The Rat Who Would Be King

Canadian Open Rounds 8 & 9

2011-03-13T11:36:00.000-07:00

In round 8 I was paired as white against FM Ashton, a 2300+ FIDE player from England. The opening phase was interesting as Ashton played a move that I have never seen before, despite playing over a hundred games (mostly blitz) in this line. White's last move was 8.d5 and black responded 8...Na5!?

I believe I reacted well, and my decision to sacrifice a pawn to win an exchange is approved of by Rybka.

9. Nc1 c5 10. a3 b6 11. b4 Nb7 12. Nd3 Nh5 13. Qd2 f5 14. Be2 Bd7 15. g3 Rc8 16. Rb1 cxb4 17.axb4 Rxc4

The critical middlegame position. White has two ways to win the exchange - unfortunately, I chose the wrong way. My thought process went something like, "I don't want to play Nc5 because those connected pawns on the queenside look scary. I will play Nxe5 when he gets two knights for the rook, but look at his knights. They are on the edge of the board and are useless!"

Well, it didn't take long for Ashton to recycle those knights to useful squares and crush me. 0-1

In round 9 I was black against Paul LeBlanc, a 1950 FIDE player from BC. This game was one-sided, and although I'm sure Paul just had an off day, I have a feeling our conversation before the game had some affect on his play.

Before the round started I checked the pairings in the hall to see which board I was on, and as I made my way to the board I noticed that Jack was sitting in my seat, talking with my opponent. I found out later that Jack and Paul have known each other for years. As Jack was leaving he introduced me to Paul and mentioned that we were friends and were staying together at Yan's place. As I sat down Paul asked me how I knew Jack, and in my response I alluded to "looking at lots of chess games together".

In the context of our conversation it may have seemed like I meant that Jack had helped me prepare specifically for Paul. This was not my intent as I hadn't prepared for Paul at all, but I have to wonder if Paul's collapse in this game was a result of this double entendre.

Another Classical Dutch! Up until now my opponent has somewhat followed theory's recommendations, although the configuration with Qc2 and Rb1 is rather unusual. Having said that, white's queenside play is what he has to do here, so Rb1 makes sense.

Around here my opponent made some strange choices.

14.e4?! Nxe4 15. Nxe4 fxe4 16. Qxe4?? Bf5 0-1

Canadian Open Round 7

2011-03-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

In round 7 I was black against Richard Wang, one of the top U12 players in the country. The game was a Classical Dutch, but this time I played 7...Ne4 instead of 7...a5, like I had played against Friedel, in order to avoid Richard's preparation. One of the reasons I like the Classical Dutch is that as early as move 7 black has 4 alternatives to choose from, and each one leads to a different type of game.

The position after 11.c5 is shown below:

This is a critical opening position. Black must decide how to react in the centre. I spent a considerable amount of time here, but I think I came up with the correct response.

11...fxe4! 12. Qxe4 d5 13. Qe2 e4 14. Nd2 Bf6

Besides being a good square for the bishop, placing the bishop on f6 at this point prevents white from playing the natural f3 due to Nxd4!

15.Nb3 Bf5 16. Be3 Qd7 17. Rae1 Bg4 18. Qd2 Bf3 19. Bf4 Bxg2 20. Kxg2 Ne7 21. f3 exf3+ 22. Rxf3 Ng6 23. Nc1 Qg4!

After this move it is clear that black has the initiative. The threat is Nh4+

24. Rf2 Rae8 25. Rxe8 Rxe8 26. Nd3 c6 27. Kf1

A critical middlegame position has been reached, and unfortunately, even though I considered the move that exploits black's advantage, I rejected it because I could press with "simpler means". Black should play 27...h5! intending h4 when the white kingside comes under pressure. After the move played in the game, white is able to withstand the attack and the game fizzles out to a draw.

27...Nxf4 28. Nxf4 Bg5 29. Qd3 Bxf4 30. Rxf4 Qh3+ 31. Kg1 Qe6 32. Kg2 Qe2+ 1/2-1/2

Canadian Open Round 6

2011-02-23T22:06:00.000-08:00

My sixth round game was one of the shortest of my life, both in terms of number of moves and total time to finish. Sometimes when a player is busted they take several minutes, if not hours, to conclude the game, searching desperately for a move that will alter their fate. I am guilty of this as well, although I don't think there is anything wrong with this approach. If the extra time spent saves half a point, the effort was worthwhile. My opponent in this game did not do this. After blundering early he played quickly and confidently, right up until mate.

Gluckie V Medvedev (1600)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. Nf3 Bg4

This move does not enjoy the best reputation, and for good reason. Black is simply worse now. This is also why the move 3.Nc3 is the main line against the Chigorin - Black must play very precisely to maintain the balance.

5. d5 Bxf3 6. exf3 Ne5 7. Bf4 Ng6 8.Bxc4!

If white was forced to waste time moving the bishop, black's strategy would be quite viable. Unfortunately for the second player this is not the case, but my opponent did not believe that my piece sacrifice was sound, and so he accepted it after about 20 minutes of thought.

8...Nxf4?? 9. Bb5+ c6 10. dxc6 Nd3+ 11. Qxd3 a6

White to move and mate in 3. 1-0.

Picture It Perfect

2011-02-20T21:58:00.000-08:00

I wanted to take a moment and plug my sister in law's business: Picture It Perfect. Michelle is a semi-professional photographer in Lloydminster who specializes in family photography. Here are some pictures she took on our vacation to Maui. All pictures are taken at the house we are staying at and are not staged in any way - she just got her camera out and started snapping pics.

http://web.me.com/mlrobinson13/Picture_It_Perfect/Home.html

A sail boat in the distance.

Reese Robinson, my niece.

The devious plan: spray water at Jamin when he is not suspecting it.

The aftermath - getting wet.

The public beach close to our place.

Canadian Open Round 5

2011-02-20T21:14:00.000-08:00

The accelerated pairings were over by this point, which meant that I was due to face some lower rated players for the next two rounds. I was hoping to be able to keep playing up, but my last two losses put a stop to that.

My opponent in round 5 was Vilas Karmalkar, a 1700 player who played rather provocatively in the opening.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 Bb4 5. e5 Nd7 6. a3 Be7

I seriously considered playing Qg4 here, but after some thought I realized that black is too solid for such excursions. Indeed, after black plays g6, h5, Nh6, Nf5, etc, it is not clear if white has gained anything at all. My friend Andrew Boik, who is currently taking his PhD at the U of T and who I got together with at this tournament for some beers, commented that I rejected Qg4 because I would have been more comfortable on the black side of that position. He may be right.

7. Bd3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 Nb6 9. Bb3 Bg5 10. Ne4 Be7

It is clear my opponent values his bishop highly, and rightly so. In fact, I probably should have repeated moves with Nc3 here, intending to meet Bg5 with Qg4 with the point that if black captures on c1 I have an intermezzo on g7, winning a pawn. I rejected this line, though, because I felt that I had to punish my opponent for wasting so much time in the opening.

11. Qg4 g6 12. Nf3 Nd5 13. Bg5 f5 14. exf6 Ngxf6 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Bh6 Qa5+

So, here it is: another case of me losing my opening advantage by not finding the most precise moves. Black is OK here because he is able to 0-0-0, but I am fine too. I realized that the position was equal and shifted my mindset to once again accumulating small advantages.

17. Nd2 Bd7 18. O-O O-O-O
19. Nc4 Qc7 20. Qe4 g5 21. g3 Rhg8 22. f4 gxf4 23. Bxf4 Nxf4 24. Rxf4 Rdf8 25.
Raf1 Be7 26. Ne5 Rxf4 27. Rxf4 Bd6

White to play and win. Take a couple minutes to find the tactical shot.

After the game my opponent shook my hand and asked if I would like to go over the game with him. I politely declined, pointing to Andrew who was kibitzing in the tournament hall. After all, I don't get to see Andrew very often, and he had dropped by the tournament in order to hang out with me. Moreover, I am of the opinion that post mortems in chess are dead, no pun intended. The problem is that very few players are able to put their egos aside and use the post mortem as a learning experience. Instead, the post mortem typically becomes an awkward jousting match where both sides inevitably exchange cheap shots to either protect or boost their ego. My theory is based on several examples from my own tournament experiences, and even though I never entered the post mortem with Vilas, his comment as I was leaving the board pretty much proved my point.

After I pointed to Andrew and explained that I was going to visit my friend who I don't get to visit with often, Vilas asked what Andrew's rating was. I said 2200, to which Vilas responded, "So that's why you played so well against me. Your friend is master [sic]".

It's these sort of passive-aggressive comments that characterize post mortems these days. Of course, Andrew's chess strength has nothing to do with my performance in my game with Vilas, although my opponent preferred to transfer the cause of his loss onto Andrew's rating, rather than his own deficiencies.

Canadian Open Round 4

2011-02-20T01:10:00.000-08:00

My 4th round game in Toronto was a bit of a debacle. My opponent avoided my preparation and played a line of the french that I was very uncomfortable with. In fact, at the time, if I had to pick a single line that I would have avoided at all costs, it would have been the one Martchenko played. Good job on his part for sniffing that one out.

Frankly, losing this game was a real downer because two rounds prior I was practically leading the tournament, and now I was back down with 2/4. To make matters worse, it felt like I was playing against a database during this game - all of the moves having been played before and my opponent spewing out the best responses effortlessly and without delay. To my credit, though, I played some good moves to reach my demise. Rybka evaluates the critical position as equal, although I suspect it's because I'm up 2 pawns and it can't evaluate white's attacking potential fully. Unfortunately, I think I'm just busted after taking the d4 pawn.

I'm going to present the game with some light annotations because it's depressing to go into more detail.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Ne7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. h4 Nbc6 8. Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2

So far, so good. My problem, as far as my opening repertoire was concerned, was that I was completely unfamiliar with the h4 systems where white plays Nf3 instead of h5. In fact, in my last-minute opening prep with Robert, where I played against Rybka for 20 moves, we had looked at the line where white pushes h5 and I did just fine after accepting the gambitted pawn on d4. Here, though, things are entirely different because white has played a much more useful move than h5 - he has developed a piece. This makes all the difference, but I failed to realize this at the time.

9...cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa4 11. Bd3 Nxd4 12. Rb1

It was at this point that I felt something had gone horribly wrong. In the lines I was expecting, i.e., if white would have played h5, everything works for black. Here, though, it's all bad. Despite this, I was faced with some tough choices in the following sequence of moves, and I made the correct moves each time.

12...Nec6 13. Bb4 Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Nxe5 15. Qg3 Nxd3+ 16. cxd3 Rg8 17. O-O a5 18. Bc5 Ra6??

I think I'll leave the finish up to your imagination. White to play and win.

Maui Chess Champion

2011-02-19T23:34:00.000-08:00

Greetings from Maui, Hawaii! As of yesterday, I am on vacation in beautiful Lahaina, Maui with my wife, son, and some extended family. Today was a bit of a write-off as far as "official" vacation plans were concerned because of my rather impulsive decision to play in a chess tournament in Maui.

My family and I arrived into Hawaii last night around 10 PM local time, which is 1 AM Lloydminster time. After getting Zenan to sleep, Amanda and I eventually went to sleep too, probably around midnight local time. We were all awake by 6:30 AM local time this morning, and after brushing my teeth and taking a walk around the house where we are staying I completed my normal daily ritual of checking my favourite websites and reading the news online. At about 7:30 AM I decided to search for "Maui chess", and to my surprise, I discovered that there was a chess tournament happening today starting at 9 AM. After a quick search on Google Maps to determine how much time it would take me to drive to the club, I decided that I could make it in time to compete in the tournament, and I left to play.

The venue of the tournament was a small pizza shop close to the airport, approximately 40 minutes away from where I am staying. After paying my entry fee of $16 I was told that the tournament was not USCF rated and that the time control would be decided after more people registered. As a few more players filtered in, the organizer - Bruce Martin - held a poll to determine the rate of play, and the unanimous decision was G/20. There were 8 players in total, so a round robin format seemed appropriate, and that's what we did.

At some point before the start of the first round I was asked what my rating was by one of the organizers. I responded, "Around 2100 FIDE", to which the organizer replied, "And how does that compare to USCF ratings?" I did my best to explain that FIDE was the International standard of chess ratings, and that all other rating systems are loosely based on that system, but it didn't seem to sink in, and this organizer (Sorry, but I can't remember his name) referred me to Bruce, who was in charge of the pairings. Bruce had overheard my previous comments about my rating, and when I walked over to him his reaction was "Oh really? Wow." It was somewhere around here that I wondered if I would have been better off spending time by the pool sipping Margaritas.

My first round game was rather uneventful. My opponent sacrificed his only developed piece on f2 so that I couldn't castle, and he then proceeded to sacrifice two more minor pieces for his "attack". After I got my king to safety, the rest was a matter of technique.

In my second game I played the opening rather poorly and ended up in a difficult position, but at some point in the middlegame (where I was slightly worse) my opponent picked up his rook and placed it where my knight could capture it - not for free, but I would win the exchange. He then picked up his rook and placed it on a different square and pretended as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. I called touch-move, and after some minor resistance from my opponent, he agreed to place the rook where he initially moved. His position fell apart rather quickly after that.

My fourth, fifth and sixth rounds were more of the same (I didn't have to play 7 rounds because one player withdrew), although I wasn't entirely happy with how I was playing. Due to my opponent's lack of theoretical knowledge, I was getting into a lot of irrational positions and with only 20 minutes on the clock I wasn't finding the best responses. On the other hand, I never blundered anything, but my wins were anything but convincing. My third round game, however, was the most interesting. According to some of the people I spoke with, Bruce was the favourite to win the tournament, and apparently, he wins every game against the local crew. I decided to focus and take him seriously.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 c6 6. Qc2 Be7 7. e3 Bg4

This method of development is rather unusual (black normally continues with 0-0, Nbd7, Re8 and Nf8), but it is not without merit, and given black's 5th move (5...c6), it is very consistent. The point of playing c6 early is to be able to develop the bishop to f5, and that is the reason white often plays 6.Qc2, following the general rule that white only plays Qc2 after black has moved his c-pawn.

The last paragraph might be rather vague for some readers because they don't play these systems, so I will do my best to explain. First, black has to play ...c6 before developing the bishop (just like in many other 1.d4 openings) because if he plays Bf5 immediately there is Qb3, attacking both d5 and b7. Second, after black plays c6 he is "threatening" Bf5. This may or not be considered a threat, and some white players prefer to allow this and steer the game into a queen-less middlegame after 6.e3 Bf5 7.Qf3 Bg6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Qxf6 gxf6 10. Kd2 where white has plans of playing some combination of h4-h5, Bd3, Ne2-f4, etc. However, I prefer to not allow this system because of the games of Nigel Short, who has proven that black is completely OK in these lines. Last, the only disadvantage of playing an early c6 is if white castles queenside because in those lines black needs to attack with c5, and in this case it is going to take him 2 moves instead of 1 to do this. But, castling queenside in the QGD isn't part of my repertoire yet, so I didn't take advantage of this move order. Having said that, the likely result is simply that the game will transpose to other normal lines, so I don't think it's disadvantageous for white to play this way.

8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Nge2 Bh5 10. Nf4 Bg4

This move, however, cannot be called consistent. In fact, if black was planning of opposing the Q+B battery he whould have played 8...Bh5 and 9...Bg6. As it stands now, black is just losing time. Somehow I wasn't able to take advantage of this, though, and that bugs me. Probably I should have just moved my rooks the centre and played e4, even sacrificing a pawn in the process. I haven't checked this with Rybka, and at the time I didn't want to take any risks, so I just played normal moves.

11. f3 Be6 12. O-O Nf8 13. Bh4

To add to my last comment, I probably should have punished black for his impudence by moving my rooks the the d and e-files and playing e4. My move is not bad per se, but I shouldn't have let my opponent play so slowly. And this is why:

13...h6 14. Bf2 g5 15.Nxe6 Nxe6 16. Bf5 Ng7 17. Bd3 Qd7 18. a3 h5

Somehow black has managed to get a reasonable position from the opening, and he may even be attacking me! This may be taking the easy way out, but I have to believe that if I had more time I would have punished Bruce earlier.

I reckoned that now that black had played h5 it was a good time for me to play e4 (now that Nh5-f4 wasn't available), and this was probably the correct decision.

19. e4 dxe4 20. fxe4 Ng4 21. Rad1 O-O 22. Bc4 b5 23. Ba2 b4 24. axb4 Bxb4

We've reached a critical position and I believe that it is here where I started to go awry. In my opinion, this is one of those positions where a strong player would automatically play e5 and Ne4, and this is backed by my experience playing tandom chess with Nakamura (we had a similar position where I failed to play this way and I was brutally chastised.) My first reaction to this position was that I wanted 30 minutes to think about it, and my second reaction was that I only had 10 minutes remaining, so I played a seemingly aggressive move - attack the bishop, pin the c-pawn and threaten d5. A perfect bullet chess move.

25. Qa4 Nxf2 26. Rxf2 a5

White to move and win. Instead of winning on the spot, I played a move that liquidated my advantage. The rest of the game is given without comment.

