Cannes' chess festival - 2014

Lol at "charming, magical package". Sorry, man. That SUCKS!! You would have been well-placed to do some damage in the later rounds of this tournament had this game followed its natural destiny. Chess is cruel. 

Shrug it off and come back strong!

Exactly my thoughts!

That's a winner's attitude you have! You'll be a CM quite soon I'm sure. 

:-) Exactly. 

Accidents can happen to anyone - even the strongest players aren't immune. 

The question is, what do you do afterwards? Do you quit? Do you decide that you're not good enough? That's it's not worth it? Too difficult? Frustrating?

Or do you love yourself enough to give yourself another chance? Maybe you never allow yourself to run out of chances?

You can fail 40,000 times. But still, get up and try for the 40,001st time. 

I love chess :-) And CM is coming - you wait and see :-)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

So - how do we stand after today's events?

Placement in the tournament: 46th, out of 163. 3 points out of 5. 

Performance: 2019. 

My next report: tomorrow, after round 6. 

Wow man, it takes a lot of class to post a queen hang like that. Great attitude about it too. It yet again reminds me of this strange phenomenon where it seems like really strong players, even strong class players, seem absolutely immune to the "outright piece hang"... until suddenly it happens, looking like the most ill-fitting of anomalies. I know of literally at least three times where a grandmaster hung their queen just as blatantly as this -- Petrosian was one of them, and he had a dominating position.

The funny thing is it seems like as chess players it becomes encoded in us to not hang a piece, automatic even, so it makes you wonder what happens in the really odd cases. I guess the only way to make sense of it is to look at, as you said, the other 999999 times where this doesn't happen. Basically, if you have come up with some brilliant ideas, one moment where your attention lapses like this does not erase that (as long as it's just one ). Obviously an attention lapse like this does not mean you don't understand the value of the queen :)

Again, lots of class. I'm not sure I could handle a blunder like that nearly as well as you -- but after all we are not merely on this earth for the purpose of not blundering chess pieces :)

The one slightly not nice thing I will say though is that it's not fair to look at a few nice games you played and say "I just have to not blunder and I'll be 2200." Maybe that's true, but it's so easy to have your bias assume away a few hundred points without having any idea of how hard it may actually be. I wanted to say I felt like an expert for a long time (and I was only 50 points away from it!) but my results weren't backing it up; only after a heavy, long struggle did I finally get those mere 50 points. And I recognize that getting the next 200 point jump for me may be like climbing Everest :)

Following what Elubas said-- American GM Andrew Soltis said he thought the hardest 100 points he ever earned, was from 2100 to 2200. 

Before I look at the fifth game (ouch), short remarks on the fourth game: For the line 22...Be6 23. Rfa1 f5 24. Bd3 Rxb3, I stopped analysing there reasoning that a pawn up with pawns on both wings was sufficient. Maybe it is, but your continuation with 25. Rxb3 Bxb3 26. f4 is very tenacious by temporarily stopping the majority. Perhaps there are tactics with 26...Rd5 and looking for ...a4, ...Rd2 ideas. Maybe discoveries with ...Rb5 and ...B somewhere. Or maybe slow play with ...Kf6 and ...e5. I don't think it's drawish; I guess it's personal preference to have this or the game continuation (well calculated, by the way) when playing for a win.

Also, unfortunately I cannot run Arena on this machine without something going horribly wrong, so I don't have an engine to use to examine 39...e3. (Never did use an engine in analysis, ever.) Instead I did some human analysis... it seemed to boil down to the right time to take the b-pawn while getting the king in the rook's face, forcing it to choose between looking at b3/e3 or g6. Certainly flawed, but there were some takeaways all the same, the old-fashioned way.

Fifth game.

It was apparently one of the mainlines (6...Bd6 Meran Slav) until 10. Bxe4. And 10...e5? (according to Wikipedia...) loses a pawn to 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. Bh7+! with a fork on h5 if captured. The main mainline Meran is 6...dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 with rapid expansion on the queenside to follow, with sharper play.

