Barnet Elizabethans Chess Club

Chess World.net presents Instructive Game: Punishing pawn grabbing in th...

2011-10-04T12:45:00.001+01:00

Chess World.net presents: Instructive Game: Bishop cutting across the di...

2011-10-04T12:45:00.000+01:00

Capes trophy 2011 - Team 5-minute chess tournament

2011-09-24T11:03:00.000+01:00

Chess World.net presents: Barnet Chess Club Wins Herts League Division 1...

2011-09-22T12:13:00.000+01:00

Chess World.net presents: New ECF grades are out!

2011-07-25T14:17:00.000+01:00

Chessworld.net presents: Barnet and Elizabethans Chess Club win the Hert...

2011-05-25T09:51:00.000+01:00

Chessworld.net presents Instructive game and match: Effective pawn breaks

2011-04-12T13:47:00.000+01:00

Chessworld.net Concept exploration: "Earning Laziness" #1 - Pigott vs Bo...

2010-12-31T14:38:00.000Z

Chessworld.net Instructive Game: How to skewer and be skewered!

2010-12-07T18:55:00.000Z

Chessworld.net presents: A Miserable French defence transposition - Pt 2...

2010-10-12T08:23:00.001+01:00

Chessworld.net presents: A Miserable French defence transposition - Pt 1...

2010-10-12T08:23:00.000+01:00

Chessworld.net presents Instructive game: Not enough punch preparation

2010-10-05T11:55:00.000+01:00

Chessworld.net presents: Barnet Elizabethans win Capes Trophy 2010 !

2010-09-25T15:26:00.000+01:00

ChessWorld.net presents: Barnet Chess Clubs wins NCL League! Part 1 of 2

2010-05-08T23:31:00.000+01:00

Play the Ruy Lopez!

2010-01-03T18:19:00.003Z

My small opening repertoire has been pretty much unchanged for the best part of twenty years. (Blimey - when I started out on that sentence I hadn't realised just how long it was. To be fair I hardly played for ten of those years, but still). I've been trying to introduce some new lines, but it's not so easy.

Among the problems is that I only play about 20-25 games a year. So, for example, I bought Andrew Greet's Play the Ruy Lopez at some point in early 2008 - shortly after this game, come to think of it. Since then, I reckon it has taken me 17 tries with 1. e4 to get 1. ... e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 in reply. (I've had three French, three Sicilian, three Caro-Kann, three Alekhine, three centre-counter, and one Petroff in the meantime).

Part of me thinks that this is rather unlucky, but actually it was much the same story in the previous year or two - which I perhaps should have checked before buying the book!

I suppose I ought to get into online blitz, which should give plenty of opportunity to try out openings. I have tried, but somehow I've never really enjoyed it.

Anyway, in this game I finally got to play 3. Bb5. Opponent was helpful enough to go more or less down a main line, and it went... OK, I suppose. 15. b4 seems to be wrong, and I lost a pawn shortly afterwards. Opponent probably should have put me away, but I managed to get the pawn back and was glad to take a draw in a position that still felt a little tricky.

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

2009-11-10T12:20:00.005Z

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

2009-11-10T12:20:00.003Z

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

2009-11-10T12:20:00.001Z

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

Self-destruction

2009-11-08T14:22:00.002Z

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...

A missed opportunity

2009-11-01T18:00:00.004Z

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.

Onwards

2009-10-29T20:09:00.008Z

I've been meaning to blog the last few games of the 2008/9 season for some time now. The problem is that I know there are a few ugly losses to get through - the one in this post really isn't too bad compared to what's coming - and I must admit that I do find it harder to publish the losses than the wins.

Having said that, one of the things that I like about doing the blog is that it does encourage me to make some sort of objective analysis of my play. And that's probably worth more with the bad games than the good ones, so really I ought to just get on with it.

So, onwards. A week or two before playing this game, I had picked up a copy of Johan Hellsten's "Play the Sicilian Kan" in the local charity shop. I'd not previously had any intention of playing the Kan, but I do think that my opening repertoire could do with some expansion - and I don't find brand new chess books in charity shops often enough to ignore them. However, as the game will make clear to anyone who has actually read the book, I hadn't bothered to pay any attention to it (I leave the proposed repertoire at pretty much the first opportunity). It will likely take several more games before I'm familiar enough with the positions to remember what I'm supposed to be playing...

In fact I don't think that the opening turned out too badly, largely improvised though it was. It would be nice to blame this defeat on straightforward Kan ignorance, but I don't think that I can do it.

Opponent was critical after the game of 9. ... g6. He may be right but - now that I have read at least some of the Hellsten book - I find this a tricky issue. Clearly in the game (and certainly after 18. ... e5?) the dark square weaknesses turned out very badly. But there seem to be plenty of lines where Hellsten is happy to regard ... g6 as strengthening the defences. Probably it's going to take a few more unpleasant experiences before I get near to any understanding of when the fianchetto is a good idea, and when it isn't. For what it's worth, the computer is reasonably happy with Black's position after 18. ... Bh8; patience is required in this sort of position.

Chess World.net presents Instructive game: Reducing Bias (The TCC Acronym!) - Part 4 of 4

2009-10-21T23:45:00.005+01:00

Part 4 of 4

Chess World.net presents Instructive game: Reducing Bias (The TCC Acronym!) - Part 3 of 4

2009-10-21T23:45:00.003+01:00

Part 3 of 4

Chess World.net presents Instructive game: Reducing Bias (The TCC Acronym!) - Part 2 of 4

2009-10-21T23:45:00.001+01:00

Part 2 of 4

Chess World.net presents Instructive game: Reducing Bias (The TCC Acronym!) - Part 1 of 4

2009-10-21T23:44:00.001+01:00

Herts League match - Part 1 of 4

Chess World.net presents: Instructive game: Taming the dreaded KID Four Pawns Attack! Part 2 of 2

2009-10-21T23:43:00.003+01:00

Part 2

Chess World.net presents: Instructive game: Taming the dreaded KID Four Pawns Attack! Part 1 of 2

2009-10-21T23:43:00.001+01:00

My 1st game this season in the North Circular league against Wanstead. Part 1 of 2.

Another endgame

2009-08-29T15:31:00.002+01:00

Earlier in the season I'd been a little lucky to agree a draw in a rook ending, with both players failing to notice that the pawn ending they were about to enter was won for Opponent.

In this game I actually went into the losing pawn endgame - and was again lucky enough to get away with it.

I strongly suspect that all of the last four moves have been half-point blunders and in this position 33. a4? almost certainly is (I think that 33. axb4 holds). After 33. ... Rxd5 34. Rxd5+ Kxd5 35. h4

... Opponent played 35 ... gxh4?, missing a win that I'm tempted to describe as "study-like". Correct is 35. ... c4 36. bxc4+ Ke6!

In the game position with the g-pawns exchanged, 37. ... Ke6? loses easily to 38. Ke3, when white has the b-pawn covered and black cannot stop both the c-pawn and the h-pawn. However with the g-pawns still on the board, the line goes 37. Ke3 b3 38. Kd2 b2 39. Kc2 f4!

and black wins.

Inactivity

2009-08-22T14:53:00.004+01:00

When I was last here, some months ago, my chess was going rather well. Results from the second half of the season, though, were distinctly less good - I reckon that I lost about a dozen (ECF) grading points by continuing to play from April onwards.

Obviously it's not all about the grades, but while I'm on the topic... I see that the online database claims that I played 26 games last season. I can only find 25. I wonder how I did in that bonus game.

So anyway, I'd better start working my way through the backlog - here's the first of several more-or-less disappointing games.

If I remember rightly Opponent offered a draw at move 13 or thereabouts, which I turned down mostly on the grounds that it was a bit early for that sort of thing. Instead I went wrong almost immediately with 14. ... e5?. It's a doubly bad move; tactically speaking I'd stopped too soon (at 18. ... exf3, failing to notice that 19. Bxf3 hit my knight), but in any case it doesn't now look like the sort of move that Black should be playing even if it were not an outright blunder. A definite case of trying too hard to make something happen - perhaps the draw offer was a cunning piece of provocation all along!

