Barnet Elizabethans Chess Club

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...

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 mor...

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 s...

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

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...

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

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.