27. Rfd2 Qc7 28. d5 cxd5 29. exd5 Qc5+ 30. Kh1 Nf5 31. Qc6 Qe3 32. Re2 Black loses on time.

CDN Open Round 3

2011-01-04T22:21:00.000-08:00

After round 2 Jack and I celebrated in a downtown Toronto pub for as long as we could. We had both won our games, which is reason enough to indulge, but I had also defeated an IM - the first in my career! Unlike in other cities that we've played in, though, this time we had a train to catch to get back to where we were staying, which cut our celebrations short. As we talked about what was to come, Jack and I were both excited about my prospects. 2/2 in an accelerated pairing system is a great start, and if the third round was paired properly I would have another 2300 opponent, giving me a great chance to go 3/3 and be on the top boards in the 4th round.

The third round was not paired properly, however. In fact, there have been pages upon pages written about this subject on Chesstalk: how the whole Canadian Open was ruined due to the Organizer's mix up. I wouldn't go that far, but these protests do have merit. After all, screwing up the pairings in Canada's largest tournament is a big deal, especially when an International Arbitre (Hal Bond) was being guided by a swiss pairing expert brought into Toronto to hold a clinic on chess arbitration and swiss pairings!

What was even worse, in my opinion, was how the organizers handled the situation on Chesstalk. At first, Erik Malmsten tried to tell me (in a very kind way) that I did not understand how accelerated pairings worked. Then Hal Bond and others defended themselves by saying, "Yes we mixed up the pairings, but only the people with 2/2 were affected!" I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea. It's ok to screw up when you only muddle with the top boards, right?

Anyway, the net result was that I was paired against GM Friedel on board 6, which also happened to be on the stage, and my game was broadcast on the projection screen as well as live over the Internet. I mention all of these factors because, in retrospect, they had a negative affect on my psyche during the game. I am normally nervous before a chess game, and this anxiety usually abates as soon as I play a few moves, but against Friedel I wasn't able to shake those feelings. After every five moves or so I had to leave the board and walk around because my breathing was so irregular! Honestly, I thought that if I stayed at the board my opponent would either complain that I was deliberately trying to annoy him, or call an ambulance because he was genuinely concerned for my well being. It was that bad.

The game started differently than I expected - my opponent played 1.d4 against me. I had not found any of his games in the databases that began this way. Josh is normally an e4 player, but according to the games I found he plays a very sharp and forcing variation against the French, which is easy to prepare against and probably the reason he chose to avoid a theoretical discussion in the opening.

1.d4 e6

Giving my opponent one more chance to play into my preparation :)

2.Nf3 f5!

The Classical Dutch! A very interesting and ambitious opening. Prior to this game I had only played this once in OTB play, where I lost to Gardner in Edmonton. That game, however, taught me some important lessons about the Dutch, foremost among them being that black's chances lie in the middlegame. In other words, I am playing my first game against a Grandmaster and I choose an opening that basically declares, "I'm going to mate you." How's that for chutzpah?!

3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 d6 7. Nc3 a5

7...a5 is a semi-waiting move that clamps down on white's queenside before white declares his intentions. White has several options here: he can play the position solidly with 8.b3, or play directly for e4 with moves like Re1 or Qc2.

8.Re1 Ne4

Black cannot allow e4 to be played unless he is in time to meet e4 with either e5 or f4. In this case, black is not ready for either and so ...Ne4 is forced. Now white doesn't gain much from capturing on e4 as the rook would be misplaced on e1 (as white would have to play f3 at some point, and the subsequent opening of the f-file would be more advantageous for white if his rook hadn't moved).

9.Nd2!?

An interesting decision because not only is it an obscure side-line, it is also what Rybka chooses when allowed to think without an opening book. Jack and I often have discussions on the subject of chess engines and how they have affected not only the way people prepare, but the way they play as well. In this case I'm positive that Josh didn't prepare for me, and given that he never plays 1.d4 he has probably never faced the Classical Dutch. 9.Nd2 was his "natural" reaction, although I would argue that our natural ideas are becoming more and more machine-like.

The truly interesting thing about this position, though, is that I played black against Rybka in this exact line when I was at Robert's place, immediately before I left to play in Toronto. Robert had been working on a new way to study openings and that night he put my openings to the test.

The method of study consisted of me playing numerous games against Rybka, alternating colours each time. When I was white I had to have at least an equal position after 20 moves. As black I was allowed a slight disadvantage after 20 moves. This was a great way to test my opening knowledge and also my understanding of the middlegames I get from my openings.

9...Nxc3 10. bxc3 Nc6 11. e4 e5 12. d5 Nb8 13. c5 Na6 14. c6 bxc6 15.dxc6

15...f4! 16. gxf4 Rxf4 17. Nc4 Rg4 18. Ne3 Rg6 19. Kh1 Qe8 20. Nd5 Bd8?!

Jack and Rybka both criticized this move for being too passive. I have to agree - ...Bh4 looks a lot better. But, the idea of protecting c7 with the bishop is fairly typical for this line of the Dutch.

21. f4

A critical middlegame position. I have played well up until this point. My decision to develop my knight to a6 was correct, and the plan of taking on c6 and playing f4 was exactly what Rybka suggested. In fact, Rybka even agreed with my rook's journey to g6. But, all that aside, what does black do now?

I spent over 30 minutes on this move and then I played a whopper that essentially lost on the spot. Unfortunately, even though I saw the best move I discarded it because I couldn't see the final follow-up. I felt it was correct, though, and I wonder if I would have made a different move against someone other than a GM.

In the game I captured on f4, which caused some people watching my game online to send me nasty text messages (thanks Robert). What should I have done instead? More important than finding the correct move, though, is finding black's next correct 5 moves that follow.

I will post the solution later.

CDN Open Round 2

2010-12-14T18:34:00.000-08:00

I was very pleased to be paired against IM Lawrence Day in the second round of the 2010 Canadian Open. Not only is Lawrence a legend in Canadian chess, he is also someone I felt I would have a good game against. Plus, I had the white pieces, which is usually a pleasant advantage.

I was staying with Jack Yoos in Toronto, and in the first round he had gained a winning advantage against a young 2200 player, only to turn that advantage into an equal position, spurn his opponent's draw offer and ultimately lose. As a result, Jack was getting paired down in round 2 and he saw no need to prepare. I, on the other hand, was very interested in preparing for Lawrence, so Jack helped me with that.

I prepared for Lawrence for about an hour and I began by trying to guess which opening he would play and then looking at grandmaster games in that line. When Jack realized what I was doing he immediately scolded me, "You can't look at GM games in Lawrence's openings because no one else plays like Lawrence! You have to look at how Lawrence plays his own openings to understand what you'll be up against." As it turned out, Jack was completely correct.

I didn't succeed in anticipating Lawrence's opening choice, even though in retrospect it should have been obvious - Lawrence has been playing The Rat for years.

1. d4 d6 2. e4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nd7

Jack: "The Nd7 rat is even more passive than the Nc6 rat." Jack, as you can probably tell, is a Nc6 rat guy.

5. Be3 e5 6. Nge2 Nh6 7. f3 f5 8. Qd2 Nf7 9. O-O-O O-O 10. Kb1 Nb6 11. Nc1

When I showed my game to Jack after it was over, I found his comments on the opening to be quite enlightening, so I'll share them here.

Jack: "You have played the opening poorly. First, you played f3 too soon and you castled queenside too early. Second, if you're going to play f3 early, why not play d5? You're a Samisch player - every Samisch player wants to establish the d5-e4-f3-g2 pawn chain." Jack then went on to show me a very interesting line where white plays an early h4 against the rat, which I will watch out for in the future. As the game stands now, Jack is right: I have played the opening poorly and black has uncomfortable pressure on my centre. If given time I would love to play d5 and c5 on my next two moves, with typical queenside play. Of course, Lawrence does not allow that.

11...fxe4 12. Nxe4 Bf5 13. d5 c6 14. g4 Bxe4+ 15. fxe4 cxd5 16. cxd5 Qh4

Black's queen is annoyingly placed on h4. I would have liked to play h4 to stop this, but the last sequence of moves was fairly forced and I just didn't have time. Rybka points out that white still has a slight advantage, though, as long as he plays his next move carefully. Therefore, I consider this to be the first critical middlegame position.

17. h3? Bh6!

Excellent play by Lawrence. I cannot avoid the exchange of bishops and my dark squares now become weak. Instead of 17.h3, Rybka points out that I should have played Qg2 when I can answer Bh6 with Bf2, retaining an advantage.

18. Bd3 Bxe3 19. Qxe3 Ng5 20. Rdf1 Nd7 21. Nb3

Another critical middlegame position has arisen, but this time it's Lawrence's turn to err. Black can force white's bishop to passively defend the h-pawn after swapping rooks on the f-file. 21...Rxf1! 22.Bxf1 is forced, and after ...Rf8 23.Bg2, white's bishop is looking very much like a pawn. This would have given black a practically winning advantage because white's pieces are tied down.

21...b6? 22. Bb5! Nc5 23. Nd2 a5

Black still has the advantage, but it's not overwhelming. However, we have reached another critical position and white cannot afford to make any more mistakes.

24. b3!

Preparing to evacuate the knight a la Petrosian. White can't play the straightforward 24.a3 because black will play 24...a4, clamping down.

24...h6 25. a3 Rxf1+ 26. Rxf1 Qxh3 27.Qxh3 Nxh3 28. Rf6 Rd8 29. Rxg6+ Kh7 30. Rf6 Kg7

A really important point of the preceding tactical sequence is that black can't play 30...Ng5 and expect to win the e-pawn. Can you see why?

31. Rf3 Ng5 32.
Re3 Ra8 33. Kb2 Rf8 34. b4 axb4 35. axb4 Nb7

I've finally been able to evict the powerful c5 knight and now it's my turn to improve my position. On the other hand, it's not so easy to see how black can do the same.

36. Nc4 Rf4 37. Bc6
b5!

This is the only move that keeps black in the game.

38. Nd2 Nd8 39. Bxb5 Rxg4 40. Bd7 Rf4

Lawrence reached the time control with only 3 seconds remaining on his clock.

41. Kc3 h5 42. Kd3 Rf7 43. Bf5 Rb7

Lawrence offered a draw here, and I gave his offer some serious thought. Objectively speaking, this position is equal, and I realized that at the time. One thing that went through my mind was that I felt I would draw Rykba from the white side of this position, which lead me to believe the computer evaluation was close to equality; however, I felt that white's position was much easier to play and I didn't see any way that I could lose. I also wasn't willing to give Lawrence the benefit of the doubt. Sure, maybe Rybka could draw this game as black, but Lawrence isn't Rybka.

The psychological draw offer is a powerful weapon in the hands of the higher rated player, and while its affect can not be underestimated, one has to wonder why the higher rated player made the offer in the first place.

44.
Kc3 Kf6 45. Nc4 Ndf7 46. Re1 h4 47. Rh1 h3

48. Nd2! Nd8 49. Bxh3 Rh7

50. Rf1+! Ke7 51. Bf5 Rh8 52. Ra1 Nb7 53. Ra7 Rb8 54. Nc4 Kd8

55.Nxd6! 1-0

I am particularly fond of this game for two reasons. First, I defeated an IM who also happens to be a Canadian chess legend. Second, with the exception of move 17, in all of the other critical positions I chose the best plan when there were several available options.

In the past I have often told myself that in order to improve my rating I need to work on my calculation. While I have no doubt that my rating would sky rocket if I could calculate like Nakamura, equally important is the ability to evaluate complex middlegame positions at the critical moments. Accurate calculation will be a part of this, but so too will an understanding of piece placement, pawn structure and the subsequent plans for both sides.

My remaining games at the Open proved this point. Even though I was paired up three more times, once against a GM, I was never out-calculated. I lost two of those games (and drew the third) because I made a wrong choice at a critical moment.

2010 Canadian Open - Rd 1

2010-12-13T22:05:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I blogged last. My apologies, but things have been busy here. It's true what everyone says, once you have a kid, most of your spare time is gone. In any event, I want to share some of my games from the Canadian Open in Toronto because it was a very successful event for me.

There was some confusion over my first round opponent which I described on ChessTalk (the site seems to be down at the moment, so I can't provide a link). Essentially, I was supposed to play David Itkin, a very talented junior rated approximately 1950 at the time. David was fresh off the CYCC where he almost won clear first in the U14 boys group, performing at a master level. My opponent appeared to be much younger than 14, but he wrote his name as Davy on his score sheet, and I had no reason to believe he wasn't David Itkin. In the end it turned out that my opponent wasn't Itkin after all, but some kid with a name I can't pronounce. Jack suggested I call him N.N., and that title still seems appropriate. The game continued:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.0–0 Nge7 8.Re1 Qd7 9.b4

Even though I don't think the exchange variation is how white should handle the French, after his dubious decision on move 3, Davy has played the opening perfectly. 9.b4 is an excellent move that stops me from castling long as white could then play 10.b5 and my knight does not have a good square to go to.

9...O-O 10. h3 Bf5 11. Bb2?!

This was my first indication that my opponent was not David Itkin. No master-strength player would even consider this move.

11...Ng6 12. Qc2 Bxd3 13. Qxd3 Nf4 14. Qc2

It's time for black to find a plan. I'm not convinced that the plan I chose was the correct one (probably safest was to contest the e-file), but I wanted to avoid routinely exchanging pieces because I wanted to win. In any case, I think my idea is interesting and no worse than the alternatives. I'm curious to know what you would have chosen for a plan - feel free to leave a comment.

14...Qd8!? 15. Nbd2 Qf6 16.a3 Ne7

The point of my preceding play. This knight now heads for the kingside to support black's attack. White has been steadily trying to justify the bishop's position on b2 and now executes his pawn break.

17. c4

A critical middlegame position has arisen. Black to move - what to do about the threatened c5? Is this a threat at all? Does black have a mating attack?

17...c6

In hindsight, the really funny thing about this move was that there were three people watching my game as I played it, and all three of them were lined up in a row directly behind my opponent. I'm pretty sure that two of the people were Davy's parents, and the other guy might have been his coach. As I played ...c6 all of them nodded in agreement, as if they were playing a game of "guess the move" and all got it right. Ironically, their sense of danger was about as strong as my killer instinct at the time. Rybka points out that black's attack is very dangerous after 17... Nf5. For example, 18.c5 just loses to Qg6 when black has a nasty discovered attack on the unprotected queen on c2. Therefore 18. Ne5 is called for, but 18...Qg5 19. Ng4 Nh4 is just devastating. Sadly, I didn't play this line because I couldn't find a mate. I also missed the rather important point of being able to win white's queen. Having said that, the nice thing about c6 is that it doesn't really change the position - black is still much better and the attack isn't going away. I was able to wrap the game up rather quickly after my initial oversight.

18. c5 Bc7 19. Rab1 Nf5 20. Nf1 Nxg2 21. Kxg2 Qg6+ 0-1

Hero of War Indeed

2010-04-19T22:07:00.000-07:00

He said, "Son, have you seen the world?
Well, what would you say if I said that you could?
Just carry this gun and you'll even get paid."
I said, "That sounds pretty good."

Black leather boots
Spit-shined so bright
They cut off my hair but it looks alright
We marched and we sang
We all became friends
As we learned how to fight

A hero of war
Yeah that's what I'll be
And when I come home
They'll be damn proud of me
I'll carry this flag
To the grave if I must
Because it's a flag that I love
And a flag that I trust

I kicked in the door
I yelled my commands
The children, they cried
But I got my man
We took him away
A bag over his face
From his family and his friends

They took off his clothes
They pissed in his hands
I told them to stop
But then I joined in
We beat him with guns
And batons not just once
But again and again

A hero of war
Yeah that's what I'll be
And when I come home
They'll be damn proud of me
I'll carry this flag
To the grave if I must
Because it's a flag that I love
And a flag that I trust

She walked through bullets and haze
I asked her to stop
I begged her to stay
But she pressed on
So I lifted my gun
And I fired away

The shells jumped through the smoke
And into the sand
That the blood now had soaked
She collapsed with a flag in her hand
A flag white as snow

A hero of war
Is that what they see?
Just medals and scars
So damn proud of me
And I brought home that flag
Now it gathers dust
But it's a flag that I love
It's the only flag I trust

He said, "Son, have you seen the world?
Well what would you say, if I said that you could?"

FIDE Expert

2010-03-01T19:05:00.000-08:00

First established FIDE rating: 2075!

NAO - Game Snippets

2010-02-27T20:45:00.000-08:00

Gluckie, Jamin VS Blynyuk, Vladimir

My opponent opted for a setup where he fianchettoes his king's bishop, which I can't recommend because of all the weak dark squares in his position. In the diagram above, I had to decide whether to play 8.Ba3 to take advantage of his opening choice.

8.0-0!

8.Ba3 would be a mistake because of 8...e5! I saw this variation and wisely decided that since I opted for a slow setup (beginning with Nbd2, b3, etc), I should stay on that path and simply finish developing. I also noticed other variations, such as 8...Ne4 (when the knight can't be taken with Nxe4 due to the queen check on a5) that looked annoying for me to deal with, but Rybka points out that the only cause for concern was black's central play with ...e5.

Black has just played 18...Bf8. White to move...

19.Nb1!

I am quite fond of this move because it seems unnatural, but it does everything that white needs - protects the bishop, threatens to move into b5, and activates a rather passive piece all at once. My opponent wasn't so obliging as to take on a3, and instead the following was played

19...Bb4 20.Bxb4 axb4 21.Nbd2 e5?