New club grades are out

2009-08-21T09:26:00.000+01:00

http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getclub.php?club=Barnet%20Elizabeth&sort=2

Ref Name Sex Age Club(s) Category Grade Last Year Cat Rapid Last Year
117144G Pigott, John C M Barnet Elizabeth D 218 200 B 221 220
111156F Georghiou, Paul T M Barnet Elizabeth A 207 201 205
110285A Ethelontis, Alexandros N M Barnet Elizabeth A 195 193 C 194 190
111117G Gavriel, Tryfon C M Barnet Elizabeth A 188 196 D 209 206
113039A Hotham, David C M Barnet Elizabeth B 175 171 D 187 185
259880C Zajicek, Petr Barnet Elizabeth D 167 162 E 178 178
246276L Ben-Nathan, David M Barnet Elizabeth E 165 165 E 154 155
118406E Royce, Roy M Barnet Elizabeth D 161 168
144928L Pepe, Salvatore M Hendon C 159 163 B 162 154
268300D Shalabayev, Syrym M Ealing A 157 162 D 177 177
234128B Desai, Amit M 16 Q Elizabeth School Barnet C 153 140 B 137 147
230252E Ahuja, Akshaya M 17 Q Elizabeth School Barnet D 151 160
164371L Myers, Philip M Barnet Elizabeth B 150 153
107078C Bowie, Brian S Barnet Elizabeth D 150 151
275984G Shalabayev, Salim Ealing D 148
150997E Wright, Dennis J M Barnet Elizabeth B 143 153
208832A Pattni, Kishan Hendon C 139 132 B 142 139
113863H Jones, Michael N M Barnet Elizabeth A 138 138 D 138 136
234129D Desai, Anup M 16 Q Elizabeth School Barnet C 135 127 B 141 129
225946B Hoong, Jonathan M 17 Q Elizabeth School Barnet D 134 160 C 140 137
106033J Baig, M Azam Barnet Elizabeth A 125 118
261452C Butcher, Ray Barnet Elizabeth A 123 117 C 109 114
144358G Perlstein, Steve Barnet Elizabeth D 120 123
252240J Elango, Madhi M 13 Q Elizabeth School Barnet A 118 112 A 105 111
181078K Robson, Caroline J F Barnet Elizabeth A 118 114 C 118 125
182955F Macaulay, Ian M Barnet Elizabeth C 117 100
234975K Leighton, Ian M Barnet Elizabeth B 116 109
273581H Njoku-Goodwin, Jamie M Barnet Elizabeth B 114 85
270488C Close, Dean Barnet Elizabeth E 111 108
241546L Devan, Matthew Barnet Elizabeth B 110 113
112080D Harding, Malcolm S M Barnet Elizabeth A 108 127
204712D Nunn, Geoffrey C M Barnet Elizabeth B 106 108 E 95 95
179705A Riddoch, Ian M Barnet Elizabeth B 98 122 D 97 94
105207L Osland, Brian M Barnet Elizabeth C 96 112
266709F Van Der Schyff, Kevin Barnet Elizabeth E 69 71

Pigott beat Vaganian!

2009-08-21T09:25:00.001+01:00

Vaganian - Pigott, London 1975, simul
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 Nh5 11.e6 fxe6 12.Nf3 exd5 13.O-O O-O 14.Qxd5+ Kh8 15.Bg5 Ndf6 16.Qxc5 Bf5 17.Rad1 Qa5 18.Nd4 Rac8 19.Qe7 Bg4 20.Rd2 a6 (see diagram) White has 69 moves here. 21.h3 axb5 22.hxg4 Nxg4 23.Rxf8+ Rxf8 24.Qe6 Nhf6 25.Bxf6 Nxf6 26.Ndxb5 Qb4 27.Qd6 Qh4 28.Re2 Ng4 29.g3 Rf1+ and White resigned.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_10.htm

Chessworld.net presents ECF Results, 2009 Season

2009-07-07T13:06:00.001+01:00

Tryfon Gavriel's results Email from the ECF today

Bobby Fischer's Visit to the Philippines 1973 with President Ferdinand Marcos

2009-06-24T10:34:00.001+01:00

Some recently discovered pictures of Fischer in 1973 for his visit to the Philippines

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: Pawn sac on f4 in the Dutch Lenningrad variation!

2009-05-20T09:42:00.001+01:00

Barnet retains Lawrance Cup!

Letsplaychess.com presents: A quick overview of the North Circular Chess League!

2009-05-08T07:28:00.001+01:00

North Circular league season ends for the summer break

Letsplaychess.com presents: Kingscrusher live commentary bullet chess!

2009-04-25T00:01:00.001+01:00

Some bullet chess!

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: French defence Alekhine-Chatard Attack, Part 3 of 3

2009-04-15T20:24:00.003+01:00

Part 3 of 3

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: French defence Alekhine-Chatard Attack, Part 2 of 3

2009-04-15T20:24:00.001+01:00

Part 2 of 3

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: French defence Alekhine-Chatard Attack, Part 1 of 3

2009-04-15T20:23:00.001+01:00

Barnet 1 narrow lose to Watford 1, Part 1 of 3 - for Board 2 game between Tryfon Gavriel (barnet) and Andrew Stone (Watford 1)

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: A case of rapidly evaporating compensation!

2009-04-08T13:03:00.001+01:00

Barnet 1 vs Watford 2

Part 2 of 2

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: A case of rapidly evaporating compensation!

2009-04-08T13:02:00.001+01:00

Barnet 1 vs Watford 2

Chess Publisher

2009-04-05T19:55:00.004+01:00

Browsing other chess blogs today, I noticed that those who have published games using www.chesspublisher.com currently have "This Account Has Been Suspended" in big letters across their blog, rather than the game that they'd expected to see. It looks as though it has been that way for a few days.

When something similar happened last year I knocked up an equivalent service using Google's servers - and I've been using it on this blog ever since. Since googlepages is free, this has the great advantage that it doesn't rely on anyone remembering to pay their bills...

So: a public service announcement. You all are more than welcome to make use of our version of the game viewer. There's a link in the top left of this page.

A pretty win

2009-04-04T20:09:00.004+01:00

A pleasing game, this one, for a couple of reasons. First, the game itself was good - it's always nice to win quickly, and the key moment is attractive:

Opponent has just played 14. ... Bf8-d6?. We continued with 15. Qb3 Bc8, after which 16. e5! isn't perhaps very difficult (actually I think it fairly begs to be played), but it is both pretty and strong. I don't ask more of my moves than that! Although he made another dozen moves, Opponent might reasonably have resigned a fair bit sooner.

Last time I played this Opponent, he crushed me rather convincingly. 'Revenge' seems like a strong word - it's not as though I've been nursing a grudge for the last year, desperate for an opportunity to avenge myself - but it was good to even things up, and that's the other thing that I liked about this game.

Automatic play

2009-03-29T12:05:00.006+01:00

Last time I played this opponent I noted that a 20 (ECF) point rating advantage was by no means enough that you should expect to win. It's annoying to prove myself right so soon, but this time round Opponent played a good game, while I didn't do a lot and missed the one clear opportunity when it came. Indeed, in the end I even lost a pawn and was happy to reach a drawn endgame.

During the game I mostly felt rather pessimistic about my position - I often do - but looking at it now, and with silicon assistance, I think that I overestimated the dangers. Opponent didn't seem to share my evaluation - twice he offered a repetition, and at move 24 he explicitly offered me the draw. I played on more through ratings arrogance than anything else; a dangerous game, but actually I would have been vindicated had I been more alert as Opponent blundered almost immediately:

Play went 24. d5 exd5 25. Rxe8+?, when 25. ... Bxe8 wins a pawn, due to back rank tricks. But I missed it. It's hard to say why - I think perhaps that because I believed that I was worse I simply wasn't expecting any such opportunity to appear. I don't record how long I take over my moves (maybe I should), but I'm pretty sure that I played 25. ... Rxe8 almost without thought.

