One Month of Puzzles

My training has rarely been consistent. Much of the time, it is not even training. I enjoy playing chess and enjoy studying it, too. Sometimes I set goals. Most of the time I achieve these goals.

Ten years ago, I began to abandon one of the few that I failed to achieve: a USCF rating above 2000. I had peaked at 1982 in 2012. In 2013, I recorded a series of training logs here on Chess Skills. In February 2014 and again in August, I fell below 1900. I rose back above that mark once more in August 2015 when I won a weekend Swiss for the first time (see “Winning an Open”). My most recent first place finish in a weekend Swiss was in 2023 (see “Misevaluation”). In that event, I was playing for the enjoyment of the game. Over the previous months, regular puzzles had been a habit and contributed to my enjoyment of the game during the tournament.

My USCF rating graph

Although my ambitions to cross 2000 USCF have dissipated, improving my knowledge and skills has continued. The goals are small and training related. I seek small achievements, such as getting my online rapid rating above 1800, playing through every game in a single issue of Chess Informant, memorizing a batch of classic games, or reaching the next century mark in puzzles.

I enjoy learning. The process of gaining knowledge or microskills* is often its own reward.

Nearly a month ago, I publicized a rating goal with chessdotcom puzzles. Dean Arond questioned the benefits: “but does it translate to your USCF rating?” The next four days saw my puzzles rating fall 200 points, but then some consistency brought it back up and I crossed 3100 on 9 June. Posting a link to Chess Skills, where I marked the achievement, provoked more skepticism and an informative discussion with Jon Jacobs. He offered a link to a 2008 blog post where his critical comment led to considerable discussion concerning the merits of following the tactics training regimen advocated by Michael de la Maza. There is a lot to process at that link and I appreciate the perspective that Jacobs offers.

The past month, since 18 May, I have attempted a minimum of ten rated puzzles every morning. During the solving, I have addressed a specific weakness that affects my playing performance, as well as my habits while solving tactics. I often see an idea and play it instantly or after superficial calculation. During my puzzle solving the past month, I have focused on accuracy. If I suspect a checkmate is present, I work it out to the end, laboring to find all manner of resistance.

Progress has been up and down. My tactics rating today (3027) is lower than it was on 18 May (3038). Nonetheless, I reached new highest ever ratings half a dozen times or more with a current peak four days ago at 3143. More important than rating level is the increase in my percentage of success. My puzzle accuracy (percentage solved correctly) over the life of the site (more than 15,000 puzzles) increased from 53% to 54%. In the past month, I have exceeded 70% accuracy during 16 sessions.

There have been three sessions where accuracy was below 50% and these were the longest sessions. Often I enjoy the process of solving puzzles, but experienced frustration on those days. Plans to solve daily seemed more of a burden on those days.

More than likely, I will not continue a daily regimen ten or more puzzles on chessdotcom much longer. There are other avenues for tactics, and other forms of productive learning. For instance, a book, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963) by P. H. Clarke, has been on the side table in my living room since January. I've gone through the first 23 games.

*I use this term for specific skills that are part of my teaching curriculum, such as specific pawn endings that I want my students to master, the Lucena and Philidor rook endings, or the not yet achieved queen vs. rook ending I plan to work on more in the near future. I expect to play against the computer every rook endgame in Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, new edition (2015). This practical book study is an example of microskill development.

Binges

Chess is a drug. Joseph Blackburne called it, "mental alcohol". In moderation, the game can enrich a balanced life. A well-played game offers pleasure not only during and immediately after play, but often for many years.

For long-term pleasure, for example, there is my fifth round game that led to second place in the 2012 Collyer Memorial. I was playing not to lose. My opponent took the game down a path where a draw was extremely unlikely. We both thought I was worse, but I soldiered on, playing strong moves to keep myself in the fight. Then, after spending substantial time calculating some endgame possibilities, I discovered that I had the better game (see “Pawn Wars”). This ending has become a staple in my teaching and still challenges me while examining a testing alternative that my opponent could have played. Had he played that move, my necessary response to maintain the advantage tests my calculation skills. A single error shifts the advantage to my opponent. Such is the pleasure of the game.

On the other hand, chess can become an obsession where winning is all that matters. To be pulled from the game may cause anxiety, attention impairment, headache, high blood pressure, insomnia, and other symptoms. Losing also provokes some of these symptoms. For instance, while writing this post, I had a morning where I managed to outplay an opponent 200 points higher rated, only to drop my rook unprovoked in a rook vs. bishop endgame. The likely win became a sudden loss. The very next game, I was a pawn down, but my rooks and queen were more active. Then I gave away my queen for nothing. My fury with myself suggested an elevation in blood pressure.

A chess playing binge followed and after more substandard play, I began to focus better and won a sequence of games. There was not much pleasure in the wins, but it was easier to stop playing.

Binges usually leave me tired, but so does tournament chess. Binges in search of redemption after poor play leaves me in a sour mood. My wife notices because I’m less fun to be near. Tournament chess leaves me with memories to cherish and games worthy of study.

Losing sometimes motivates me to play better, as it should. But losing can fuel obsession, and then substituting quantity for quality becomes a danger. When the play becomes a long session of just playing for wins, rather than enjoying the struggle, chess lacks the pleasure that is gained from solving problems against a difficult and talented opponent. One Friday, I was tired due to responsibilities in the first week with a new puppy. In such a state, I was playing chess online with little pleasure and much frustration. I was not well focused. It was the Friday before the Spokane Chess Club’s premier event. IM John Donaldson gave a lecture and simul that evening. I had pulled myself away from an online binge in a sour mood, but my disposition improved once I was among chess playing friends for Donaldson’s event.