As is often the case when one person has been defending passively for a long time, lashing out is not to be recommended. Black's central break only accentuates his weaknesses.

22.dxe5 Nxe5 23.Nxe5 Rxe5 24.Nf3 Re8 25.Nd4! Ne4 26.Nc6 Nc3 27.Kf1

All of black's pawns will now fall and Vladimir could have resigned with a clear conscience. As I already discussed, though, it seems that these days resigning just isn't cool anymore. 1-0.

Gardner, Robert VS Gluckie, Jamin

In this game I was worse for a long time after making a couple dubious decisions in the middlegame, and the diagrammed position is critical. If black doesn't make the right move he is lost.

44...Rxa3??

I didn't spend enough time calculating this move (it was the culmination of a preceding variation) and in that line I thought that I was fine after the following forced sequence.

45.Rxg7 Ke5 46.Rg6

And it suddenly became apparent that white would play Re6+ next, forcing my king away from the pawn, and he would reach the Lucena. I had overlooked this intermezzo check, and after playing a few more moves I resigned.

I'm still not sure if this endgame could have been saved on move 44, but I certainly would have had better chances with something like Rg2+ or Kd6.

Gluckie, Jamin VS Wang, Harris

The position after 6.Bd3 is shown above.

6...dxc4?

Black fails to realize that white's setup is different from the regular Meran lines where dxc4 is the automatic reply to white moving his f1 bishop because in this case white has the option of recapturing with the knight.

7.Nxc4 b5 8.Nce5 Bb7 9.0-0 Qc7 10.Qb3!? Bd6?

Black didn't sense the danger, or understand the point behind white's tenth move. To be fair, though, the tactics in this position are not very common to a 1.d4 opening, let alone the seemingly solid Semi-Slav.

11.Nxf7! Bxh2+!

After 25 minutes of thought my opponent finds the best defense. To understand why it is important to get the bishop off d6, I encourage the reader to spend 5 minutes working out the variations after 11...Kxf7 12.Ng5+.

You didn't work out the variations, did you? Seriously, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to work through, and you'll learn a lot more by doing this than by reading alone.

11...Kxf7 12.Ng5+ Kf8 13.Nxe6+

11...Kxf7 12.Ng5+ Ke8 13.Qxe6+ Be7 (13...Kf8 14.Qf7#) 14.Qf7+ Kd8 15.Nd6+

11...Kxf7 12.Ng5+ Ke7 13.Qxe6+ Kd8 14.Nf7+ Kc8 15.Nxd6+ (this is why the bishop shouldn't be on d6)

12.Kh1 0-0

The best practical try.

13.N7g5 c5!?

14.Qxe6+!

Keeping things simple. Other moves also win for white (as the complications favour him in almost every line), but when your opponent is desperate to complicate matters it's nice to be able to proceed with minimal risk.

14...Kh8 15.Nxh2 c4 16.Bc2 Rae8 17.Qh3 h6 18.Ne6 Bxg2+

I was happy to see this move because black's light-squared bishop was the pride of his position, and my king's safety was the only factor that might have made the win difficult. It is difficult to suggest anything else for black, though, because he can't afford to lose much more material.

19.Qxg2 Rxe6 20.e4 Nh5

What is the most efficient way for white to proceed?

21.f4!

Returning a pawn to trade some pieces and finish developing. The "natural" 21.e5? lets black keep the initiative with 21...Nxe5! when black's activity looks dangerous. I have no doubt that white is still winning, but why make it harder than it has to be?

My opponent traded a bunch of times on f4, and later when I played e5 he sacrificed his knight for two pawns on that square, but in the end I had a bishop and knight for one of his pawns, and he resigned when mate was no longer avoidable.

Haas, Sven VS Gluckie, Jamin

Even though my opponent was rated 1511, he finished the tournament with a 2000+ performance rating. After playing him in this game I don't believe that he is expert-strength, but that's not to say that he can't be dangerous. In the last tournament I played in (February Sectional) I watched Sven play Peter Kalisvaart (~2130) in blitz and beat him convincingly, so I took my game with him seriously.

I'm going to deviate from the game snippet format and post this one in its entirety. I'm doing this partly because I think the entire game is instructive, but mostly because my opponent wouldn't resign when he was down a queen and knight in a K+P endgame, and I've been told that it is more constructive to show these types of games to as many people as possible than to bitch about my opponent's chess etiquette on my blog :-)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5

The dreaded exchange variation - dreaded because I obviously would not be happy with a draw, and so the onus was on me to force the issue in order to win. I used to fear playing the black side of the Exchange French against lower rated players, but now it doesn't bother me too much. If my opponent can maintain the balance despite everything I throw at him, be it in an Exchange French or some other opening, then he deserves a draw regardless of what his rating is. If he cracks under the pressure though, like in this game, then it's even more satisfying than if he would have chosen another variation.

3...exd5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.g3?!

I don't like this move for white, but I was very happy to see it nonetheless!

5...Nc6 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.Bf4

8...f6!

I wonder how many readers would play this move. To me it seems very natural, but when I showed this position to a 1750 he suggested many other tries, but none of them involved attacking the bishop with f6 and g5.

It's obvious to me that black needs to storm the white king with pawns (due to opposite-side casting), and 8...f6 makes the bishop on f4 a target.

9.Na3 g5 10.Be3 h5 11.Qd3 h4 12.Nxg5?

The definition of "cracking under the pressure". Granted, white's position was uncomfortable and those advanced kingside pawns looked menacing, but opening up lines to the white king can't be recommended.

12...fxg5 13.Bxg5 Be7 14.gxh4 Bxg5 15.hxg5 Nge7 16.f4

What is the best way for black to continue the attack?

16...Rh5!?

16...Nf5 looked promising as well, but I rejected it because after 17.h3 my bishop had to retreat to h5, where it interfered with the coordination of my attack on the h-file. Also, even if white didn't play h3 immediately, I didn't like that after I played Qh7 white could then play h3 and I would have to exchange queens and light-squared bishops. Rybka points out that the line with Nf5 is winning for black, but the play is very sharp. The continuation I chose keeps all of black's trumps and also prepares an attack on the h2-pawn that is difficult to meet.

Incidentally, Rybka prefers 16...Rh4, but I rejected that line because I wanted to keep the h4 square open in case I ever did get a knight to f5.

17.c3 Rdh8 18.Qg3

18...Rh4!

Very precise! Now Nf5 can't be stopped and the h-pawn will fall, along with white's king.

The more forcing variation with 18...Be2 19.Rfe1 (19.Rf2? Nf5 and the queen is trapped) Nf5 20.Qf2 Bg4 21.Bh1 didn't look as clear to me as the game continuation.

19.Bf3 Bxf3 20.Rxf3? Rg4!

My opponent could have, and should have, resigned here.

21.Re1 Rxg3+ 22.Rxg3 Nf5 23.Rg2 Qd6 24.Rf2 a6!

The queen is on her ideal square, and is not to be disturbed by the offside knight.

25.Nc2 Rh4 26.Ref1 Nce7

The last piece is brought into the attack.

27.Re1 Rxf4 28.Rg2 Nh4 29.g6 Nxg2 30.Re2 Rg4 31.Rxg2 Rxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Qxg6+ 33.Kh1 Qxc2

34.h4 Ng6 35.h5 Nf4 36.h6 Qg2# 0-1

Chesscube

2010-02-26T17:48:00.001-08:00

I've been playing on Chesscube for over a year now, and I have to say that it has a nice interface and for the most part I have enjoyed playing there. There is one caveat, however: unless you are playing bullet, there is a 90% chance that any opponent whose rating is over 2200 is using a program. How do I know this? Because I have looked at some of my 5-minute games played on Chesscube with Rybka, and my opponents invariably play the computer's first choice. It's sad really, but it's the reason why I only play 1-minute on that server.

My rating on Chesscube is consistently around 2250 (it has been as high as 2400 and as low as 2000), and although I'm not sure how that compares to ICC or Playchess, I have a feeling that I'm a fairly strong bullet player because I know my openings very well and I'm able to keep the initiative when I play. But, what really pisses me off is when I log into Chesscube to play a 5-minute game, like I did tonight, and I am paired with a 2100 only to lose because he is making all of the perfect moves. After 2 minutes I am completely lost, and there is no doubt that he is using a comp. I spend the remaining 3 minutes of my time trash talking him and challenging him to a 1-minute game, but he wisely declines.

I'm seriously considering getting an ICC account again to avoid all of these idiots.

Chess Etiquette

2010-02-21T21:02:00.000-08:00

I just finished playing in the Northern Alberta Open in Edmonton, and although I currently don't have the time or the energy to blog about my games in their entirety, I want to talk about the poor display of chess etiquette I experienced in three out of four of my games, because if I don't, I'm pissed off enough that I probably won't be able to sleep tonight.

Is there some struggling chess author out there who recently released an "Improve Your Chess Results By Not Resigning In Obviously And Utterly Lost Positions" manual, because if there is, I'm absolutely positive my opponents have read it. Perhaps there is some chess instructor in the Edmonton area who just so happens to teach each of my opponents this garbage? I'm not exactly sure where this behaviour is coming from, but based on my experiences this weekend, there is a trend among class players to eschew proper chess etiquette in favour of prolonging the agony. Take, for example, these three positions.

In all three of this positions I was on the winning side, and in every case my opponent played on despite the fact that by doing so they were defying chess etiquette, and wasting everyone's time. The first position is from my game with Harris Wang. I'm going to give Harris a break because he is a kid, and also because there was a very remote chance that we'd end up in a K+B+N vs K position, which could be difficult for me to win if I was low on time and not able to figure out the mating pattern over the board. So, Harris, if you're reading this, I don't harbour any hard feelings towards you. I just hope that your gritty determination to save lost positions doesn't manifest into poor form, like in the next two examples.

The second example is from my game with Sven Haas, a 1500 who was lost 15 moves prior to the diagrammed position, but played on nonetheless. Sven irritated me further by playing on not because he was trying to save the game, but to somehow show off to the kibitzers. Every time someone would glance at our game, Sven would make eye contact with them and smile, as if to say, "I'm not interested in drawing anymore, but rather, I enjoy annoying my opponent by being disrespectful." Sven actually let me mate him, which I was somewhat thankful for because if he would have resigned one move prior to mate, I would have been even more irritated. After all, if your modus operandi is to play regardless of your position's merits, you might as well see it through to the end.

The third position is from my game with Vladimir Blyznyuk, a 1400 who had the nerve to tell me after the game that, "It took a long time for you to win, but you managed". What my opponent obviously didn't realize was that I was deliberately delaying the advance of my queenside pawns (and therefore prolonging the win) so that I could eliminate all of his counterplay and illustrate how hopeless his positions truly was. This clearly didn't have the desired effect, but it was still satisfying to play moves like h3 to take away the g4 square from his knight when I was up 5 pawns in the rook and knight endgame.

Feb Sectional - Rd 6

2010-02-16T09:44:00.000-08:00

Gluckie,Jamin (2073) - Wang,Richard (2154) [D30]

February Sectional (6), 07.02.2010

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2 Bd6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0-0 Qe7

Richard offered a draw here, but I declined because my position is better, and because I really wanted to win this game. Since my last round game ended early I had spent the previous two hours preparing for Richard's Semi-Slav, and I found a 2009 WYCC game in this line where Richard played a speculative f5 pawn lunge. I hoped to coax him into something similar in our game, but he deviated with Qe7.

8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 0-0 11.Re1 c5 12.Bg5?!

I now consider this move to be inaccurate, as I believe that black wants to play some combination of cxd4, f6, e5 anyway, and I am just helping him do this. Instead of the text, I think I should have continued simply with 12.Bc2!, intending Bg5, Qd3 and after g6, to play Bh6, etc

[12.Bc2 b6 13.Bg5 f6 14.Qd3 g6 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Rad1]

12...f6 13.Bh4

Now my bishop is rather out of place on h4.

13...Qf7 14.Qe2 Nb6? 15.b4!

I played this move without any calculation as I felt that it was very strong. However, the game is about to become a much sharper struggle than it was before (where I had a slight advantage and was slowly building pressure), and I wasn't able to evaluate/calculate clearly enough to capitalize.

15...cxd4 16.c5 Be7 17.cxb6

Continuing with the plan, but I should have taken some time here to evaluate the alternatives. I failed to reaized how strong black's central play will be after the text.

[17.Nxd4! This was a very strong move, but I didn't even consider it.]

17...Bxb4 18.Red1 Bc3

I spent a considerable amount of time here (approximately 30 minutes) trying to come up with the best continuation for white. I felt that playing with B+N vs R with Nxd4 wasn't clear, and so I opted for keeping my rooks on.

19.Rac1

[19.Nxd4 Bxa1 20.Rxa1 I saw this position, but wasn't able to come to any definitive evaluation other than "unclear". Rybka believes that white has a slight advantage.]

19...e5 20.Qb5

This was the plan, but according to Rybka it doesn't promise white anything more than equality.

[20.Bg3!? Rybka's suggestion is very interesting - to give up the misplaced bishop on g3 for two central pawns and exchange the white knight for black's very important light-squared bishop. 20...Be6? 21.Bxe5! fxe5 22.Ng5 Qe7 23.Nxe6 Qxe6 24.Rxc3]

20...Be6 21.h3 Bxa2 22.bxa7 Rxa7 23.Bg3 Ra5 24.Qb6 Ra6

I was hesitant to play Qxb7 for two reasons. First, with the queens exchanged I lose some of my control of the central light squares which makes it easier for black to play g6, f5, etc. Also, even if my central light-squared blockade falters, as long as the queens are on it will be more dangerous for black to advance on the kingside because of a potential white counter attack.

25.Qb5 Ra5 26.Qb6

Richard chose to repeat the position here, and I accepted. It still wasn't clear to me how white should proceed if black tried to improve his position (by preparing f5, etc), and I felt that only black would have winning chances if I played on. I was also low on time, relative to my opponent, so taking the draw seemed like the best decision.

½-½

Feb Sectional - Rd 5

2010-02-12T21:26:00.000-08:00

Before looking at this game, take a moment to study the following positions to see what they have in common:

The answer to this question will be revealed later.

Kalisvaart,Peter (2146) - Gluckie,Jamin (2073) [A10]

February Sectional (5), 07.02.2010

1.c4 f5

My opponent is typically a 1.d4 player, so I reasoned that he played this move to either surprise me, or because he found something in my repertoire that he was hoping to exploit. Prior to this game I decided to try the Classical Dutch, and since it is a universal system against anything but 1.e4, Peter's opening didn't phase me at all.

The funny thing is that my opponent has a habit of talking to himself during the game and he began doing this after I played 1...f5. No one at the ECC seems to understand why he does this, but in my opinion, and this is based on my experiences with Peter in our first encounter on the previous day, my opponent talks to himself when he reaches a critical position, or where he feels that calculation is necessary. With that in mind, Peter must have felt that white's position is critical already!

2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6

I would have liked to play e5 in one shot, but white then has the ability to play 4.d4!, which would lead to a different type of position than what I was aiming for.

4.Nc3 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.d3

This is a rather passive move. White should definitely play 7.d4 here if he wants anything from the opening. After his blazing start on Saturday with 2.5/3, it seemed like Peter was trying to play very solidly to draw his games and win the tournament. This strategy did not pay off for him though - he lost all of his games on Sunday.

7...e5 8.b4

Rybka agrees with this move, but I thought it was premature because white can't maintain a pawn on b4. I would have played 8.Rb1.

8...a5 9.b5

Although the pawn on b5 gives white some extra queenside space and makes his g2 bishop stronger, it also makes white's desired c5 break rather difficult to achieve.

9...Qe8

The plan is to play some combination of f4, Qh5, Bh3 and attack the white king.

10.a4 f4 11.Nd5

I was happy to see this move as it makes his g2 bishop bad on the long diagonal, and therefore releases some queenside pressure.

[11.gxf4 Qh5 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Ba3]

11...Nxd5 12.cxd5 Qh5 13.Qc2 Bd8 14.gxf4

[14.b6 c5! 15.dxc6 Nxc6 16.Ba3 Rf6]

14...Bh3

[14...exf4 This is best according to Rybka, and now that I have had some time to analyze this position, I have to agree. I am not that familiar with these types of positions (this was the first time I played a Dutch), but at the time of the game I thought that the open f-file is what black needed to continue the attack. Now I see that the threat of an eventual f3 is even more dangerous, and therefore the pawn on f4 is an asset.]

15.Bxh3 Qxh3

We now return to the original problem: what is the common link between the two positions at the start of this thread? The answer: in both cases white blundered with Kh1?? Peter told me afterwards that he thought his rooks were connected, and he planned to continue with Rg1, when combined with his dark squared bishop on b2, he hoped to generate pressure on g7.

The other diagram is from a game I played against John McIntrye a few years ago. I'm not sure what his reasoning was for playing Kh1, but due to the fact that he effectively mated himself with that move, he gets full marks for aesthetics.

16.Kh1

[16.Ng5 This is what I was expecting my opponent to play, when I was going to continue 16...Bxg5 17.fxg5 Nd7! 18.Qxc7 Qg4+ 19.Kh1 Qxe2 When I felt that I had good attacking chances due to the weak light squares around the white king.]

