of the exchange of minor pieces, and really that's why this position is played by black.  Black figures that with one pair of pieces exchanged, he gets a freer game and can more easily find a home for his burdensome LSB.  On the flipside, though, white's plan for an advantage is very straightforward: develop his q-side quickly, castle there, play Ne5 and roll the k-side pawns.  If e5 can stay under white's control, he will have good chances for developing a strong k-side initiative.

However, in your move order, Ng3 is interesting since it avoids that freeing trade.  The problem is, I think your opponent is right, it wastes some time that he can use to get his queenside active.  But really I think that the worst mistake on your part was 10. Bc4?!  This just feels loose to me as it comes under fire by both Qc7 as in the game and b5, which I feel he should have played at his first opportunity.

The point is, black's real problem in the French is the retarded development of his queenside pieces.  In many variations it takes him a long time to untangle them and get them active.  By putting the LSB on c4, you give him a tempo to do this and to get his minority attack working.  So just from a purely positional point of view, Bc4 doesn't "feel" right.  Best would probably be an immediate 10. Be2  though I haven't analyzed this game yet with an engine and there may be other good choices.

Interesting games.  Thanks for posting them!

And I have answered him thus:

<DragonflyHunter>

I find your input very insightful, even instructive. 

I'm familiar with Karpov's 12. Bxf7+ games in the Gruenfeld. I have analysed and looked at many continuations from this move, and got the impression that black gets plenty of play here, and the pawn advantage is by no means significant, the pawn being a doubled-g, and black still keeping his 2:1 edge on the Q-side, which becomes significant in many cases.

Your analysis of my French is very interesting. I liked your suggestion of 10. Be2 right away, even though, if you check out the variations I gave, where black plays ...b5 later to chase my bishop from c4, my lead in development (due to the slowness of ...c5, ...cxd4 and ...a6) was such, that I would still come out of them on top.

I also didn't analyze with Houdini yet... but I don't always agree with his evals - sometimes I feel really great about a 0.00 position, and sometimes a +0.80 position (in my favor) leaves me embarrassed, not knowing what to do. 

Don't forget, that these computer evals are as good as you can benefit from them, more than your opponent can, in a specific position. In many cases, one inaccurate move just drops 0.40 or 0.60 in the evaluation, just like that, and you often don't even understand why WITH the computer, let alone when actually playing the game... so it's about being comfortable - and I really felt like I was binding him up somewhat...

That said, I do like 10. Be2 slightly more now that I look at it. The reason I didn't go to e2 right away, is that I wanted to keep the Re1 move to pin, in case he ever moved ...e5 to chase my knight - but I now see, that on 10. Be2 e5 11. Nf3, white would have an edge which would become clear if black answers here 11...Qxd1. I sometimes tend to dread a Q exchange in positions where I have an advantage in development. An example to the contrary would be my second game round from my Rapid tournament in Israel earlier this year (see a separate thread I created on this). 

If you're into it, I'd be happy to play several games with you in these variations (French with 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bd3 with White, Grunfeld exchange with Black), and then look at them together... what do you say?

http://ratings.fide.com/hist.phtml?event=26011247

Here - LauriAikio provides a link to my FIDE card, which now shows this tournament as reported - 7 games against FIDE rated people, with a 4.5 result, which. although it's technically a 2026 performance, only counts as 1954 as I'm a new player to the pool and finished this tourney with a plus score. 

Thanks Lauri!

This tournament isn't going all that badly...

It's too late in the night to post this evening's game (round seven, or my sixth game), a draw against a guy with a 2070 Belgian rating and no FIDE rating (he only played one tournament last year, in which he scored 4 out of 7 against players averaging a bit over 2000). 

However I'm now placed second in the tourney with +1 (3.5 out of 6). The guy in first place, who is just a bit older than me, is my opponent next week, and is now on +4! it should be quite interesting... I'll let you in on this, especially if I see some interest in this thread. 

The draw today was full of action... all of which remained beneath the surface... 

Many things could have happened, but were thoroughly prevented by both parties...

They say, that the wartime ruler is always remembered as the 'hero' - never the peacetime ruler, who was wise enough to prevent all potential wars!

So that was our role today. A draw without any obvious mistakes or misses, as Houdini confirms too. It even turned out that certain opportunities which were thought to be missed by the players after the game, where actually decent moves, these 'opportunities' being but mere shadows, nothing serious really. 