Well, I'm all in favour of analysing your errors, but I don't intend to beat myself up too badly about this. It could have been worse - I did still make the draw, after all - and actually 1.5/2 against this Opponent is roughly what our respective grades predict. So I say: you can't win them all, and on to the next game...

A lucky escape

2009-03-28T15:53:00.002Z

I'd gone rather badly wrong in this game, losing a piece on move twenty with only some ineffective threats as compensation. But sometimes even ineffective threats can be enough.

Here Opponent was visibly surprised by 28. Rf3. He still has plenty of ways to win - but was somehow unable to adjust correctly from "I'm winning easily" to "I have to make some good moves here". He played 28. ... Bxf2+ 28. Rxf2 Qc1+ 29. Rf1, which is all fine...

... and now if he had found 29. ... Qe3+ and 30. ... Nf4, I should probably have resigned. But he missed it and bailed out with 29. ... Qxf1+, after which I may even be better - though I was extremely happy to make a draw a few moves later. Accepting the draw, Opponent remarked that after what had happened he didn't deserve anything more, and I felt rather the same about my own play.

A little learning is a dangerous thing

2009-03-24T22:23:00.002Z

This game was played the day after that of the last post, and I wouldn't like to say whether or not it supports my suggestion that you can mostly get away without knowing the theory.

As in the earlier game I played a Polugaevsky Najdorf; and it must be admitted that I knew not much more of the theory on Tuesday night than I had done on Monday. Opponent, I assume, was taking a similarly reckless approach - only, worse than not knowing any theory at all, he seems to have mixed up his lines horribly. After lengthy thought he uncorked the typical sacrifice 9. Ncxb5 in a position where it just isn't very good - and then followed up by blundering another piece, and resigning.

All fine from my point of view, I suppose, but I suspect that Opponent would feel that he ought to take another look at the opening manuals.

You don't know what you're doing II

2009-03-22T18:30:00.003Z

I've touched before on the joys of playing highly theoretical lines without knowing the theory. If I were a class or two stronger, I doubt that I could continue to get away with it - but at my level I find that, mostly, opponents haven't memorized everything any more than I have. So we can have fun getting into crazy positions and trying to work out what to do about it.

In this week's game, a Polugaevsky Najdorf, Opponent blinked first.

I'd been out of book for at least a couple of moves - pretty shameful, considering that we're right in the middle of the main line - but had made good moves anyway. Here White is apparently supposed to play 12. Qg4, after which things get distinctly complicated. While I didn't know that, I was pretty sure that 12. Nf3 couldn't be right...

Still, I'm nowhere near good enough to be winning (or losing) games due to a few opening inaccuracies, and the game's critical errors came a bit later:

Here I played 22. ... f6, anticipating the game line: 23. Rxe6+ Kf7 24. Rb6 Bxg2, with the point that after 25. Rg1, black has 25. ... Bc5. But this is a mistake, as white should play 24. Re2 fxg5 25. Rf1+ Kg6 26. Re6+ Kh5 27. Re8, winning back his piece. Therefore it seems black should settle for 22. ... Bxg2, when he has plenty of pawns and is still better.

I was slightly surprised by Opponent's resignation. Certainly white is lost, but I'd expected to have to play a few more moves to prove the point.

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: Slav defence exchange variation Gambit!

2009-03-17T12:19:00.001Z

Letsplaychess.com presents a c3 Sicilian Disaster!

2009-03-16T03:25:00.001Z

Chess is a fight

2009-03-15T14:08:00.002Z

... except when it isn't.

After a recent success, I was pretty happy to get another crack at playing the Panov-Botvinnik Attack. But this time round, for reasons that I don't completely understand, the game fizzled out without really getting going.

Exchanging pieces on moves 15 and 16, I'd thought that I would be a touch better in the endgame - and that may even have been right. But when Opponent offered the draw a few moves later I found that I couldn't convince myself that there was any meaningful advantage, and that I wasn't really in the mood for a long struggle... so I agreed.

A bit craven, perhaps. White's risks are pretty limited here and he can hope to make some progress pushing his queenside pawns, so I probably ought to play on for a bit and see what happens.

I was going to write that I thought this timidity was a fault that I often suffered from. However before doing so I went and checked my database - and now I don't think that it's true after all. There's only one other case where I slightly regret agreeing the draw - but, being an adjournment and, further, with the draw clinching the match, I think it's reasonable to consider that exceptional.

Perhaps a fault that I actually do suffer from and which is demonstrated in this game is an over-willingness to simplify. I might think about that one and write more some other time.

Endgame

2009-03-11T21:18:00.007Z

After some dubious early moves, I'd spent most of this week's game slightly worse but feeling as though I ought to be able to reach a drawn ending. A careless reading would suggest that this is indeed what happened, but in fact I think that the game finished with a nasty double-blunder:

Here 41. Kd3? is, as best I can tell, a losing move. 41. ... Kg5 as played is the right way - but the draw offer that went with it is not!

The problem for white is that after 42. Rxe5 dxe5, the black king goes f6-e7-d6-c5-b4, and wins; while other plausible moves all seem to fail to 42. ... Kf4.

In post-mortem we'd actually thought that white had missed a win with 41. f4 Rxe3 42. Kxe3 Ke7 43. Kf3 Kf6 44. Kg2 Kg6 45. Kh3 Kh5

46. b4! axb4 47. b3, and wins the h-pawn. But on getting home I notice that winning that h-pawn doesn't do white any good (black just keeps his king on g6/h6/h5), so this is in fact the drawing line that should have been played.

I've written before about my dislike of adjournments, but I must admit that a quickplay finish does have the unpleasant effect that just as we're running out of time we reach the part of the game where every slip is a half- or even full-point blunder. All the more reason, I suppose, to study this sort of stuff at home.

A gift

2009-03-03T19:45:00.004Z

Not a very exciting game, this one. It was heading towards an apparently inevitable draw when Opponent made a simple oversight and gave me a piece. So I took it and won.

I'd much prefer to have won the previous game and drawn this one, but there you go.

The game is given below, as usual, but I wouldn't bother. Instead, here's a position taken from the last time I met this Opponent (a quickplay game in 2006). White, to play, missed a cute finish - can you do better?

Rollercoaster

2009-03-01T16:12:00.005Z

Here's a third encounter with an Opponent who has previously appeared on this blog - and for the third time, Opponent had white and played the London System.

On previous occasions I have followed the approach outlined in my last post, and allowed White to play just the way that he wants to. This time I felt that doing the same thing again would be pushing my luck rather, and decided instead to avoid ... d5 for a while - so as at least to make him think a bit before going ahead with his autopilot plan (a white Ne5 being less attractive in such positions). This didn't turn out too well - I played the opening weakly and spent the next couple of hours hoping to find some way to wriggle out.

As we approached the final few minutes - the game was being played to a blitz finish - things began to change.

Here I played 34. ... Rd1+ 35. Kf2 Ne4+, winning an exchange. I think that the position is still level, but the momentum was with me and I began to believe that I might even win the game.

Alas, we both stopped recording moves at this point (as we're allowed to do when in the last 5 minutes) so I can't give exact details, but the scramble did indeed go well - until with only a few seconds left each, we reached a position something like this (black to play):

Obviously almost anything wins (... Qh1+ mates at once). Obviously I wouldn't bother with a diagram if I'd played almost anything. Obviously I played ... Qxf3?? stalemate. Oh dear.

I'm pretty sure that I've never been three queens and a rook up before; I wouldn't have guessed that it would happen in a drawn game. It's cold comfort to think that for most of the evening I'd have been delighted to escape with a half point.

I expect that Opponent's teammate was trying to make me feel better - probably! - when he told me "Yeah, I've done that too... but not since I was twelve". (He's somewhat older than that now.) It didn't really help.

Clockwork openings

2009-02-17T21:14:00.003Z

There are some systems where one side knows what he's going to play, more or less regardless of what's happening on the other side of the board. Usually it's White who has this luxury, and usually he's playing for some sort of automatic kingside attack. You know the sort of thing - a King's Indian Attack, or Grand Prix Attack, or one of the Colle / London / Stonewall type setups.

