Game from the 2006 Interservice

Date: 25 Oct 2006 02:35:19
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Game from the 2006 Interservice

Here's a game I played at this years Interservice Chess Championships
at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida -- it's a game that was
pretty intense as I sac'd the exchange for a big attack -- and LOST.
Walked right into mate in one, as a matter of fact:

[Event "2006 Interservice Chess Ch"]
[Site "5th"]
[Date "2006.06.13"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Hortillosa, Andres"]
[Black "Nemers, Matthew"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D03"]
[WhiteElo "1917"]
[BlackElo "1625"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[SourceDate "2006.05.24"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 Be7 4. Nbd2 d5 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 h6 7. Bh4
O-O 8. Ne5 Nxe5 9. dxe5 Nd7 10. Bg3 f6 11. exf6 Nxf6 12. c3 Bd6 13. f4
Qe7 14. Nf3 Ng4 15. Ne5 Nxe3 16. Qe2 Bc5 17. g6 Qd6 18. Nxf8 Kxf8 19.
a3 a5 20. Kd2 Qb6 21. b4 d4 22. Rhb1 axb4 23. cxb4 Rxa3 24. Ke1 Rxa1
25. Rxa1 Qxb4+ 26. Kf2 Ke7 27. Bh4+ Kd6 28. Rb1 Qc3 29. h3 c6 30. Kg1
b5 31. Be1 Qa3 32. Kh2 g5 33. fxg5 hxg5 34. Bg3+ Kd5 35. Qf3# 1-0

Chess-blindness coupled with a time fetish sucks. On my 34th move I
saw a mirage: I thought, "He can't move his queen there because his
bishop will hang." So I decided to take my king for a walk because I
was playing to his clock. (He had about 30 seconds or something short
like that left in the game.) What a stupid I am.

I think if I'd have just brought my king back behind my queenside pawns
I'd have been alright -- shit, I might've even been winning -- but I
just got real dumb for one move and that's all it takes.

Any analysis is welcome.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:32:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Game from the 2006 Interservice

Matt Nemmers <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here's a game I played at this years Interservice Chess Championships
> at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida -- it's a game that was
> pretty intense as I sac'd the exchange for a big attack -- and LOST.

I'm unconvinced by the idea of going for a `big attack', especially a
sacrificial one, before you've developed your queenside. Double
especially, given that White can exchange off your Ne3 essentially
whenever he wants, at which point you're attacking with queen and
bishop against queen, king, two bishops and a rook. How could that
possibly succeed?

And I really don't understand the king-walk: if I was blitzing out
moves, 26.Bd7 and 27.Bc6/a4 look much more plausible.

By the way, your game score lost an `N' at move 17. For the benefit
of anyone who'd like to play through the game, the correct version is

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 Be7 4. Nbd2 d5 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 h6 7. Bh4 O-O
8. Ne5 Nxe5 9. dxe5 Nd7 10. Bg3 f6 11. exf6 Nxf6 12. c3 Bd6 13. f4 Qe7 14.
Nf3 Ng4 15. Ne5 Nxe3 16. Qe2 Bc5 17. Ng6 Qd6 18. Nxf8 Kxf8 19. a3 a5 20.
Kd2 Qb6 21. b4 d4 22. Rhb1 axb4 23. cxb4 Rxa3 24. Ke1 Rxa1 25. Rxa1 Qxb4+
26. Kf2 Ke7 27. Bh4+ Kd6 28. Rb1 Qc3 29. h3 c6 30. Kg1 b5 31. Be1 Qa3 32.
Kh2 g5 33. fxg5 hxg5 34. Bg3+ Kd5 35. Qf3# 1-0

Dave.

--
David Richerby Permanent Accelerated Chainsaw (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lethal weapon but it's
twice as fast and it'll be there
for ever!

Date: 27 Oct 2006 05:59:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Game from the 2006 Interservice

Matt Nemmers wrote:
> So I decided to take my king for a walk because I
> was playing to his clock. ... What a stupid I am.

No analysis necessary. 'playing to his clock' was your finest mistake.
When you blitz against someone who is in timetrouble, you essentially
play as if YOU are in time trouble also. Typical Class Player mistake.

Next time, get up, take a walk, come back, sit, and find a really good
move. You'll get him to think, which will use up his time, which will
have a more lasting effect on the outcome of the game.

Hope you learned something from that...I'm here to help!

http://chess-training.blogspot.com

Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:04:18
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Game from the 2006 Interservice

Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matt Nemmers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Chess-blindness coupled with a time fetish sucks. On my 34th move I
> > saw a mirage: I thought, "He can't move his queen there because his
> > bishop will hang." So I decided to take my king for a walk because I
> > was playing to his clock. (He had about 30 seconds or something short
> > like that left in the game.) What a stupid I am.
>
> That I've got to say the whole king walk seems kind of perplexing.
>
> Why not make a move that threatens something, or, better yet, threatens
> to threaten something. I'm assuming that he gets more time on move 40 -
> so it seems like when you make aimless moves you're actually helping him
> get to the time control, rather than vice versa.

I thought I could get a mating net around his king, so long as I took
the center away from him. His pieces were pretty much just defending
-- though my light-squared bishop, the bane of my existence in that
game, wasn't much help to me -- and I thought if I could keep control
of the center I'd end up being able to wrap him up. Obviously, that
didn't work.

Thanks for the comments.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:28:22
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 1627

>Obviously, that
> didn't work.

Obviously.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:37:14
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Game from the 2006 Interservice

In article <[email protected] >,
"Matt Nemmers" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Chess-blindness coupled with a time fetish sucks. On my 34th move I
> saw a mirage: I thought, "He can't move his queen there because his
> bishop will hang." So I decided to take my king for a walk because I
> was playing to his clock. (He had about 30 seconds or something short
> like that left in the game.) What a stupid I am.

That I've got to say the whole king walk seems kind of perplexing.

Why not make a move that threatens something, or, better yet, threatens
to threaten something. I'm assuming that he gets more time on move 40 -
so it seems like when you make aimless moves you're actually helping him
get to the time control, rather than vice versa.

Date: 25 Oct 2006 03:38:20
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: 1627

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> Thanks for playing.

No problem! Do let us know when you get enough scratch together to
join the USCF and actually play a game yourself.

Maybe your mom will front you some allowance money to play in a
tournament soon. You know, since you don't have a pot to piss in or a
window to throw it out of and all.

Wait!

You LIVE with your mom. Nevermind. She probably has a pot and a
window.

Date: 25 Oct 2006 05:58:53
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 1627

Thanks for playing.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."