My opponent played a bizarre opening, against which I managed to create some weaknesses. However, one or two imprecise moves neutralized any hope I had for an advantage. He could cover his weaknesses adequately and generate such activity, that even simplification didn't lead to anything for me - as you'll see when I post this game :-)

Another hard-fought draw yesterday, against the tournament leader (rated FIDE 1965) - who now just runs away with the tournament, with 5.5 out of 7, leaving me in second place (for now) with 4 points. 

The game itself was interesting and eventful, if mostly in behind-the-scenes action and alert manoeuvering... I will probably post it later, especially if there is demand for it. 

congratulations solskytz.. that's fantastic game

Thanks Nathalie - that's convincing enough :-) I'll post my game from yesterday very soon. 

BTW which one of my games did you like?

Oops... I now notice that I'm lagging behind by two games, as I also omitted to post the game from last week...

well - yes, I do need to catch up. There's a lot of action going on in my life now that isn't related to chess, so finding the necessary time to annotate and post chess games is easier said than done - but it's definitely coming!

This guy has only a Belgian 2070 rating, and no FIDE rating yet. This game was played last week. I will later come back and annotate it. 

And this was the game played yesterday, against the tournament leader. My notes and annotations will be added later.

Congratulations.

Did you get a FIDE rating ?

Thanks!

Well, not yet - 

first of all, the tournament isn't over yet - there is still one game to go. 

Secondly, after it's over it still needs to be reported and included in the FIDE register, 

and thirdly - in this tournament I will only have 7 FIDE-rated games. The minimum for a rating is 9 games - which I will surpass in my next tournament, one which I plan to play in July. 

Sergio Zamparo (2089) vs. Me.. i like this game..that's very interesting offense..i hope next time we can play chess together

I will be very happy, Nathalie :-) and I'm glad that you liked my attacking game. 

See you!

So - with a little bit of luck I managed to win my last round game, against the tactically sharp Marc Chung Choong, rated 1841 FIDE. 

Marc has a weakness, which costs him in my estimate around 150 elo points, for entering time trouble by unnecessary spending of time too early in the game. 

In our game, he had a totally winning one million dollar shot - which would have forced me to resign right away - and which luckily he missed!

Shortly after that, a dynamic position was reached, affording rather equal chances, I felt... but with 21 minutes for Marc against my 56. I knew that I was going to win at this point - especially as Marc kept thinking and thinking about every move, not accelerating his pace, and soon falling below 10 and then below 5 minutes! 

At this point I thought that I'd better create winning chances and quickly (which Marc permitted me with many imprecise moves at this point) - otherwise he will just drop below two minutes, call and arbiter and tell him that it's a dead draw... imagine that - and on move 28! With no time added after move 40...

All it took was a couple, three 'lukewarm' moves - I improved the position of my pieces, and soon was all over him. Risen from the rubble, as it were...

Later in the post mortem, Marc amazed me with the quantity of strategic and tactical ideas he saw and understood - exactly in these variations which he analyzed deeply, using a lot of time - but at the end didn't play... :-)

Is it a time-management problem? You bet! Spending 30 minutes on analyzing a sequence, and then playing something else (and inferior, mind you!), that you haven't analyzed at all, is a fault reported already by Kotov in his "Think like a grandmaster" book. 

I came twenty minutes late to our game, but by move seven (!) we were already equal on the clock. At the moment Marc resigned, he had two minutes and an absolutely hopeless position, all fallen apart. I still had three quarters of an hour (!) and I generally use much more of my times in games - here it wasn't necessary, as it was him who did all the thinking, so it seems, for both of us...

 David Venet was also competing for second prize - but as his opponent was sick, he was granted a win on default - which meant that my own win guaranteed me sole second (if he won normally, we would have shared second - but of course there was no guarantee that he would). Stephane Tannemaat had a simply brilliant tournament, only conceding three draws (one of them to me after a very tough fight, where at some point he had a very promising position, and then later for one fleeting moment he almost lost the thread...) and ending with 6.5 out of 8. 

So, a very nice experience for a first tournament after 10 years of 'retirement'. Next one's in Gent, 20 to 24 July. Who's joining me?

BTW for number crunchers, I had a 5 out of 8 result overall. One game was a draw against another player with no FIDE rating (a strong 2000+ player) - so - 4.5 out of 7 against opposition averaging 1924 - meaning a pretty decent 2026 performance - which according to the way FIDE calculates performances for players who are new to the pool, will only count as a 1954 performance (1924 + 2x15 for my "plus two" score in the tournament). I guess I could live with that. 

As a final note - the alert reader would notice, that in my very first post, 5 out of 8 (with 4.5 out of 7 against the FIDE rated) was exactly the result I predicted for myself at the outset. Mission accomplished!