...Nf8 and ...h6 is too passive. One or the other may be fine, but not both.

You're winning for most of the game, but personally from 18. Ree1 onwards it seems a little unambitious by white (although black's mistakes did help greatly.) Perhaps the Rh4-h5-g5 idea is strong, in conjunction with Bg5-f6 kicking the queen further away. 18. Bg5 Qc7 19. Rh4 seems promising.

32. Rd3. Hm. It is really, really painful to do that, possibly the only thing worse is hanging mate when winning on position and time. I think though, it was really respectful of you to just resign good-humouredly at that point, without playing on in shock or rage. To further Elubas' example, the match in question is Petrosian-Bronstein, Candidates 1956. Petrosian had a completely solid winning position from the opening, played simply and quickly, hung a queen, and resigned on the spot. Even though he probably could've flagged Bronstein (story goes he didn't even have enough time to reach time control 4 moves later.) That shows class and respect.

Well, I can't say I agree that we should be so concerned about resignation point, but I tend to be in the minority on issues about resignation in general :)

Solskytz chose to resign, but if he wanted to play on, I wouldn't care. If you're up a queen, well then win with your extra queen... perhaps the opponent would want the win right away (well, who wouldn't?); but you are not entitled to get the win simply when you want it. If you have a totally true evaluation of the position, use that evaluation to help you win or else it's useless.

I don't know, to me one of the nice things about chess is that its results are intrinisically free from subjectivity -- you can think whatever you want about the position, be happy or sad about it, but you only win if you actually get the mate or they resign; you can't just lose a game and then say "well I think I deserved to win" -- nope, the rules have it covered that your words have no say in the matter. Even the most stubborn of people can not use any amount of words to reverse a result when he gets mated, and that's nice :)

What made solskytz classy was him still posting this game even though this kind of blunder is really embarrasing, and to still be willing to put it beside him and keep going.

Well anyway, don't mind my ranting -- I guess I had the craving to spew out some of those thoughts as I haven't expressed them in a while :p

Thank you everybody for your classy commentary :-)

Reading you guys, so many things crossed my mind... :-)

I need to move out from my hotel and into a studio apartment, and of course to travel to my 6th round game - and a bit of piano practice would also be nice to get in (yesterday we played piano and violin with my host, and I got to revise half of my program for my 16/3/2014 concert in Brussels)...

In addition, I want to draw attention to this tournament thread through Facebook...

But before all that, and as I'm enjoying a nice continental breakfast with the sea waves as background (just not letting these seagulls grab my Croissant!) - I will definitely relate, at least to some of the points raised herein. 

We start with Post #45

I will just state briefly, that the fact that my tournament performance would have been 2187 had I won yesterday, shows that the potential for CM is there. 

It doesn't mean that it should be easy to reach it, or even that I would ever reach it (life has its own demands, and I don't always find the time to play tournament chess - look, I'm 42 and this is my first international tournament ever) - but it does mean that my claims for that level are not just vanity. 

I believe that the games also show that potential exists. We'll all see how it unfolds :-) that's the beauty of life. 

Pink Floyd dedicated an album to yesterday's game. It's called "Momentary Lapse of Reason"

The cover photo of that album shows many hospital beds on a hillside. 

But for my experience yesterday, I would choose another one of their cover photos: the one with the burning man, shaking hands with a man in a suit. They are both cool and calm about it, but of course the situation is thoroughly insane :-)

By the way - there was no reason for 'shock or rage' - because it isn't my opponent's fault that I gift him a queen. Believe me, he was already embarrassed enough to win like that. 

But he's a good player. Now with 4 out of 5, let's see what adventures he'll have in the rest of the tournament, and how he'll "cause damage" in what follows. There are around twenty people with 4 out of 5 - but only three with 4.5 and 5 points combined (two and one, precisely - and by the way, the one with 5 points is the mother of the kid I beat in the first round.)