During the weekend, I played in the tournament. Losing my first-round game to a much lower rated talented junior was not disheartening, even though it meant weaker opponents for the duration of the weekend and certain rating loss. The play, analysis, and camaraderie of a chess tournament lifts the spirits. My longest game was in the last round against an opponent from Tacoma. It was a battle. My play was far from perfect, but I enjoyed the struggle. Such contests are at the heart of chess’s appeal. Winning was quite satisfying, especially because of challenges my opponent threw in my way. The game lasted more than three hours and I spent another five or six analyzing the game in subsequent days.

Sometimes a string of losses is nothing but pain and obsession, especially when the first loss made clear that I am not prepared to play. For instance, I lost five of six games one night recently because I was playing late at night when I was too tired to continue my reading of Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Riders (1899). Moreover, I had consumed two or three glasses of Scotch. One glass never has a detrimental effect on my play. A second glass can go either way. The third should not be consumed prior to or during a chess playing session. If I recall correctly, that third glass came after some losses and after my wife retired for the evening. As the clock moved toward midnight, I was drinking Scotch without tasting it and playing chess without enjoyment.

It is better to practice moderation in chess, in drinking, and in combining the two.

Most often, my chess playing binges are in the middle of the day. I am awake, alert, and sober. Perhaps sobriety is open to question, however, because the behavior of playing one game after another without reflection is reminiscent of the way I drank beer in college, one after another until I could take no more. Then, quantity was the means to a goal: inebriation. I don’t live that way now.

The worst part of chess binges are my attitude. I regret the waste of time. I could have gone for a walk, done some chores, or read a book. I have unfinished writing projects that interest me. Frustration with my lack of self-control can lead to depression. Rating loss can provoke repetition of the behavior.

After a quarter century of online chess play, I’m coming to terms with binges as an element of my life. I am okay. Binges happen. Going forward, I will accept these moments of obsession as a by-product of my love for chess. 

When my chess obsession interferes with other aspects of life, it becomes a problem. Jenna Ostria has some useful tips for curbing this obsession. My health is my top priority. While accepting myself even when I binge, I also work to keep chess in balance with other areas of life. Each day I make time for chess, household responsibilities, and reading. My new puppy also demands attention! She also brings joy.

Blitz Woes

I have blitz binges. As the addict returns to his or her drug to escape life's stresses, I play blitz for hours on end. Losses drive me to play more, but I can sometimes quit after a win.

The past ten days or so, I have been highly motivated.

Chess as Sport

A professional chess player often spends up to seven hours of focused concentration on one game during a tournament, and then devotes several more hours towards preparation for the next day’s game. An amateur often plays three games on a Saturday, each game lasting as long as four hours. Such play can be physically exhausting, even though most of this time is spent sitting in a chair. Do the physical demands of chess competition make the game a sport?

Attitude

After losing my first two blitz games on a lazy Saturday morning, and then dropping a rook in the third, it would be easy to give in to despair.

Black to move

However, I have been reading Erik Kislik, Applying Logic in Chess (2018). Kislik distinguishes between "mastery-focused (task-based)" goals and "result-focused (ego-based). Result-focused players tend to want to defeat specific opponents and be seen by their peers as winners" (9). He asserts that 90% of chess players are result-focused. He also claims that a task-oriented approach leads to more enjoyment of chess.

Although this blog offers plenty of examples of a task-oriented approach in my study and play, the honest truth of my online blitz and much of my tournament play is that my ego and emotions rise when I win and suffer when I lose. I enjoy chess when I am winning and often play long periods of blitz because I am angry with myself for playing such junk. I nurture this anger with more junk.

I could beat myself up for missing the tactic that led to dropping a rook and likely losing a third game. Or, I could take a fresh look at the board, and see what I can learn about the game. I could resign with dignity, review my errors, and try to play better in game four.

My attitude this morning improved as I remembered what I read last week in Kislik's book, and I finished my morning playing session 2-2. But, the results matter less than the process.

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.

Attitude

Win with grace. Lose with dignity.
Susan Polgar

During morning coffee today, I reviewed three games on Chessgames.com, then played a single blitz game. When the blitz game began, I spoke my opponent's name, DarklordCOBRA, and then said, "this could be loss number 10,000." My wife can attest that I was calm and ready to accept defeat. She does not recall my tone of voice. Lack of recall is proof. Expressions of anger and despair do not go unnoticed. Last night, for example, after she went to bed, she called from the bedroom to ask, "what's wrong?" I was in the living room playing blitz on my iPad and had dropped a piece in an otherwise equal position, uttering some profanities.

Losses torment me. They bring out such fury that it seems that I hate the world and everyone in it. I yell such obscenities at the computer screen when losing online games that even the deaf dog heads outside for safety.

It need not be this way. It is possible to "lose with dignity", as Susan Polgar advocates. As a youth chess coach, I have spent years urging children to understand, "when you lose, you learn." In truth, however, I am a little half-hearted expressing this sentiment. I know that children hurt when they lose. A cliché offers minimal comfort at such times.

I have a more serious problem with the "win, draw, or learn" saying popular among other coaches. Often, victories should be subjected to the same scrutiny as losses. One of the students whom I coach one-on-one tied for first in his tournament last Saturday, winning his first trophy. During the tournament, he brought one of his game scores to my director's table and we analyzed the victory with his opponent. She missed at least two opportunities to checkmate him with a two move sequence. Although he finished at the top and she finished near the middle, the final standings could have been much different. It is very important to learn from one's mistakes in victories, as well as from defeats.