It can be rather annoying to play against this stuff. Not that it's objectively so frightening; but practically speaking White is likely to get his attack, and probably also an advantage on the clock in a type of position that he plays every week - and that's not to be sniffed at.

Nevertheless, my approach in defending against all this is generally to allow, or even encourage, White to do what he wants to do. I tell myself that so long as I haven't made any serious mistakes then there's no reason that his attack should deserve to succeed; and that if and when it fails then I have every chance of being better. This seems to me to be the principled approach: I don't believe that you can expect to play automatic moves and checkmate me, and to prove the point I'm going to let you try.

Sometimes, this goes wrong.

Here I have willingly accepted a pawn, and if I find 18. ... Re8 then I ought to be able to hold on to it. But instead, after 18. ... Qd7? 19. Bxf6 h5 20. Bxg7:

... I was still labouring under the misapprehension that I should be winning. Therefore I rejected 20. ... Kxg7 21. Qc3+ f6 22. Rxf6 Rxf6 23. Qxf6+ Kh7 with equality, and instead played 20. ... hxg4? - completely missing 21. Bf6! and losing quickly.

Yes, being principled, and even being right, is all very well; but you still have to play good moves.

Happy new year

2009-01-10T00:15:00.010Z

Here's a rare thing, and a nice way to start the new year: a game that I'm pretty much happy with.

It's not perfect of course - I'm not strong enough for that! - but it went about as well as I could hope: a favourable opening leading to a dangerous-looking initiative, and some attractive tactics to finish.

Here's the position after Opponent's 19. ... Rf8-h8:

I want to play 20. Nxf7: while it all looks promising I can't see far enough to be sure that I haven't missed some defence. Can I (should I) screw up the courage to play it anyway?

Maybe I was just feeling reckless, but actually this wasn't a particularly hard decision. I spent a little more time than I would on a 'normal' move and decided that, so far as I could see, 20. Nxf7 was strongest. So, play it! There's not much point in figuring out what the best move is if you're too scared to go through with it. Yes, you might be wrong, and if so then you might lose - but I'd rather lose by being wrong about the chess than by being too cowardly to make the right moves.

The course of the game says that I certainly made the correct practical choice. My attack looks a bit slow-motion, but it seems to be rather hard for black to get coordinated. On getting home I was delighted to find that the computer even blesses my sacrifice (or is it only a combination?) as being sound. The silicon defends a bit more stubbornly than Opponent managed, but still agrees that 20. Nxf7 is best, and gives white a nice advantage. Happy days. If only it went this well every week...

How not to play an adjournment

2009-01-08T19:23:00.010Z

Finally wrapping up 2008, I present the last few moves of this adjournment.

After an error-filled first session, we had left the game here:

I'm afraid that the standard didn't improve much when we came back. 39. ... Qf1+? misses the opportunity to bail out with 39. ... Rca7 40. Nc5+ Kc7 41. a4 Rxa4, which appears to be dead drawn. Really if I'd done my homework properly on the adjournment I ought to have known this.

After this Opponent is winning but blundered with 44. Qd3? - only to be allowed back into things by 48. ... R2a4? As blunders go, though, 48. ... R2a4 was rather a fortunate one - I had completely missed the point of 48. g4, which was to threaten 49. Qg6+ Qe6 50. Rxd5+! Kxd5 51. Qd3+ Kc6 (51. ... Ke5 52. Qd4# - aha, so 48. g4 was to cover f5) 52. Nd4+.

By the end of the game I think we were both rather relieved to take the draw; given more opportunities I'm sure that either of us could have found plenty more ways to lose this one.

In post-mortem, Opponent pulled out an enormous sheet of paper filled with microscopic writing giving a variation tree from the adjourned position. All very impressive, and it certainly made my own approach to the analysis look rather casual (which, in fact, it was). I'm not in any rush to have another adjournment, but perhaps I'll try to produce something similar myself next time.

The team score had been poised at 2-2, so of course this draw meant that the match was also drawn. With 4.5 out of 5 we find ourselves top of the table at the new year.

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: Don't play a passive opening!

2009-01-06T20:00:00.001Z

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: Don't play a passive opening! Barnet beat Royston in Herts Division 1 league!

Lies, damned lies, and gradings

2008-12-21T19:07:00.005Z

The other day I found myself messing around with grading calculations for my games from the last few years. You can massage the figures to draw pretty much whatever conclusion you like - especially if, like me, you don't play all that many games. When the law of large numbers hasn't had a chance to assert itself, it's just a question of picking out whatever randomness appeals to you.

For instance, since taking up chess again (after about ten years out) my grades have gone: 139, 153, 160. (And, albeit after very few games, my performance this season is a touch over 170). What a marvellous story of continuous improvement - at this rate I should be giving young Carlsen one hell of a beating by 2020 or so. Well maybe, but I notice that if rather than considering the grading season you instead start the year at January 1st then you get a completely different story. Then my annual performances have gone: 125, 170, 155, 165. Perhaps Magnus shouldn't be too worried after all.

(For what it's worth, I think that the second view is probably truer: it took me a while to get back in the swing of things and since then I've been playing at more or less the same standard as ever, which is to say 160ish. However, I also think that that's just me imposing my narrative on a set of figures that don't really provide much evidence at all.)

This week's game - though actually I'm still working through November's backlog - was played against an opponent rated about 20 points lower than me. 20 points is a horrible gap: you feel as though only a win would be acceptable, though in fact you should only be due to score 70% and therefore probably only expecting to win about 5 or 6 out of 10. So you're going to be disappointed almost half the time; and even when you win you'll likely feel more relieved than anything else.

Happy to report, this was one of the wins. Black was clearly doing well when white played 15. Rc1, but miscalculated somewhere in the complications. I guess he probably missed 20. Nc5 after which, perhaps struggling to adjust to the sudden change of momentum, he gave up more material than necessary and promptly resigned.

You don't know what you're doing...

2008-12-14T13:56:00.006Z

... but, with any luck, neither does your opponent. And that can be a lot of fun!

So it proved in this game, where I stumbled my way into some typically wild Najdorf theory and blundered around like the amateur that I am.

At the end of the evening the strong players in the room gathered round and convinced us that black probably should have lost several times over. In this position, they all wanted to play 11. Nd5

and things do indeed get rather hairy here. But on checking the database afterwards, it seems that a few brave grandmasters are still occasionally willing to enter into this line; so it should surely be playable at my level.

After that there were rather a lot of errors. 15. ... Kf8 is a clear mistake, and white misses a nice shot at move 19:

Here 19. Bg6! seems to win on the spot: after 19. ... fxg6 20. Qxg6 black can't cover both e6 and g7 and goes down quickly; while either 19 ... Raf8 or 19. ... Rhf8 loses to 20. Qh4+.

After that the computers consider roughly every other move in this game to be a serious mistake, but we somehow managed to get to the time control with the position approximately level. And here, with the match tied at 2-2 and only this game remaining, we adjourned.

Four out of four

2008-12-07T18:29:00.002Z

Continuing through my backlog of un-blogged games, we reach November and Hemel Hempstead. I'm afraid that it was probably this game that triggered five weeks of silence - I've noticed that I'm often rather slower to post my losses than my wins; and this one really didn't go well.

The critical moment comes at move 15:

Can I retrieve that far-flung knight? I decided that 15. Bf4? was the only way to do it, but after 15. ... cxb2 black's pawn becomes deeply unpleasant. I was nowhere near seeing the computer's 15. Kg2! Bc5 16. b4!, after which the game remains in the balance.

I finished the game off with a blunder, but things were almost certainly too far gone by then anyway. All in all, not one of my better efforts.

Happily for Barnet, the rest of the team did rather better, and we scored a fourth win. As a Hull City fan I know better than to get overexcited by a promising start - but you can't really argue with four out of four.

We're still here

2008-11-30T19:52:00.003Z

I seem to have become a bit lazy about putting up my games recently and now have a small backlog to clear. I'm not expecting to play again before January, though, so probably I should be able to catch up with myself by then...