Another 'by the way', is that curiously enough, with the exception of Vasile, all of my other three opponents have now 3 points out of 5 - just like I have. 

After the game we sat down and analyzed, looked at variations - just like we've done a thousand times in the Cafe de la Regence in Paris (oops, wrong century - excuse me for that one) - I meant, in the Brasserie de la Nation in Nice. He had a few ideas to show me - but frankly, most of them were quite off... :-) he played this game off the wrong foot. The guy can really play chess - but this just wasn't the best example to show it :-)

While I was disappointed to have blown away so many good things with this 32. Rd3 move (note the absence of a question mark - as a mark has not yet been invented to describe such a move), this didn't show in my attitude to Vasile, who was and is still a good friend. We analyzed, then I looked at a couple other games, and left. 

Post #46

Who knows, Shams? This is very individual... improvement goes in leaps and bounds, and also rating change goes in leaps and bounds. 

Rating always lags after improvement, especially when you don't play many games per unit of time. 

Sometimes you hit a plateau, and this can happen at any level, and for many different reasons, not all of which are even understood. You can't disassociate chess from life completely. At some point of life, somebody won't improve, even with all of the good instruction - because personally he isn't ready to benefit from it at that point. He'll quit, or stall, or stop playing, or be busy with other things...

And at some other points, the mind frees again, and suddenly you see the game in a new light, things come together better and you see a rise. 

For me, while I really enjoy chess, it was never really a very important part of life. So I can't say that a particular level was especially difficult to rise above - I just don't remember myself taking it that hard, or being frustrated about not getting my rating high enough, etc. 

I'm basically fascinated with the game - the combination, the far sightedness, the strategy, the traps, the human element, the banter, the battle of wills, each side trying to get its own... in many senses it's a mirror of many things that we're doing in the rest of our lives. And above everything else, it's fun. 

Post #47

I like your take on the R-ending in game four, in the variation we took up earlier. 

I must admit that I didn't look as far into that line during my game, as you now look. 

Looking at your second paragraph, I'll mention that I'm all for human analysis!

Even if you will own an engine (powerful 3000-level engines (such as Houdini 1.5) are free today, and easily obtainable online. You can easily install it on a free chess-playing program (such as scid vs. pc, which I use), and enjoy top notch analysis, blunder check and a fountain of tactical and other ideas) - so even if you will own an engine, it's great to do your analysis without it. 

However, after your analysis is complete, and even better - if you write it down (as I do, you see), it's good to fire the engine and see what he thinks about it. 

This can help you learn some tactics, appreciate some misconceptions - and on occasion, disagree with its evaluation 

(you say - "what? I'm up a pawn. What do you mean by this 0.32 evaluation? Why so lukeswarm?")

Then you see that actually your opponent had a fantastic 3100-level, 8-move-deep idea, that creates almost compensation for the pawn. 

If he doesn't see it, the evaluation gradually settles at the 0.94 area, after five more moves. 

This is why sometimes, when you follow the computer after you sacrificed a pawn, the computer says "-0.26", and then with every move you play, it goes "-0.41", then "-0.53", then "-0.64", and so on - it isn't that you're playing badly or anything. It's just that the compensation wasn't there in the first place, unless you're in the habit of finding computer-only lines. 

In other words, the compensation is there only if you're rated 3100 and eat chips for breakfast (computer chips, not potato fries). Otherwise forget it - you just dropped a pawn for nothing (see my ...b5 move in game four, for an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Compensation existed there, but only for Houdini. Good that he believed me and didn't take that pawn. However, going over the "compensation" variation with Houdini is instructive and definitely fun to watch - you won't believe what you'll see there). 

Now breakfast is over. But just before I wrap everything up and move on - let's look at the 2nd part of your post. 