I recently won the Spokane Chess Club's Winter Championship. It would be easy to find comfort in my success, but it is more important to find humility. I had a lost position in four out of five games (see "Perseverance"). My success stemmed from a lot of help from my opponents who failed to put me away when they had the chance. However, I kept my own chances alive by never giving up. Throughout the course of the event, I tried to remain focused on having fun, finding the best moves, and learning. I found help from the prescriptions Paul Powell puts forth in The Fighting Dragon: How to Defeat the Yugoslav Attack (2016), which I reviewed recently.

I will explore new ideas and open my mind to new patterns. I will learn new patterns and become a stronger player.
Failure is not measured by wins and losses; failure is continuing to play without learning.
Paul Powell, The Fighting Dragon, 18.

When I play too much blitz, the quality of my play suffers. My attitude suffers also. The problem, however, stems less from the quantity than from the mindset. It may be possible to play for many hours and still cultivate a positive attitude. It is less likely when play is aimed at getting to that next rating goal (such as the rating I had yesterday).

Facing an opponent whose rating was higher than I have been in the past two weeks, I resolved to learn. I aimed to find strong moves and not get caught in the rut of playing without thinking. DarklordCOBRA essayed the Advance variation against my French. I commented, "I have played this over-the-board against a titled player and done well." Nonetheless, I went for the old main line instead of what I usually play. My opponent built up an advantage through the opening and early middlegame.

DarklordCOBRA (1946) -- Ziryab (1872) [C02]
Live Chess Chess.com, 24.02.2017

After 21.Bc3

Black to move

21...Qh4

I wanted to play 21...a5, but miscounted the number of pieces that I had supporting this push. It's kind of hard to count to two during a blitz game. After the game, I looked again at this idea, thinking White would reply 22.a3. Initially, in my postgame analysis, I did not see how 22...Qb6, intending b5-b4 fails to 23.Bxg7!

My move was an effort to play b5-b4, and shows also that I was instinctively aware of some vulnerabilities on the kingside. But, my queen was kicked around a bit.

22.g3 Qh5 23.Re1 Rfd8 24.Bd1 Qc5 25.Rc1 Qf5 26.Bc2 Qh3

My queen has a nice aggressive post, but my opponent is not going to give me time to put my bishop where my knight stands in order to support Qg2#.

White to move

27.Qg5

27.Re4 should prove decisive, as my queen is running out of safe squares.

27...g6 28.Re4 b4

I am losing my queen, but at least I can get a rook and bishop for it.

29.Rh4 Qxh4 30.Qxh4 bxc3 31.bxc3

White has a decisive advantage, but also has only sixteen seconds. I have thirty.

Black to move

31...Ne5 32.Qf6 Ng4 33.Qf4 f5 34.h3 Nf6 35.Bb3 Nd5

After the game, I thought I should have played 35...Kf7. Even here, Black is busted.

36.Qe5 Bc6

White to move

37.h4

With only nine seconds remaining, my opponent came up with a plan that seems to lead to checkmate.

37.Qxe6+ Kg7 38.Bxd5 Bxd5 39.Qxd5+- ends matters more quickly.

37...Nxc3 38.h5

My opponent should have found 38.Bxe6+ Kf8 39.Qf6+ Ke8 40.Qf7#

38...Bd5 39.h6 Ne2+

White to move

40.Qxe2??

40.Kh2 leaves Black with no checks, and only the possibility to delay checkmate. Black had five seconds in which to find Kh2.

40...Rxc1+

Now, for the first time in the game, Black has an advantage.

41.Bd1 Kf7 0–1

After the game, I went back through the battle looking for errors and opportunities. Mainly, I found my opponent's missed opportunities. Immediate postgame analysis of wins, losses, and draws with an aim to learning can help cultivate the correct attitude.

Perseverance

Mental discipline and hard work improves luck.
James Stripes

My success finally winning a club championship at the Spokane Chess Club included a lot of luck. I was strategically lost in the first round, but my opponent failed to find the correct plan (see "Fiddling with the London System"). In round two, play was balanced until I blundered. But, my opponent failed to calculate the winning combination and was then lost (see "Solve This"). In the third round, I secured a nice position out of the opening only to squander it in the middle game. However, my opponent got into such time trouble that he was unable to convert a rook ending with two connected passed pawns when I had only a rook. He lost one pawn and then let me force exchanges leading to lone kings.

I prepared extensively for my fourth round game against our city champion. I expected a long struggle, but there was one line that could give me a decisive advantage in the opening. He played that line (see "Home Preparation"). In the last round, I was thoroughly outplayed in the opening. That is something that rarely happens to me in the French Defense. My position slowly worsened, but I stubbornly labored to create counter-play while playing rapidly. At a critical point, my opponent missed a resource in my position. He had about three minutes on the clock to my thirty.

Karl Reutter (1853) -- James Stripes (1791) [A34]
SCC Winter Championship Spokane (5), 16.02.2017

1.e4 e6 2.c4

This is an interesting approach to the French Defense. I use it myself to transpose to the Exchange variation. For me, it is mostly a blitz strategy, but I used it a few months ago at the the Spokane Chess Club. See "Useful Knowledge".

2...c5

I usually play 2...d5 and it might have been a better choice as I'm familiar with the resulting positions, haviing played them over 500 times in online blitz and a few times over the board. It is the most popular move. However, the move that I played has a better score. I was aware of the statistics before the game. I let that knowledge guide me.