0-1

Feb Sectional - Rd 4

2010-02-12T11:29:00.000-08:00

Gluckie,Jamin (2073) - Yearwood,Roy (2184) [E60]
February Sectional (4), 07.02.2010

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 c5 5.d5 b5

Roy changes to a Benko setup, trying to take advantage of white's move order. It was interesting to talk to Roy after the game about his decision. According to him, he was trying to avoid playing technical positions against me and instead tried to steer the game into complications at every opportunity. His reasoning for this was because after looking at some of my games he was disturbed by how I squeezed people by using a space advantage and my more active pieces. I found this assessment interesting because I've never thought of myself as a "grinder" before, but at the same time I do enjoy positions where I have space, especially in the center.

6.cxb5

[6.e5]

This aggressive lunge is Rybka's first suggestion, but after letting it ponder for a while it realizes that white is overextended. This is exactly the type of game Roy was trying to provoke, and although I didn't understand his motives while playing, I was cognizant of his intentions and tried to avoid them as much as I could. As we'll see later, this type of thinking prevented me from choosing the most promising continuation in the middlegame.

[6...Ng8 7.f4 d6 this position looks like a nightmare for white]

6...a6 7.Na3!?

When deciding on a setup to adopt, I chose to go with this maneuver because if white is able to get away with it he will achieve the ideal queenside blockade, which is every Benko player's worst fear. The general plan is to play Ne2-c3, Nc4, a4, Be2, 0-0 and then gradually expand in the center with f4. Of course, black should not allow this and Roy does his best to open up the center before white is fully developed.

7...0-0 8.Ne2 e6 9.Nc3 exd5 10.Nxd5 axb5

11.Nxb5

[11.Bxb5? Rxa3!]

11...Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Ra5 13.Bd2 Ra4 14.Bc3 Bxc3+ 15.Nxc3 Qa5

This is the critical opening position, and although I realized that I again failed to come up with the best plan because I didn't evaluate the position properly. Here white should challenge black by castling long, but even though I considered this I rejected it because I was still trying to play solidly. As I said before, I realized my opponent was trying to complicate matters and my play was directed against that, but there comes a time when you have to say "prove it" and play the critcal continuation despite how messy it may be.

16.Bb5?

[16.0-0-0 Rb4 17.a3 Rb6 18.Qd2 the move I missed in my calculations, and the one that gives white a clear advantage 18...Bb7 19.Nd5 Qxd2+ 20.Rxd2 and white is just up an outside passed pawn, with a better pawn structure to boot.]

16...Rb4 17.0-0 Rxb5

[17...Rxb2?! this sequence was the tactical justification for Bb5 18.Rac1 Rxb5?? 19.Nxb5 Qxb5 20.Rb1]

18.Nxb5 Qxb5 19.a4 Qb4 20.Rfc1 Na6 21.b3 Qb6 22.a5 Qb8 23.Rd1 Qf4 24.Qd2 Qe5 25.Qd5 Qf4 26.Qd2 Qe5

I agreed to a repetition of moves because it wasn't clear to me how white should make progress. At the time I felt that in order to win white would need to gain some dark squared control in the center with moves like g3, f4, etc, but that would make my light squares weak and subsequently make black's bishop a monster. I felt it was asking too much of my position to push the envelope like that, and so Roy and I shook hands.

½-½

Feb Sectional - Rd 3

2010-02-12T11:04:00.000-08:00

Even though I lost my last game, I didn't feel so bad about it. I played an opening I have never used before and I lost by playing a natural looking move in a very sharp position. My opponent also played very well and after making a few inaccuracies I was never given an opportunity to get back in the game. As black against Wang, I really just wanted to draw, but after we reached the middlegame my prospects of getting the half point were not looking good. It was also clear that Wang was out to kill me, judging by the look in his eyes and his demeanour at the board.

Wang,Richard (2154) - Gluckie,Jamin (2073) [A80]
February Sectional (3), 06.02.2010

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Be2 d5

Before this game I planned to play a Stonewall against Richard as his Colle system is designed to force through e4 and achieve an attacking position. Having never played the Stonewall before in my life, I reviewed some of the lines with Rybka and found that black retains equality; however, I didn't expect black's position to be so difficult to play in practice.

5.Nbd2 Bd6

I tried to achieve a favourable stonewall by delaying c6 in order to play c5 in one move. Due to the closed nature of the position, I'm not sure this is such an advantage as the gain in time is not all that important.

6.0-0 0-0 7.b3 b6 8.Bb2 Bb7 9.Ne5 Nbd7 10.f4 c5 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.Bf3 Qe7 13.c4 Ne4 14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Be2 Nf6 16.Qe1 Rcd8 17.Qg3

Up until now both players have been trying to improve their position, but when I was trying to find a plan for black I really wasn't able to come up with anything concrete. It seemed to me that I just needed to annoy white as much as I could while he tried to do something with his position.

17...cxd4

I was hesitant to make this exchange because it will give a future d5 advance a lot more power, but I couldn't come up with another plan.

18.exd4 Ba3 19.Qc3 Bb4 20.Qe3 Rc8 21.Rfd1 Rfd8 22.h3 Ba3 23.Rb1 Bxb2 24.Rxb2 Qa3 25.Rbd2 b5

Still following the "annoy Wang" plan, and also trying to get the d5 square for my knight.

26.Kf2 bxc4 27.bxc4 Qxe3+ 28.Kxe3

Critical middlegame position. It is no longer clear how black can improve his position, and now that the queens are off the board it is also going to be hard to continue to annoy my opponent. In the game I missed the opportunity to keep the balance and soon was in a worse position.

28...Nd7?

[28...Nd5+! The ironic thing is that I had seen these types of tricks when evaluating the b5 pawn sacrifice idea, but I completely missed this shot. 29.cxd5 Rc3+ 30.Bd3 Bxd5=]

29.g4 g6 30.gxf5 gxf5 31.h4 Kf8 32.a4 Ke7 33.a5 Ba6 34.Rc2 Nf6?!

[34...Nxe5 was a simpler route to equality]

35.Rg1 Rg8 36.Rxg8 Rxg8 37.Nc6+ Kd7

38.Nb4!

[38.Nxa7? Ra8 39.Nb5 Bxb5 40.cxb5 Nd5+ 41.Kf2 Rxa5]

38...Bc8 39.d5 exd5 40.cxd5 Bb7 41.Kd4 Kd6 42.Bc4

42...Rc8?

Instead of playing for tricks, I should have taken this opportunity to get active with Rg1 and Ra1

43.Rg2 Ng4 44.Rg3 Re8 45.a6 Ba8 46.Nc2 h5 47.Ne3 Rf8

Black is practically in zugzwang

48.Nc2

Rybka liked the plan of Nd1 followed by Be2 and exchanging bishop for knight, with a large advantage for white.

48...Rb8

Now this attempt to get active is wrong because I can't get my rook behind the a-pawn. Better was Re8 threatening e3.

49.Na3! Rb2 50.Nb5+ Kd7 51.Nxa7 e3 52.Rxe3

This wasn't necessary as it lets me back in the game, but Wang was working off of increment only.

52...Nxe3 53.Kxe3 Kc7?

Another mistake on my part. Honestly, I wasn't calculating any more because I was trying to keep Richard under time pressure. At this point he was down to only his increment and I had about 6 minutes. 53...Kd6 was completely equal. This habit of mine to stop calculating when in time pressure and only play on intuition is something I need to change.

54.Nb5+ Kb6 55.d6 Bc6 56.Nd4?

[56.a7 wins for white]

56...Bd7 57.Be6 Bxe6 58.Nxe6 Kc6 59.Nd4+ Kxd6 60.Nxf5+ Kc6 61.Ng7 Rh2 62.Nf5 Kb6 63.Kf3 Kxa6 64.Kg3 Rb2 65.Ng7 Rb3+ 66.Kg2 Rb2+ 67.Kf3 Rb3+ 68.Ke4 Rh3 69.Nf5 Kb7 70.Ke5 Kc6 71.Kf6 Kd5 72.Ne7+ Ke4 73.Ng6

Here I missed my chance to win by swinging the rook over and defending my pawn latterally, which also makes the rook very active.

73...Rg3 74.f5 Rf3 75.Ne7 Kf4 76.Kg6 Kg4 77.f6 Kxh4 78.Nf5+ Kg4 79.Nh6+ Kh4 ½-½

Allergic to Tequila?

2010-02-12T10:52:00.000-08:00

It was close to 2 AM after I finished blogging a couple of nights ago, and when I returned to my room and got ready for bed, while brushing my teeth I looked in the mirror and noticed that my face was swollen like a balloon and I had spots all over my forehead! The next morning I asked my wife if she had noticed anything earlier, and apparently at supper I was looking a bit flushed and "acting stranger than normal". Although her description of my behaviour is highly subjective and probably not very accurate, the spots on my face were certainly abnormal and likely the result of an allergic reaction. Given that I didn't eat/drink anything out of the ordinary that day, except a large amount of tequila (which I normally don't drink at all), I have a feeling the tasty margaritas were to blame.

Yesterday I avoided hard alcohol altogether and switched to beer, and today I feel fine again. I've decided that I need more evidence before I can ditch the tequila, though, and so I am once again drinking margaritas!

Feb Sectional - Rd 2

2010-02-11T16:06:00.000-08:00

Gluckie,Jamin (2073) - Kalisvaart,Peter (2146) [D07]
February Sectional (2), 06.02.2010

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5

I was expecting a Chigorin from my opponent, and so I did some preparation on this line. I have never faced the Chigorin in OTB play before, and to make matters worse, the only line that I know is the one I have been playing in blitz and it is just bad for white. So, I had to learn an entire system for white for this game, and I only had about an hour to do it. This explains my fifth move - instead of the theoretical 5.e4 I chose this sideline to avoid a theoretical battle.

5...Bg4?!

This move is dubious here because white can play d5. It turns out that black's best move is h6, and without fully studying these positions it is hard to understand why this is so (I had a hard time grasping this concept before looking at the lines in depth). I'm not going to go into the theory, but the reason why h6 is useful is that white's g5 bishop is currently on its optimal diagonal, and black should force his opponent to immediatley make a decision regarding which diagonal it is going to occupy.

6.d5 Na5 7.Qa4+ c6 8.b4 b5 9.Qxa5 Qxa5 10.bxa5 b4

I found out in the postmortem that this sacrifice is common to the Chigorin. I actually thought that I had just won a piece, but the position is not so clear. In fact, despite realizing this was a critical position I was unable to find white's best move

11.dxc6

I thought I would maintain an advantage with this move because of black's doubled c-pawns, and although this evaluation is correct the position requires very precise play from white to prove any sort of an advantage.

[11.Nd1 cxd5 12.Ne3 e6 13.Nxg4 Nxg4 14.h3 Nf6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.e4 looks about equal to me; 11.Ne5! bxc3 12.Bxf6 Bc8 13.Bh4 cxd5 14.e4 f6 15.Nc6 with a slight advantage for white]

11...bxc3 12.Ne5 Be6 13.e3??

Believe it or not, white is already lost after his last move. I didn't sense the danger, though.

13...Ne4 14.Bf4 g5!

When evaluating dxc6 I overlooked this strong move. My whole plan was based on gaining time while black activated his f8 bishop, but now I am unable to cope with my opponent's activity and strong passed pawns.

15.Bg3 Nxg3 16.hxg3 Bg7 17.f4

17...Bxe5!

Simple and strong. Black's play for the rest of the game is very convincing.

18.fxe5 Rc8 19.Rc1 Rxc6 20.Rxc3

20...Kf8!

I like this move - very calm and in tune with the needs of the position.

21.Bd3 Kg7 22.Kf2 h6 23.Rhc1 Rhc8 24.Be4 Rc5 25.Bb7 Rd8! 26.Ba6 Rd2+ 27.Kf3 Rxa2 28.Bxc4 Bxc4 29.Rxc4 Rxc4 30.Rxc4 Rxa5 31.Rc7 e6 32.g4 Ra2 33.Kg3 a5 34.Ra7 a4 35.Kf3 a3 36.Kg3 Ra1 37.Kh2 a2 38.Kg3 Kg6 39.e4 f6 40.Ra6 fxe5 41.Rxe6+ Kf7 42.Ra6 Ke7

I resigned here because my position is hopeless. Black won't be able to queen the a-pawn, but his king will penetrate into the white position, win a couple of stray pawns, and black will win nonetheless. 0-1

Change of Plans

2010-02-10T22:04:00.000-08:00

It's midnight here in Ixtapa, Mexico, and my wife is fast asleep. I briefly considered going to sleep as well, but when there is all you can drink alcohol and free wi-fi, I'd be crazy not to take advantage of it! I'm sure that everyone who is reading this will understand this point.

The only minor disadvantage is that the place where I'm at (where I can get wi-fi) doesn't have a bar, so I have to walk about 150 meters to the "Chill Out Lounge" to get more drinks. Due to the fact that this entire resort, and therefore this particular bar, is populated with people over the age of 50, grabbing a drink usually involves being hit on by a few senior ladies. I really don't mind, though. It's sort of fun to toy with them.

So, here are some impressions of Mexico. First, the resort is very clean and the service is top notch. Given that it is a 4-star place, I wouldn't expect anything less, but I have been disappointed in the past so it bears mentioning. Second, the margaritas are excellent. I'm pretty sure that the extra salt intake in my diet will shorten years off my life, but right now it seems like a worthwhile sacrifice. Third, the food here is very average, but this is to be expected when not staying at a 5-star resort. When Amanda and I were married last year in the Dominican we stayed at Dreams (5-star), and the food was phenomenal. There was absolutely no need to leave the resort to eat because the food that was included in the trip was great. Here in Mexico, however, I think we will be eating out every night. Don't get me wrong...the food is OK, but it is mostly buffet-style cuisine, and I'd rather spend a little extra money eating something spectacular than eeking out my time at the "food court". Maybe that's because I enjoy food too much, or maybe I'm just spoiled.

One of the things we noticed when researching this place was that there were timeshare representatives at this hotel. Although Amanda and I are on an all-inclusive trip, this particular hotel has a section devoted to timeshares and there are people here who are hellbent on selling more of these properties. The funny thing is that although we have been warned repeatedly by the hotel staff to avoid these salesman, they leave us alone because we are 20 years younger than their average customers and therefore, they think that we have no money! Their behaviour reminds me of our trip to Belgium in 2007. After arriving at the train station in Brussels my wife and I began walking to our hotel. Along the way we spotted a rather chic lounge, and so we stopped there to have a drink and use the washroom. However, because of our age and because we were backpacking and not wearing suits, the staff would not even make eye contact with us, let alone offer us a drink. So we used the facilities and left. Here in Ixtapa, we are encountering the same type of mindset. Honestly, though, I find it amusing. I don't have any problem feeding their stereotypical views by uttering "Sorry, we just can't afford your offer" in broken spanish.

Feb Sectional - Rd 1

2010-02-10T20:32:00.000-08:00

Despite the fact that I let the win slip away in this game, I consider this to be my best effort of the tournament. I came to Edmonton ready to fight, and this game illustrates that quite clearly. More importantly, I think that I sensed the critical moments in this game well, and I calculated accurately when I needed to.

Yearwood,Roy (2184) - Gluckie,Jamin (2073) [C02]
February Sectional (1), 06.02.2010

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.Bxh6 gxh6 9.cxd4 Bd7 10.Nc3?!

This is a dubious move because it allows a tactical shot. White should have played Be2, 0-0, and played on the queenside with Na4-c5, Rc1, etc. In this case black will play Bg7, 0-0, and f6. A complex struggle would be in store.

10...Nxb4! 11.Be2

[11.axb4 Bxb4 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Qb3 Qa5 14.Kd2 0-0 15.Bd3 Ba4 16.Qb2 Rc6 17.Ng1 Rfc8 with advantage to black;
11.Na4 Bxa4 12.Qxa4+ Nc6 13.Bd3 Qa5+! and black is up a pawn, but the win is still far off due to his compromised kingside structure]

11...Rc8 12.Qd2 Qa5! 13.0-0 Na6?

This move throws away the advantage. Before playing it I realized that the knight doesn't have much future on a6, but I had a plan to improve its position. It turns out that white has sufficient compensation for the pawn after the following forced sequence of moves.

[13...Nc2! 14.Qxc2 Qxc3 and black has an advantage]

14.Rfc1

I've been working on my calculation lately, and while reading Aargard's book on the subject he discusses how to know when to calculate. In his opinion, you should calculate when the position is critical, and the position is critical when it is not clear how you can improve you position, but your opponent is able to improve his easily. After white's 14th move, his weak knight on c3 is defended, which will allow him to move his queen to the b-file and play things like Nb5, threatening unpleasant dark square penetration. I tried to find ways to consolidate my advantage safely, but I came to the conclusion that I needed to "go all in" here, otherwise I would just be worse.

14...Bxa3! 15.Rc2 Nb4

This was my plan for the wayward a6 knight, but in my calculations a few moves ago I missed that after Rb2 black can't take the rook because he'd lose the queen! I had to calculate again here to try to solve black's problems, and I came up with the best move. According to Rybka, however, despite accurate play over the last few moves black is already worse here. This only means that black missed his opportunity on the 13th move.

16.Rb2 Rxc3!

The only move - others just leave black much worse

17.Qxc3 Bxb2 18.Qxb2 Qb6 19.Qd2

Roy offered me a draw here, but I declined because I considered my position to be preferable, and also because before playing in this tournament I decided to avoid taking draws unless I was either in an inferior position, or if I couldn't find a way to win.