Oh - so THIS is the Meran? I always wondered what this word has referred to :-)

Please educate me - what is the difference between the Meran, the Semi-Slav, and the full Slav? And is there also a three-quarter Slav? (Just kidding here - but I would really appreciate an explanation on the difference between these openings. I really have no idea). 

And why is it called Meran? Was it played for the first time on the banks of the Meran river, before a crocodile came out and ate the pawn on c4, giving the black player the idea to play ...dxc4 on his sixth move? Or is it a more prosaic explanation?

Also thanks for having the patience to explain to me, a total Meran beginner, about the ...e5? trap in move ten :-) that's appreciated. Now let's see who falls for it first - and I hope it's not going to be me. 

I disagree about 'move 18 and onwards'. This was played in grand positional style. What exactly is black supposed to do against my play? My position is absolutely terrifically winning. Black is in near zugzwang can do absolutely nothing. 

It is precisely because I realized that, that I took my time and slowly improved - until he miscalculated and played 22...Re7? (here a mortal, earthly question mark will do, as the move is just tactically unsound, not earth-shatteringly stupid). Your K-side adventures have an element of risk in them, in the sense that the center is neglected. You never know when a ...c5 breakthrough will come. 

I had thousands of K-side attacks, where a ...c5 move, or the fall of my d-pawn, had me later in tears. Why take such risks where my positional advantage is crushing already?

In addition, suppose that my d-pawn would be kept safe throughout the attack (already quite a task) - after ...c5 he could have ...b6, ...Bb7, and create dynamic chances for him as well. 

My play was designed at neutralizing any initiative he could dream of, and depressing him. I was already ahead by enough. I realized that the purpose of my K-side play was already achieved. There was absolutely no need to pursue it further, which is why I retreated. 

Houdini evaluated 18. Ree1 at around +1.70, and 18. Rh4 at around +2.50. 

Let him play these wild attacks, then. +1.70 (which was more or less my evaluation during the game) in this kind of position is more than enough. I would even go for +0.70. Nuff said :-)

One last comment - 32. Rd3 was not played in haste. I took a good five minutes (out of my remaining 28, until move forty), to calculate the move. 

My reasoning went thus:

Before playing this move, I took a rook on e8, knowing that he takes back, and then I retreat my queen. 

So where should the queen go? To h2? Possible, but he goes Qg4, and I'm just passive. 

So to d7? Good idea. He plays Bc8, I stay along the 7th rank, maybe take on a7... life is good. 

Life is SO good, in fact, that maybe we don't need to move the queen at all (and here we begin to slip). 

So if the queen doesn't move - let's move a rook. Which rook to move? Hmmm... We need to keep the back rank covered. (the queen is already dead and forgotten, you see) If I move the rook on e1, his Q still cannot invade, as my other rook covers the base (the d1 square). 

However, that rook on d4 isn't doing anything, and may be also vulnerable to ...e5 pushes (for example, Qe5, exd5 is unpleasant - not that it's related, but still). It also blocks my bishop's diagonal...

you see - I was working with this kind of positional thinking throughout every game I've been playing in this tournament. This is why the level is high. In this particular case, the safety of the queen should have also been a part of the equation :-)

Post #48 I basically agree with everything you say here, Elubas :-) and it's great to "air your brain" from time to time. Feel free to express yourself! :-)

By the way - I want to make very clear, that I'm actually quite proud of myself for yesterday's game - queen blunder or not. 

I mean - how often is it that you see, that an AMATEUR chess player makes a conscious transition from ENTERPRISING king side play, retreating his pieces and rearranging them, in order to create a POSITIONAL CRUSH?

More specifically, how often is it that you see a white DSB take on h6 where a pin exists, only to later reposition itself on c3, passing through d2, at the same time centrally repositioning really all of his pieces - also Q and QR - under the baton of the real conductor - the Ne5?

This is an example of what I can do. I'm really happy with the way I'm playing in this tournament, even allowing for the occasional accident. 

