My Chess Journey

When I was eight years old, my sister, a year younger, returned from the neighbor's house and taught me what she had learned there. This became my first lesson in a game neither of us would understand for several years to come. Chess joined Parcheesi, Monopoly, Go Fish, Connect Four, Life, Scrabble, and many other games that we played with our siblings, neighbor children our age, and sometimes with adults.

Seven years later, I was visiting a friend and saw a book on chess, Chess in 30 Minutes. The idea that someone would write a book on a game that children played was revolutionary to my thinking. Our family regularly visited the library. On the next visit, I found the chess books and borrowed a few. First step was learning to read: 1.P-K4, P-K4 2.N-KB3, P-Q3 3.B-B4, P-KN3 4.N-B3, B-N5 5.NxP BxQ?? Once these codes were deciphered with help from one of the books, reading began. There were several books, but the one that I remember most clearly was Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955).

I played a game or two with the friend who had the chess book. We decided that we would play a match of twenty games or so. The year was 1975 and we had some sort of vague understanding of the battles then raging between Bobby Fischer and FIDE regarding his World Championship Defense against Anatoly Karpov. By the end of our match, I was much better than my friend. I’ve mentioned this story before (see “My First Chess Book”).

Over the next few years, I played a lot of games with a couple of friends. We played war games like Panzer Blitz, Luftwaffe, Highway to the Reich, Russian Campaign. The majority were World War II simulations. We also played Risk, of course, and we played chess. Matt Jessick liked 3D chess and always destroyed me. I preferred the classic game and increasingly favored it over other games. My sophomore year of high school, a group of students formed a chess club. I was near the top in strength. Jim Van Epps was clearly the best. He loaned me his copy of I.A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1965). I studied the four pawns attack and finally beat his Pirc Defense. He introduced me to the Spokane Chess Club.

Our school’s chess club sent letters to all the other schools in the district, resulting in matches against the other schools that have clubs. My opponent in the match against Gonzaga Prep, Patrick Kirlin, remembers our game much better than I do. We played that team match in 1977 and he told me in 1995 that I had played the Sicilian Defense. None of these events were rated. I played in one tournament at the Spokane Chess Club, also not rated. Not everyone wrote their moves. I remember feeling almost embarrassed when I beat an older man with a bank rank checkmate. He was crushing me until leaving himself vulnerable to a mate in one.

As I was finishing high school and starting college, I played a USCF correspondence tournament. The game scores I have from this event are the oldest games in my personal database. There is a position in one of them that I use in teaching.

White to move

In college, there was a guy on my floor who liked to play chess with me. Sometimes we would start a game in the late morning and I would end up skipping my Philosophy of Religion class at 11:00. I won most of these games. Gradually, other priorities displaced chess. Occasionally I would play through some games in a book, but none of my friends were at my level and I did not seek out a chess club.

Interest in chess was revived almost ten years later when I bought my first computer and with it Chessmaster 2100. I was in graduate school.

I rejoined the Spokane Chess Club in late 1995 and played in my first rated OTB event in March 1996. In October, I played my sixth event and no longer had a provisional rating. By the end of the year, my rating had risen to 1495, but it would be several years before rising over 1500 in 2002. In early 1998, my worst event ever (I lost all five games) dropped me from 1472 to 1378 and it took me three events to bring my rating back into C Class.

In November 1996, I played in the Washington Class in Federal Way. I nearly won my section. I was on board one in round four tied with one other player, my opponent, 1/2 point ahead of the others. A win would secure at least a tie for first place. I had a winning position. I faltered, losing that game and the next, finishing the event with 3.0 and tied for 8th place.

Black to move

From my return to active play in the mid-1990s, active study of chess books has been a constant in my life. I also played correspondence chess (postcard, then email, and then websites like ChessWorld.net and Chess.com) continuously from 1996 through 2018, but only a few games since. Beginning in 1998, live play online also became a norm. I estimate that I have played more than 160,000 games.

My rating remained in C Class for nearly a decade, but in the 1500s for the second half. I was getting better, gaining both knowledge and skills, but progress was slow. Too much online blitz may have held me back.

In the summer of 2006, Curt Collyer gave me some lessons. He was my third round opponent in that terrible 0-5 event in 1998. Now in college and with a rating near 2200, he was the top player from my city and offering chess lessons during his summer break. In fall 2006 after this work with Curt, I crossed into B Class for the first time.

In 2008, I won the Spokane Contenders and played a four game match against FM David Sprenkle for the City Championship, losing 2 1/2 - 1/2. He beat me fairly quickly in the first game played on Thursday night. In the second game, I lost in 72 moves, learning while entering the game in my database that we had a three-fold repetition as I had suspected during the game. In the third game, he offered a draw when a repetition appeared best.

White to move

I was rated in the mid-1700s during the match with Sprenkle having risen rapidly through B Class. The Washington Open in May 2009 lifted me into A Class. I tied for fourth in the Premier section 1/2 point behind the top three.

My rating continued to rise, peaking after an astounding run of eleven consecutive wins.

My journey from wholly ignorant beginner in the late-1960s, to competitive high school player in the late-1970s, to active C Class club member in the mid-1990s involved a lot of book study. The journey from C Class in my 30s to high A Class in my early 50s (I peaked at 1982) included books, active play, private lessons, chess videos.

After peaking in 2012, I have struggled to stay in A Class. Through four events in 2016, my rating fell from 1886 to 1750. My last 2016 event lifted me back to 1791 and then I won the Winter Club Championship, my first event of 2017, lifting me back up to 1845. See "Home Preparation" for my win against the top rated player in the event, Michael Cambareri.

Since then, my rating has fallen and risen again within the range 1809 to 1875. Now in my 60s, the effects of aging impacts my ability to maintain focus during tournament games. Ambitions to reach expert no longer motivate me. However, I study chess regularly and continue to gain knowledge and experience. In the past year, I have solved more than 12,000 puzzles and exercises, including 7,262 on Chess.com alone.

During the Inland Empire Open in May and two events since then, I am enjoying the game whether I win or lose. After misplaying the opening in one game, I was enjoying watching how my opponent capitalized on his advantage while I struggled to put up resistance (see "The Saving Fork?"). Of course, I enjoyed even more pressing my advantage when my opponent missed the forced checkmate and then blundered two moves later.

Appended is a list of my best tournaments.