Let's start with the adjourned game of my last post. I'd previously written that, two up and two to play, I didn't expect to be offered a draw. Turns out I was wrong: the draw was both offered and accepted. I felt a bit guilty taking it - I probably ought to show more fighting spirit or ruthlessness or something, and at least make Opponent work for his half point. But I felt that a draw was the right outcome, and after all it did clinch the match.

Opponent suggested afterwards that the game was unlikely to make my Best Games anthology. He's right that we both made some rather serious mistakes (34. ... Qh5? 35. Rf1? Nxf3? to reach the time control was particularly unimpressive), but then any collection of my games that excludes the ones with serious mistakes is going to be slim indeed.

In the final position I'd sealed 39. ... Bd6. After that, my analysis kept leading to an ending where White is surely worse - but the computer, at least, always seems able to hold on. This sort of thing: 40. Rxf7+ Rxf7 41. Qxf7+ Kh6 42. Qf2 Qxe4+ 43. Qg2 Qxg2+ 44. Kxg2 d2 45. Kf3 Kg5 46. Rd1 Bb4 47. Ke2:

Losable, but probably not lost.

So anyway, this took our first team to three wins out of three in the Hertfordshire first division. Three games is only three games, but we're very happy to keep winning!

Adjourned

2008-10-20T23:42:00.004+01:00

Readers with long memories will recall that I'm no great fan of adjournments, and might even remember a particularly dull occasion on which I was brought back to play three moves and agree a draw.

Tonight's game is also adjourned; but for once I almost approve. The game has been splendidly messy - Opponent misplayed a dangerous attack (or just possibly I defended marvellously; I haven't figured out which) to leave me completely won, only for me to make some errors of my own as we approached the time control - and has now reached an intriguing balance. The computers still like me (I've plenty of pawns for an exchange) but, in the cursory analysis that I've so far made, keep failing to find a way to win the endgame. It looks as though, if I can find the time and motivation, there should be plenty of worthwhile work to do in this adjournment. Probably I shouldn't say too much more just yet; the game is, after all, still in progress.

So, on adjourning, once more... I've some sympathy with the idea that the two of us shouldn't now be obliged to spoil the game, by playing even worse in a rapidplay finish than we have done so far. But at least that would be one-one-one, Blogger versus Opponent - and on the whole, I still think that's a lesser evil than having us get our computers and friends show us what we're supposed to do. Still, it is an interesting position. Hence, I almost approve of this adjournment.

Ironically, this interesting adjournment is against the same Opponent as was the dull one mentioned above.

Meanwhile in the match, Barnet are leading Watford I by 2.5-0.5, with this game and one other still to complete. If nothing else, I guess that means that Opponent is unlikely to offer me a draw...

The London System, again

2008-10-18T09:48:00.003+01:00

Very attentive followers of this blog might recall this game, where I expressed surprise that an Opponent who outrated me fairly substantially should choose nothing more ambitious with the white pieces than the London System.

I still consider this the principled position, but it would be a dull world if we all thought the same way - and when I met the same Opponent again this week, he was sticking to his guns.

Not for the first time, my view of the game was very different while playing it than it is with the benefit of hindsight. At the time it felt as though White was building up a rather frightening attack. Now, however, and especially with our silicon friend calmly refuting all tries, it looks as if there really wasn't much to fear.

Two key moments in the game both involved me blundering, only to be followed by Opponent blundering worse. (Chess is an ugly game at my level). First, at move 21:

Here I hastily played 21. ... Bxh4 (21. ... Rxf5 seems to be fine) which should simply lose a pawn after 22. Nxh4 exf5 23. Nxf5. Perhaps Opponent was spooked by 23. ... Bc8 (though he has no problems after 24. Bxe4 dxe4 25. Qh5) because instead he went with 23. Rxf5, losing material to 23. ... Nf2+.

By move 30, then, I'm doing well:

Here I played 30. ... Qe7. It's the right idea but significantly less accurate than 30. ... Qd8, which would have prevented 31. Ne4. Opponent missed the threat and obligingly played 31. e6. Readers who don't see the problem are referred to the game.

This game was played at Hertford where, as kingscrusher has already reported, we won the match 3.5-1.5. As regular relegation candidates in the Hertfordshire first division, it's very pleasing to start the season with two match wins.

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: Powerful exchange sac!

2008-10-16T10:52:00.001+01:00

Barnet 1 beats Hertford 1 away - 3.5 to 1.5, in what must be a historically rare match victory!

Known knowns, and unknown unknowns

2008-10-07T23:15:00.002+01:00

Some players make a point of asking their opponent for their grade before a game. I take the opposite approach, preferring not to know. My theory is that one should aim to be objective on the board, and that any information outside of the game itself is not just extraneous, but distracting.

It's a theory that has all sorts of problems. For a start, chess is a small world; and chess in North London even smaller. So after two or three years with Barnet, it's pretty much impossible for me not to have some idea of how strong most of my opponents are: I know either the opponent or his teammates.

That's a practical objection, but even intellectually I don't think I'm consistent. I believe that if my opponent is 'too strong' then I'll find myself intimidated and fail to play as I should. I also believe that if my opponent is 'too weak' then I'll not give him the respect that he deserves, and again not play as well as I should. Presumably I'm therefore obliged to believe that there's some optimal opponent somewhere in the middle against whom I am most likely to play my best chess... but that doesn't sound right at all. Certainly I wouldn't like to say who this perfect opponent is.

So anyway, I don't ask; instead I look it up when I get home. How disconcerting, then, to find that Opponent appears to unrated... where has he come from? Should I be pleased with my draw, or disappointed? Am I - horror - going to have to analyse the game itself to decide how well I played?

Here's my game, against an unrated opponent, from last night's 3-2 win at St. Albans (not 2.5-1.5 as kingscrusher reported - I wonder whether he forgot that I was there). The opening seemed satisfactory enough, but I carefully uncoordinated all of my pieces and then made a more serious error with 20. ... h6. Things continued to get worse and by about move 30 the computer is convinced that white's advantage should be decisive. No doubt it's right; but fortunately for me we humans will make errors, especially in a quickplay finish, and I managed to scrap my way to a draw.

Letsplaychess.com : Play on both sides of the board!

2008-10-07T10:10:00.001+01:00

Barnet wins against St Albans 2.5 to 1.5 in Hertfordshire league first match !

Hack Attack

2008-08-29T08:05:00.004+01:00

An amusing quickplay game that I played last night against Wood Green.

After the game, Opponent and I believed that 17 ... bxc3? was just losing. The computer, though, is reluctant to confirm this - not, as I'd initially thought, because it is too stupid to understand the white attack but rather because it sees some black resources that had completely escaped us. The win is, at the very least, harder than we'd realised. Over-keen readers might want to try and figure out what is really going on.

Letsplaychess.com: Chess Party Invitation!

2008-08-26T11:45:00.001+01:00

All Barnet chess club members are invited, and viewers of the website!

Letsplaychess.com Instructive game: Line opening

2008-08-16T02:37:00.001+01:00

Playing away

2008-08-05T23:32:00.003+01:00

Over at the Streatham & Brixton blog, Tom has been running a series of How To Improve type posts. I'm a bit slow off the mark, but a couple of them caught my eye, for differing reasons.

The first was his recommendation to practise with a real board, setting up conditions to be as similar to tournament play as you can manage. I expect it's good advice; if nothing else it sounds like awfully hard work and I've a nasty feeling that this is the main thing that's required if you're serious about improving. What it reminded me of, though, was a match a year or two ago over at Wanstead (I think). I was playing a board or two below fellow-blogger kingscrusher, who had presumably been spending rather too much time playing online. Half an hour or so in he takes me to one side and says something like: "Dave, this over the board stuff, I'm finding it a bit unfamiliar. The thing is, it's very... it's very realistic isn't it?". Well, it made me laugh.

The other was his more recent discussion of statistics. Now, I'm not sure that I set all that much store in a statistical analysis of my own results, principally because I've only played 44 games in the last two years and I very much doubt that this is enough to provide a statistically significant result for any interesting question. Still, if you like that sort of thing (and I do) then it's a fun game to play.