At the end of the day, your best audience is yourself :-). If some other people enjoy too, so much the better!

Oh - so sorry I missed that!!!

CONGRATS Elubas for making Expert!!!! I had no idea :-)

I know how tough it's been for you - but now you've crossed the line, from a 'mere' "class player", onto a "titled player" :-)

As I don't live in the US, I will really need to make FIDE 2200 to gain myself this kind of distinction :-) working on it!

Petrosian-Bronstein is an excellent example. 

If memory serves, also there a way-advanced Queen is taken BACKWARDS by a knight, exactly when all looks so well. 

And pay close attention please: this was in a CANDIDATES' tournament!

Psychologically (I may venture to assume), Petrosian wasn't ready for the real thing, much like I, in some way, wasn't ready to handle the stresses of being a top-board player in this U2200 tournament. 

Not yet... :-)

Petrosian did become Champion - and against Botvinnik! - a few years later, in 1963. He kept his crown through another tough match in 1966 against Spassky, and remained a top-flight player for the rest of his chess playing career (which definitely ended prematurely, along with his physical life). 

Sometimes it's just a question of doing whatever is necessary to get yourself ready. 

I'm happy and grateful that I don't run (in this thread) into commentary of the type of - "come on, you're 42 already - you're just supposed to gradually fold up and die - how come you're even thinking of making progress at your age?!"

:-) Writing you from a quick lunch before today's game, against the giant-killer Paul Daniel. 

Aged over 60 himself and sporting a modest 1787 rating, he yet managed to drum up a 2102 performance (!!) so far, beating another 2000+ colleague in the process. 

Nobody guarantees me easy wins as 'compensation' for yesterday's blunder. 

Today's a new fight!! Gonna give it my all :-)

I'll see you after the game

I

Thanks so much! Yeah, I basically had been at a plateau around 1950 for well over a year -- and last June I was rated 1992, only to lose to a vicious attack by a 1600 player (although he seemed underrated and ended up with around a 1700 rating by the end of the tournament) in the last round -- quite a demoralizing loss I must say, and 2000 wasn't so close anymore.

But then last week I suddenly gained nearly 50 points with a beautiful 4 out of 4 tournament, beating a master! And I felt like all of the things I learned about strategic thinking really came together in those games. I got the epiphany I was looking for. That said, whether I can actually maintain my rating in the 2000s is another question :D Maybe I'll get to 2100 quickly, or maybe I'll drop right back into the dreaded 1900s!

Good luck in the rest of the tournament!

The dreaded 1900s, exactly... what a nightmare to get back there, once you've crossed the 2000 line, but still didn't gain enough distance from that point. 

Funny how the viewpoint shifts though - I can still recall making it to (Israeli rating) 1900 for the first time - that was quite the thrill! This was a full 12 years ago, if memory serves...

Game six was a win for which I had to play with patience. 

From my posted analysis it would seem like a well thought-out and calculated effort, where I safely guided the boat to the shore. 

Houdini claims that I've lost my win at several points, turning my position into "slight advantage" territory. It finds positional resources for black which really make me ask myself how I would make progress from there...

Well - beating Houdini surely ain't easy. A win is still a win. For those of you who like dry positional grinds, where a pawn's advantage is all you need after 60 moves, this game is dedicated to you! :-)