[19.Rb1 Best according to Rybka as it activates the rook and also prevents the knight from regrouping to c6 where it pressurizes white's weak d-pawn]

19...Nc6 20.Rd1 Qb4
Even though Rybka dislikes this move, I am hesitant to award it with a negative evaluation because my impulse to get the queen to the kingside is a completely human reaction.

[20...a5 21.Qxh6 Qb2 22.Bd3 Qb3 23.Rd2 Qc3 24.Qg7 Qc1+ 25.Bf1 Rf8]

21.Qxh6 Qf8 22.Qf6 Rg8 23.g3 Qg7

[23...Rg6! and white can't avoid the exchange of queens 24.Qf4 Qh6]

24.Qf4 Ne7 25.Rb1 Bc6 26.Qd2 Qg6 27.Ra1 a6 28.Bd3 Qg4 29.Kg2 Nf5 30.h3 Nh4+ 31.Nxh4

Qxh4?

When shifting my knight from c6 to f5 my main goal was to exchange white's f3 knight to gain some control of the dark squares. I didn't realize that I had the very strong 31...Qxd4 at my disposal. The game is now completely equal, and it fizzles out to a draw.

32.Qc3 Kf8 33.Kh2 Qh6 34.Bxa6 bxa6 35.Qxc6 Qd2 36.Qc5+ Kg7 37.Kg2 Rb8 38.Qe7 Qxd4 39.Qf6+ Kg8 40.Rxa6 Qe4+ 41.Kh2 Qg6 42.Qf3 Rc8 43.Ra4 Rc4 44.Ra8+ Kg7 45.Qa3 Kh6 46.Ra7 Kg7 ½-½

February Sectional

2010-02-09T06:17:00.000-08:00

This weekend I played in the Edmonton February Sectional tournament. I was in the top section along with Roy Yearwood (2184), Richard Wang (2154) and Peter Kalisvaart (2146) and the format of the event was a double round-robin with a time control of G/60 + 30s/move. Going into the sectional I was a bit concerned that the 30 minute reduction from G/90 to G/60 plus increment would pose problems for me, especially since I haven't played seriously since July 2009. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I didn't miss the extra time that much. Granted, there were occasions when I would have liked to sink deep into thought for half an hour to decide on a plan, but for the most part the shorter time control just forced me to be more efficient with the time I did have. In all of my games, for example, I refrained from leaving the board, which is something I would normally do.

I also liked that with the G/60 + 30s/move format I was able to play 3 games a day and not feel too tired. It was also nice to finish 3 games and still have time to eat supper and go out for a few drinks afterwards. Not having time to do these sorts of activities is one of my biggest complaints with regular weekend tournaments, and I'd encourage other tournament directors to experiment with this format. In the case of Sectional tournaments, I think the shorter time control is especially useful because it allows for opponents to play each other twice, once with each colour.

Anyway, I finished the tournament with 3/6 and a performance rating of ~2165, which was good enough for clear second place. I plan to blog about each game after I analyze it, which I will do this week while sipping on bahama mammas on the beaches of Mexico. Stay tuned!

My Christmas Wish Came True

2009-12-05T09:13:00.000-08:00

A while back I posted this entry on mine and my wife's experience with Bella Auto Sales - a company in Florida that specializes in misrepresenting and selling used motorhomes over Ebay. I'm happy to report 3 separate people have contacted me to let me know that my blog stopped them from bidding on motorhomes from Bella Auto Sales, and hundreds of others have visited my blog using the search criteria "Bella Auto Sales", making my blog the first hit on Google with that search string.

Merry Christmas to everyone at Bella Auto Sales. It didn't have to come to this, but now that it has I couldn't be happier.

Personal Goal

2009-11-28T13:32:00.000-08:00

It's not flawless, and the keyboard is fairly crappy, but here it is anyway. Bonus points to anyone who can name this tune.

House [of smoke and mirrors]

2009-10-15T19:54:00.000-07:00

Today I did something I haven't done in years. Today, I let my CFC membership expire. You see, for over 10 years I have had my credit card on file with the CFC so that when my membership was close to expiring, they would simply bill me for next year's outstanding balance. Today, however, I received an email from the CFC informing me that their attempted invoice was rejected because my credit card information is no longer valid. And, instead of the predictable-chess-fanatic-reaction of providing my new billing information I decided to take a stand. After all, I don't play in a lot of CFC-rated chess tournaments anymore because, frankly, chess doesn't excite me like it used to. Further, with my $40+ membership I used to receive a subscription to a great bi-monthly magazine; now, I only have access to a second-rate webzine that anyone with some knowledge of web design and a budget to work with could improve upon. Maybe that's part of the problem, though - there may be no budget to speak of.

I've been teaching myself how to play the piano/keyboard. Actually, this all started when instead of studying chess in order to prepare for the ECC May sectional I borrowed a keyboard from a relative-in-law and began to plunk away. I can't read sheet music, so I traveled to YouTube to find tutorials on how to play certain songs I was fond of. Prior to this I tried to teach myself to play guitar, but the learning curve with an acoustic guitar is a lot steeper than with a keyboard, at least for me.

Recently I taught myself to play a relatively complicated song, one where the left and right hands play independent of each other, and at times at varying speeds. I hope to be able to post a video on YouTube of me playing this song before Christmas. As of yet, I still can't play it without fucking up along the way.

My wife is sick tonight. I'm not sure of what the root cause is exactly: possibly from being exhausted from our recent trip to Texas, maybe from the air conditioning on that trip, or maybe because a lot of people become ill this time of year. In any event, she called in sick to work this evening. This may seem inconsequential because, after all, people do this sort of thing all the time. But, in her case it's different; in her case she had to find someone to cover her shift, which means that someone had to leave his family this evening so he can spend 12 hours at a Husky Oilfield Battery. Needless to say, she doesn't call in sick often.

My wife gets sick about once every year, and a strange thing happens when she goes under the weather: I feel needed. This is not to say that I don't feel needed in our day-to-day activities, but rather that when she's sick I go out of my way to help her, mostly because I know she could use the assistance, and also because I think she will appreciate my help. In return she cuddles next to me, as vulnerable as ever, and in that moment I realize how lucky I am. It's paradoxical, really: at a time when she feels the worst, my faith in 'us' is somehow affirmed and I feel good because of it. I've dated several girls prior to meeting my wife, some of which I saw for many years through thick and thin, for better or for worse, and in those relationships I had the opportunity to assist those girls when they, too, were vulnerable. In their time of need I never felt the same way about them as I do about Amanda. Perhaps that's because Amanda is the right one for me. Perhaps that's because Amanda is as independent as I am and any sign of weakness on her part is interpreted by me as an opportunity to help her, when normally my assistance would seem out of place. Perhaps I just don't know what the hell is going on.

I've been watching House lately, mostly because Tyler introduced me to it a few months back. At first I was put off by House's character and his wild theories that somehow came together out of sheer randomness to produce a solution to the problem. That's not realistic, is it? No one can stumble upon the correct answers through trial and error and magically tie all of a patient's symptoms together, can they? At first House's character seemed unnatural to me somehow. Fictitious. Fake. But, as I watched the series more I realized that House's humanity is as evident as his brilliance. His flaws are exposed for everyone to see and although he disguises them well with fancy diagnoses and a standoffish demeanour, House is as human as everyone else. You just have to look past the surface to see it.

You can see right through me, can't you?

An Unusual Homage

2009-09-23T12:05:00.000-07:00

I realize it's been a while since I wrote about Danny. If you'd like to reread the previous entries they can be found here: Dear Danny, Time and Time Again, and Right and Wrong.

Danny's father always emphasized how important it was to attain excellence in high school because good grades and leadership roles were the ticket to University scholarships, and without external funding it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Danny to go onto secondary education. According to the government of Canada Danny didn't qualify for student loans because his father made too much money, but unfortunately for Danny, his father didn't make enough money to help him out with University. All of these details were explained to Danny immediately after he graduated from junior high, just before summer holidays started. As a result of his father's advice, Danny got a summer job and started saving for university.

Somewhere over those four summer months puberty hit Danny with full force, and while many kids were able to make the transition to adolescence relatively easily, Danny encountered a biological hurdle that affected everything in his life for years to come: acne.

Almost everyone has gone through a few breakouts in their lifetime, or has had to deal with unsightly pimples at inopportune moments, but for Danny the problem was on the verge of being unmanageable. I was away for most of that summer and hadn't seen Danny for close to 4 months, but when I finally did see him again on the first day of school I almost didn't recognize him. Both sides of his face were covered in large, red, boil-like bubbles, and when he got changed in gym class, I noticed his back was covered as well. Danny would later tell me that he had trouble sleeping because of the pain of laying down/rolling over on his back.

The physical pain and discomfort Danny experienced paled in comparison to the emotional and psychological damage caused by his acne, though. Attending high school with a group of teenagers is hard enough when you're the skinny loner with anger issues, but when your newest flaw is exposed for all to see, there really isn't anything left to do but accept it. To make matters worse, in an effort to take on more responsibility within the school and thereby increase his chances for a university scholarship Danny had accepted the position of President within the Student Representative Council prior to his acne problems, so instead of being able to withdraw from social contact until his acne was under control, Danny was obligated to be even more outgoing than he ever had been.

I'd like to be able to say that Danny's condition didn't affect our friendship and that I stuck by him just like I always had before, but that just wasn't how it happened. Granted I was never rude to him and we still hung out occasionally, but ultimately I didn't help him when I had every opportunity and every reason to do so. Instead of spending more time with Danny to understand what he was going through and to delve behind the facade he constructed in order just to make it through every day of his teenage life, I took the easy way out: I left him alone. Despite his damaged appearance, I told myself, he wasn't treated any worse than he was before by the kids at school. I justified my actions further by noting that over the next two years of our senior high careers Danny became the top student in our class, where he routinely attained grades of 95-100%. In fact, in our Grade 12 year Danny was presented with a medal that was awarded to the student with the highest marks in the entire school division - something that no other student from Lashburn had ever achieved.

It's hard to admit, but the truth is that I let Danny down in what was likely the most difficult phase of his life. Danny was completely alone during those years, and although his academics soared during that time, the high marks were more of a coping mechanism than a prerequisite to a university scholarship. After all, when everyone looks at you like you're a monster, even studying mathematics and physics can serve as a welcome escape from reality.

Danny and I attended different universities, and over the next several years we lost touch until one night, out of the blue, Danny appeared on my doorstep at 3:30 AM on a Thursday. His eyes were swollen from crying, and his face - now acne free - looked like he had just been in a fight. After he came inside he explained that his mother had recently passed away and the regret he felt over not making the effort to reconnect with her after so many years. Danny went on to tell me that he had just finished confronting his father, and that when his father was not willing to listen to what Danny had to say, the situation quickly turned violent. Danny choked his father to within an inch of his life that night, but ultimately let him live and drove to my place in Saskatoon.

I did my best to console Danny over the loss of his mother, but it was obvious that his wounds were too deep to heal from reassurances alone. In his eyes I could see that for as much as he hated his father for isolating him from his mother, Danny hated himself even more for not doing anything about it. I offered Danny a place to stay for as long as he needed, but he quickly declined, saying there was one last thing he had to take care of before he could accept the loss of his mother. I did not want to prod too much, and so I left it at that.

Immediately before he left Danny shook my hand, pulled me towards him for a hug, and said, "Thank you Jamin, for everything. Things happen in life that are out of our control, and all you can do is do what you feel is right. Take care of yourself."

That same morning, on the way from Saskatoon to Lloydminster, Danny was killed in a car accident. To the police Danny was just another kid who fell asleep at the wheel, veered into oncoming traffic and hit a semi on a particularly dangerous stretch of highway. To me, Danny was a friend who paid homage to his mother in the only way he felt was right.

Rest in peace Danny. You are dearly missed.

Exciting Times

2009-09-03T20:11:00.000-07:00

My birthday is September 12, and for my present this year my wife is flying both of us to Toronto for the long weekend! My good friend Andrew recently moved there to take his PhD, and in addition to enjoying some great food and drinks we will also be taking in some of the Toronto sights, as well as a Cirque du Soleil show (for which we have Tapis Rouge tickets!).

I'm also pleasantly surprised by the registration list for the upcoming Sasata Active tournament - 3 weeks away and we already have 16 people signed up. This is very encouraging: let's just hope the SCC can keep it going all year long.

I have an early flight tomorrow morning and we still have to drive to Edmonton, so I better get going. Good night.

1-min Chess

2009-08-19T17:18:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure when I became good at 1-min games on the internet, but lately I hardly lose. For example, I just finished a 14 game bullet session with a 2450 on Chesscube. My rating to begin with was 2200, and after winning the match 7.5 - 6.5 I am now close to 2300, a personal best for me. It's possible my opponent was having a bad day, but the fact is I've raised my bullet rating 300 points in the last week. Even after logging on after a few too many beers I'm still holding my own on a regular basis, which never happens at 3-0 or 5-0.

I attribute part of my success to my opening knowledge - I can usually blitz out 15 moves of book in under 10 seconds. If my opponent knows the theory he will keep pace with me and get a decent position. If not, he is either low on time or has a poor game. Perhaps my style of play also has something to do with it - I always strive for the initiative in blitz, and in bullet the initiative seems to hold even more weight. Premoving is also important, but even more so is having a feel for when you should premove, and when you should wait 1 second more.

I'm finding 1-min a nice break from actually thinking, though. Bullet is all about intuition and the odd split-second two move calculation, and if I lose...well, it was only a bullet game anyway.

Bella Auto Sales Hates Canadians

2009-08-09T09:57:00.000-07:00

Buyer beware: do not purchase anything from Bella Auto Sales in Tampa, Florida! This company deals primarily in selling used recreational vehicles over Ebay, and the following article describes mine and my wife's experience purchasing a 1997 Four Winds motorhome in July 2009. If you don't read this review any further, the moral of this story is do not buy from Bella Auto Sales!

My wife and I decided to bid on this motorhome after doing some research into the Four Winds brand and the seller's reputation. Based on everything we could find online there seemed to be no reason for concern: Four Winds was a reputable company and Bella Auto Sales had predominantly positive feedback on Ebay. A Google search for "Bella Auto Sales" also didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary, and judging by the item's description and pictures on Ebay, the motorhome was in excellent condition and ready for use. My wife and I even purchased a CARFAX history report on the vehicle that confirmed the motorhome's mileage, clear title, etc. As a result we felt it was safe to place a bid on the motorhome, and when the auction ended we were the winning bidders.

We contacted Ben from Bella Auto Sales immediately after winning the auction and he instructed us on how we could place our $500 deposit through PayPal. We paid the deposit the next day and then started getting the necessary paper work in order so that we could import this vehicle into Canada. Several of the documents were provided by Bella Auto Sales, but we also had to pay $100 for a recall clearance letter from Ford.

The letter revealed an outstanding recall on this motorhome: a wiring harness needed to be replaced and this had to be done prior to the motorhome reaching the Canadian border. When we phoned Bella Auto Sales to have this work completed, we also asked to have this vehicle mechanically inspected by another dealership at our expense, so that we were sure this motorhome could be driven safely from Florida to Alberta, which is approximately 2300 miles. Ben had left for vacation, and so we dealt with Thomas instead. Thomas assured us he would have this done at a nearby Ford dealership, and for the next week we waited for Thomas' phone call.

When Thomas phoned us back he told us the motorhome had passed the mechanical inspection without any issues, but when we asked to see a copy of the inspection report he was unable to provide one. This was very suspicious, and so my wife did some research into the matter by phoning several dealerships in Tampa. She discovered that there was only one dealership (Gator Ford) that was certified to do inspections on motorhomes, and this was not the dealership Thomas had taken our motorhome to. My wife phoned Thomas again to ask him to have a proper inspection done, and he agreed to take care of it.

When we received a copy of the inspection report, to our chagrin we discovered there were several mechanical problems with the vehicle: all of the ball joints needed to be replaced, as did a stabilizer shock, brake pads/rotors, one tire, turn signals, horn, and the oil and transmission fluid needed to be changed as well. This vehicle clearly wasn't road-ready as Bella's Ebay listing claimed, and so we phoned Thomas to discuss.

Thomas wasn't authorized to have these repairs done, and so he phoned Ben for approval. When Thomas phoned us again we were told that all of the above work would be completed at Bella's expense, and so my wife and I decided to follow through with the purchase.

During the next week when all of these repairs were being perfomed my wife happened to come across an Ebay listing with our exact motorhome on it! Bella Auto Sales had relisted the motorhome for sale, even though we had paid our deposit and had gone through a lot of work to have inspections and repairs done. When we contacted Thomas about this he apologized and assured us it was an error to relist the motorhome, and that the listing would be removed ASAP. The listing was removed, but in hindsight we should have cut our losses at that point. Instead, we decided to go through with the purchase of the motorhome and so we paid for my wife's parents to fly to Tampa to pick up the vehicle and drive it back to Canada.

When my in-laws arrived in Tampa they discovered that the motorhome was not at all as described in Bella's Ebay listing. There were several cosmetic issues with the vehicle, such as the interior being very dirty and several items being broken and/or not working (such as the fridge and generator). The bigger concern was the smell/sight of mold inside the camper, and the shoddy attempts Bella had made to disguise it. The pictures below were taken by my in-laws - none of these images appeared on the Ebay listing, nor were any of these problems disclosed by Bella Auto Sales.

