Blogger vs Blogger, OTB

A fellow blogger was passing through my town and offered to play a game. We were fairly equally matched, rating wise. The game was typical of class-level players with missed defensive moves and tactical chances. The time limit was G60 and the clock was ticking down as the game moved into an opposite-colored Bishop & pawn endgame. I played for the draw, but think I may have missed a late-inning win. My next blog entry will explore that potential with another “Winning the Won Game” posting.

The variations and the move symbols are Houdini’s, diagnosed with ‘Scid vs PC’ at 10 seconds per ply. The verbal comments are my thoughts during the game and my interpretations of the analysis provided by Houdini.

Of special interest is White’s 14th move, where Houdini gives an increase in valuation from +0.61 to +2.44 without a previous error indicated for Black. My assumption (verified by subsequent analysis at 15 seconds) is that 10 seconds of analysis on Black’s previous move was not sufficient to see the error. This probably indicates an error that a class-level player should not expect to see OTB.

My policy is not to name opponents. However, my opponent, with my permission, will probably identify both players when he posts his analysis of the game.

It was fun to play against a fellow blogger to start my second year of blogging.

Winning the Won Game (5), a better method

Next time you see a position that is supposed to be winning: capture the position, transfer it to your favorite chess program, set the program at a rating higher than your own and play the winning position to see how to conclude the game. Then go back and repeat the exercise at an increased rating until you can win against it at full strength.

The ending below is from a 2011 game of mine. I did find a winning path, but Houdini showed me a better method.

For the readers who wish to try this exercise, the FEN is:
8/8/1p3kpp/p1pp4/5PPP/1P1K4/1P6/8 b - -

Today is the 1st anniversary of my blog. 87 posts and 9,844 page views. Other than the USA, my audience is mostly from Brazil, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Spain, Netherlands and France. I can recommend the blogging experience to all my viewers.

Winning the Won Game (4), see game below

Next time you see a position that is supposed to be winning: capture the position, transfer it to your favorite chess program, set the program at a rating higher than your own and play the winning position to see how to conclude the game. Then go back and repeat the exercise at an increased rating until you can win against it at full strength.

This exercise is from a game between R. Domenech & S. Flohr in 1935. Domenech resigned after the 30th move and I wanted to see how easily the game could be won against a strong opponent. You can see the original game below the exercise.

For the readers who wish to try this exercise, the FEN is:
8/1p3p1p/2pk1P2/8/p1P5/P7/1P1K3P/8 w - -

This is game #7 from Irving Chernev's book The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played, 62 Masterpieces of Chess Strategy.

Winning the Won Game (3), see previous post

Next time you see a position that is supposed to be winning: capture the position, transfer it to your favorite chess program, set the program at a rating higher than your own and play the winning position to see how to conclude the game. Then go back and repeat the exercise at an increased rating until you can win against it at full strength.

This is the position and move that Houdini found was winning (i.e. -4.27) in my last game post. Move #47 with Black to play. I am playing against Shredder at full strength. There probably is a shorter way to win, but this is the method that I found/played.

My blog stats indicate that there is a higher level of traffic for these Winning the Won Game posts. I'm pleased that the exercise that seems to help me the most is also one of interest to my readers. A very interesting exercise that I highly recommend.

Richter-Veresov Attack, missed opportunities

Today's game is from a turn-based site. It features missed opportunities which showed up in Houdini's analysis. The first one is complex and at my current level, I would not expect to find in during a game. The second one I should have seen, as it is very elementary.

But it is the third one that is the reason for this post. On move #47, Black has an opportunity to turn a draw into a win. I missed it during the game, but it seems a good candidate for a follow-up with a Winning the Won Game post. Here is the game:

I tried to put the follow-up as a comment, but could not get the game to show in a comment. The FEN for move #47 is:
8/8/8/5R1p/7k/5p1P/1PP3r1/2K5 b - - 1 47

Winning the Won Game (2), see previous post

Next time you see a position that is supposed to be winning: capture the position, transfer it to your favorite chess program, set the program at a rating higher than your own and play the winning position to see how to conclude the game. Then go back and repeat the exercise at an increased rating until you can win against it at full strength.

