| |
Main
Date: 24 Apr 2007 18:57:35
From: Zero
Subject: why did i lose?
|
i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend.
i've been reading those silman books:
white: me (1307)
black: 2004
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3
Nf6 8.
Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7
14.
Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 18. Nf5 Qd7 19. Nh4 Ng4
20.
f3
Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3
26.
Bd3
Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32.
Kxg2
Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38.
Rb2
Ra3
39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1
white: me (1307)
black: 2125
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6 6. exd5 cxd5 7.
Bb5+ Nc6
8. d4 Bd6 9. Qg4 Qf6 10. Be3 Ne7 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Nf5 13. g4
Nfxd4
14.
Bxd4 Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4 16. Bd3 e5 17. f3 Bb4 18. Nb5 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 a6
20.
Nc3 Bxc3 21. bxc3 Rac8 22. h4 Rxc3 23. g5 Rfc8 24. h5 Qxg5 25. Qf2 h6
26.
Rg1 Qxh5 27. Qe3 g6 28. Kb2 Kg7 29. Qe1 b5 30. Rh1 Qxf3 31. Rf1 Qh5
32.
Be2
Rxc2+ 33. Kb1 Qxe2 {White resigns} 0-1
white: 2101
black: me (1307)
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Qe2 c6 7. Bb3
Bg4
8.
h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. O-O Kh8 13. Rad1
Qe7
14.
Bg5 h6 15. Bh4 g5 16. Bg3 Rad8 17. Qe3 b6 18. f3 Nh5 19. Bh2 f5 20.
exf5
Rxf5 21. g4 Rf4 22. gxh5 Rh4 23. Kg2 Rxh5 24. Ne4 Nf6 25. Rxd8+ Qxd8
26. Qd3
Qxd3 27. cxd3 Nxe4 28. fxe4 Rh4 29. Rf5 g4 30. hxg4 Rxg4+ 31. Kf3 Rh4
32.
Bxe5 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Rh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. Re8+ Kg7 37. e5
a5 38.
e6 Kf6 39. Rf8+ Ke7 40. Rf7+ Ke8 41. Rb7 b5 42. e7 a4 43. Bd1 Rxa2
44.
Bh5#
{Black checkmated}
1-0
|
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 13:51:31
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
What a lovely topic!!! (said a S&M chess player).
On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> i played the following games in an open tournament
> over the weekend. i've been reading those silman books:
They are grossly overrated. Read world champions,
the supergrandmasters or study their games.
Here are my stories.
1A. I agreed to use my opponents broken
1.B chess clock. He was fair. Whenever his
half of the clock was not going, as
it should after my punching the clock, he would
shake his clock and do other mysterious
expert clock maker operations. Nevertheless,
it was stressful on me, and he was losing
less time than he was suppossed to.
I almost won on time but with the seconds
before his flag has fallen he won.
I told my friend,a strong expert, this tournament
story, and he asked me to show him the game.
Just after a few moves, still in the opening he
stopped me and got into a deep think. You have
to develope this knoght, he said. I had many reasons
(read: excuses) why I was procrastinating about
the damn knight but he was not listening. Finally he
came up with a solution as impressive as those
best combinations, very deep. And all this just to
develope a piece when all the tiime there were many
things to do on the board. He had his priorities and
an ability to solve a problem, to achieve a goal.
Since then I understood that the principle of
developing pieces is more than just: oh, I can do
thgs or I can do that. One has to fight creatively
to get ahead (or at least not behind) in development,
one should find ways. It's not merely question of
not being distracted by other moves.
When I remember and play for the development
on a higher level than I get enjoyable games.
E.g. when a piece in the opening (as opposed later
in the game) is attacked, then instead of moving
it away one should look for a developing move which
keeps the material or which pressures the opponent.
***
1B. I watched my senior master friend playing 3m
games on ICC. He still found time to comment
for me on the games. His pawn was attacked.
He didn't bother to defend a key pawn. He told
me: if he takes it, I recover the material with
a gain in development. This is worth about half
a move. I should get something out of it.
***
2. I played a tornament organizer, a chess master,
who said that during the past year he lost more games
than other chess masters played on the total.