	Notice the caulking in the shower.
	What is with that wallpaper edge?
	Trying to cover up mold with linoleum on the ceiling?
	Rust on Mirror
	Excellent condition? I don't think so.
	Mold growing on the seal between the truck cab and the body
	WTF?
	Significant bulging & delamination - suggests mold inside the walls.
	Filthy carpet
	Dirt and mold on top of door
	Broken curtain
	Broken table bracket
	Broken moulding
	Broken blind

Upon realizing the actual condition of the motorhome, my wife and I naturally did not purchase it. Bella Auto Sales refunded our $500 deposit, but we were left with the bill for airfare/hotels to Florida and back ($2,000), vehicle importation documentation charges ($300), in addition to the money we lost on the exchange rate ($950 - the Canadian dollar increased by 6 cents between the time we took out the certified cheque until the time we deposited the cheque to pay off the loan).

My wife and I were obviously disappointed with how this turned out, and we left negative feedback on the seller's Ebay ID to reflect that (we later learned that Bella Auto Sales uses several Ebay aliases to sell their vehicles so that their negative feedback is distributed and does not appear in one place, making them seem more reputable). After leaving the feedback, though, we were prepared to put this whole thing to rest. That was until we received this phone message from Thomas of Bella Auto Sales.

Hey Amanda, this is Thomas from Bella Auto Sales. I just want to say thank you for the feedback, thank you for being a thief, ungrateful person. I imagine all you Canadians are nothing but losers and that's why I hate dealing with Canadians.

Wait a minute...how are we thieves? What kind of thief spends over $3,000 of their own money to get nothing in return? Despite the fact that Thomas' phone message makes absolutely no sense, it did motivate me to write this blog entry and ensure that anyone who searches "Bella Auto Sales" will find my site, and will hopefully not purchase anything from this company.

I'm also contemplating creating a video of this ordeal to put on Youtube. Perhaps Thomas will read this entry and provide more incentive for me to follow through on that. I really hope he does.

Puzzle of the Day

2009-07-22T10:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1548175

Thanks, Rob, for pointing that out.

The 8th and Final Round

2009-07-20T08:59:00.001-07:00

I really overdid it on Friday night. In my experience when you go for a night on the town with the intention of drinking a lot because it is your last night to do so, things never seem to end pleasantly. As a result of my behaviour I spent a lot of time against my 8th round opponent with my eyes closed trying to make the room stop spinning. I also had the feeling that any sudden movement on my part would cause me to become violently ill. Thankfully that didn't happen, but I really should have won my game.

I played some precise moves in the opening and early middlegame, but I once again panicked when I didn't get the typical counterplay. Bxh4 was the biggest mistake, and although I knew this move would not be Rybka's first suggestion I was ready to go down material to change the nature of the struggle. My opponent had a bind on my light squares and was slowly increasing the pressure, and instead of sitting and waiting I decided to complicate matters. "Come and get me" were the words that passed through my mind, and then I closed my eyes for another over the board nap.

My opponent didn't react with the best moves and soon I had a pleasant initiative by marching my centre pawns up the board. I forced my way into a winning endgame, but ran into mild time pressure and failed to realize the winning plan. After that I offered a draw, which was accepted. I withdrew from the tournament at that point because I was completely exhausted and a little sick of chess.

Kudos to the organizers for a first class event. I look forward to the next time the Canadian Open comes to Alberta.

Wizardry

2009-07-17T22:43:00.000-07:00

In my last two games I have pulled a lot of shit out of my ass. Not literally, of course, but I have been utterly lost the last two nights and managed to salvage two draws.

Against Miller I was surprised in the opening with his Nf4 idea, but I reacted well and attained a playable position. However, since I didn't have the typical Benko counterplay on the queenside I panicked with ...f5, which put me in a tight spot. I stopped calculating right before playing ...Nc5 (I had regained material equality, let my guard down, and just played a move that looked active) and was busted after Bxc5! Even one move from the final position I would have had a long road to the draw if my opponent would have played Rh1 instead of Rb6.

Prior to tonight's game I only spent 30 minutes looking at the Grunfeld lines my opponent could employ, but I was confident that my knowledge of whatever variation Dalia chose would be superior to hers, even after she prepared. This is not to say she is a weak player, just that I have a lot of experience with these lines. Unfortunately, even though I attained a great position from the opening (Rf7 was a mistake on her part - she should have played Nc4), I blundered almost immediately after. Believe it or not, my preparation actually worked against me in this regard because I didn't look at the position with fresh eyes to realize that I can't play fxe4, but should play Rxh5 instead with Nxe4 to follow. I kept thinking to myself "Rf7 was bad, I'm winning now, just build a big centre, defend for a while against her threats, and then push e5). Of course, black is just winning after Bxg4 and if she would have found Rf2 instead of Rf6 I would have resigned on the spot.

It always sucks to be dominated by a young girl, especially when you botch a position to end up in trouble. Time to go enjoy the Edmonton night life to drown my sorrows.

Round 5

2009-07-16T11:12:00.000-07:00

Playing white against Shirazi in a QGD Exchange variation my opponent opted to employ the 3...Be7 move order, which does not prevent the cxd5 exchange, but it does force white to place his bishop on f4 instead of the slightly more active g5 square. However, in this line white gets additional options involving g4 and h4 to gain space on the kingside, and that is the course I took. My position was good throughout the middlegame, but I have a feeling that I rushed a bit with the e4 break. I anticipated the pawn sacrifice on g4 as giving me enough compensation, but I underestimated black's Bf6 defensive resource, which turned out to be surprisingly strong. I also wasn't able to correctly evaluate what happens after Qa6 instead of Qd6+: with best play white would be forced to take a perpetual, but the position is razor-sharp and black's defensive task is very difficult. This approach involved a great deal of risk, though, and my opponent was playing well so I decided to enter into an equal endgame.

It's unfortunate that I've been paired against two unrated players in the past three rounds, but particularly against Shirazi (who destroyed Longo [2000] and was winning against Yearwood [2100]), I'm not disappointed with the result, or the quality of my play.

An Interesting Night

2009-07-16T03:53:00.001-07:00

It's 5 in the morning so I'll keep this brief. In fact, I don't think I'm going to say much about this evening save that it involved a physically deformed man, a few chess players, and this model.

I'll blog about my 5th round game tomorrow. Good night.

The Hint of Preparation

2009-07-14T21:49:00.000-07:00

Going into my game with Moran-Venegas I was expecting to play against a Grunfeld, and I was expecting my opponent to know that I employ the 3.f3 move order to avoid the main line Grunfeld stuff. Given that these early f3 lines are easy to prepare for I was also ready to either challenge my opponent head-on in a critical main line (where I feel my knowledge of the lines would exceed any preparation he could do in one day), or sidestep his preparation in a sideline of his choice.

Normally when someone has prepared a line against you they react in one of two ways: either they blitz out their opening moves to exude confidence, or they try to disguise their intentions. I got the feeling that Moran-Venegas was pursuing the latter course of action, but his eyes gave it all away. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0, normally Grunfeld players reach for either their e or f pawns in this position, but my opponent's eyes were fixated on the queenside. This is not typical because in this system white centre is big and solid and Grunfeld players usually need to strike back in the centre to combat this. I also know from my experience analyzing these lines with Rybka that its first choice is to play 9...Na5 in this position, which forces 10.b3, after which black retreats with 10...Nc6 and intends to follow with a5-a4 with a good attack.

With all this in mind, I decided to not rush into a mating attack race with 11.h4, but instead build a big centre, trade off the dark squared bishops (now that my dark squares are considerably weakened via b3), and react according to which pawn break Moran-Venegas chose. I think this was the correct decision because it became immediately apparent after 11.d5 Ne5 12.h3! a6? that my opponent was not comfortable. After he played ...f6 I felt like I was in control of the position, but after he broke with ...e6 I spent 30 minutes deciding on a course of action. What made my decision interesting is that I made a move that I knew would not be Rybka's first choice because with correct play black could trade off the dark squared bishops, and if this happens the position is objectively equal. However, playing the way I did posed the most problems to my opponent, and so it was a good practical decision. Unfortunately, in the critical position I missed a nice shot with e5 that would have won efficiently and instead I entered into an endgame that should have seen me up the exchange for one pawn. This didn't happen, though, because Moran-Venegas tried to trap my rook which allowed me to win his unprotected rook on a8 (see the game on Monroi if you're unsure what I mean).

Overall a clean game - I felt I calculated well and posed difficult problems to my opponent at every opportunity. That's how chess games are won, isn't it?

PS: Jack says 'hi' to Saskatchewan.

Another Late Night

2009-07-14T02:48:00.000-07:00

Well, despite my intention to get to bed at a decent time, it is now 4 in the morning and Jack and I are just logging out of ICC (actually, Jack is still playing in the 5-min pool to get his rating above 2300 [pride is a powerful thing], as we've been on a bit of a losing streak ever since 3 am rolled around).

An Acceptable Result

2009-07-13T22:07:00.000-07:00

Against Sillador I was on the black side of a Czech Benoni. Going into this game I wasn't able to prepare for a couple of reasons. First, my opponent doesn't have any games in the database (he is still provisional with only 3 games on CFC record), and second, I was up really late last night and only got 3 hours of sleep before playing GM Ni Hua in the simul this morning. As a result I spent the better part of this afternoon sleeping.

I wasn't sure if my opponent had booked up on me (maybe he was prepared for a Benko?), but I think my opening choice achieved the desired result as his 4th move was already a mistake. By allowing me to trade my bad bishop my position is eased considerably, and I'm able to get on with g6/f5 ideas without having to worry about the dark squares around my king. However, I think I missed an opportunity to play ...f5 before castling, as that would have deprived Sillador of a few tempos and allowed me to route my h5 knight to f6 a few moves quicker. I think this would have made all the difference between winning and drawing this game as my counterplay was just too slow to combat Sallidor's b-file penetration.

As it turns out, this game was of quite a high quality - both sides got on with their typical plans (white's b4 and black's f5), and neither side made any mistakes. It's always difficult to draw an opponent 350 points lower than you, but as I found out after the game, my opponent's rating is not at all accurate.

When speaking with Aaron Sequillion following the round I learned that my opponent regularly drops by the club for active games and routinely defeats 2100 players. I also learned that the CFC made a mistake with Sallidor's match with Seehagen - apparently Sillador won both games handily but the CFC shows the second game as being a draw. All of these factors suggest that a draw was an acceptable result.

Ni Hua - The Monster

2009-07-13T13:45:00.000-07:00

In contrast to Michael Adams who enjoyed slowly squeezing his opponents to death, Ni Hua came out with guns blazing and attained winning positions on every board by move 20. There were approximately 15 players in the simul and because of the reduced turnout GM Hua agreed to use clocks set at 60 minutes per player per game. I've never participated in a clock simul before, so I was looking forward to the experience.

Ni alternated moves against his opponents, and against me he played 1.e4. We entered into a French Winawer with white playing 7.a4 and black adopting a sideline that I've employed several times in blitz over the last few years. Against most opposition, even titled players, I always manage to get decent queenside counterplay, but not so with Ni. We followed book until I didn't know what to do anymore, and my position was decent until I tried to activate my bad bishop by bringing it to e8. I was never able to bring it out to g6, though, and as a result my pieces were clumsily placed, which allowed Ni to win a clear pawn on move 25. I resigned shortly afterwards as there was no chance of saving the game.

The eeriest thing about the clock simul was the sound of the clocks being pressed, and the speed at which GM Hua would make his moves. At times I'd emerge from a 10 minute think, make my move and press my clock, only to see Hua appear out of nowhere in front of me and respond instantly. It was the kind of thing chess players have nightmares about: a monster that is as relentless in his attack as he is accurate in his defense and prevention of counterplay. To be honest, until today I've never had the feeling that my chess understanding was so much lower than someone else's, but after Hua was done with me I realized that he could have given me 60 to 5 time odds and the result would have been the same.

Ground Down

2009-07-13T07:23:00.001-07:00

Yesterday morning I played Mickey Adams on the black side of a Tarrasch. To start with, I have a feeling I gave him too much information by bringing my Monroi PCM to the simul because after shaking my hand he looked at the PCM, looked at me, and then grabbed his knight and played 1.Nf3; against everyone else he either played 1.e4 or 1.d4. I responded with 1...e6, and the game continued 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c5 4.e3. I emerged from the opening with a solid position, but it was very symmetrical which gave my opponent the advantage because he was always the one to move first.

After the middlegame was reached I got a taste of the power of Adams' play - in a position where nothing seemed to be going on Michael managed to force several piece exchanges that all favoured him, and I was powerless to stop it. I had decided before the simul began that I wouldn't take any passes and around move 40 (when there were only a handful of games remaining) Adams was coming to my board very quickly and I blundered in a difficult position.

My game with Gerzhoy gave me the same feeling as the Adams game - being ground down slowly but relentlessly. I was on the white side of a QGD and we played into the exchange line where white plays for f3 and e4. My opponent responded with what I believe to be the main line, and I played the way I always do when faced with these types of positions in blitz, but it turns out that if my opponent is over 2500 and has more than 3 minutes on his clock, I'm just screwed. Interestingly enough, before the game I had prepared to play a very sharp line of the Nimzo against Gerzhoy because according to Jack I really needed to force things against him: be very aggressive, grab lots of space, and point my pieces at his king. "Don't let him grind you" warned Jack prior to the round, "and if you feel yourself making waiting moves you are doing something wrong."

Clearly things did not go according to plan as far as the opening prep is concerned, but the real dilemma I faced was the conflict between following Jack's advice to play forcefully and aggressively, and doing what I thought the position called for, which was to play slowly to achieve the e4 break. I remember reading an article on this line of the QGD that said white's main trump was the fact that he can play e4 whenever it suits him, and therefore white should not rush to play that move, instead making several preparatory/waiting moves. Ultimately I followed my gut, saddled my opponent with an isolated d-pawn, traded off my bishop for his knight (you're supposed to do this sort of thing when fighting against the IQP, right?) and securely blockaded the d4 square. So far, so good, except after I did all these wonderful things I had absolutely nothing else to do! Meanwhile my opponent advanced on the queenside and started to grind me. In the end I made what was likely my fatal mistake - I played e4, which felt good at the time but the resultant position was very open and Gerzhoy's two bishops dominated for the rest of the game.

This morning I'm playing GM Ni Hua in a simul, and tonight I have black against Sillador (~1700).

Canadian Open RD 1

2009-07-12T08:46:00.001-07:00

I played Howard Du (1600) in the first round on the black side of the English Gambit, except instead of taking the pawn my opponent played into a drawing line where white can force the exchange of queens and go into a relatively equal ending. However, I don't think my opponent knew the theory because soon I had an ideal position with a strong centre and more active pieces. After Du lashed out in the centre prematurely I obtained the two bishops and was able to pin his knights in about 3 different ways. Despite how impressive my position looked there was no killer blow, and I had to settle for a line that won a clear exchange. But, my opponent decided to not lose the exchange and give me a piece instead, which I converted to a win in the endgame.

I'm scheduled to play Adams in a simul in about an hour, and tonight I'm playing IM Gerzhoy as white. Time to have a shower and make my way to the venue.

>2000 Sectional

2009-05-04T07:35:00.000-07:00

I played in the Over 2000 Sectional this weekend in Edmonton, and although I played extremely well my result was only mediocre (1.5/4 with a 2075 performance). I'm not going to go into too much detail about the games here because the lecture I'm holding in Saskatoon will cover them in depth.

In round 1 I was paired as white against Richard Wang, and after sacrificing a pawn in the opening for a very dangerous initiative I convinced myself to not play a crushing blow that would have won the game, even though I was familiar with that specific idea in Wang's opening choice. I then proceeded to sacrifice my queen for insufficient compensation and lose horribly.

I had a bye in round two because Rick Pedersen had to withdraw from the tournament due to a family medical emergency, and so I spent that time trying to get over my loss to Richard and getting focussed to play Nic Haynes. When Nic and I squared off he surprised me with his opening choice, but I reacted well and had a pleasant position in the middlegame. I found some accurate moves to increase my advantage to +3, then +5, then +18 according to Rybka, but I got into time pressure and eventually lost this game as well. It was the worst feeling I've ever experienced in the context of chess.

I had a lot of trouble sleeping on Saturday night because I was so upset for losing to both Richard and Nic from completely winning positions, and when I woke up on Sunday morning my body reminded me that in my state of distress I had forgotten to eat anything since lunch on Saturday, so going into my game with Micah I had to overcome a violent headache and the psychological devastation from the previous two rounds. Somehow I managed to pull it together, though, as I defeated Micah in just over two hours of play. This gave me a much needed confidence boost going into the final round with Keith.

My game with Keith was interesting. We followed a main line Winawer for 18 moves before Keith deviated, and I found the refutation to his idea over the board. I didn't play as accurately as I could have, however, and instead of emerging with a +1 advantage the position remained approximately equal. I then made another inaccuracy that allowed Keith to get an advantage in a complicated position, but he missed the point of my defensive resource and we agreed to a draw in a completely equal position.

My lecture in Saskatoon on May 22 is going to be very entertaining, and instructive too. Don't miss out on your chance to attend!