So, having sliced and diced the numbers as many ways as I could think of, I've so far only found one conspicuous discrepancy - which is that for both of the last two seasons my results have been 20-25 ECF points better in away matches than in home matches.

In a way, I'd love to believe that this was meaningful. I could come up with all sorts of ways to improve my performance on the back of this information - perhaps I should try to kid myself that I was at an away match by always travelling to Barnet via Watford, or maybe I ought to refuse point blank to help with setting up the tables and boards when we are at home. Wouldn't it be marvellous if I could really gain those 20 points, just like that?

Sadly, though, I'm pretty sure that this is just a statistical oddity; so I'm stuck with having to work harder if I want to get better. Shucks.

New ECF grades are out!

2008-07-24T20:38:00.000+01:00

Barnet players do well at Golders Green rapidplay held on Saturday 12th July!

2008-07-18T10:18:00.001+01:00

Hi all

Top Barnet rated player John Pigott won the last Golders Green rapidply with 5/6. I obtained a respectable 4/6. Here was my entertaining game against Robin Haldane:

A Cup Double

2008-06-28T09:48:00.003+01:00

As kingscrusher has previously reported, Barnet won the Lawrance Cup a few weeks ago. Well, now we have the Finchley Cup too! The final was a tight affair, with Barnet edging Barking out by a score of 4.5-3.5.

The Lawrance Cup is played between teams in the North Circular Chess League's A division, while the Finchley Cup is for teams in the B division, so Barnet's first and second teams respectively have done a nice double here.

In both cup competitions, two games are played at a time control of thirty minutes for all moves. I've so far avoided posting any rapid games, largely on the grounds that the quality of play really isn't worthy of a wider audience. Mind you, I've shared some pretty horrible games played at a full time control, so perhaps that's not a convincing argument. Certainly these two games from the final won't stand much scrutiny; but I've played worse - and after all, it's not every day that you win the cup...

(Opponent is the same Opponent who gave me this beating a couple of months back. The games are reconstructed from memory, so may contain errors of move order.)

Mismatch

2008-06-21T11:48:00.003+01:00

A bit of an odd one this. I'm playing on board one for our second team, away to Southgate. When we turn up they have a team list showing players for board two downwards, but have left the top board blank. There seems to be some doubt about whether their man will turn up. As we take our seats I am facing an empty chair.

Meanwhile, a couple of new members (both teenagers, I'd guess) are hanging around hoping for someone to take charge and arrange a game for them. One of them spots the gap opposite me. "Shall I play that guy?" he asks. He seems to be unaware that we're playing a team match. Presumably he is likely to struggle on the higher boards. Supposedly, we're still hoping that Southgate's usual top board will arrive. Nevertheless, their captain waves him on; and I have an Opponent.

For the first couple of moves I worry that perhaps Opponent will prove to be unexpectedly strong, and that I will be humiliated by the first kid who walked in from the street. But it soon becomes clear that this is not the case, and at move twelve Opponent drops his first piece.

Alas, someone seems to have advised him never to resign (which would perhaps be good advice against players of his own strength). Alas again, someone has apparently advised him to use all of his time. It takes two tedious hours to deliver checkmate. The evening is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

I should make clear that I do not blame Opponent for my disgruntlement in any way. We all start somewhere. However, I do think it was a mistake to allow him to play this game. It's a particularly peculiar decision if there was really any expectation that the usual top board was on his way (he never did turn up). Better, surely, to hold out for the regular player; and ask me to play some quick games against the new guy when my opponent didn't show? Or, to shuffle the players who were available up a board and put the newcomer at the bottom?

Here's the game, for what it's worth.

Wrapping up

2008-06-15T15:29:00.003+01:00

The season proper came to an end some time ago, and I notice that I have a couple of games left over that I've not yet posted. Here's the first of them; the other will probably follow fairly shortly, so that I don't have to leave a loss at the top of the blog...

Crushing though this defeat was, for some reason I didn't mind it too much. I think it's that I'd much prefer to lose by completely misunderstanding the position and coming up with a disastrous plan, than by blundering away some material (which is more often my way). 14. Nd2 was the start of a bad idea, mistakenly playing for 16. f4. A couple of moves later and it's clear that White has only improved of all of Black's pieces, and that it will be just a matter of time before the final blow is delivered. Full credit to Opponent, though, who finished off nicely from there.

As I say though, I'd prefer to lose by executing a bad plan in a relatively unfamiliar type of position. It seems like this sort of loss ought to be a general lesson that I can remember for future games. In contrast, the repeated appearance of decisive blunders in my play suggests that "don't give your pieces away" is a moral that neither I nor my opponents can really grasp.

Letsplaychess.com presents Lawrence Cup Final

2008-05-20T09:42:00.001+01:00

2nd match game on Board 3, T.Gavriel vs A.Kikiyo. Barnet won the match overall 6-2 thus winning the Lawrence Cup 30 minute inter-club tournament !

Letsplaychess.com presents Lawrence Cup Final

2008-05-20T09:40:00.001+01:00

Barnet wins the Lawrence Cup! Barnet beats Wood Green 6-2 in the final round! Here is the action on board 3 - A.Kikiyo vs. T.Gavriel, 1st 30 minute chess match game

Letsplaychess.com presents Chess News: Topalov catching up!

2008-05-17T13:06:00.001+01:00

Letsplaychess.com presents Chess News: Ivanchuk 5/5!

2008-05-16T11:46:00.001+01:00

Letsplaychess.com presents puzzle: Back row mate theme

2008-05-11T01:18:00.001+01:00

A brilliant tactical finish to keep people sharp tactically over the Summer :)

If I followed this blog more closely...

2008-04-20T11:50:00.004+01:00

... I'd have been better prepared for this Opponent, as one of my fellow bloggers reported his game against him earlier in the season.

In my last post, I complained that my games were too often spoiled by blunders. This game certainly wasn't error-free (I doubt I've ever played a game where I would be happy to repeat every single move, much less one that was objectively without error), but both players avoided anything too grotesque - and I'm beginning to think that that's half the battle.

As Black, I mixed up my opening lines and was probably rather worse for a while - White's two bishops had me worried. The curious 21. Kf1, though, allowed me to exchange some pieces, after which I was presumably better due to the weakness on c3. (Sadly the game was late to finish and I didn't get a chance to ask Opponent for his thoughts. 21. Kf1 looks to me like the sort of move you play when you're not sure what to do, but maybe he had something concrete in mind).

White possibly should have made the endgame a bit tougher, but was beginning to run short of time. At 37... Nc3+ it took me far too long to convince myself that I would have time to queen before White did the same... I felt sure I must be OK, but we've all seen endings where miracle saves are pulled off by a single tempo; and I really didn't want to be a victim of one of those.

ATTACKING TO EARLY

2008-04-18T17:40:00.004+01:00

I played the following game recently against George Monk

MNJones - G M Monk NCL B Barking v Old Elizabethans played 10.04.2008 at Barking

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.exd4 d5 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.Qc2 Nc6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ng4 11.f4 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 Ne3 13.Bxe3 Qxe3 14.Qe2 Qb6 15.Qf2 Qxf2 16.Rxf2 f6 17.exf6 Rxf6 18.Nd2 e5 19.g3 e4 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Bxe4 Rb8 22.Rd2 Be6 23.a3 Kf7 24.Kg2 Ke7 25.Re1 b5 26.Bc6 Kf7 27.Bd7 Rb6 28.Red1 Bb3 29.Re1 Rbd6 30.Be8+ Kf8 31.Rxd6 Rxd6 32.Bxb5 Rd2+ 33.Re2 Rxe2+ 34.Bxe2 Ke7 35.Bd3 Kd6 36.Kf3 Kc5 37.g4 Bd5+ 38.Ke3 a5 39.Kf2 1/2-1/2

Comments

Too anxious to attack I played 9 Ne5

Too anxious to develop I played 18 Nd2 when King G1 was much better

I had overlooked e5 and the consequences

However after my knight sacrifice on move 20 I had two extra pawns and

I think a postional advantage

Winning a further pawn on move 32 I settled for a draw

but I wonder whether I should have pursed a win ?