Weekend Swiss Events

2006 Washington Challenger’s Cup
Reserve 4.0/5 first—tie

2009 Washington Open
Premier 4.0/6 fourth—tie (1/2 point behind winners)

2012 Collyer Memorial
                4.5/5 second

2015 Spokane Falls Open
        4.5/5 first

2018 Eastern Washington Open
        4.5/5 first—tie

2023 Inland Empire Open
        4.5/5 first

Club Events

1996 Taxing Quads
        Quad 2 3.0/3 first

2006 Koz’s Quick Chaos
                3.0/3 first

2007 June Quick
                3.5/4 first

2008 Spokane Falls Action
        3.0/3 first

2008 Christmas Chaos
                3.5/4 first

2009 March Madness
        3.5/4 first

2009 Ajeeb Quads
        Quad A 2.3/3 first—tie

2009 Chaos
                4.0/4 first

2010 July Robin
                5.0/7 first—tie

2011 Turkey Quads
        Quad B 3.0/3 first

2011 December Quick
                3.0/3 first

2014 Blazing Heat Blitz
                8.0/9 first—tie

2016 Quick Night
                3.5/4 first

2016 Turkey Quads
        Quad B 3.0/3 first

2017 Winter Championship
        4.5/5 first

Closed Events

2008 City Championship Contenders
2.5/3 first

2010 City Championship Contenders
4.0/5 first—tie

2012 City Championship Contenders
4.5/5 first

Online Events

2016 US Chess Blitz on Chess.com (5-23)
4.0/5 first—tie

2016 US Chess Blitz on Chess.com (5-30)
4.5/5 first—tie

2016 US Chess Blitz on Chess.com (10-24)
4.5/5 first

2020 Morning Membership (8-14)
        4.0/4 first—tie

2020 Morning Membership (11-6)
        4.0/4 first

2020 Morning Membership (12-4)
        3.5/4 first

2020 Morning Membership (12-18)

4.0/4 first

Textbook Ending

 In today's Morning Membership tournament on Chess.com, two players found themselves in a difficult pawn ending with under a minute remaining. The time control was game in five minutes with a two second increment (5+2). White had 18.5 seconds and Black had 38 when Chris started showing the game on Twitch. Chris Bird is the tournament director and streams these weekly events.

Both players shuffled their kings back and forth until a repetition occurred. When players are premoving, as they seemed to be doing, draw offers are often refused even as they are made. It was not clear from Chris's discussion whether he knew that White had a winning position.

In the screenshot, White has just played 51.Kd4.

There was an alternative.

51.Kb5 wins.

After 51.Kb5!

This move can be frightening with less than twenty seconds left, but it is the correct move. White has stepped out of the square of Black's pawn. If White fails to promote first, or set up a checkmate, Black will also promote.

After 51...Kc8, White has two ways to proceed.

52. Kc6, or 52.a6. I played the latter against Stockfish 11, which replied 52...e3.

White to move

Now, only one move wins for White. All others lose.

After 53.b6+, 53...Kc7! leaves White lost. However, 53...Kb8 allows 54.Kb6 and 55.a7#. In one of the textbook lines beginning with 51...Kb8, Black promotes the pawn just before getting checkmated.

53.a6 allows 53...Kb7 and White can make no further progress, while Black's e-pawn cannot be stopped.

53.Kc6! e2 54.b7+

Black to move

54...Kb8 55.Kb6 e1Q Black promotes first, but White checkmates with pawns. Stockfish chose a longer checkmate.

54...Kd8 55.b8Q+ Ke7 56.Qe5+ and White wins.

While watching the Twitch stream, I saw a familiar pattern. After the tournament, I out that my belief that White was winning was indeed correct. Although as a practical matter, with less that twenty seconds remaining, I, too, might have taken the draw.

The textbook position appears in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Consequently, it is a position that I have played out several times with my students (see "Pawn Ending Flash Cards").

White to move

I know the technique through training with positions from Dvoretsky. Likely other books have the position as well, and it appears in Harold van der Heiden's Endgame Study Database. Heiden credits Reuben Fine, Basic Chess Endings (1941), while Dvoretsky credits the nineteenth century composers J. Kling and B. Horwitz.*

In any case, the first critical position is reached after the moves:

1.Kd4 Kg4 2.h4 Kh5 3.Ke3 Kg4 4.Ke4 Kh5 5.Kf4 Kg6 6.g4 Kg7

White to move

7.g5 is a mistake. White can move the king, but the way forward is 7.h5!

7...Kh6 8.Kf3

Heiden has 8.Ke4 here. Dvoretsky's solution is three moves longer, so seems to offer better defense by Black. Both 8.Kf3 and 8.Ke4 have the same number of moves to mate, according to my chess engine.

Dvoretsky points out the importance of triangulation for White.

8...Kg5 9.Ke4 Kh6 10.Kf4 Kh7 11.g5 Kg7 12.g6 (12.h6 loses) 12...Kf6 13.Ke4 Kg7 14.Kf3 Kf6 15.Kf4 Kg7

White to move

Now, White's confidence comes into play, as it is time to leave the square of Black's passed pawn.

16.Kg5 c3 17.h6+ Kg8 18.Kf6 (see the critical Kc6 in my analysis of what might have been above).

18...c2 (so close to becoming a queen!)

19.h7+ Kh8 

White to move

20.Kf7 c1Q

Black promotes, but White will promote with check.

21.g7+ Kxh7 22.g8Q+ Kh6 23.Qg6# 

This ending is worthy of study. Perhaps if your nerves are calm, you can win with a quarter minute and a two second increment should you find yourself is a comparable position.


*Fine, on my reading presents a similar position that is a draw. He does mention winning chances, though, if the pawns on the left are another row to the right of the position illustrated here. There seems some room for some historical research.

Failure to Learn

This morning I played in a USCF rated online chess event that I had learned about via email a couple of weeks ago. I finished tied for first, winning the top prize (a virtual trophy) on tiebreaks. The event cost a mere $5 and the entry fees went back to the players in the form of one-year membership extensions. These membership extensions are based on random drawing of numbers after the event concludes.

See information about these thrice-weekly tournaments at Events4Chess.com.

In the second round, my failure of imagination unnecessarily extended the length of the game, and even led to an equal position as my opponent and I exchanged blunders. Ironically, the critical move that I could have played at least four times in the course of the game had come up in a Greco game that I used with my chess students in last week's lesson.

The position from Greco.

White to move

Two positions from my game.

White to move

White to move

Playing Tired

Who thinks well when they are sleep deprived? I certainly do not.