NAO 2009

2009-03-01T19:38:00.000-08:00

I played fairly well at the recent Northern Alberta Open in Edmonton (3/4 with a performance rating of ~2030). In round 1 I was paired against an unrated player (approximately 1400 strength), and although the game started off as a normal Semi-Slav, around move 7 my opponent made some dubious decisions that resulted in the loss of an exchange and his king taking a walk from e8 to c7. After that I just traded down to a won ending and converted my advantage.

In round 2 I was paired as black against Robert Sasata. For some reason we always get paired against each other, regardless of how many other people are at the tournament. In this case there were 57 players at the NAO and I still had to play him! My biggest problem with playing Robert is he knows my opening repertoire better than I do, so it's very difficult for me to emerge from the opening with a decent position. In all of our previous encounters I was practically dead by move 15, but I played on past move 25 to avoid being miniatured. In this game, though, I actually got a decent position in a Tarrasch and although I never had any real winning chances, my position was fundamentally sound.

At every opportunity Robert spurned moves that would have resulted in a symmetrical, relatively equal position and instead created complications and tricky tactics until eventually I blundered and lost horribly. I'm disappointed that I lost this way, especially after playing a good game until that point, but on the other hand I'm glad I held my own for as long as I did. The only real problem I had with the loss was I was paired down the next two rounds.

In round 3 I was white in a QGA against Terry Seehagen. After making two inaccurate moves in the opening, Terry shed a pawn in order to get active. In my opinion this was a mistake - there were no immediate threats and black could have held on in a slightly disadvantageous position. But, I believe Terry is a very creative player, so I'm not going to take anything away from him for trying to reach the types of positions he is comfortable in.

After I took the pawn my pieces became a little uncoordinated, and I spent a few moves regrouping. Black didn't have any real threats, though, and by the time Terry was developed my position was harmonious again. Within a few moves I was able to win an exchange, and after that Terry resigned.

Robert withdrew after the 3rd round, and prior to playing my 4th round game I decided that I would withdraw after round 4 was complete. This may seem paradoxical given that I just complained about being paired down, and I had a good chance of being paired up in the 5th, but other considerations came into play. For one thing, I don't particularly enjoy getting home at 10:00 on a Sunday night when I have to work the next day, but mostly I wasn't really into my game on Sunday, and I didn't want to play another game. I'm also quite content playing only 4 games in a weekend.

In round 4 I was black in a French Advance against Amasaib - an 1850 who didn't know much opening theory, but was a solid player nonetheless. The opening was a complete success for me as I managed to trade off my bad bishop very early when Amasaib played too passively. In the middlegame I had good pressure on white's center, which caused my opponent to lash out with a g4 thrust, after he had already castled. The g4 idea is common in advance french structures when a knight is on f5, but in this case, largely because of white's previous passive play, g4 just didn't mesh with white's position, and Amasaib was left defending his weakened kingside for the rest of the game. At the critical middlegame position I offered my opponent an exchange, but he declined the sacrifice and tried to hold everything together. However, with some forceful play I managed to win a pawn, and just when I was wondering how I could consolidate my extra material (which wouldn't have been easy), my opponent tried to win my unprotected queen by sacrificing a rook. There was no justification for this, though, and a few moves later I was up a rook and a knight in a R+N+K vs K ending. 0-1.

Some final thoughts that I'm too lazy to cohesively integrate into the above:

1. Constantly applying pressure on your opponent is a key to chess success. This has to be positionally and tactically justified, of course, but one should seize the chance to play forcefully whenever possible. Just be careful to not lose control of the position.

2. Strong players know when they have the initiative and/or an advantage, and they play accordingly. When you're worse you have to defend, and when you're better you have to attack. That's easier said than done, I know, but sacrifices and/or tactical sequences very rarely end well if they are undertaken from an inferior position.

3. I'm ready for a sectional. This yo-yo effect of big swisses is getting to me.

4. For the first time in a couple of years I didn't prepare at all for a tournament, and I played well. Maybe I just needed a break, or maybe I wasn't studying effectively before. Frankly, I just don't play in enough tournaments to see much positive progress in my rating, and until I am ready to commit more time to that, studying regularly isn't going to be productive.

25 Random Things

2009-02-26T20:35:00.000-08:00

1. Writing online is somewhat of a balancing act, especially on an outlet such as Facebook where the majority of my "friends" aren't really friends at all - they are co-workers, peers, or acquaintances at best. On the one hand I'd like my profile to truly represent who I am, but on the other I'm hesitant to reveal too much. In most circumstances I couldn't care less about what others think about me, especially those people who don't even know me, but somehow writing online makes me feel more vulnerable than perhaps I should. Having said that, I've tried to write the following points as candidly and as openly as I could, despite my inherent difficulty with doing so.

2. My wife Amanda is the best thing that has ever happened to me. I wish that everyone could be so privileged as to experience the unconditional love of another, and be able to reciprocate those feelings without reservation.

3. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and I currently work as an electrical engineer for a company in Lloydminster. Despite entertaining ideas of becoming a lawyer, doctor, or a writer when I was younger, I'm glad I became an engineer because of the creativity and problem solving involved in my job. At the very root of it, I'm a technical person (as opposed to an artistic one), and being an engineer allows me to excel at what I enjoy doing.

4. I distrust monkeys in general, and to be more specific, I have a real problem with monkeys trying to imitate humans on television. Movies such as Most Valuable Primate really irritate me, for example. For over 20 years I didn't know why this was, but my mother recently informed me that we visited the Calgary zoo when I was very young, and as we walked past the monkey cage the monkeys became very aggressive - pounding their chests, screaming, and pointing directly at me. Perhaps they sensed I would be opposed to their movie appearances when I grew up? Whatever their motives were they succeeded in making me cry, and subconsciously I don't think I've ever forgotten that experience.

5. I play competitive chess, and I enjoy doing so for many of the same reasons as I enjoy engineering. Sure, chess involves problem solving and creativity, but there is so much more to it than that. It's surprisingly difficult to convey why I love chess, or how I can spend hours staring at a chess board in dead silence, especially to people who have never studied the game, but what I can endorse unequivocally are the very famous words of Siegbert Tarrasch who said, "Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make people happy".

6. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.Qe2 a6 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.0-0 0-0 9.e4 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.e5 Nd5 12.Bxh7+! Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg6 14.Qe4+ f5 15.exf6+ Kxf6 16.Qxe6# I’ve won more than 10 (online blitz) games from that exact sequence. Who said winning without thinking wasn’t fun?

7. I've been subjected to several racist comments/acts during my life, largely because my mother is from India and my skin colour reveals as much. From being picked on/beat-up in elementary school for being a "Paki" (even though I have no Pakistani heritage) to having groups of assholes want to fight me in bars because I might, "fly a plane into the Husky tower in Lloydminster", I know what it's like to be discriminated against, and I sympathize with those people who have to deal with that shit on a regular basis.

8. I do not believe that anything happens for a reason, unless that reason is a consequence of one's actions. In other words, the things that happen to people are not because of fate, destiny, or divine intervention, they are directly proportional to the choices people make. It's completely unromantic, I know, but it's the only explanation that makes sense, at least to me.

9. I had three imaginary friends when I was a kid. The first was named Dakinogi, the second Gooshla-Gashla, and the third one's name I can't remember, but I always blamed anything bad I did on him. I wonder if there is anything to be learned from encouraging children to have imaginary friends, as opposed to forcing kids to shut them out once they reach a certain age.

10. I love motorcycling, both on the street and on the trail. I started riding when I was 4 years old, and when I turned 15 I earned my motorcycle licence before my driver's license because at that time you only needed to be 15 to have a motorcycle licence in Alberta, as compared to 16 to be able to drive a car. For our wedding present my Dad actually bought Amanda and I a motorbike, and I'm looking forward to riding it this summer.

11. I really enjoy traveling, due in large part to my wife's passion for it. When I first met Amanda I hadn't traveled anywhere, but within the first 3 weeks of dating her she had me on a plane to Las Vegas for a weekend getaway. Since then we've been to Jamaica, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Amsterdam, France, and the Dominican Republic, and I've traveled to Houston, Denver, Moncton, Montreal and Colombia by myself. There's something about experiencing different cultures (and drinking imported beer!) that I find incredibly appealing.

12. I was never artistically gifted - in my family all of the drawing/painting/right-brain ability went to my sister Erin, and even at a young age she was much better at everything artsy than I was. However, at around the age of 10 I had my finest artistic achievement: I drew the best 3-headed monster anyone had ever seen. For weeks that picture sat on our refrigerator, and every time my parents looked at it they congratulated me on a job well done, much to Erin's chagrin. A short time later the picture disappeared forever. I do not know what happened to it, but I suspect my sister had something to do with its disposal. Of course, she denied any wrongdoing in the matter, and to this day she won’t tell me what she did with my masterpiece.

13. I love drinking good beer, and by good I mean imported beer, in most cases anyway. Some of my favourites include Bavarian Weissbeer (Hacker Pschorr, Konig Ludwig) and a wide variety of Belgium beers (Duvel, Leffe, La Chouffe, Stella, Hoegaarden, etc).

14. I also enjoy a wide variety of wine, and I've recently started down the path of learning more about wine by joining a club (the type that periodically sends you cases from around the world), and reading books on it. Ideally I'd like to have the knowledge of a wine-snob without the corresponding character defects.

15. Did you know that the majority of YouTube users, when asked what YouTube means to them, responded by saying, "Free Hugs"? Do you know what that means? Do you want to?

16. To expand on #15, the Internet is an extremely powerful tool for many reasons, but what makes the net so incredible is its ability to make people feel like they are connected to something that is bigger, better, and more important than themselves. The people who disagree with the above statement, or don't understand it, probably aren't using the Internet to its fullest potential.

17. I hardly watch any TV, probably because I despise reality shows and they seem to be the trend these days, but if I were to endorse one television series it would be Dexter. It's a wonderfully written, intelligent drama, but the main reason I love Dexter is because it poses difficult questions to the viewer that if answered truthfully, ultimately reveal something about one's self.

18. According to my parents, the name Jamin came from their desire to name me Damien, but also from wanting my name to start with a 'J'. Since Jamien just sounds strange the 'e' was discarded. One of the disadvantages of having an unusual name is that it is constantly mispronounced (Jamie, Jammin, Jamal, Haymin, etc). Conversely, one advantage of possessing a name like Jamin is that I can discern a lot about a person who I meet for the first time by the way he/she addresses me. It's surprising how much information can be gleaned from listening to people screw up your name, and then evaluating their subsequent behaviour.

19. I once inadvertently evacuated a post office in Toronto (and several surrounding businesses) by shipping material through Canada Post that they were not accustomed to dealing with. The bomb squad was called in, and their little robot destroyed my package by blowing it up. I later received a call from the RCMP, and I almost got saddled with a very large bill (you wouldn’t believe how much it costs to evacuate a city street or two), but luckily I avoided all serious penalties.

20. There are times when I take myself too seriously.

21. I used to drive a car that I loved. For close to a year I put all of my spare time and money into that thing, and just when I had my 2002 BMW the way I wanted it, it was gone forever. No, it wasn’t stolen – it was the victim of my poor decision to take a corner too fast. Now I drive an Alero, and I drive it slowly.

22. I love all things Apple. It took me a while to fully migrate to the Mac, but once Apple changed their architecture to Intel (meaning that they could run Windows, as required by some software I own) I was sold. I’d really like to buy an iPhone, but the thought of using Rogers in my area is enough to dissuade me.

23. I've always wanted to be able to speak another language, and being a Canadian whose country embraces French as its official second tongue, I figure that learning French is a good place to start. Despite taking years of French in high school though, I never actually learned how to converse en Français; however, I have started to learn some French phrases recently, and I think that within a few months I will be able to hold my own in a conversation.

24. I’ve also always wanted to learn to play a musical instrument. At the moment I’m leaning towards the piano, but only because my first attempt at the guitar didn’t go as well as I thought it would.

25. I wrote this list in large part because my friends Sajeev and Alysa inspired me to. If either of you are reading this, thank you for taking the time to share a piece of yourself with me.

Right and Wrong

2009-02-08T19:46:00.000-08:00

Danny's mom tried contacting him via phone the day after she had left, but his father was quick to intercept the call, and he used that opportunity to sling insults at his former wife that would make most adults cringe. Even months after the official separation, every time Danny's mother would call his father would be the first to answer. The end result of those phone calls depended on how much Danny's father had drank that day: if his father was drunk, Danny would hear some of the most vulgar comments imaginable directed at his mother; if his father was sober, all Danny would hear was, "He doesn't want to talk to you", followed by the sound of the phone being hung up.

As intimidating as Danny's father was during normal times, under those very stressful circumstances he became even more imposing, even more threatening, and entirely more unstable. Despite that, however, Danny had a deep desire to talk to his mother - to make sure she was OK, to let her know that he was OK and to tell her that regardless of what his father had said, he did want to talk to her, see her, and be a part of her life. So, shortly after Danny recognized the pattern that was developing with his mother's phone calls, Danny worked up the courage to tell his father that he wanted to see his mother, but his father's response was completely unexpected.

"Your mother moved in with another man that night - did you know that? She didn't just leave me, Danny, she left you too. She threw away the both of us, like garbage, and you want to see her? By seeing her you are going to validate her actions - is that what you want? Is that what you stand for?"

"You are old enough now to understand the difference between right and wrong, and if you don't think what your mother did was wrong, then I haven't taught you anything, and you have no right to be in my house. If you're going to see your mother, pack your things because you will not be coming back here."

Danny was 13 at the time his father uttered those words, and being a kid who grew up in a small town, Danny didn't know anything else other than that town, so leaving it was out of the question. What really hurt him, though, was realizing that his mother had betrayed him. Danny knew who the "other man" was before his father even finished speaking - it was the same guy he had caught her with years before - the same guy his mother had promised she would never see again.

Over the course of the following year Danny tried to adapt to his new surroundings as best as he could. On the one hand he understood his father's point: his mother was wrong to do what she did, and Danny would not condone her actions. On the other hand though, Danny still wanted to talk to her. A mother's bond with her child is not easily broken.

The compromise Danny and his father reached was perhaps even more harmful to his relationship with his mother than not being allowed to talk to her at all. When his mother would phone, Danny was allowed to answer, and he was even allowed to talk to her, but Danny's father would always be listening on the other receiver. Danny could never tell his mother that his father was listening to their conversation, but at that time it really didn't matter - Danny was so happy to finally talk to her that he didn't care who heard what he said.

Over time, though, the point of his father's plan was revealed. After Danny and his mother had reestablished a part of their bond and could talk to each other freely over the phone, Danny's father had him express thoughts to his mother that were not his. For example, Danny was told to convey how he needed more child support money to survive, and after his mother got a second job as a janitor to pay for his increased child support costs, Danny was instructed to tell her to clean more toilets so that he could participate in extracurricular activities like the other kids he knew. The things Danny said to his mother became more and more hurtful with each phone call, and after a while, when his mother truly believed her son had turned against her, she stopped phoning altogether.

Danny and his mother never spoke again.

The next two years in Danny's life were as normal as one could expect, given the circumstances. At home things with his father were better than before - with no phone calls from Danny's mother to deal with, Danny's father drank less and was more stable. Things at school, however, were not as good. Danny became easily irritated, easily set off, and an easy target for the cliques of kids who got a rise out of picking on others. At first their attacks were only verbal, but after a while when their insults weren't having the desired effect, some of the kids became physical with Danny. Typically this involved intentionally bumping into Danny in the hallways, or throwing objects at him during class, but on one occasion Danny was cornered by 4 others and shit-kicked at the back of the school.

As the attacks escalated, other people around Danny started to notice what was happening and tried to intervene on his behalf, but Danny wouldn't let them. "There is only one way to deal with a bully," he'd say, "and only I can make it all go away."

True to his word Danny made it all go away, and on that day I was there to witness what happened. Sitting in Grade 8 History, one of the bullies who had beaten Danny up a few weeks prior threw a paper ball at Danny and hit him in the head. No one but Danny, myself and the bully was aware of what happened, but as soon as the teacher left the room Danny got up from his chair, walked towards the asshole who instigated that particular incident, and punched him in the jaw. The bully even saw it coming, but I doubt he expected the skinny kid who had never fought back before to throw the first punch. Although he saw the first one, though, the bully never saw the second, or the third, or the fourth. Before long Danny had beat that kid's face into a bloody pulp, and it took 3 students to pull Danny off his target.

No one ever picked on Danny after that incident, but as a result of his actions the school wanted to place Danny in anger management classes, and Danny's father seemed to agree with them. After all, to the students who witnessed what Danny had done to that kid, it appeared like he had snapped. Looking back on that day I think a part of Danny did come loose, but at the time I was just happy that my friend gave the bully what he deserved. Ultimately Danny managed to avoid the anger management classes by promising his father that he would not fight anymore, and instead would focus his energy on his school work.

For the next year and a half, until the end of Grade 10, Danny kept his promise: there were no more violent incidents at school, and within that time Danny raised his average from the mid 70's to the low 90's, and was close to the top of his class. At the end of his Grade 10 year however, just when his life had stabilized to a point where things were manageable, disaster struck Danny again. This time, though, its affects were not only psychological, they were physical too, and anyone who looked at Danny viewed him differently because of it.