I lost the opening (a relatively new variation of Grunfeld),
but somehow I was agressive. People have surrounded
our board. I was doing great but I lost. It turned
out that for several moves I could checkmate him
but I was blind to the fact that my own pawn h7
was missing, hence the rook on h8 was controlling
the h file, hence his king in the open, on the g file
was lost. Oh, well.
Next week or a couple of weeks, after the same
opening he gets up from the board, goes to his
private quarters, eats his dinner, quietly talks
to his wife, etc., he is not concerned about the
game. After the game he tells me: after I locked
your bishop in with my pawns I was like a piece
up, the game played by itself. I would win even if
I didn't have this other pawn or two (which helped
to make the game shorter), and he takes them off
the chessboard. Well, that was another way how
I was able to lose a game.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 07:42:49
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 18:57:35 -0700, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
>i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend.
>i've been reading those silman books:
>
>white: me (1307)
>black: 2004
>white: me (1307)
>black: 2125
>white: 2101
>black: me (1307)
What kind of weekend open tournament was it where you could lose at
least two games and yet get fed to one more Expert ?
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2007 17:47:35
From: Zero
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
Everyone says that Silman is a great author. So that is why I cited
him in my analysis. I am starting to think that alot of chess books
written by American authors have a fancy cover and then a bunch of
computer analysis. There really is no substance to them.
On Apr 29, 5:46 am, "Arfur Million" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Here is my analysis:
>
> > Game 1:
>
> > white: me (1307)
> > black: 2004
>
> > 1. e4 e5
>
> > I played e4 because of Fischer.
>
> Fischer also played other first moves at the very top level, but e4 is a
> good choice.
>
>
>
> > 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3
>
> > I am playing the vienna because Nigel Short played it and he played
> > in
> > the world championship so it must be good.
>
> The Vienna is certainly sound, but you should choose your opening to match
> the positions that you (not Short or Fischer!) are comfortable playing, and
> can learn from.
>
>
>
> > 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4
>
> > I think I played really well so far and I am doing what Silman says.
> > I
> > developed all my pieces and I control the center.
>
> I agree that you have a reasonable position out of the opening. In my
> opinion the weakness of your horrible c pawns is outweighed by your two
> bishops (Fritz, however, says that Black is better, so take your pick).
>
> > And I fianchetto my bishop just like Fischer does.
>
> When Fischer fianchettoed his bishop, he usually did it with the aggressive
> intent of following up with f4. This would have been a much better plan to
> follow in this game, since black had more weaknesses on the kingside than on
> the queenside. In order to make this plan effective, it helps to have a rook
> on the f file, and possibly another rook on the e or d files in order to
> pressurise black's centre.
>
>
>
> > 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7
>
> > Now i am going to attack the b-pawn. silman says that i should have a
> > plan so that is my plan.
>
> It is usually good to follow a plan. Put this game in your mental
> "database", so that if a similar position arises in a future game, it will
> help you to decide if you should follow this plan again, or if you should
> choose a different one.
>
>
>
> > 14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6
>
> > now i can't attack the b-pawn anymore.
>
> In fact, black could always defend his b-pawn easily, in this way. So you
> have played three moves to put your rooks on a file to attack a pawn which
> is easily defended. As the rooks aren't doing much else on the b file, this
> must be a bad plan in this position.
>
>
>
> > 18. Nf5 Qd7
>
> > I don't know where my knight should go.
>
> Your knight on h4 is doing a grand job by attacking the weaknesses on his
> kingside (I thought ...h6 was a horrible move). It is a shame that the
> knight doesn't have much support - from the absent rooks, for example
> (imagine the rook still on f1, both defending the exposed f pawn and helping
> to support you playing an aggressive f4).
>
>
>
> > 19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3
>
> > I am removing the knight from g4 and also protecting my kingside by
> > creating a fortress.
>
> Your position is significantly worse now. Your activity on the queenside
> hasn't yielded any dividend, whereas black is exploiting his strengths (open
> f file) and your weaknesses (c4).
>
>
>
> > Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3
>
> > I was able to make some trades. i sacrifice a pawn for active pieces
> > which is my plan.
>
> But your pieces are less active than black's, and he is now material up.
>
>
>
> > 26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3
>
> > my rooks are active on the b file. but i decide to come up with a
> > new
> > plan and move them to the center.
>
> Probably a good idea, but the game is beyond repair now.
>
>
>
> > 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4
> > Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38.
> > Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> > My position is not good anymore. I don't understand what my opponent
> > "sees" which I did not "see". I did everything
> > that was written in the book.
>
> I have not read Silman, but I doubt if he said that everything will work
> first time. There is a learning curve, and if treat your losses as lessons
> you will improve very rapidly.
>
> Regards,
> Arfur
|
| | |
Date: 06 May 2007 13:21:59
From: Ron
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> Everyone says that Silman is a great author. So that is why I cited
> him in my analysis. I am starting to think that alot of chess books
> written by American authors have a fancy cover and then a bunch of
> computer analysis. There really is no substance to them.
I smell a troll.
On the off-chance you're serious, however, the problem has nothing to do
with the books you're reading, and everything to do with the fact that
your thought process is extremely superficial.
Playing chess well is hard. If you're not willing to work hard, you're
going to lose a lot of games.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:57:51
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend.
> i've been reading those silman books:
>
> white: me (1307)
> black: 2004
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3
> Nf6 8.
> Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7
> 14.
> Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 18. Nf5 Qd7 19. Nh4 Ng4
> 20.
> f3
> Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3
> 26.
> Bd3
> Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32.
> Kxg2
> Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38.
> Rb2
> Ra3
> 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1
Passive play in the opening. You put your B on g2 then stuck a
pawn on e4? Where will it go from there. Doubled c pawns are
weak, you should have never allowed that --- Perhaps 6. dxc3 instead.
Instead of playing for the B file, center your rooks and play for
the center. After 23. Ng2 Qf7 the game is over - you have too many
weaknesses, the Rooks on the B file hit nothing. And why play 25. Qxf3?
Just play Be2 - after Qxe3 Nxe3 you'll have developed 2 peices and kept
his rook back... Tempo! Pay attention! You should have resigned
earlier. Is 4. g3 book? Looks rank. :)
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:43:21
From: Zero
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
Here is my analysis:
Game 1:
white: me (1307)
black: 2004
1. e4 e5
I played e4 because of Fischer.
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3
I am playing the vienna because Nigel Short played it and he played
in
the world championship so it must be good.
6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4
I think I played really well so far and I am doing what Silman says.
I
developed all my pieces and I control the center.
And I fianchetto my bishop just like Fischer does.
11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7
Now i am going to attack the b-pawn. silman says that i should have a
plan so that is my plan.
14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6
now i can't attack the b-pawn anymore.
18. Nf5 Qd7
I don't know where my knight should go.
19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3
I am removing the knight from g4 and also protecting my kingside by
creating a fortress.
Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3
I was able to make some trades. i sacrifice a pawn for active pieces
which is my plan.
26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3
my rooks are active on the b file. but i decide to come up with a
new
plan and move them to the center.
29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4
Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38.
Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1
My position is not good anymore. I don't understand what my opponent
"sees" which I did not "see". I did everything
that was written in the book.
white: me (1307)
black: 2125
I played e4 again because fischer says so.
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6
I saw that Fischer played this as white during the 1950s so it must
be
good against the Caro Kan't defense.
I have two bishops so i am going to open the center like Silman says.
6. exd5 cxd5 7. Bb5+ Nc6 8. d4!
I like this move a lot because he can't take d4 because of the pinned
knight. I think this is a really good move since
i also get the center.
8... Bd6 9. Qg4 Qf6 10. Be3 Ne7 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Nf5
I have now developed all of my pieces and so I am going to attack the
kingside. I like tactics a lot and all the books
say that low rated players should focus on tactics so that is what i
am
going to do.
13. g4!! Nfxd4
14. Bxd4 Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4
I made a brilliant Tal sacrifice. Tal always sacrificed his pieces
and
now I am going to attack attack attack!!!
16. Bd3 e5 17. f3 Bb4 18. Nb5 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 a6 20. Nc3 Bxc3 21. bxc3
Rac8 22. h4! Rxc3 23. g5! Rfc8
My kingside attack is very cool. He is like a Fischer attack that is
played against the Dragon.
24. h5! Qxg5 25. Qf2 h6 26. Rg1 Qxh5 27. Qe3 g6 28. Kb2 Kg7 29. Qe1
b5
30. Rh1 Qxf3 31. Rf1 Qh5
32. Be2 Rxc2+ 33. Kb1 Qxe2 {White resigns} 0-1
I have a bad position now. I don't understand why I lost. i did
what
all the players do and also followed what the book
says.
white: 2101
black: me (1307)
I am playing a king's indian setup since that is what fischer played.
if fischer played it, it must be good.
i want to be as good as fischer so i should just copy him and play
his
openings.
