Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Chess World.net Instructive game: Reducing the bias of the love of risk taking! Part 3 of 3

Barnet holds League Champions Royston to a draw 2.5 - 2.5 !

Hutchinson vs. T.Gavriel, Board 3
Away at Royston

Part 1 of 3

Chess World.net Instructive game: Reducing the bias of the love of risk taking! Part 2 of 3

Barnet holds League Champions Royston to a draw 2.5 - 2.5 !

Hutchinson vs. T.Gavriel, Board 3
Away at Royston

Part 1 of 3

Chess World.net Instructive game: Reducing the bias of the love of risk taking! Part 1 of 3

Barnet holds League Champions Royston to a draw 2.5 - 2.5 !

Hutchinson vs. T.Gavriel, Board 3
Away at Royston

Part 1 of 3

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Self-destruction

I think that most of us would say that a game of chess ought to be drawn; and that when a game is not drawn you should expect to be able to find an error in the loser's play.

There doesn't seem to be any real prospect of proving this - chess remains too big to be solved - but for practical purposes I think it's more or less certain. Surely noone has ever lost a game and afterwards considered that they played perfectly, that they wouldn't change any move, that they lost because - well, because black is lost?

That being so, I suppose that all defeats are self-inflicted: no matter how brilliant your opponent, the bottom line is that you lose because you play bad moves. Some defeats, though, are more self-inflicted than others.

Today's game is another Kan. This time out I had read some of Hellsten's book - but 5. Be2 doesn't show up until page 300 and I certainly hadn't got that far. So playing on my own, again, I had reached a cramped but tenable position (the computer gives 13. ... h6 14. Bh4 Nh7=). However, the ingenious player can always find a way to lose...

Sunday, 1 November 2009

A missed opportunity

I'd met this same Opponent only a couple of months earlier; a game in which I'd played the opening rather weakly and been fortunate to escape with a draw. This time around I was a little - only a little! - better prepared and managed to follow something close to a main line.

As soon as we had to think for ourselves, of course, the game started to go downhill...

In post-mortem we both thought that white had had much the better of the opening - but with the benefit of hindsight, databases and computing power I no longer think that this is true. It's probably not until 23. ... d5?! that black is in any real danger. That didn't last long, though:



After either 26. Ba4 or 26. Bf1, white should win a pawn and have a very good chance of taking the point. I can't really explain how I came to play 26. Rxd5? instead. You'd think that the game continuation (26. ... axb5 27. Rxe4 Rxa2) was both easy to see and the first thing you'd check. The sorry truth is that I spent so long checking that my tactic still worked after 26. ... Nxc3 or 26. ... Ne7 and suchlike that I just failed to make sure of the obvious.

We might have played on a bit longer, I suppose, but I think that the final position should be drawn - and probably both players felt that they'd made too many mistakes to deserve to win. Certainly my mind was more on what might have been than what might yet be.