In the tournament that first lifted my rating into A Class, I played this game: 3.exd5 exd5 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Nc3 (5.Bb5+ Nbd7) 5...Nxd5 6.Qf3 c6 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 cxd5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Nf3 Bc5 12.0–0 0–0 13.d4 Bb6 14.Be3 Rac8 15.Rac1 Nb8 16.Rfd1 Rc6 17.Rxc6 Nxc6 18.Rc1 f6 19.Kf1 Kf7 ½–½ Mathews,D (1786) -- Stripes,J (1764), Spokane 2009.

3.Nc3 Nc6

I spent about eight minutes considering my move, and kept looking at and rejecting a move that I had forgotten I played in 2010. 3...d5? 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nxd5 (5.Bb5+; 5.exd5) 5...Nc6 6.Bb5 (6.Nf3) 6...Bd7? (6...Nf6) 7.Ne2 (7.Nf3) 7...a6 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.0–0 Bxd5 (9...Nf6) 10.exd5 Nf6 11.Nc3 (11.Re1) 11...Be7 12.Qf3 Qd7 (12...0–0) 13.Rd1 0–0 14.d4 c4 15.Bg5 Rad8 16.Rd2?= Nxd5 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.d5 Qf5 19.Qxf5 Nxf5 20.a4 Rfe8 21.Kf1 Nd6 22.a5 Kf8 23.Na4 Re5 24.Nb6 Nc8 25.Nxc4 Rexd5 26.Rxd5 Rxd5 27.Ke2 Rd4 28.Rc1 f6 29.Ke3 Rd7 30.Rc3 Ke7 31.g4 Rc7 32.h4 Nd6 33.Nxd6? Rxc3+ 34.bxc3 Kxd6 35.Kd4 Kc6 36.Kc4 b6! 37.axb6 Kxb6 38.Kd5 a5 39.Kd6? Kb5 40.Kd5 a4 41.c4+ Ka6!–+ 42.c5 (42.Kd4 Kb6 43.Kc3 Kc5 44.h5 g6 45.h6 f5 46.gxf5 gxf5 47.Kd3 a3) 42...a3 43.c6 a2 0–1 Julian,J (2023) -- Stripes,J (1862), Spokane 2010.

4.g3 Nge7

When I arrived home, I first entered the game in Hiarcs on the iPad. I was pleasantly surprised that its opening book prefers my move. Of course, its presence in Hiarcs' opening book means that it is a good line for the computer and I am not a computer.

4...Nf6 is the most popular move, and I considered it. It may be easier for the human player.

5.Bg2 Nd4 6.Nge2 Nec6 7.d3 g6N

White to move

I think that my novelty is unsound. I recall aiming for a set-up that I have used with success against the Grand Prix Attack in the Sicilian, but there are several differences in the position that I failed to appreciate.

7...d6 was a move that I thought about, but not seriously enough until a move or two later. 8.0–0 g6 9.a3 Bg7 10.Rb1 0–0 11.b4 a6 12.h3 Rb8 13.Be3 b5 14.bxc5 dxc5 Meijers,V (2496) -- Halkias,S (2579), Kavala 2008 and Black won in 32 moves.

8.0–0 Bg7

8...d6 transposes to Meijers -- Halkias above.

9.f4 h5!?

Harry the h-pawn starts his charge! At least I can blame Simon Williams and his video lectures on h-pawn attacks for my faulty strategy.

9...Nxe2+ 10.Qxe2 Bd4+ 11.Be3
9...d6 still is probably best.

10.e5

White's move ends my fantasies of using my dark-squared bishop to make trouble for White's king, cramps my center, and creates a nice outpost for White's knight.

10.h4 d6

10...h4

I considered 10...d6 and it is still best.

11.Ne4 d5?

11...hxg3 12.hxg3 Nf5 was probably better. Black's pawn belongs on d6.

12.cxd5 exd5

Now was the time for 12...Nxe2+ but White is clearly better in any case.

13.Nd6+ Kf8 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd5

15.g4 h3
15.Be3 Be6

Black to move

15...hxg3 16.hxg3 Qd7

I made this move and then went to the toilet, thinking that I could get a perpetual with Qh3-g3. While taking care of business, I realized that the bishop could block the check. Back to the board to find a new plan.

I do not recall considering 16...Nf5 17.Nxf5 Qxd5 when Black has a playable game.

17.Bg2

I expected 17.Nxf7 Rh5 18.Nd6 Qh3 19.Rf2
17.Bxf7 would be an error due to 17...Qh3–+

17...Nf5

17...Kg8

18.Nxf5 Qxf5

My pieces are awkwardly placed. White's greater mobility and superior coordination are far more significant than his extra pawn.

19.Be3+- Bd7 20.Bxc5+ Kg8 21.d4 Rc8 22.Rf2 b6 23.Bb4

Black to move

23...Bc6

23...g5 24.fxg5 Qxg5 25.Qf3 Qg6 (25...Qh6 26.Qxf7+ Kh7 27.Be4+ Qg6 28.Bxg6+ Kh6 29.Bd2#)

24.Bxc6 Rxc6 25.Bc3 Rh3 26.Qf3 Rc7 27.Kg2

Black to move

I considered resigning. I am two pawns down with no play. Even so, my opponent still has work to do, so I should do my best to create complications and make him do the work.