This past week was the first of a two week event at the Spokane Chess Club. We are calling it Game 61, a dull name that has the merits of accurate description. The United States Chess Federation has several rating pools based on different time controls. I have a USCF standard rating--the important one--and also a correspondence rating, a quick rating, blitz, and even online blitz. If a game is less than fifteen minutes, it is blitz. Fifteen minutes to one hour per player is rapid. Longer than an hour is standard.

That seems simple enough, but the USCF complicates matters. Games longer than thirty minutes per player are also standard rated. Thus, games between thirty and sixty minutes are dual rated.

Some players refuse to play dual rated. I am one of these. There are exceptions. When I have been the highest rated player at the Spokane Chess Club, or nearly so, I have felt an obligation to play in certain events even when I did not like the time control. When I have played in dual rated events in the past ten years, I have done well. I played in four such events 2008-2010 and placed first in three of them. 2010 was the last time I played in a dual rated event.

My problem with dual rated is that I have several playing styles. My blitz and rapid style is often reckless. FM Jim Maki has called it "swashbuckling". In standard tournament games, however, I prefer a methodical, positional style that seeks the truth of the position. In a dual rated event, which one of my chess personalities needs to show up? It confuses me.

Using a time control of Game 61, we manage to avoid the dual rating, but at the same time the pace is fast enough that we can play two games in one night. Thus we can have a four round event that lasts only two weeks.

Unfortunately, this week was the beginning of Daylight Savings Time. That means sleep-deprivation for those of us whose bodies awake early without need of an alarm clock. Add to that my choice over the past few weeks to finish my first Kindle book, Essential Tactics (2017). The extra time in front of my computer, attending to the details of editing a book manuscript, gave me a stiff neck. The stiff neck left me with a serious headache on Wednesday afternoon, and I went to bed early. Thursday morning, I was wide awake at 3:15 am, instead of my usual 4:45 am.

Thursday night was rounds one and two of the Game 61. I opted to enter the event, play round one, take a round two bye, and hope that I would be better rested for the second week.

I was paired against Ted Baker in the first round. My rating is always substantially higher than Ted's, but he has beaten me a significant number of times. He is never an easy opponent. This time, however, I took care of business, and he never had a clear advantage. Rather, I won a pawn early in the game. He gained a slight initiative for the pawn, but not enough to cause me real trouble. Nonetheless, as the game neared the end, my ability to focus was declining.

Here is the end of the game.


Ted Baker (1437) -- James Stripes (1853) [E24]
Game 61 Gonzaga University (1), 16.03.2017

Black to move

After 21.f5

21...Qf6

Aftre 21...f6 Black's kingside pawn structure is the sort that Magnus Carlsen thought he could exploit in the game that proved to be one of Karjakin's best defensive efforts in the recent World Championship (see "Karjakin -- Carlsen 2016: Critical Positions"). In that game, however, the structure was White's queenside. Using the queen as a blockading piece provokes the voices in my head to begin speaking. I am being scolded by Aron Nimzovitch, who tells me that minor pieces blockade pawns better than queens.

22.Kh1 Rac8?

According to Stockfish, I had a one pawn advantage, but now it is gone.

I had several better choices:

22...Rfe8 seize the open file!
22...a5
22...a6
22...Bc6

23.g4

Ted had 23.Qa2 fork 23...a6 24.Qxd5 Bc6 25.Qb3.

23...Rc6

I knew that I was inviting further loss of tempi and the exchange of bishops. But, oblivious to White's manner of winning back the pawn, I was relatively unconcerned with White's threats on the queenside. This portion of the game reveals that I still have much work to do understanding my opponent's resources. Forced to defend against a pawn assault, I was insufficiently attentive to the greater mobility of the White pieces due to a space advantage. Although my position was not worse, as it had been in so many other recent games, I have squandered a clear advantage.

24.Bb5

Ted still had 24.Qa2!

a) 24...a6 25.Qxd5 Rc7
b) 24...Rd6 25.Qxa7
c) 24...Rc7 25.Qxa7 Rfc8

24...Rc7 25.Bxd7 Rxd7 

White to move

White's pieces are more mobile, but also his king might prove to be the more vulnerable.

26.Qg2 Re8 27.Rf3 Qg5

I would like to exchange some pieces because I am a pawn ahead.

27...a5 seemed to me a decoy effort without a clear purpose in the center.

28.Rcf1 Re3 29.f6!

Black to move

29...g6

29...Rxf3 30.Qxf3 Qxf6 31.Qxf6 gxf6 32.Rxf6 Kg7

30.Qh3 

30.Qg3 makes Black work harder 30...Rxf3 31.Rxf3 Rd8 (31...Qc1+ 32.Kg2 Qc2+ does not seem to offer much for me).

30...Rxf3 31.Qxf3 Rd6

I was satisfied that now my a-pawn might become a useful decoy for allowing me to eliminate White's f-pawn, and then my king would be secure on g7.

32.Kg2 Re6 33.h4

"I miscalculated, missing that the queen could go back." Ted Baker, after the game.

33...Qxh4 34.Qxd5

White planned 34.Rh1 missing 34...Qg5.

34...Qxg4+ 35.Kh1

Black to move

35...Re3

My mate is one threat can be stopped, but not without significant loss of material.

I considered 35...Re2 but for some reason the elementary checkmate sequence was eluding me. I knew that I was tired before the game began, which is why I arranged for a round two bye before entering the event. With enough sleep, I would have found the quickest and most precise win in this position.

36.Rf3 Qxf3+

After thirty seconds looking for the checkmate that I suspected was there, I decided that I didn't need to think about chess any more. When I'm tired, I become lazy.

After the game, we looked at 36...Re1+ 37.Kh2 Qg1+ (but we overlooked 37...Re2+ 38.Rf2 Rxf2+ 39.Kh1 Qd1#) 38.Kh3 Qh1+ 39.Kg4 Rg1+ 40.Kf4 Qh2+ 41.Ke4 Re1+ 42.Re3 (42.Kd3 Qe2#) 42...Qg2+ 43.Kd3 Rxe3+.

37.Qxf3 Rxf3 0–1

I squandered the advantage that I had earned in the early middlegame, but was helped by my opponent, who failed to find the route back to equality. When exhaustion gave way to laziness, my advantage was strong enough that it no longer mattered.

Fiddling with the London System

In the first round of the Winter Championship at the Spokane Chess Club last night, I played an opponent who has been difficult for me. We first played forty years ago in a match between our respective high schools. There may have been some other games after that, but the oldest game in my database is from my first USCF tournament, which was March 1996. I had White, played the King's Gambit, gained a slightly better position, and then lost.