This is the position and move that Houdini found was winning (i.e. +2.83 at depth 21) in my last game post. Move #36 with White to play. I am playing against Shredder at full strength. Houdini thought that White's next move should be Bxh6, however the move I made wins nicely.

A very interesting exercise that I highly recommend to my readers. Enjoy.

Stafford Gambit 5, a lucky draw

Thursday night’s game at the chess club started with an unsound gambit line, then featured minor mistakes in the middle game, and some terrible endgame play from both players. I was lucky to get a draw!

My opponent played the White side of the Stafford Gambit with the recommended moves thru the opening. This gambit line always gives me trouble. If I cannot find a reasonable alternative, I may need to stop using the gambit entirely. Research is in progress.

Lessons learned: (1) Fix or discard this gambit. (2) Obviously, my multi-pawn endgame needs work.

P.S. Following my recommendation from my last post, I will practice from my opponent’s position with the white pieces:
8/6B1/k1pp3p/p4Pp1/P3b1P1/7P/2P5/2K5 w - - 0 36

Winning the Won Game, see previous post

Next time you see a position that is supposed to be winning: capture the position, transfer it to your favorite chess program, set the program at a rating higher than your own and play the winning position to see how to conclude the game. Then go back and repeat the exercise at an increased rating until you can win against it at full strength.

This is the position and move that Houdini found was winning in my last game post. I am playing against Shredder at full strength. After an initial failure, I can now systematically win the position.

A very interesting exercise that I highly recommend to my readers. Enjoy.

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit 7, tricky & exciting

Thursday night's game at the chess club paired me against a higher-rated player that I have never won against, but have obtained a few satisfying draws. Our last few games had me playing black, but this game I had white. We both played relatively fast for a G/90 game, finishing with about half the clock remaining. Part of that was because of the early trade of all our pieces.

Lessons learned: (1) Study the opening lines. (2) Time left on the clock after the game is not useful. (3) Even when playing for a draw, keep looking for a possible win.

King's Gambit Busted, did Bobby err?

In 1961, Bobby Fischer became upset at a loss against the King’s Gambit and he analyzed the opening. He subsequently published an article titled “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”. In that article, Bobby explained the moves that, he believed, would make the King’s Gambit refuted.

I have been seeing a fair number of King’s Gambit openings when I play as black. I needed a reliable defense against this opening. This lead me to look at Bobby Fischer’s refutation of the King’s Gambit.

Bobby published a remarkable series of moves, especially considering that he did this without access to our modern computers. I put the moves into a database and allowed Houdini to review his findings. Everything looked great until move #11, where Houdini disagreed with 11...Nxe4, finding that this move gave back Black’s gains and equalized the game. Houdini preferred 11...Nxd4 12.cxd4 and only then 12...Nxe4. Here is Bobby’s refutation:

In case anyone wants to verify this with their own chess engine, the position after 11.Nxg5 is the FEN:

r1b1k2r/ppp1qpb1/2np1n2/6N1/2BPPp2/1QP5/PP4P1/RNB2RK1 b kq - 0 11

Paleface Attack (5), 17 pawn-only moves to start

In this game, Emil Joseph Diemer of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit started with a Paleface Attack and continued with pawn-only moves for the first 17 moves of the game ... and won!

Paleface Attack (4), left behind squares

Today's game is shown, not to illustrate good technique, but to emphasize the importance of looking at what is left behind. The Paleface Attack often leads to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit when Black responds with 1...Nf6. The game was even until the 2nd move out-of-book. Then the mistake.

In turn-based games it is especially easy to react to where a piece is moved to and recapture the Bishop. A survey of the board shows that 11...Bxd3 fatally unprotects the f7 square and a mate quickly follows.