27...f6 28.Rh1 Rxh1 29.Kxh1 Qb1+ 30.Kg2 Bf8

30...Qxa2 31.f5 g5 32.Qa8+ Kh7

31.Qd5+ Kh8 32.Qd8 Rf7

32...Qe4+ 33.Kg1 Rf7

33.Re2 Qd3 34.Kf2 fxe5 35.Qh4+

35.Rxe5 Qc2+ 36.Re2 Qf5

35...Kg8

White to move

36.dxe5??

This blunder gave me the Spokane Chess Club's 2017 Winter Championship.

36.Rxe5+-

36...Bc5+

My opponent told me after the game that he missed this move. Perhaps it was easy to overlook this bishop's ability to come to life. It has been a sorry piece for most of the game.

37.Kf1-+

37.Ke1 Qb1+ 38.Kd2 Rd7+ 39.Bd4 Rxd4+ 40.Ke3 Rxf4+ 41.Kd2 Bb4+ 42.Ke3 Qe4#
37.Re3 Qxe3+ 38.Kg2-+

37...Rh7 38.Qg4 Rh1+ 39.Kg2 Qd5+ 0–1

The Fighting Dragon

A Book Review

The Fighting Dragon: How to Defeat the Yugoslav Attack (Boston: Mongoose Press, 2016) by Paul Powell is not a repertoire book. It does offer suggestions to meet White's normal lines of play against the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defense. Unlike repertoire books, however, it does not offer a large number of heavily analyzed lines of seemingly endless variations. The book consists of ten main chapters--the first nine each cover one particular variation, and number ten covers "odds and ends". The shorter second part offers quizzes, a series of positions to solve. Something more than half of these positions occur in games found in the ten chapters.

The Fighting Dragon offers 52 games, all of which end with victory for the player of the Black pieces. Despite this record, these games do not reveal that White's ideas against the Sicilian Dragon are refuted. Rather, both sides have chances until a fatal error by White. Black's play, too, could be improved upon in some of the games.

With one exception, all of the games are shorter than average. More than half are miniatures (25 moves or less). Thirty games conclude by move 25. Ten games are decided in 20 moves or fewer. Only one game lasts longer than 35 moves. Powell, who is a USCF Life Master, explains that he intends his focus on short games to cultivate "inspiration and pattern recognition instead of memorization as a critical element of [the reader's] opening study" (9). Short games reveal catastrophic errors. Learning to identify these errors develops the reader's understanding of tactical themes.

Although I am more likely to find myself on the White side of the Yugoslav Attack, this book has inspired me. Powell's prescriptions to avoid "the rut" have helped me maintain a somewhat healthier focus both in play and in study.

Let us consider the Dragon player who is stuck in a rut. He revels in showing you his favorite game from 2002 where he crushed a master in the main-line Dragon. Great result, but sadly for him he's been playing the exact same line for over a decade in the hopes that another strong player will fall down the same rabbit hole. (16)

Start thinking sooner, even after the first move, even while playing your pet lines, Powell urges. "Comfort turns into complacency," he notes (15). He lays out a plan for reading this book and profiting from it. Take several ideas from each chapter. Play them fearlessly--intending to learn whether winning or losing. Play them in blitz and in slow games. As the reader tries new ideas, some will fit better than others. Refine those.

In The Fighting Dragon, Powell offers light annotations, emphasizing verbal explanations of the core ideas more than alternate variations. After the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rb8, he notes, "The historical main-line Dragon finds the rook on c8 with pressure on the semi-open file. With ...Ra8-b8 instead, Black intends to use his b-pawn as a battering ram to open up White's castle" (120).

White to move

In his notes to the longest game in the book, Domínguez Pérez,L -- Carlsen,M, Linares 2009, he suggests, "If 10...Rb8 is worthy of being part of a world champion's repertoire, it should be one of the tools at your disposal too" (130). The skeptical reader might note that Magnus Carlsen was not yet world champion in 2009, but the point has merit.

The book uses figurine algebraic notation and prints the diagrams upside down--Black on bottom. This unorthodox printing of diagrams might bother some readers, but may comfort others. For some readers, it might have been helpful to have the coordinates included with the diagrams. These coordinates are missing in The Fighting Dragon.

The writing is mostly lively and interesting. Powell offers fresh metaphors ("One of the most difficult things in chess is deciding whether to paint your house or to go on vacation" [27]), but also weak and tired similes ("they avoid these lines like a zombie virus" [9]). The book reveals Powell as a person who would be entertaining during the social times at a chess tournament and who might say useful and memorable things during post-game analysis.

Chess players looking to start playing the Dragon will be well served reading this book. It facilitates quick grasp of the main ideas. A Dragon player who has studied a shelf full of repertoire books for years could still benefit from reading through this short book (183 pages) as much from the discussion of chess psychology as from the selection of entertaining games. Even players of other opening systems should consider Powell's approach to studying openings via tactical themes revealed through miniatures. The Fighting Dragon deserves some credit for cultivating habits of study that led to a nice win against our City Champion and his Queen's Indian Defense (see "Home Preparation"). After reading this book in December and early January, I began to apply some of its methodologies in my study of other openings.

I heartily endorse this book.

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.

Twelve Blitz Games

A few days ago, I bemoaned my rating woes--the constant, often futile quest to maintain an online blitz rating above 1900. At the same time, I highlighted the need for an attitude adjustment. Chess should be fun (see "Attitude"). Serious chess play means not worrying about rating, but approaching each game as an eager learner. In that post, I offered light, but extensive annotations to an entire game.

After more than a week, I rose back above 1900 last night. I cannot say that I have been free of rating-obsessed frantic blitz since Friday's post. However, self-consciousness of this counter-productive attitude has moderated it. Mostly, I've been trying to enjoy and learn from each game.