Although I have been higher rated than him for most of the past twenty years, we have a nearly equal score. I believed last night when the game began that I was at +1, but a check of the US Chess Federation's website reveals that I am +2 until last night's game is rated.

My struggle against this opponent is a struggle with myself. My weakness in chess tournaments is playing to the level of my competition. Instead of playing the board and finding the best moves, no matter who is sitting across from me, I take unnecessary risks against weak players. Players in C Class seem weak to me now that I have risen well above that level, but they are strong enough to exploit stupidity.

Patrick Kirlin's excessive nervousness at the chess board compounds my tendency to play the player, rather than the board. Indeed, I credit my compassion for his time trouble and panic as the cause of letting a slightly better position deteriorate rapidly in that game in 1996. It is fine to be friendly with opponents before and after the game, and to be polite at the board, but compassion has no place in competition during the battle. I need the focus of my friend John Julian who looks at me as if I am his most hated enemy when we play each other (see "City Championship, Game One").

Last night, I had White. After thinking about various opening plans, I opted for the London System. I have been playing this opening a bit in online blitz lately, but I think this was my first game in the system in over the board play at standard time controls. The London System is not particularly ambitious for securing an advantage from the opening with the White pieces, but may suit my interest in playing for a long endgame--a strategy that often produces success against players at all levels in our local pool.

Simon Williams, in one of his YouTube videos advertising a DVD characterizes the London System, "a great opening for the lazy players out there." Dejan Bojkov, in a video about an instructive miniature in the London, offers another view: "Whenever you play the London System, you expect people to fight for a very long time." Indeed, this long fight is why players like Vladimir Kramnik, Gata Kamsky, and even Magnus Carlsen have played it. Carlsen's play, in particular, inspired me to give it a try.

Stripes,James (1791) - Kirlin,Patrick (1410) [A48]
SCC Winter Championship Spokane (1), 19.01.2017

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Bf4

3.c4 might be more sensible than trying to force every game into a cookie cutter London System, but this was my initial foray with the London.

3...Bg7 4.Nbd2

White's scoring percentage is poor after this move. Looking back, I do not comprehend why I played it.

4.e3 is the normal move.

5.e4

I was thinking about my teaching of children and how often I tell them, "if your opponent lets you put two pawns on e4 and d4, you should do so." This teaching compelled me to play this move, grabbing space. However, both 5.c3 and 5.e3 is more in keeping with the needs of the position. White must prepare the e4 push. In this respect, the London System bears similarities with the Colle System.

5...d6 6.Bd3

6.c4 was my move when I had the same position in a blitz game in October 2016. I won that game quickly.

6...Nh5

Given who I was playing this move was expected. Although I more or less invited it, I also may have underestimated it.

6...c5 7.c3 cxd4 8.cxd4 e5 should give Black a slight edge.

7.Be3

At this point in the game, I recalled that often in Paul Morphy's games he would have all of his minor pieces in play while his opponent had but two or three. After this move, my opponent left the board seemingly in a panic. His behavior at the tournament director's table seemed to indicate that he was in search of a different writing instrument. I learned about ten minutes later that his intention was to create a distraction. He wrote the name of America's worst mistake on his forehead, and then made certain that I looked at his forehead when he returned to the board. He said, "it is to psych you out."

I have engaged in a few behaviors that have irritated him in years past, albeit never with such explicit intent. For instance, once I came to chess club with some apple juice in a whiskey flask. It had no effect on my opponent that night, a former US Army Ranger. However, when Pat walked into club and saw the flask, his distraction could be read on his face. I also routinely place a captured pawn behind the clock to stymie the calculation of those who do their material count off the board.

I told the tournament director that my opponent's behavior was a violation of the rules, but did not press the matter. Spokane tournament chess is friendly competition. A few bad behaviors are tolerated within reason. A cell phone rang later in the round and the player on the other side of the board declared loudly, "you just forfeited." However, the threats to forfeit those whose phones ring during play is mostly talk. It was the first instance for this particular player. Another regular at club has a ringing cell phone nearly every event. We make it a point to remind him before round one of weekend Swiss events, when there are many players from out of town.

7.Bg3 did not seem like a good idea.
7.Bg5 merits consideration. 7...h6 8.Be3.

Black to move

7...e5 8.c3?

After brushing off the explicit effort to distract me as of no consequence (I said, "I've made my peace with the coming apocalypse"), my first move upon my opponent's return to the board was an error.

8...Nf4 9.Bf1

My intention was to play g3 after preparation, perhaps h3 or h4. Unfortunately I looked at the knight going back to h5, overlooking the value of the e6 square as a posting for the knight. This oversight became more serious a few moves later.

9.Bxf4 exf4 occupied my thoughts for several minutes. I preferred to avoid both giving up the bishop pair and creating a phalanx of pawns for my opponent on the kingside. In retrospect, I should have snapped off the knight.

9...b6

I started thinking that my opponent was planning to help me secure the h3 square so that I could play g3.

10.Qc2 Ba6 11.c4?

My move severely weakens the d4 square. Failing to notice such things stems from short-term tactical responses without considering long-term positional consequences. Playing to the level of my opponent is one cause of these mental errors. Playing too much online blitz is another (see "Good Blitz, Bad Blitz").

11.Bxf4 is probably still a move that I should have considered more seriously.

11...c5 12.dxe5?

12.d5 is objectively better. I considered that having more space could be useful, but did not like closing the center. It was probably a better decision to close the center and remove Black's knight.

12...dxe5 13.0–0–0

I hoped to play Nb1–c3-d5 after castling, but quickly realized that my opponent would need to make a few terribly weak moves to facilitate this maneuver.

13...Nc6

White to move

14.Bxf4 exf4

14...Nb4 15.Qb3 exf4 16.a3 Nc6 17.Nb1 Qc7 18.Nc3 seems to give Black the edge.

15.Nb3 Nd4

With 15...Qf6 Black has a clear advantage, when neither 16.a3 nor 16.Kb1 are fully adequate.

16.Nbxd4 cxd4 

16...Bxd4 17.Nxd4 cxd4 18.Bd3 gives White equality and long-term prospects of winning the isolated d-pawn in the endgame.

17.Bd3 

Black to move

It is clear that my position is worse. My king is vulnerable to attacks along the c-file as well as the diagonals that begin at b1 and c1.

17...f5?

Now that the game is over, I can feel compassion for Patrick for throwing the game away with this move.