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Qe2 c6 7. Bb3
Bg4 8. h3 Bxf3
The books says that in closed positions, you should keep knights. so
I
traded off this bishop.
9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. O-O Kh8!!
It is a great move. I have seen GMs play it. My friend told me in
the
sicilian, they play Kh1 as white. Even that dude Anand played Kh1
against Kasparov
several times in their 1995 match. I played Kh8 because it a nice
deep
move. I was trying to psyche out my opponent. These guys are very
high rated
but I think they might get too over-confident. It must of worked
because afterwards, my opponent thought for over 10 minutes before
making
his next move.
Thank you Anand, Thank you Kasparov!
13. Rad1 Qe7 14.Bg5 h6! 15. Bh4 g5!
Now the bishop is on g3. Fischer did this alot in his king's indian
games so it must be good.
16. Bg3 Rad8 17. Qe3 b6 18. f3 Nh5
i have developed all of my pieces and now i need a plan. i am going
to
open up a kingside attack since that
is you do like fischer would. so that is my plan.
19. Bh2 f5 20. exf5
Rxf5
I missed the next move.
21. g4 Rf4 22. gxh5 Rh4 23. Kg2 Rxh5 24. Ne4 Nf6 25. Rxd8+ Qxd8
26. Qd3
Qxd3 27. cxd3 Nxe4
I still have some chances. Maybe I can swindle him.
28. fxe4 Rh4 29. Rf5 g4 30. hxg4 Rxg4+ 31. Kf3 Rh4
32. Bxe5 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Rh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. Re8+ Kg7
37.
e5
a5 38. e6 Kf6 39. Rf8+ Ke7 40. Rf7+ Ke8 41. Rb7 b5 42. e7 a4 43. Bd1
Rxa2
44. Bh5#
{Black checkmated}
1-0
I don't understand what this guy did differently. I just developed
my
pieces and made a plan like all the chess books say.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 12:46:14
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is my analysis:
>
> Game 1:
>
> white: me (1307)
> black: 2004
>
>
> 1. e4 e5
>
> I played e4 because of Fischer.
Fischer also played other first moves at the very top level, but e4 is a
good choice.
>
> 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3
>
> I am playing the vienna because Nigel Short played it and he played
> in
> the world championship so it must be good.
The Vienna is certainly sound, but you should choose your opening to match
the positions that you (not Short or Fischer!) are comfortable playing, and
can learn from.
>
> 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4
>
> I think I played really well so far and I am doing what Silman says.
> I
> developed all my pieces and I control the center.
I agree that you have a reasonable position out of the opening. In my
opinion the weakness of your horrible c pawns is outweighed by your two
bishops (Fritz, however, says that Black is better, so take your pick).
> And I fianchetto my bishop just like Fischer does.
When Fischer fianchettoed his bishop, he usually did it with the aggressive
intent of following up with f4. This would have been a much better plan to
follow in this game, since black had more weaknesses on the kingside than on
the queenside. In order to make this plan effective, it helps to have a rook
on the f file, and possibly another rook on the e or d files in order to
pressurise black's centre.
>
> 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7
>
> Now i am going to attack the b-pawn. silman says that i should have a
> plan so that is my plan.
It is usually good to follow a plan. Put this game in your mental
"database", so that if a similar position arises in a future game, it will
help you to decide if you should follow this plan again, or if you should
choose a different one.
>
> 14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6
>
> now i can't attack the b-pawn anymore.
In fact, black could always defend his b-pawn easily, in this way. So you
have played three moves to put your rooks on a file to attack a pawn which
is easily defended. As the rooks aren't doing much else on the b file, this
must be a bad plan in this position.
>
> 18. Nf5 Qd7
>
> I don't know where my knight should go.
Your knight on h4 is doing a grand job by attacking the weaknesses on his
kingside (I thought ...h6 was a horrible move). It is a shame that the
knight doesn't have much support - from the absent rooks, for example
(imagine the rook still on f1, both defending the exposed f pawn and helping
to support you playing an aggressive f4).