Letsplaychess.com presents P.Kemp vs M.Jones

2008-04-17T17:05:00.001+01:00

This was a major Scalp for Barnet chess club's Team Captain Mike Jones ECF 115 against Hertfordshire League's No.1 team - Royston Chess club

Mike played against a player more than 50 ECF points higher - Paul Kemp, rated about ECF 175.

All this playing Black and with a near 20 minute time odds!

Chess Party on Saturday! :)

2008-04-16T10:50:00.001+01:00

This invitation extends to members of Barnet chess club or Blog readers of our site who happen to be in London on Satuday, and fancy a few games of blitz chess:

Chessworld London Social April 2008

Hi All

Message from Ockendon, the London social event organiser follows:

When is the London Social?

On Saturday, 19th April, from 11.30 a.m. to 5.45 p.m.

A restaurant has also been booked for 6.00 p.m., for those members who wish to go on to a meal after the social (see below).

(For anyone who can’t make this one - and for those who can! - there will be another London Social on Saturday, 30th August. Details of this will be posted at a later date.)

Where is the social?

This year we are trying a new venue, the Walgrave Arms, 40-42 Brendon Street, Marylebone W1H 5HE. Click here for details:

Wargrave Arms pub details

This pub is already used regularly by the Kings Head Chess Club, and Kingscrusher has checked it out; click here for his pictures:

Venue pictures

The Walgrave Arms is within easy reach of Edgeware Road, Marble Arch and Paddington stations.

Who can attend?

The social is open to all members (whether full or guest members) and to their families and friends.

Please let us know if you are planning to attend, by adding your name here:

Event Calendar entry

If you are planning to bring more than 3 friends/family members it’s essential that you check first with me (ockendon) to check that we can accommodate you.

Also, please message me if you have any additional needs, such as mobility or sensory needs, so that we can do our best to ensure that everything goes smoothly for you. We want to make everyone feel equally welcome.

People of all ages are welcome to attend; however, anyone under 18 must be accompanied at all times by a responsible adult.

What does it cost?

There is no charge for coming along to the social. Those attending are, of course, responsible for purchasing their own food and drink.

So, what actually happens at a social?

Chessworld socials are friendly, informal events. Some people come mainly to play chess, others prefer to socialise and play the occasional game. Some non-playing friends or relatives like to spend the time visiting the sights or doing a bit of shopping.

You can drop in whenever you like, and stay for as long or as short a time as you want to.

What about the chess?

There is plenty of that! Most games are informal, just ask someone if they’d like a game. It doesn’t matter if they’re much stronger or much weaker than you! Some people like to use clocks, but most games have no time limits. There is no competition, and games played at the social will not, of course, have any effect on your chessworld rating.

If you are new to socials, I will personally greet you, and will also find your first opponent for you if you wish.

Do I need to bring anything?

Yourself! Plus a chess set if you have one that you can carry easily. But if you don’t, please do still come; there will be quite a few spare sets around that anyone can use.

What was that about a meal?

The social at the Walgrave Arms is of course the main event of the day. However, some people like to stay on a bit longer and have a bite to eat. It’s also a chessworld tradition to play a communal game of chess during the meal!

We have booked tables for 20 people at a nearby Italian restaurant, Bizzarro, at 18 Craven Road W2 3PX.

Places will be allocated strictly on a first come, first served basis. Please message me directly as soon as possible if you do wish to come to the meal. For the sake of fairness, we will not be able to accommodate more than one guest per member at the meal.

Here is the restaurant’s website:

( http://www.bizzarro.co.uk/aboutus.php )

Many thanks to Cuppablanca for finding this restaurant for us.

I’m coming from a long way off. Where can I stay?

There is, of course, plenty of accommodation in London. We are not able to recommend a particular place, but try typing “London hotels”, “cheap accommodation in London”, etc. etc. into Google for some ideas.

I have another question

Excellent! Please message me directly with any questions, I’ll be more than happy to answer.

If you’ve never been to a social before, please do consider coming along. I was pretty nervous at my first social a few years ago, but I was quickly made to feel welcome, and by the end of the day I already felt at home!

Reply to Ockendon
Ockendon
London Social Organiser

J.Hodgson vs T.Gavriel

2008-04-10T09:32:00.001+01:00

Match against Ilford chess club. Had a good position until Bxc3?? which was very antipositional.

Another week, another game

2008-04-06T20:39:00.004+01:00

Approaching the end of the season, I'm beginning to look for patterns and conclusions. Maybe there aren't really any to be found, but it's fun to try. We've still a few games left, so I'll be thinking more about this when we're done; meanwhile this game exemplifies a couple of repeated themes:

My games include a lot of blunders (not all of them mine)

Very few games are completely, or even mostly, satisfying

The two are related, of course. Losing feels rubbish; and even winning isn't that great if the game wasn't good.

Put like that, it almost sounds as though I'm not enjoying my chess. That's not the case at all. Probably I should set myself a second end-season task of trying to figure out what I like about the game, and write something about that too.

N.Syed vs T.Gavriel

2008-04-02T11:13:00.001+01:00

This was board 3 for the match against Wanstead chess club.

It was played on Monday 31st March - we managed to beat Wanstead by a whopping 5.5 to 0.5!

Barnet chess club players do well at Southend Open Congress at Easter

2008-03-28T00:23:00.003Z

I am happy to report that Alex Ethelontis and myself did well at the Southend Open Easter congress.

I came 2nd with 5.5/7 and may be offered a qualifying place for the British Chess Championship to be held in Liverpool. Alex came 4th equal with 5/7. Paul Georghiou, also did well by most standards, but he felt he underperformed with a 185+ performance. He is rated ECF 199 though, so probably had much higher expectations than both myself and Alex, who are rated at ECF 185 and 186 respectively.

Here are some youtube videos of three of my key wins from the tournament:

Round 7 win vs FM Dave Ledger

Round 4 win vs Peter Vas

Round 2 win vs Salimbeni

All in all a great tournament to play in!

Not relegated

2008-03-27T19:45:00.002Z

I believe that winning this match secured our place in Division 1 of the Hertfordshire league, which had previously been in some doubt.

My own contribution was the rather poor win given below. White must be better after 11. ... Bxh4, but with 20. Qf3 and 21. Kb1, he gives it all away.

20. Qf3 is understandable: Opponent simply missed that I could force the exchange of queens. 21. Kb1, though, is harder to explain - it just goes into the same ending with one pawn less than he could have had. Alas, it's hardly the first time this season that one of Opponent or Blogger has played a bad move.

Opponent took the best part of half an hour to resign in the final position, clear-cut though it is. (He had barely taken that long over whole of the rest of the game). Though we got on just fine in a fun post-mortem, I couldn't quite bring myself to ask what he'd been thinking about. Lots of players do seem to be reluctant to admit that it really is all over, and no doubt this buys them the occasional half point. My habit is to resign rather quickly; I usually believe that if an Opponent can reach a definitely winning position then he can also win it, so once I'm convinced that I'm lost I'd rather stop the pain.

Still blundering

2008-03-17T23:32:00.008Z

Another game, another blunder. This one is oddly similar to a previous disaster - maybe I have a blind spot for pins on the g-file.

If I was shocked when Opponent took my rook, I almost fell off my chair when he offered a draw at the same time. I'm not sure what prompted this generosity - with the match still in the balance and rating points at stake, I'm afraid that I wouldn't be giving up half points so easily. I guess some people are nicer than others, but to me this is too much. If I make a stupid move, then I should lose a stupid game; that's just how chess is.

On the other hand... well, the match was still in the balance - but actually, the result probably won't make any significant difference to final league positions, so it doesn't mean a lot. And rating points - well, they don't really matter either, do they? Next season, my grade will be a couple of points higher than it might have been (and Opponent's will be a couple of points lower), and so what? If you're playing chess for the pleasure of the game and, perhaps, to socialize a bit (and isn't that why we play?) - well, then Opponent's draw offer is a perfectly rational one.

I couldn't have made it myself, though.