17...Re8 18.Rhe1 Bb7 19.Qd2 Qc7 20.Kb1 should retain the advantage for Black and keep me suffering for my early missteps.

18.exf5

Now I have a clear advantage

18...Bb7

18...gxf5 19.Bxf5 Bxc4 could have been effective if not for the response being check. 20.Qxc4+ Kh8 and White is clearly better.

19.fxg6+- h5

19...hxg6 20.Bxg6

20.Be4 Rb8

20...Bxe4 21.Qxe4 Qd6 (21...Qc7 22.b3 Rae8 23.Qd3)

21.Rhe1

My game has become comfortable and my moves easy.

21...Bc8

My opponent keeps finding ways to help me.

22.Bd5+ Kh8 23.Ne5 

I considered 23.Nxd4 Qf6 24.f3

Black to move

23...Bxe5

23...Bf5 was Black's last chance to stay in the battle 24.Be4 Bxe5 (24...Bxe4 25.Qxe4) 25.Bxf5 Bg7

24.Rxe5 Qf6 

24...Kg7 was forced, but Black is lost anyway.

25.Rxh5+ 1–0

Playing anything less than the best moves, no matter who I'm playing against, is a behavior that must be exorcised if I am to make progress back into A Class and up. I won last night because my opponent played worse, not because I played well. I cannot blame the London System, but can blame the way I handled it with move order errors, ambition (the premature e4 push), tactical oversights, and shallow positional thinking.

Empty Promises

Year in Review

2016 was a rough year that dropped my USCF standard rating to 2009 levels. In 2007, my rating climbed over 1700 for the first time, albeit briefly. In 2008, it appeared that I would keep it over 1700, but then in the first event of 2009, it fell again to 1698. Then, five months later, I hit 1800! My rating continued to rise, reaching a peak of 1982 in mid-2012. After that height, it was up and down, but mostly slowly dropping. I fell under 1900 a couple of times, but then brought it back up through 2014. In 2015, it fell to 1847, but then I won a weekend Swiss and it popped back up to 1902 (see "Winning an Open"). The last event in 2015 end every event in 2016, except the last, dropped my rating further. In October, I fell to a six year low of 1750.

Later in October, my play seemed better. I won a quick event at the Spokane Chess Club four days after winning an online USCF rated tournament (see "Winning"). Then, in November, I placed second in the Spokane Game 10 and won my section of the Turkey Quads 3-0, lifting my rating to 1791. I have become a B Class player, but the year seems to end on a positive note.

In late December, I managed to lift my Chess.com tactics trainer rating over 2000 for the first time since the early years of the site when such ratings seemed grossly inflated (I have a peak of 2400).

Resolutions

Chess Skills has documented many New Year's Resolutions aimed at chess improvement. None were kept all year, although several lasted into the summer. 2013 was a particularly ambitions year (see "A Time for Reflection"). My goal was to make expert (USCF 2000+), but the resolutions were training oriented. Well into the summer, I posted monthly spread sheets showing my tactics training progress with the accompanying narrative assessing the other goals--whole games, pawn endings, and weight loss. I admitted failure in November.

My resolutions each year since then have been less ambitious, and yet remained unfulfilled (see "Year in Review 2015").

A Fool's Errand

With such a fabulous track record, my resolution for 2017 should be to avoid setting any goals. Stubbornness gets in the way, however. I want to set a goal.

My attitude changed a bit after my abysmal performance in the Eastern Washington Open. I started making time for study again. The main behavioral change was that I started using Chess Mentor and the videos on Chess.com with some regularity. These resources are the reason that I pay for Diamond level membership. It would make sense to set some goal regarding regular use of these resources. For example, I might set out to complete a certain number of lessons each week, or watch a particular series of videos each month.

I need to focus on thinking. I need to look at the position in front of me when I am playing, slow down, and calculate. Tactics training can help. So, can chess mentor.

But, I need a resolution that I can keep.

In 2017, I will set up a chess board on my dining room table and play through games from a printed book. I will perform this task at least once each week.

I make no promises to myself to complete any particular book, but I do plan to make use of several in a manner that balances classic games with contemporary. Hence, I will read portions of Tartakower and DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1952) as well as the latest issue of Chess Informant.

Winning

I won two USCF rated tournaments this week!

On Monday, I won a USCF online blitz rated game 10 on Chess.com. After winning two of the first three of such events that I entered earlier this year, I suffered poor results. Only once did I play well enough to raise my rating. But, this week, I played differently. Instead of playing super fast as is my usual pattern, I expended lots of time in the late opening and middlegame. Frequently, I found myself in serious time pressure near the end of the game, but usually with a very good position. Expending the time to calculate when I think I understand the position has been a focus in my training lately. My subpar performance through my last five weekend tournaments--dropping my rating more than 150 Elo--finally grabbed my attention and forced changes in my approach to chess.

After taking care of business against lower rated players in the first two rounds, I faced a strong opponent in the third.

Black to move

With the Black pieces, I spent 38 seconds in this position deciding that it was safe enough to castle queenside.

14...Qxe3 15.Bxe3 seemed to invite suffering.
14...O-O 15.Qxd4 exd4 looked to me like a losing proposition. Hanging on to the isolated pawn seemed futile.

14...O-O-O! 15.Bc2 Kb8 16.f3 Be6 17.Rd1

Black to move

Again, I spent nearly half a minute considering two possibilities.

17...Qxe3+

The alternative, which I seriously considered, was 17...Qxd1+ 18.Bxd1 Rxd1+ 19.Kf2 Rc8 20.Ke2

18.Bxe3 Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 b6

This move was played after eleven seconds and had been part of my consideration in the twenty-one seconds spent on the previous move. During this time, I decided that I would fight to maintain a position with good chances for equality and let my opponent decide whether to press for a win and endure the risk for doing so.

20.a3 Rc8 21.Bd3 Bc4

White to move

My plan was to swap bishops and rooks and go into an ending of knight versus bishop, thinking that my knight was possibly slightly better. My opponent opted to keep more pieces on the board, but this let my pieces become more active. Eventually, a few errors by White allowed me to win the pawns on the queenside. When I finally got my knight versus bishop ending, I was ahead a pawn. When we exchanged these two pieces, I had an elementary winning pawn ending.

In round four, my opponent stepped into an elementary tactic.

White to move

15.Rxd5 cxd5 16.Bb5 1-0

Trying a somewhat new (to me) idea in the French Defense, exchange variation in the last round, I missed a thematic move that I routinely play in similar circumstances and had to fight for a draw. After we had repeated the position three times, the game was drawn on move nineteen.