In this post, I offer brief highlights of the critical positions in my last twelve blitz games.

On the Black side of an exchange French, Black already has equality.

White to move

My opponent abandoned the game. Perhaps he or she has a life apart from chess.

I had Black again in the next game, This time, my opponent played the Steinitz variation against my French. Happily, I'm reasonably comfortable in the Steinitz after having gone through every single C11 game ever published in Chess Informant.* Alas, I had no better than an equal position.

White to move

31.a4?

Now I am winning. My opponent resigned one move from checkmate ten moves later.

I outplayed my opponent from the White side of a Queen's Gambit Declined. I had eleven seconds remaining in this position.

White to move

Either 70.Qb1 or 70.Qb7 will drive the king to a2 for 73.Qb2#. Instead, feeling the time pressure in a game I cannot lose, I played 70.Qc4? Stalemate.

In the next game, I dropped a pawn in the opening after my French Defense transposed into a Sicilian Alapin. I salvaged the game with a drawing combination.

Black to move

Instead of forcing the repetition and escaping with a draw, I played 18...Nf2? thinking that I had an attack. I lost.

I played a mainline of the Catalan that I usually avoid and found myself down a pawn. When my opponent advanced the extra pawn without adequate protection, I blockaded it and should have been equal.

White to move

I had planned 36.Kd2, but stumbled and played 36.Nb6?

The game continued 36...d2-+ 37.Rc7+ Ke8 38.Nd5

Here Black wins easily with 38...Rxd5 39.exd5 d1Q.

Instead, my opponent played 38...d1Q?

White can force a draw. 39.Nxf6+ Kf8 40.Nh7+ Kg8 41.Nf6+.

My opponent found a way out of the draw and lost.

41...Kh8? 42.Rh7#.

I had the White side of the Philidor Defense in the next game. I traded two minor pieces for a rook, but left my opponent's rook pinned for many moves before finishing the exchange. I was able to gobble a few pawns and should have been looking forward to a long endgame in which I might be better. However, my opponent blundered with 34...Nfd7?

White to move

After 35.Nc7+, my opponent resigned.

My next opponent turned the table quickly on my effort to play the Catalan in the next game and won a rook for a bishop. Queens came off and I netted a pawn, playing on with a bishop pair against a rook and bishop.

Black to move

My opponent went after my kingside pawns. 40...Rh3? 41.Bb6? (41.Be6+ wins the rook) 41...Rxg3?? 42.Be6+ Kb8 43.c7+ Kb7 44.c8Q#.

Another game went badly, and I was down a couple of pieces. However, my pieces found good coordination.

White to move

27.Rf2 probably leads to a draw by repetition, but my opponent played 27.Bf4? It took me  few seconds to see 27...Qg2#.

The next game also went badly and I was down a piece.

White to move

White needs to activate his king and the win should be in hand. Alas, technical wins require some time on the clock and my opponent had none. I won on time.

An insanely complicated game left me in an objectively lost position, but not without resources.

Black to move

My opponent probably wins easily after 43...Be4+, but there was nothing wrong with 43...Ra8. The game continued  44.Rxc7 Rxa4 45.Rd7 Rxc4 46.Rxd6 and here Black needs to step out of the pin with 46...Kg5. Instead, 46...Rd4? was played and after 47.c7, my opponent resigned.

I opted for the London System as White in the last game. Both sides had chances and made errors. We reached this position, which offered me a simple win.

White to move

The finish is instructive as well, as the errors continued.

63.Rg7+ Rxg7 64.fxg7 Kxg7 Kf2?

The king needs to head towards c5. After 65.Kd2 Kf7 66.Kc3 Ke7 67.Kb4 Ke6 68.Kc5 Kd7, white can fail with 69.e6+? Kxe6 70.Kxc6 Ke7 71.Kxd5 Kd7 and Black seizes the opposition to hold a draw. However, 69.Kb6! assures the win, as White will get both Black pawns.

65.Kg6 66.Ke3 Kf5 67.Kd3 Kf4?

67...c5! 68.dxc5 Kxe5 draws.

68.e6 and we played a few more moves, but White's queen makes my victory easy enough that further errors should be inconsequential.


*ECO Code is a trademark of Chess Informant.

Attitude

I will not worry about winning or losing rating points. I will only concern myself with learning from each game that I play.
Paul Powell, The Fighting Dragon: How to Defeat the Yugoslav Attack (2016), 18.

Before the end of the Seattle Seahawks historic loss to the Green Bay Packers last Sunday, I went online to play a few games of blitz. My play was angry and motivated by the desire to inflict misery upon my opponents. The Seahawks are my team and they suffered their worst loss in half a decade. I like the Packers, too. They are my second favorite team, but I don't like them thrashing my Seahawks.

A few of my angry chess games were successful victories, but others aggravated my misery facing the Seahawks' loss. I went back into the television room to watch the end of the slaughter. I tried turning the sound off, thinking the loss would be less painful without the voices of Troy Aikman and Joe Buck.*

After the football game, I frantically played chess late into the night. My rating suffered. Through the course of the week, I played game after game with more focus on getting my online blitz rating back above 1900 than on learning anything or even enjoying the game. From a rating in the mid-1900s before the Seahawks catastrophe, I managed to drop to the low 1800s several times before climbing back to the 1880s.

The Seattle Seahawks had another game Thursday night. A few terrific plays gave them the points they needed while the defense kept the Los Angeles Rams from scoring more than a field goal. The Seahawks clinched their third division title in the past four years!