>
> 19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3
>
> I am removing the knight from g4 and also protecting my kingside by
> creating a fortress.
Your position is significantly worse now. Your activity on the queenside
hasn't yielded any dividend, whereas black is exploiting his strengths (open
f file) and your weaknesses (c4).
>
> Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3
>
> I was able to make some trades. i sacrifice a pawn for active pieces
> which is my plan.
But your pieces are less active than black's, and he is now material up.
>
> 26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3
>
> my rooks are active on the b file. but i decide to come up with a
> new
> plan and move them to the center.
Probably a good idea, but the game is beyond repair now.
>
> 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4
> Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38.
> Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> My position is not good anymore. I don't understand what my opponent
> "sees" which I did not "see". I did everything
> that was written in the book.
>
>
I have not read Silman, but I doubt if he said that everything will work
first time. There is a learning curve, and if treat your losses as lessons
you will improve very rapidly.
Regards,
Arfur
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:58:10
From: Ron
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is my analysis:
The reason why you're losing is because your analysis is very shallow.
You need to train yourself to see deeper. You need to study more master
games, and, in addition to reading Silman you need to UNDERSTAND him.
But I suspect he's a little too sophisticated for you right now.
Study Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch and Alekhine. Work on your tactics.
Play through a couple of hundred master games.
And dig deeper, when you're playing.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:29:12
From: Ron
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend.
> i've been reading those silman books:
Why don't you start by analyzing the games yourself and telling us what
you think you did wrong.
> white: me (1307)
> black: 2004
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3
> Nf6 8.
> Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7
> 14.
> Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 18. Nf5 Qd7 19. Nh4 Ng4
> 20.
> f3
> Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3
> 26.
> Bd3
> Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32.
> Kxg2
> Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38.
> Rb2
> Ra3
> 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1
>
>
> white: me (1307)
> black: 2125
>
> 1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6 6. exd5 cxd5 7.
> Bb5+ Nc6
> 8. d4 Bd6 9. Qg4 Qf6 10. Be3 Ne7 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Nf5 13. g4
> Nfxd4
> 14.
> Bxd4 Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4 16. Bd3 e5 17. f3 Bb4 18. Nb5 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 a6
> 20.
> Nc3 Bxc3 21. bxc3 Rac8 22. h4 Rxc3 23. g5 Rfc8 24. h5 Qxg5 25. Qf2 h6
> 26.
> Rg1 Qxh5 27. Qe3 g6 28. Kb2 Kg7 29. Qe1 b5 30. Rh1 Qxf3 31. Rf1 Qh5
> 32.
> Be2
> Rxc2+ 33. Kb1 Qxe2 {White resigns} 0-1
>
>
> white: 2101
> black: me (1307)
>
> 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Qe2 c6 7. Bb3
> Bg4
> 8.
> h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. O-O Kh8 13. Rad1
> Qe7
> 14.
> Bg5 h6 15. Bh4 g5 16. Bg3 Rad8 17. Qe3 b6 18. f3 Nh5 19. Bh2 f5 20.
> exf5
> Rxf5 21. g4 Rf4 22. gxh5 Rh4 23. Kg2 Rxh5 24. Ne4 Nf6 25. Rxd8+ Qxd8
> 26. Qd3
> Qxd3 27. cxd3 Nxe4 28. fxe4 Rh4 29. Rf5 g4 30. hxg4 Rxg4+ 31. Kf3 Rh4
> 32.
> Bxe5 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Rh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. Re8+ Kg7 37. e5
> a5 38.
> e6 Kf6 39. Rf8+ Ke7 40. Rf7+ Ke8 41. Rb7 b5 42. e7 a4 43. Bd1 Rxa2
> 44.
> Bh5#
> {Black checkmated}
> 1-0
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:52:25
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend.
>>i've been reading those silman books:
>
> Why don't you start by analyzing the games yourself and telling us what
> you think you did wrong.
Excellent advice, ... analyzing in first place yourself people are able
to help you more to improve.
AT
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 03:38:05
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
> white: me (1307)
> black: 2004
I'll go with "rating differential."
--
Ray Gordon, Author
Price And Probability (The Value Handicapper's Bible)
http://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html
Would someone PLEASE become Ashlee Schull's new #1 fan? She deserves
better.
|
|