Black to move

I played 5...dxc4, conceding the initiative. 5...Bb4+ is the correct move.

With 4.5/5, I won clear first.

Last night, I played in a rapid event at the Spokane Chess Club. In the first round, my use of the Dutch Defense against the English Opening led to an interesting game. I secured the initiative and won a pawn. As a result of my opponent's counterplay, we reached a rook ending where I was a pawn ahead, but his pawn structure was better and his rook more active. I initiated some exchanges to activate my rook, but reached a position that was probably objectively drawn. Luckily, my opponent blundered in a way that allowed me to remove his last queening threat and exchange rooks ito an easily winning pawn ending.

In round two, I played John Frostad, who beat me and everyone else this summer to win the Spokane Contenders (see "Ne2?"). After he equalized too easily against my Catalan, he lost his way in the middlegame. with a time control of 15 +3, he spent more that six minutes on this horrid position.

Black to move

Playing the same position against Stockfish this morning, I faced the same moves that John played after his long think. Again, I had trouble finding my way in a superior position. Stockfish, however, did not have the time trouble that John faced last night. I went on to win against John. This morning, I beat Stockfish also, but not on my first attempt. I required several draws and at least one loss before I found my way against the Silicon monster.

I do not always record my games in rapid chess, and so lack a record of last night's games beyond my memory of a few key positions.

In round four, I was way ahead on the clock after my opponent squandered a clear advantage. I returned the favor, but he had four seconds plus the three second delay to my five minutes as he tried to hold this drawn position.

White to move

Perhaps a gentleman would have offered a draw in such a position, but I am no gentleman in rapid chess. My opponent flagged after many moves where I kept giving him opportunities to err.

In the last round, I played Pat Herbers, who has returned to active play after nearly a decade of inactivity. As he had drawn another opponent earlier, I could win the event with a draw. Mentioning this fact before the game, Pat recalled a story from the mid-1970s when he beat a young Yasser Seirawan in a tournament in Seattle. Pat was Spokane's top junior player in the 1960s and nearly reached master when living in Seattle a few decades ago.

I played a thematic d4-d5 push on instinct. As we both slowed our play to consider the tactical ramification, Pat found the refutation and I was down a pawn. His subsequent errors in a clearly superior ending, however, let us reach this position.

White to move

I opted to exchange my h-pawn for his f-pawn. Although my king was never able to leave g2 and h2, the existence of a passed pawn of my own kept his king from waltzing over to the queenside.

I offered a draw in this position.

Black to move

Pat accepted the draw offer and settled for a share of second place.

Don't Look Too Close

Blitz chess reveals a player's skill. It reveals intuition, judgement, and pattern recognition. Sometimes, it shows endgame strength or the ability to perform elementary checkmates in under ten seconds.

My strength is evident by my rating, which put me briefly on the USCF list of the top one hundred players older than 50 (see "Top 100"). My chess.com blitz rating, which is based on vastly more games, tells another story. It is volatile because my skill rises and falls day-by-day and hour-by-hour. Sometimes I play well when I squeeze in a game or two between other activities. Sometimes my play is horrid, especially during an addictive binge.

The Past Ninety Days

My ability to play well during a winning streak cultivates self-confidence. It reveals that I am a strong player as long as the games are not examined too closely.

This morning, I prevailed with the White pieces against a Sicilian Taimanov. We castled on opposite wings and both threw our pawns at the other's king, just as Alexander Kotov recommends in The Art of the Middle Game (1964). With a clear attack, I shed a bishop with nary a worry, Then, I blew it. An error in calculation gave my opponent a clear win.

White to move

After 21...Qb7

White's space advantage should lead to victory, However, Black might get some play on the a-file if White dallies.

The game continued:

22.g6 fxg6

Black's prospects improve after 22...e5, but White still has the edge.

23.hxg6 hxg6

I was prepared to meet 23...h6? with 24.Rxh6.

24.Bc4 d5 25.Qh2! dxc4 26.Qh7+ Kf7

White to move

27.Nxc4

This defensive move was unnecessary.

27.Rh6! Bf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Bxf6+ gxf6 30.Rd1 and White wins.

27...Bf6 28.Bxf6 Kxf6 29.e5+

29.Rcg1 is better.

29...Ke7 30.Qxg6??

It should not have required more than a few seconds to calculate 30.Qh4+ Kf7 31.Qf4+ Ke7 32.Nd6 Rdc8 33.Qg5+ Nf6 34.Nxb7.

30...Bb5 31,Qg5+ Kf7 32.Rhg1??

Black to move

32...Bxc4?

32...Kg8 and is is White's turn to defend. With best play, Black will prevail.

33.Rxc4= Qd5 34.Rf4+ Kg8 35.Qe7

Black to move

35...Rd7??

35...Qd3+ 36.Ka1 Qc3+ and Black forces a draw by repetition.

36.Rf8+ Kh7 37.Rh1+

37.Qh4#

37...Kg6 38.Rg1+ Kh7 39.Qh4#.

In the end, I could not even coordinate my queen and rooks with enough precision to demonstrate skill. It might be time to give up blitz after such a performance. On the other hand, blitz is fun. I also managed to play two games in a row with the Taimanov Sicilian, winning first with Black, then with White. Even though the games do not bear scrutiny, the experience could prove useful should I play the Taimanov in a tournament game.

Haste Makes Waste

During an online USCF rated blitz tournament* last night, I reached an instructive endgame position. With more than five minutes left on the clock in the game/10 battle, I could have spent a minute or more working out the correct manner of play. Instead, I moved instantly (Chess.com measured my move time as 0.5 seconds**) and I had to settle for a draw.

White to move

52.Rh6!

My move is the most accurate, although 52.Kh4 was also winning.

52...Re8 53.Rh7??

The half-second blunder.

How long does it take to notice that 53.Rxh5+ forces the king to move and allows 54.Rh7?

The point, which I could have worked out in half a minute, is that after 53.Rxh5+ Kd6 54.Rh7 Rxe7 55.Rxe7 Kxe7, White has a position with a single winning move. Moreover, I know this position well, having created a position almost identical for my Beginning Tactics exercises, which I am developing into a Kindle Book. In my exercise, White's pieces are down one square and the Black king is on e5.

White to move

56.Kg4! is the only move as it outflanks the enemy king. After 56...Kf6 57.Kf4 seizes the opposition, preparing for another outflanking maneuver further up the board.