I played about an hour of blitz after the game, but efforts to reach 1900 remained futile. I also spent some time reviewing a few of the week's games. Friday morning, I reviewed Thursday night's games and then played a few more.

When the last game began, I saw that my opponent was rated 2023 (my peak of 2005 was achieved last February). Some advice came to mind. Last weekend I started reading Paul Powell, The Fighting Dragon (see epigraph above). I said to myself, "okay, let's see what I can learn." My French Defense transposed quickly into a closed Sicilian, an opening that often gives me difficulty. I offer the game below with some light annotations.

Internet Opponent (2012) -- Stripes,J (1889) [B24]
Live Chess Chess.com, 16.12.2016

1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 

My database shows that I have been on the Black side of this position 28 times with eighteen losses and ten wins. The sole over the board game was played twenty years ago. I have played many moves here, most often Nge7 or Be7.

4...b6?!

A new move for me in the position. A better plan for Black is to play Rb8 and then b7-b5. I learned this idea while reviewing several games in the database. My intent with b7-b6 failed to take account of the idea to fight for queenside space and activity, but aimed to oppose White's light-squared bishop with my own. I was attentive to the potential for tactics that could threaten my bishop or rook along the a8-h1 diagonal. I addressed these possibilities through cumbersome means.

4...g6 is preferred by top players. I have played it once.

5.d3 Bb7 6.Nge2

6.f4 g6

6...Nge7 7.Nge2 d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.0–0 d4 and Black won in 34 moves Heimrath,R (2321) -- Chandler,P (2238), Schwaebisch Gmuend 2001.

7.Nf3 Bg7 8.0–0 Nge7 9.g4 h5 and Black won in 52 moves Seirawan,Y (2635) -- Kamsky,G (2686) playchess.com INT 2006.

6...a6

Preparing b6-b5.

6...h6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.h3 Bd6 9.Qd2 Rc8 and drawn in 33 moves Meitner,P -- Heral,J, Vienna 1873.

7.0–0 Qc7 

Protecting the bishop.

8.h3

8.Bf4 e5 9.Be3

8...Nge7 9.Be3 h5

I might castle queenside.

10.Qd2 g6 11.f4 Bg7 

I would like to post a bishop or knight on d4, although my opponent likely will not allow that. There is also a possibility of playing d5 with the support of a rook on d8. Such a thrust in the center is a normal way of meeting White's obvious plan to expand on the kingside.

White to move

12.e5 

My bishop is temporarily immobile. Even so, this move may reveal a faulty plan on White's part. He might consider preparing f4-f5. Here, perhaps, my ninth move may have served to slow his kingside expansion.

12...Nf5

I might like to exchange knight for bishop and then force an exchange of center pawns in order to open the position somewhat. On the other hand, maybe I should castle first.

13.Ne4 d5 

White's knight attacks two important squares.

14.exd6 Nxd6 15.Nxd6+ Qxd6 16.Nc3 Qc7 17.Rae1 0–0 

Was 17...O-O-O worth considering? I did think about it.

18.Kh2 Rad8 19.Ne4 Nd4 20.c3 Nf5 

Still after that bishop.

White to move

21.Bf2 

White's pawns are more mobile.

21...Bxe4

The queen needs a role other than defending a bishop. My strategic errors in the opening have given me a slightly worse position.

22.Bxe4 Nd6 23.Bg2 Qd7 

Intending Nc4.

24.Qe2 b5?

White to move

25.Rd1

White should have lopped off the c5 pawn.

25...Nf5 26.Be4 

The c5 pawn remains en prise.

26...Ne7 27.g4 hxg4 28.hxg4 Qc7 

Finally, I defend the c5 pawn. White has achieved an advantage in space on the kingside, rendering his pieces more mobile and offering more flexibility to probe for weaknesses. The bishop pair also could be put to use. White's rooks and queen have two ranks for maneuvering. Black is strategically lost, it seems to me.

29.Bg3 Qb6 

Obviously, I cannot allow f4-f5 to unleash a discovery on my queen. When I am losing many blitz games in sequence, it often stems from being oblivious to these simple threats. Sometimes single-minded focus on my own attack leads to such blindness. That is not the case here. My pieces are too poorly coordinated to generate threats.

30.Kg2 Nd5 31.Rh1 Bf6

Intending to play Kg7 and contest the h-file with my rooks.

32.g5 

White drives the bishop back. However, this move reduces White's flexibility for attacking with pawns, as did his 12th move.

32...Bg7

White to move

33.Bxd5?

Now, finally, I get some play on the d-file.

33...Rxd5 34.Qg4 Qc6 

Setting up a simple discovery. Two can play this game of checking the opponent's eyesight.

35.Kf2 b4 36.Qh4 Rfd8 

Otherwise 37.Qh7#. Of course, I want both rooks on the d-file anyway.

White to move

37.c4?

White practically concedes the game. White's advantage has dissipated since 33.Bxd5, and now Black gains a decisive advantage. 37.d4 seems much better, offering chances for both sides.

37...Rxd3 38.Rxd3 Rxd3 39.Re1 

At this point, I realized that the game had turned my way. We were both running low on time, however. In blitz, the clock often decides matters after a complex struggle.

Black to move

39...Qf3+ 40.Kg1 Qxg3+ 41.Qxg3 Rxg3+ 42.Kf2 Rd3 43.b3 Bd4+ 44.Ke2 Re3+ 45.Kd2 Rxe1 46.Kxe1 Bc3+ 

46...Be3 is obviously much better. Both players were down to fifteen seconds. I started moving much faster than my opponent with easier premoves. From here to the end of the game, I used less than five seconds, while my opponent used ten.