Letsplaychess.com presents Gavriel vs Wittmann

2008-03-14T07:55:00.001Z

Barnet lost 5-1 to Wood Green last night unfortunately. Congratulations though to Wood Green chess club for winning the North Circular Chess league. This was the game on board 2 I played against a dangerous opponent named J.Wittmann ECF 183.

Letsplaychess.com presents P.Bonafont vs. T.Gavriel

2008-03-13T10:37:00.001Z

This was my best game from the Barnet chess congress, in Round 2 in the top section.

Unfortunately in Round 3, just as I was looking forward to being on 3/3, after reaching a winning position, and the opponent very short of time, I received a text message on my Iphone. And the opponent claimed the game. I thought I had turned it off from before. Anyway from now on, no more chess with an Iphone in my pocket!.

However on the Saturday, at least I could take away this victory from the earlier Round 2.

A loose end

2008-03-10T21:41:00.005Z

Don't get too excited, but I've just completed this adjournment. We left the game here:

Play continued 36. ... a6 37. a4 Be7 38. Ke3 Bd8 39. Ke2 Be7 draw agreed. Thrilling stuff.

The explanation lies off the board. As I mentioned last time, Barnet were one up in the match with this and one other game to complete. That other game was taking place at the same time as this one and was (to my surprise) lost in the time it took us to play these moves. Back in my game Black can still try to mix things up (getting his knight to f5 looks like the first step) but it seems as though any winning chances that he can create carry just as many losing chances. Once the match was level, Opponent clearly felt that he couldn't take any risks.

Well, this is all fair enough. Alas, it doesn't make for a very interesting Monday evening, or blog post...

Chess publisher downtime and alternative

2008-03-02T22:58:00.003Z

When posting earlier today, I noticed that none of the games were showing up on the blog. Apparently chesspublisher.com is suffering some sort of downtime. I guess this was always a risk for a blog relying on a third party to host its games.

This prompted me to start looking into alternative methods for getting chess games onto the blog. I fairly quickly found the free LT PGN viewer - and fairly quickly realised that ChessPublisher appeared to be based on that work. (I can't remember whether ChessPublisher gave appropriate credit for this or not; and can't check while the site remains down).

Then I figured out that I could use Google's servers (explicitly, Google pages) to host something more or less equivalent to ChessPublisher.

So, after some fiddling, I'm proud to present Barnet Elizabethans' Chess Club's very own PGN publisher, here. Much as in ChessPublisher, you enter your PGN and are given an HTML snippet to put into your blog.

In a sense, of course, this is no step forward. Bloggers are still relying on a third-party host to take care of displaying their games. Indeed, if you have your own server space then you probably should be using that. However, if you must go elsewhere, my guess is that (except, perhaps, when Pakistan intervenes) the Google servers should be more reliable than most.

I've edited this post to use our version of the PGN viewer, so you can see what the results looks like.

What's in a name?

2008-03-02T12:51:00.003Z

When we played Barking a few weeks back, I looked the club up on the ECF's online grading database. I was surprised to see that they had Howard Staunton on their books. He didn't play against us.

Any other famous names out there?

A swindle

2008-02-28T19:22:00.004Z

This week's game was drifting towards a likely loss, when a trick appeared:

Why can't white play 26. Ra5? The solution, luckily for me, is in the game.

Moments like this require some self-control. Clearly you don't want to let the opponent know that you have set a trap. Ideally, you should somehow give the impression that the blunder which you're hoping for is a perfectly normal move, possibly even your main line, and certainly that you're a bit worried by it. That's an awful lot of impression to give.

Further restraint is needed when the trap is sprung - it would be unspeakably rude to sit there grinning inanely. Actually, I'm not sure that it's altogether classy to blog about it later. Probably I've posted enough of my own blunders to allow this, though.

What more to say? It's not the way that I'd want to win a game; but it sure beats losing...

The Boring System revisited

2008-02-26T23:05:00.006Z

Back in October, I faced a London System and complained that it led to a dull game that noone could possibly enjoy, and I couldn't beat it, and wouldn't someone please suggest some way to spice things up?

Last week, however, I met it again and was quite happy to play the same tedious lines all over again. The difference? In the earlier game I held a rating advantage of about 15 ECF points (about 120 Elo, for any non-English readers); but in this second game I was outrated by 20 points (say 150 Elo).

Actually, I think this is quite rational. As black, against a stronger opponent, I should be happy to hold a draw. Certainly I don't think that it should be up to me to create complications. I've no idea, though, why white would choose to play this way. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't playing for a draw, but he never really looked like getting anything more. If anything, black was developing a slight edge before dropping a pawn and shutting up shop.

Adjourned again

2008-02-24T14:38:00.003Z

I've posted before about my dislike of adjournments in club chess, so won't labour the point again. Suffice to say that I would have preferred to finish this game on the night.

It's not a very exciting game, this one. Probably white ought to try and open things up earlier on (8. c4, perhaps); and then probably he should be trying to maintain the tension for a bit longer (17. a4, or something) rather than acquiescing to an endgame in which he is slightly worse.

The computer tells me that the adjourned position is just about as dull as it looks - but Barnet are one up in the match, with this game and another adjourned. That being so, I guess I can understand that Opponent feels he has to play on and hope that he can persuade me to blunder (and of course this might yet happen). Ironically, I can't help thinking that his chances of success would be higher if he'd agreed to a quickplay finish in the first place.

A bad game

2008-02-23T15:58:00.004Z

I played this game three or four weeks ago now, and should have blogged it sooner. But I was so disgusted with my play that I've been putting it off.

Why did this loss annoy me more than any of the others that I've posted? I think because the bad moves came through sheer laziness, leaving a strong feeling that I'd let myself down. Sometimes you miscalculate, or misevaluate a position, or choose a bad plan; but at least you are calculating, evaluating, and planning. This game, though, was lost simply by not investigating the position at all.

Explicitly, after 11. ... c6 my thought process went something like this:

"Obviously he wants to play ... d5. I don't really believe in that; start those pawns rolling and I'll just crush him on the kingside. Excellent".

And that's about it. I considered my opponent's intended move to a depth of fully zero ply. As soon as it hit the board, of course, I saw that I was losing material. Really, when you see what your opponent is going to do, you should give it a little attention.

I probably ought now to be writing that, well, at least it's a lesson learned and I surely won't be making that mistake again. Alas, I doubt that's true. Bad habits formed over many years aren't so easily given up.

Letsplaychess.com presents S.Swanson vs T.Gavriel

2008-02-20T20:36:00.001Z

I played an interesting game last night against Steve Swanson of Hertford chess club:

S.Swanson Ecf 204 vs T.Gavriel 185
Hertford 1 vs Barnet 1

[[1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 dxe4 5. dxe4 e5
6. Bg2 Bg4 7. Ngf3 Nc6 8. h3 Be6 9. O-O h6 10. c3 Qd3 11. Re1 O-O-O 12. Bf1 Qd7
13. Bb5 Qd6 (13... Bd6 14. Nc4 (14. Qa4 a6 15. Bxc6 Qxc6 16. Qxc6 bxc6 17. Kg2)
14... Bxc4 15. Bxc4 Qxh3) (13... Bd6) 14. Qa4 Nb8 (14... Bd7 15. Bxc6 Bxc6 16.
Qxa7 Qe6 17. a4 Qxh3 18. Nxe5) 15. Bf1 (15. Nc4 Bxc4 16. Bxc4) 15... Nfd7 16.
Nc4 (16. Qxa7 Nb6 17. Qa5 Nc6 18. Qb5) 16... Qc6 17. Qxc6 Nxc6 18. a4 (18. b4
f6 19. Rd1 Nb6) 18... a5 19. Be3 f6 20. Nfd2 b6 21. Kg2 Bc5 22. Nb3 Bxe3 23.
Rxe3 h5 24. Ree1 h4 25. g4 Nf8 26. Rad1 Ng6 27. Nc1 Nf4+ 28. Kh2 Kb7 29. Ne3
Rxd1 30. Rxd1 Rd8 Draw agreed 1/2-1/2 ]]