You know solskytz, the more I read your comments and view your games, the more I'm utterly convinced that you possess an extroardinary mix of personality traits, uniquely suited to peak the "closer than you think" summit of 2200 FIDE. I absolutely agree with Shams characterization & insights: "that's a winner's attitude you have!" And that "you'll be a CM quite soon, I'm sure." Besides consciously projecting positivity, because many here are conscious of motivating you, as you are still thick in the throws and pitch of this chess tournament battle and several folks here are duly aware of that and are pulling for ya bro. And for whatever reason, be it conscious or not, are invested emotionally & intellectually in seeing you to success, ...even if merely 'cause we can relate, having been there perhaps. Nonetheless, I am persuaded, even all the more so, by your revealing comments above, that of finding the time, harnessing the discipline, awareness & professional faculties, as well as the energy, will & inclination (in the middle of what many of us find perfectly draining rigors of chess tournament play), to revise and I bet, perfect half of your pending March 16th concert program commitment in Belgium! And this, Itzac, on the heel of the dreaded, "unplanned Queen sac" ;') on game 5! Listen, it's understandably quite easy to view theses game, this tourney and your ambition (personal chess goal of accomplishing FIDE Master) through the lens of our own history, experiences and relative setbacks, successes or failures; which is human and natural. Yet I see a disciplined Concert Pianist, accustomed to mastering grueling task and dedicating inhuman hours & effort, required to attain the pinnacle of your profession. Consequently, I hear coming through, loud & clear, the consummate confidence of a drilled, skilled and tough-willed perfectionist, with the special set of stones & stuff, be it bestowed or honed, uniquely within you, certainly to peak that FIDE summit already within your gifted grasp, ...the more arduous & Herculean hard-work of that climb, being not ahead, but anteriorly behind you bro. Your confidence, like that of professional warriors I've known, are inherent to your innate psychosocial skill-set, ...how you control, manage & channel adrenaline, ...how you manage internal & external demands, both emotional and performance related, ...how you process failure (like hanging the Queen dude) and successes, in terms of say, attributing "outcome-based significance" emotionally & intellectually to future performances vs the unique ability to honestly chock it up to "learning" or "training" opportunities. More importantly, the ability to translate (and not conflate) past experiences of music mastery (with all the concomitant, real-life, professional demands, be they highly pedigreed audience, mandatory personal perfection, the grueling expectations of fellow professional colleague musicians or maestro/conductors, etc) to other pursuits, particularly those similar in ways only one such as yourself can fully appreciate, say, the creative, tempo-based, oddly similar progressions of skill-level, probably uncanny translatability of left & right brain predilections & requirements of, say, chess ;').

So, like Shams, I see & hear a strikingly confident man, used to being a winner. And that's not only alright with me, but a delight to see. More power to ya solskytz! We are not all equitably apportioned the "je ne sais quoi" dude. But my humble money is on you to do precisely what you aspired to, at the beginning of this thread (the same dude who "made the time" out of the crazy busy schedule of a concert pianist and dedicated, avocational, chess aficionado, to translate for Chess.com into Hebrew ;') ...that of hitting 2200 FIDE! Bon chance bro! Finish strong!

zeno

Solid win! Time to put that "Center Game" back in the attic where it belongs! :)

Lol :-) 

although 3...Nf6 turns out not to be quite the antidote I hoped for :-)

3...Bc5 and 3...Bb4 are both more promising tries, asking white to think "out of the box" just to equalize. 

3...Nf6, on the other hand, would give white a perfectly nice game with a slight advantage (!) if white followed my own (!!) recommendation out of the opening, to continue with 4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 d5 6. ed e.p. Nxd6 7. Nc3 (rather than Bd3 here) Nc6 8. Qf4. 

Interestingly, not only the openings database which I follow recommends this - but also Houdini itself, when just let run after black's 3rd move (!!!), and without any opening book active, gives that exact line in its analysis. The evaluation is +0.22, and I have no reason to doubt it. 

White has more space and his queen is invulnerable on f4. 

It is true that black can develop without hindrance - but still, the balance of the position does tilt a bit in favor of white. He simply has more manoeuvering space. 

Lol Shams, ...game 5 to the attic it is! What I say! Nice job my man, ...a punctuation to your unflappability! Finish strong! ;')

Ever since I got the donkey avatar, people find my comments funnier than they used to. It's hard not to smile looking at him, isn't it? Cheers, guys. 

p.s. how many rounds is the tourney?