47.Ke2 Bd4 48.Kf3 Kg7 49.Ke4 Bb2 50.Kd3 Bd4 51.Kc2 f6 52.Kd3 fxg5 53.Ke4 gxf4 54.Kxf4 Kf6 55.Ke4 g5 56.Kf3 e5 57.Kg4 Kg6 58.Kf3 Kf5 59.Ke2 g4 0–1

Although played before 8:00 am, this blitz game was my last for the day.

*It is interesting that Seahawks fans and Packers fans have independently launched protests against these two broadcasters, accusing them of bias against their teams.

Converting the Advantage

The most difficult part of chess is to win a won game.
Wilhelm Steinitz*

I might have won my last round game in the Eastern Washington Open on Sunday, which would have given me an even score for the event. My game had been comfortable throughout and my position was never worse. My confidence was also strong.

Courtney,Caleb (1466) -- Stripes,James (1794) [C02]
Eastern Washington Open (5), 02.10.2016

Black to move

After 39.f4

I was certain that I was winning at this point in the game.

39...Rb1

Thinking the a-pawn would be easy to stop without a serious concessions, I chose to force the rooks off the board immediately.

39...Rb2 wins more easily. One possible line might be 40.Rf1 Rxa2 41.Rf2 Ra1+ 42.Rf1 Rxf1+ 43.Kxf1 d4 44.Ke2 Ke6 45.Kd2 Be4.

40.Rxb1 Bxb1 41.a4 Ke6 42.Kf2 Be4?

I also considered 42...Bf5 and  42...d4. Bf5 is no better than Be4, but 42...d4 is best, according to Stockfish. I imagined my bishop and pawn standing side-by-side on e4 and d4, barring entry of the White king into action. I did not look at the two pieces accomplishing the same standing on d3 and d4.

Earlier in the game, I felt that I had pushed my c-pawn too soon, rendering the win more difficult. Now, I was reluctant to push the d-pawn before preparation. Unfortunately, White's drawing chances are now very good.

43.g3?

My opponent thought this move was forced, but as long as the king remains on f2, it can be delayed. First, White needs to reduce the bishop's mobility by forcing it to remain on the long diagonal,

43.a5! d4 44.a6 h5 45.a7 Kf5 46.g3 g5=

43...h5?

Again, I considered 43...d4, which had been the only winning move.

44.Ke3 Bf5 45.Kd4 Bh3 46.a5 Bf1 47.h3

47.f5+ Kxf5 48.Kxd5 g5 49.e6 Kf6 50.Kd6 Bb5!

47...g6 48.g4?

48.Kc5 Bc4 49.Kb4 Be2=

Black to move

Now, thinking that I could very easily lose, I spend ten minutes on this position. I worked out pretty much the line that the game followed where both players promote on the same move, but also thought that I might still have some winning chances.

48...h4! 49.f5+

49.g5 creates problems for Black, but Ke7 leaves White practically in zugzwang.

49...gxf5 50.gxf5+ Kxf5 51.Kxd5 Bxh3 52.Kd6 

Black to move

52...Kf4??=

I played this move almost without hesitation. I felt that I had solved my problems and could secure the draw. Alas, I was still winning and could have easily invested half of my remaining sixteen minutes discovering how. White's problem in the race between his e-pawn and my h-pawn is that his king must also move.

After the game, we looked at 52...Bg2 53.e6 Kf6 54.Kd7 h3 55.e7

Analysis diagram after 55.e7

55...Bc6+! 56.Kxc6 Kxe7 57.a6 h2 58.a7 h1Q+ and Black wins.

Even better is 52...Bf1 53.e6 h3 54.e7 Bb5 55.a6 h2 56.a7 h1Q with an easy win.

Before playing 48...h4, I had examined 52...Kg6, and worked out that it was losing, missing that after 53.a6, 53...Bg2 kept the win in hand.

53.a6 Bg2 54.e6 h3 55.e7 h2 56.e8Q h1Q 57.Qe5+

My opponent offered a draw here, stating that he had a perpetual. I said that I did not disbelieve him, but wanted to see the proof.

57...Kg4 58.Qg7+ Kf3 59.Qf6+ Kg3 60.Qg5+ Kf2 61.Qd2+ Kg1 62.Qe1+ Bf1 63.Qg3+ ½–½

Even at the end, I thought I might play on 63...Qg2 64.Qxg2+ Bxg2 and let the game end when my bishop captures his last queen.

It was a disappointing tournament, as were all my others in 2016. Nonetheless, I enjoy learning from my errors in this game. Perhaps next time I play chess in a weekend Swiss, I will play with determination and creativity, finding every win that presents itself even after making depressing errors.

One more tournament like those that I played this year and I will be at my rating floor, down almost 300 from my peak in 2012.


*This quote and others that are similar have been attributed to several chess masters, most often Emanuel Lasker or Frank Marshall. Electronic searches of Lasker's Common Sense in Chess and Lasker's Manual of Chess fail to turn it up, however. Edward Winter, who continually labors to source such expressions, offered in A Chess Omnibus (2003) Adolph Albin, Schach-Aphorismen und Reminiscenzen (1899). Albin lists it among a sequence of chess aphorisms.

Then, in Chess Note 5349 (26 December 2007), Winter notes that the saying appears in Chess Player's Chronicle (13 December 1890), where it is attributed to Wilhelm Steinitz. Winter requests earlier attributions.