The game continued:

53...Kd6 54.Kh4 Rxe7 55.Rxe7 Kxe7 56.Kxh5 Kf6 with a dead draw.

Of course, in such positions with limited time on the clock, it is possible to go wrong. We played another fifty moves as I offered my opponent the opportunity to err. He refused, playing precisely. Eventually, the game was drawn by repetition.


*Chess.com began hosting USCF online rated tournament in March 2015. I joined the group shortly after it formed, but did not play until two weeks ago. Last night was my third event. I won the event on tie-breaks over my opponent in this game. We both finished with 4.5/5.

**A nice feature of Chess.com that puts it ahead of sites such as LiChess.org is the recording of move times. Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) also records move times.

Swiss Tournament Tie-Breaks

It is relatively easy to split a sum of money equitably between two or more recipients. However, cutting a trophy into halves or thirds only makes a mess. Consequently, chess tournaments use tie-breaks to determine the relative standings of chess players who finish with the same scores.

The Swiss System method for running chess tournaments accommodates a large number of competitors. It was first used in Zurich, Switzerland in 1895, where it was developed by Julius Müller, a founding member of the Swiss Chess Federation (see Edward Winter, Chess Notes 4118, 20 January 2006). Random pairings were used among winners and losers when first used, but the system has developed more sophistication since its first use.

Swiss System tournaments are non-elimination. The basic rules* are simple:

1) No one plays the same opponent twice.
2) In each round, players are paired as nearly as possible against others with the same score.
3) Each player should have approximately the same number of Blacks and Whites.

At the end of an event with a number of players that does not exceed 2 to the power of the number of rounds, there will be no more than one perfect score. It often happens, however, that there is no perfect score. Instead, a group is clustered at the top with one-half or one point below perfect. In such case, who wins first place? Tie-breaks are used to make this determination. Tie-breaks also sort players below first place for additional prizes.

Tie-breaks attempt to determine the first among equals by measuring the quality of each player's opponents. There are several methods for making this determination. Usually more than one is used by tournament directors. Below I describe tie-break methods and display how each sorts the participants in one particular tournament. As will be seen, different methods lead to different results.

In this event, three players shared first place, Lucas, Ernest, and Henry. Each of these three won four games and lost one. Each one's only loss was to another of the three. Lucas beat Ernest, the top rated player, but lost to Henry. Henry lost to Ernest.

Henry might prefer Cumulative, as that puts him on top. Lucas comes out on top with Average Opposition. Ernest prevails via Opposition Performance, Opposition Cumulative, and Solkoff.

U.S. Chess Federation rules prefer a system that employs Modified Median, Solkoff, Cumulative, and Opposition Cumulative in that order. In Washington State scholastic events, the standard tie-break system employed is Solkoff, Cumulative, and Opposition Cumulative.

Average Opposition

Average opposition employs the mean of the opponent's pre-tournament ratings. This system will tend to favor the higher rated player, but that did not occur in our sample tournament.

Standings. Average Opposition

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[A]
1	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W5	W2	L3	W4	4.0	1128
2	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L1	W6	W3	4.0	1123
3	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W8	W1	L2	4.0	1076
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W7	L2	W11	W8	L1	3.0	1016
5	David Duncan	unr.	W9	L1	L6	W14	W10	3.0	950.5
6	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W5	L2	W7	3.0	888
7	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W9	L6	3.0	761
8	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L3	L4	W14	3.0	732.5
9	Shaun Alexander	934	L5	W12	W10	L7	W15	3.0	645.5
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W6	L3	L9	W11	L5	2.0	1022.5
11	Robert Frost	793	L2	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	931
12	E Dickinson	432	L1	L9	B---	W13	L11	2.0	824.5
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L8	L7	L12	B---	1.5	553
14	Rodney Serling	588	L3	L11	W15	L5	L8	1.0	900.5
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L8	L6	L14	B---	L9	1.0	805

Average Opposition Performance

Rather than using pre-tournament ratings, opposition performance employs performance ratings. Performance rating is determined by opponent's rating + 400 for a win, opponent's rating - 400 for a loss, and opponent's rating for a draw.

Standings. Opposition Performance

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[P]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L2	W5	W3	4.0	1194
2	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W6	W1	L3	W4	4.0	1182
3	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W7	W2	L1	4.0	1101
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W9	L1	W11	W7	L2	3.0	1116.5
5	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W6	L1	W9	3.0	941
6	David Duncan	unr.	W8	L2	L5	W14	W10	3.0	934
7	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L3	L4	W14	3.0	766.5
8	Shaun Alexander	934	L6	W12	W10	L9	W15	3.0	744.5
9	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W8	L5	3.0	737
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W5	L3	L8	W11	L6	2.0	1014
11	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	976.5
12	E Dickinson	432	L2	L8	B---	W13	L11	2.0	807
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L7	L9	L12	B---	1.5	743
14	Rodney Serling	588	L3	L11	W15	L6	L7	1.0	944
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L7	L5	L14	B---	L8	1.0	783

Cumulative

Cumulative sums the scores round by round. A player losing in early rounds will face weaker opponents than one winning in early rounds.

Standings. Cumulative

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[C]
1	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W5	W2	L3	4.0	14
2	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W9	W3	L1	W4	4.0	13
3	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L2	W7	W1	4.0	12
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W8	L3	W11	W5	L2	3.0	10
5	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L1	L4	W14	3.0	10
6	Shaun Alexander	934	L9	W12	W10	L8	W15	3.0	8
7	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W9	L3	W8	3.0	8
8	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W6	L7	3.0	8
9	David Duncan	unr.	W6	L2	L7	W14	W10	3.0	8
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W7	L1	L6	W11	L9	2.0	7
11	Robert Frost	793	L3	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	5
12	E Dickinson	432	L2	L6	B---	W13	L11	2.0	4
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L5	L8	L12	B---	1.5	2
14	Rodney Serling	588	L1	L11	W15	L9	L5	1.0	3
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L5	L7	L14	B---	L6	1.0	1

Opposition Cumulative

Opposition cumulative sums the cumulative scores of each player's opponents.

Standings. Opposition Cumulative

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[O]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L2	W6	W3	4.0	50
2	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W5	W1	L3	W4	4.0	48
3	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W7	W2	L1	4.0	45
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W8	L1	W11	W7	L2	3.0	48
5	David Duncan	unr.	W9	L2	L6	W14	W10	3.0	39
6	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W5	L1	W8	3.0	36
7	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L3	L4	W14	3.0	30.5
8	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W9	L6	3.0	28.5
9	Shaun Alexander	934	L5	W12	W10	L8	W15	3.0	28
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W6	L3	L9	W11	L5	2.0	43
11	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	36
12	E Dickinson	432	L2	L9	B---	W13	L11	2.0	28.5
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L7	L8	L12	B---	1.5	22
14	Rodney Serling	588	L3	L11	W15	L5	L7	1.0	38
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L7	L6	L14	B---	L9	1.0	29

Head-to-Head

When two tied players have played each other, the winner of their game wins head-to-head. If they drew, however, or if more than two share the same score, head-to-head is useless. The scores below give each player 100, then subtract 1 for each loss to another player with the same score. As can be seen, it was effective for determining last place.

Standings. Head-to-Head

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[H]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L3	W5	W2	4.0	99
2	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W6	W3	L1	4.0	99
3	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W7	W1	L2	W4	4.0	99
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W9	L1	W11	W6	L3	3.0	100
5	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W7	L1	W9	3.0	100
6	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L2	L4	W14	3.0	99
7	David Duncan	unr.	W8	L3	L5	W14	W10	3.0	99
8	Shaun Alexander	934	L7	W12	W10	L9	W15	3.0	98
9	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W8	L5	3.0	98
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W5	L2	L8	W11	L7	2.0	100
11	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	99
12	E Dickinson	432	L3	L8	B---	W13	L11	2.0	99
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L6	L9	L12	B---	1.5	100
14	Rodney Serling	588	L2	L11	W15	L7	L6	1.0	100
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L6	L5	L14	B---	L8	1.0	99

Kashdan

The Kashdan system rewards aggressive play by awarding 4 points for a win, 2 points for a draw, 1 point for a loss, and 0 for an unplayed game.

Standings. Kashdan

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[K]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W10	W4	L3	W6	W2	4.0	17
2	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W11	W7	W3	L1	4.0	17
3	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W8	W1	L2	W4	4.0	17
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W9	L1	W10	W7	L3	3.0	14
5	Shaun Alexander	934	L8	W12	W11	L9	W15	3.0	14
6	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L11	W15	W8	L1	W9	3.0	14
7	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L2	L4	W14	3.0	14
8	David Duncan	unr.	W5	L3	L6	W14	W11	3.0	14
9	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W5	L6	3.0	10
10	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L11	W12	2.0	11
11	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W6	L2	L5	W10	L8	2.0	11
12	E Dickinson	432	L3	L5	B---	W13	L10	2.0	7
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L7	L9	L12	B---	1.5	3
14	Rodney Serling	588	L2	L10	W15	L8	L7	1.0	8
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L7	L6	L14	B---	L5	1.0	4

Median

The Median system sums the final scores of each player's opponents, discarding the highest and lowest. This system is also known as the Harkness system for its inventor, Kenneth Harkness.

Standings. Median

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[B]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L2	W6	W3	4.0	10
2	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W5	W1	L3	W4	4.0	10
3	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W9	W2	L1	4.0	9
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W7	L1	W11	W9	L2	3.0	9.5
5	David Duncan	unr.	W8	L2	L6	W14	W10	3.0	8
6	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W5	L1	W7	3.0	7.5
7	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W8	L6	3.0	7
8	Shaun Alexander	934	L5	W12	W10	L7	W15	3.0	6
9	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L3	L4	W14	3.0	5
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W6	L3	L8	W11	L5	2.0	9
11	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	6.5
12	E Dickinson	432	L2	L8	B---	W13	L11	2.0	6
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L9	L7	L12	B---	1.5	4
14	Rodney Serling	588	L3	L11	W15	L5	L9	1.0	8
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L9	L6	L14	B---	L8	1.0	7

Modified Median

Modified median treats players with even scores (i.e. 2.5 in a five-round event) the same as the Median. Players with plus scores discard only the lowest scoring opponent's score. Players with minus scores discard the highest scoring opponent's score.

Standings. Modified Median

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[M]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L2	W6	W3	4.0	14
2	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W5	W1	L3	W4	4.0	14
3	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W9	W2	L1	4.0	13
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W7	L1	W11	W9	L2	3.0	13.5
5	David Duncan	unr.	W8	L2	L6	W14	W10	3.0	12
6	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W5	L1	W7	3.0	11.5
7	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W8	L6	3.0	10
8	Shaun Alexander	934	L5	W12	W10	L7	W15	3.0	9
9	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L3	L4	W14	3.0	9
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W6	L3	L8	W11	L5	2.0	11
11	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	7.5
12	E Dickinson	432	L2	L8	B---	W13	L11	2.0	6
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L9	L7	L12	B---	1.5	4
14	Rodney Serling	588	L3	L11	W15	L5	L9	1.0	8.5
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L9	L6	L14	B---	L8	1.0	7

Solkoff

The Solkoff tie-break method sums the final scores of the opponents. No scores are discarded.

Standings. Solkoff

#	Name	Rtng	Rd 1	Rd 2	Rd 3	Rd 4	Rd 5	Tot	TBrk[S]
1	Ernest Thayer	1643	W11	W4	L2	W6	W3	4.0	16
2	Lucas Beauchamp	1418	W12	W5	W1	L3	W4	4.0	15.5
3	Henry Bird	1448	W14	W10	W9	W2	L1	4.0	14
4	Flannery O'Connor	1069	W7	L1	W11	W9	L2	3.0	15.5
5	David Duncan	unr.	W8	L2	L6	W14	W10	3.0	13
6	Gilbert Chesterton	889	L10	W15	W5	L1	W7	3.0	12
7	Robert Zimmerman	419	L4	B---	W13	W8	L6	3.0	10
8	Shaun Alexander	934	L5	W12	W10	L7	W15	3.0	9.5
9	Joanne Rowling	809	W15	W13	L3	L4	W14	3.0	9.5
10	Charles B. Brown	unr.	W6	L3	L8	W11	L5	2.0	15
11	Robert Frost	793	L1	W14	L4	L10	W12	2.0	11.5
12	E Dickinson	432	L2	L8	B---	W13	L11	2.0	10
13	Carl Sandburg	unr.	H---	L9	L7	L12	B---	1.5	7
14	Rodney Serling	588	L3	L11	W15	L5	L9	1.0	12.5
15	Stephane Mallarme	unr.	L9	L6	L14	B---	L8	1.0	10

*The United States Chess Federation Official Rules of Chess, 6th ed (2014) list these three as priorities 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Number 3 is upper half versus lower half. The USCF rules also list a 5th priority: alternating colors.