Greasy Chess

2009-01-26T08:19:00.000-08:00

The following post relates to the 2009 Sask Open, which took place this past weekend. Despite a very poor 1900 performance, in a way I actually feel good about my result because I managed to draw two positions that were utterly lost for me. I haven't had a chance to plug these games into Rybka yet, so the upcoming analysis may very well be flawed; however, I'm hoping that by capturing my thought process in writing prior to looking at Rybka's solutions I may learn something about my play, and perhaps pinpoint the reason for my terrible result.

In my defense though, I got very little sleep this weekend, and to make matters worse I also consumed a lot more alcohol than I usually would while playing in a chess tournament. Part of this was because Chris insisted on buying me drinks on Friday night, but ultimately I really enjoyed hanging out with several friends who I don't get to see often enough, and I decided to maximize my enjoyment with the consumption of copious amounts of beer.

I arrived in Saskatoon on Friday night at around 8PM, and Chris and I headed to Winston's about an hour later where we took full advantage of Import Night. Both Chris and I have traveled to Europe, and many of the beers we consumed brought back memories that lead to interesting recollections of our time there. Tyler joined us a few hours in, and because we were expecting 4-5 out of town players within the next hour, we moved to the Copper Mug so we could accommodate the extra people.

Once the Edmonton contingent arrived we visited and drank until 2AM, and after they left Chris and I played pool until the bar closed. To our extreme chagrin we couldn't get a cab after leaving the Mug, and we spent 30 minutes phoning different cab companies around Saskatoon, all to no avail. The situation worsened when at 3AM the Colonial Offsale locked their doors, meaning that we now had to stand outside in the -30C weather to wait for a cab that wasn't even coming because the cab companies wouldn't answer their damn phones. As a last resort we phoned Chris' girlfriend Andgy, and at 3:30AM she picked us up. I am very thankful for that, because I really don't know what we would have done if Andgy wouldn't have been around.

I felt like shit on Saturday morning. I was dead tired, hung over, and I had a severe head ache that just wouldn't go away. Fortunately for me I was paired as white against Chris in the first round, as I was comforted by the realization that my opponent likely felt just as terrible as I did.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Bg5 Nc6 7.Nge2 h6?! 8.Be3 Nd7? 9.Qd2 Kh7 10.h4 h5! 11.g4! Nf6 12.0-0-0 Rh8

Chris' provocative opening play has given me the ideal attacking setup in this line, and because of the time Chris spent moving his knight from f6 to d7 to f6, black's typical counterplay on the queenside (a6, Rb8, b5) hasn't even started. However, things are not so simple for white on the kingside because black has made some very strong defensive moves, so I decided to not play for mate and instead increase my space advantage and then switch to playing on the queenside.

13.g5 Nd7 14.Kb1 Nb6 15.Nc1 Na5 16.b3 Nc6

I wasn't too happy about having to play b3 because it weakens the long diagonal, makes me vulnerable to future a-pawn lunges by black, and takes away the b3 square from my knight. On the other hand, though, now that c4 is defended I actually have a few more options, such as allowing a black knight on e5 in some lines.

17.Be2 e5

Consistent with the previous play, but I wonder if this move is a mistake. Despite black's apparent activity and the increase in dark square control, after e5 his position is very difficult. To be honest, I expected Chris to play 17...e5 because at first sight I thought it looked right, but after spending some time thinking about the position I felt that perhaps 17...a5 was a better try.

18.dxe5 Nxe5?

When the most natural recapture leads to material loss, it's usually a good sign that black's position is much more difficult that it may first appear. 18...dxe5 is very unpleasant for black after 19.Qxd8 Rxd8 20.Rxd8 Nxd8 21.c5 Nd7 22.Bc4, and 18...Bxe5 also gives white a great position after 19.Nd3 Bg7 20.Nf4 followed by putting a knight on d5, playing Rhf1 and eventually f4.

19.c5! Nbd7 20.cxd6 cxd6 21.Nb5! d5 22.Qxd5 a6 23.Nd6 Qe7 24.f4 Ng4 25.Bxg4 Nb6?

Chris tries to extricate himself via tactics, and although they don't work in his favour, black's position was likely lost anyway.

26.Qxf7 Qxf7 27.Nxf7 Bxg4 28.Nxh8 Bxd1 29.Rxd1 1-0

In round 2 I was black against Roger and I played an irregular opening that I have never played OTB before. I spent about 30 minutes on my first 10 moves, which is something I do very rarely, but in this case I didn't really know where to put my pieces and I had to think carefully about how I was going to get counterplay. After a few more moves, though, I actually had a great position - open f-file, pressure on white's center, and good activity, but then I completely blew it with a move that lead to the forced loss of an exchange with absolutely no compensation. In the following position it is white's move.

Can you believe this shit? After only 17 moves I am completely lost, and the worst part is that white doesn't even need to play precisely in order to secure the win because I have too many weaknesses, my pieces are terribly placed, and I have no counterplay.

At this point I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent because I noticed an interesting behavioural trait from several chess players watching my game that I'd like to discuss. Furthermore, I'm also guilty of exhibiting the same trait when I see someone playing out a lost position, which gives me some insight into why kibitzers do this so often. Plus, my position is so bad that I don't see any benefit in articulating the lines I was calculating because everything wins for white anyway.

There is a player who has been around the Saskatoon chess scene for years, and his name is Trevor Robertson. Trevor is a really decent guy, and also a decent club player, but the most notable characteristic about his play, in my opinion, is his attitude towards defending worse positions. Over the years I have seen Trevor on the losing side of a fair number of really, really bad positions, but the completely incredible thing about Trevor is the number of draws he gets from those bad positions. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there is no other player in Canada who has forced as many stalemates from completely lost positions as Trevor has. As an example, in round 1 of the Sask Open Trevor was playing Micah Hughey, and after trading his queen for 2 rooks Trevor reached an endgame where his opponent had all the winning chances due to his mass of passed pawns. However, after some rather careless play by Micah, Trevor set up his trademark stalemate net and before Micah knew what was going on the result was a draw!

Trevor developed a name for that type of game: greasy. "It was a greasy draw", is one common expression, or, "I greased out a stalemate". I remember when I first saw Trevor execute his trademark greasy moves: several years ago I happened to glance at Trevor's board and within moments I came to the conclusion that his position was totally lost, but to my surprise he played on. I remember asking myself, "Maybe he doesn't know how bad his position is?", and then in an attempt to discern what he was thinking I stood and stared at his face, expecting to see some sign of disgust, or despair, or defeat. Instead, Trevor just sat there, expressionless, and after a while he looked at me, his face still completely expressionless, refusing to betray what he was thinking. Honestly, the first time this happened I was a little unnerved by it, because at that time, when I was younger, if I was in his position I would have been visually upset, or even desperate.

Returning to my game with Roger, I decided that I wouldn't resign until it was abundantly clear there was no chance of saving the game, and in the meantime, I would take a page from Trevor's book and remain completely expressionless. For the record, this isn't the first time I've defended a bad position, and it isn't the first time I've tried to hide my true feelings about a position from my opponent. But, seeing Trevor draw Micah in the previous round inspired me to pay homage to the man who taught me things about defending in chess that are not written in any chess book I know of. "Let's draw this one for Trevor", I told myself, and that's exactly what I did.

18.b4

This move forces an exchange of queens, but Roger could have done this with 18.Qxd7, when white's material advantage is even more decisive than in the game continuation.

18...Qd4+ 19.Qxd4 Nxd4 20.Ra2 c5 21.Rd1 Kf8 22.bxc5 bxc5 23.Rb2 Rb8 24.Rxb8+ Nxb85.Rb1 Nbc6

26.Kf2

I'm deliberately not criticizing Roger's moves because even though I believe there were more precise ways to continue, the moves he is making are still more than good enough to win. Personally, though, I would have played 26.Rb7 followed by e5. Roger told me he didn't like Rb7 because of Na5 and he loses the c-pawn, but in that line white will get a passed a-pawn, which knights are notoriously bad at stopping.

26...Ke7 27.Bf1 Kd8 28.Bd3 Kc7?!

It may have been better to play 28...e5.

29.e5 h6 30.g4 g5 31.Ke3 d6 32.exd6+ Kxd6 33.fxg5 hxg5 34.Ke4

White still has everything under control, and all he needs to do now is get his rook active on the 7th rank.

At around this time several people were watching my game, likely enthralled by the prospect of me losing to a lower rated player. I think this is a natural reaction, though, and I know I'm guilty of doing exactly the same thing. But, as their prying eyes stared at my position, and then my face, looking for some signal of how bad I felt my position was, I gave them nothing, just as Trevor did to me so many years ago.

No doubt they returned to their boards questioning my chess understanding and wondering if I knew how much trouble I was in.

34...Ne5 35.h3 Ndf3 36.Rd1 (36.Rb7!) Nd4 37.Be2 Nd7 38.h4?! gxh4 39.g5 Ke7 40.Bg4 Nb6 41.Rxd4?

Surely this move could have been avoided with 41.Kd3.

41...cxd4 42.Kxd4 e5+!

Here I offered a draw, and my opponent accepted. I'm not sure what the true evaluation of this position is, but my feelings were that white still had all the winning chances due to his bishop versus knight advantage, more active king, and passed pawns on both sides of the board. But, I felt the momentum shifting, and it seemed like a good moment to offer a draw, so I went with it.

I didn't really want to play the 3rd round because of how tired I was, but I decided I would for two reasons. First, I thought I was paired as white against Roy Yearwood, and I didn't want to waste a white by taking a bye, and second, I wanted to win my third round game so that I'd have a shot at Keith in the morning, and a chance to win the event. When I came to the board, though, I realized that I was not playing Roy at all, and I didn't even have the white pieces. Instead, I was black against Kevin Me, an opponent I hadn't even prepared for, and one who has improved considerably lately, and is now quite dangerous.

The position after 16.0-0 is shown. Kevin played the opening I expected him to, but he chose a different variation compared to our previous two games. In my opinion, this entire line is bad for white, and so I was happy to go into it, but right around here my body started shutting down, punishing me for the previous night's excursions, and I seriously considered offering Kevin a draw so that I could get some rest. In the end I decided against this because after considering this position for about 20 minutes I realized how difficult white's problems are.

Updated: I forgot to mention that I did look very hard at the exchange sacrifice on f3, but I couldn't make it work after 16...Rxf3 17.gxf3 Nxd4 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Qxd4 Qxd4 20.Rxd4 Rxf3 when white can play Kg2 followed by f4 and I can't get my central majority rolling (not to mention I only have 1 pawn for the exchange). Roy Yearwood mentioned an interesting possibility that I hadn't considered: 16...Rxf3 17.gxf3 g6!? in order to stop Bxh7+, when I'm still only going to get one pawn for the exchange, but white's king may feel uncomfortable with more black pieces on the board.

16...Ng6 17.Bxg6

I thought this move was forced because the black knight on f4 will be trouble. One of the lines I looked at during the game was 17.Bb1 Nf4 18.Ng5 Nxd4 19.Nxh7 Nfe2+ 20.Kh1 Rxf2 21.Nxf8 Ng3+ 22.hxg3 Rxd2, but white has way too much material for the queen, so I then looked harder and found 19...Nh3+! 20.Kh1 Rxf2 21.Rxf2 Nxf2+ 22.Kg1 Nxd1 23.Qxd1 (23.Nxf8 Nf3+! wins) and I assessed this position as winning for black.

17...Rxg6 18.Ne5?

I felt this move was a serious error because now black's weakness on e6 is covered from attack, and black passed d-pawn will be difficult for white to deal with. If Kevin would have played another move, such as 18.Kh1 or 18.Qe2, I was going to offer a draw because I didn't see any way to win his d-pawn while still keeping my e-pawn. Plus, to be honest I wasn't in the right mindset to continue the struggle if the position would have remained unclear, but as it turned out in the game, I felt I had an obligation to myself to play it out because I had nothing to lose from doing so.

The game turned out to be a draw anyway after I misplayed a critical position in time pressure. Instead of trading a set of rooks in order to win white's h-pawn and e-pawn in exchange for my passed d-pawn, I should have kept the pieces on the board. In the game Kevin had to defend a Q+P ending a pawn down, but we both were down to under 5 minutes left, and the practical difficulties associated with winning that type of ending with no time were too much for me to overcome that day.

Even though I was proud of myself for at least trying to win against Kevin, instead of taking the easy way out and offering a draw earlier from a more comfortable position, the 10 minutes I spent blitzing out my moves in that Q+P ending made my body surge with adrenaline, which in turn made me forget how tired I was. So, instead of going home to sleep, Chris and I once again stayed up until 4AM, and probably drank more than we needed to.

When Sunday morning came around I was even more tired than I was the day before, and paired as white against Terry Chaisson I made some horrible moves. Just like against Roger I lost material, this time a pawn, by blundering in the opening, but instead of making really precise moves to get some compensation for it I moved my pieces willy-nilly and soon was completely lost.

Here I played the horrible 19.Be3, which just gave black a tempo to develop with b6, and my compensation for the pawn is gone. Instead, I think 19.h4 would have been a much better try, with the reason being that after 19...b6 20.Rd1 Qc7 21.Bd3 g6 I can play 22.h5 when I have counterplay against the black king. In the game I never have enough time to do this.

19.Be3?? b6 20.Rd1 Qc7 21.Bd3 g6 22.Nd4

22.h4 Bb7 23.h5 Bxf3! 24.gxf3 Qxe5 looks really good for black.

22...Bb7 23.f4 Rac8 24.Rdc1 Qd8 25.a4 Nxd3 26.Qxd3 Qd5 27.Qe2 Rxc1+ 28.Rxc1 Bc5 29.Qf2 Rd8

White is in very serious trouble here, but just like against Roger I tried my best to salvage what I could from this position. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be saved, at least not without some help from my opponent.

30.Nf3 Qb3! 31.Bxc5 bxc5! 32.a5

The c-pawn can't be taken.

32...Rd1+ 33.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 34.Ne1

Forced, as a queen trade and a minor piece trade would be hopeless for white. For example, 34.Qf1 would lose to 34...Qxf1 35.Kxf1 Bxf3, and 34.Qe1 Bxf3! wins for black.

34...Qd4

34...c4 was a much simpler way to win.

35.Nc2 Qxf2+ 36.Kxf2 Kf8 37.g3 Ke7 38.Ke3 Kd7 39.Kd3 Bd5 40.Kc3 Kc6 41.Na3

Black's winning method involves placing white in zugzwang, and the most straightforward way to do this is to triangulate the king. Unfortunately for white his king can't triangulate, and knights are inherently incapable of losing a move as well. Instead of this, Terry tried to go over to the kingside, but when that didn't work we came back to this position and a draw was agreed. The game concluded:

41...Kd7 42.Nc2 Ke7 43.Ne1 Kd7 44.Nc2 Kc6 45.Na3 1/2-1/2

Another narrow escape from the jaws of defeat!

I withdrew from the tournament after that game because I felt like getting home at a decent time in order to make supper, get some things accomplished around the house before going back to work, and visiting with my wife.

I thought Tyler did a great job organizing the event, and because of his hard work and willingness to sacrifice playing in a few rounds in order to accomplish TD stuff, the tournament ran very smoothly and was a success by any measure.

Take the Money and Run

2008-12-15T10:08:00.000-08:00

Tyler, Chris, and Robert suggested the name of this blog entry because they felt it was an accurate description of what happened at the recent WBX team tournament in Edmonton, and I could not agree more. Out of the 10 teams in the event, the only ones that won any money had Saskatchewan players. In fact, the only Albertan to win cash was FM Eric Hansen (I still consider myself to be from Saskatchewan, even though my house is on the Alberta side of the Lloydminster border). For your information, the prize distribution went as follows:

First place ($270): Robert Sasata, Jamin Gluckie, Josh Timm
Second Place ($150): Eric Hansen, Chris Achtemichuk, Tyler Janzen
Best U1870 ($ ??): Keith MacKinnon, Kevin Me, Don MacKinnon
Top Board 1 ($60): Robert Sasata 4.5/5
Top Board 2 ($40): Jamin Gluckie 4.5/5
Top Board 3 ($35): Tyler Janzen 5/5

I, for one, was glad to reach the Saskatchewan border on Sunday night with my share of the cash and Alberta rating points because for some reason, it felt like we had stolen something from the ECC. But, instead of lynching us they applauded our efforts, shook our hands, and took our photographs. It was like a scene from the Twilight Zone.

Backing up to the start of the story, on Friday at around 4PM Tyler, Chris, and Robert stopped by my place to give me a ride to Edmonton. After giving them a quick tour of my house we ate supper, and then made our way to the city. The original plan was for Robert and I to stay at Andrew Boik's house, and Tyler and Chris to stay with IM Porper; however, because we were a bit late arriving, Tyler and Chris decided to crash on Andrew's floor instead. One of the reasons we were late was I forgot to write Andrew's new cell number down, or store it in my phone, and so we spent some time trying to access my email by Wardriving around Vegreville.

Once we arrived in Edmonton we visited with Boik for a while, played a few speed games, and went to bed early as everyone had to play 3 games the following day. When Saturday morning came we immediately checked the ECC newsgroup to see if more teams had registered, and as promised Vlad had assembled a few more players for a total of 10 teams. This was good news as it made the swiss pairing system more viable, and because there was an even number of teams, no one was forced to take a bye. Unfortunately for Chris and Tyler, though, Eric Hansen was going to be absent for the first round because he refused to travel with Roy Yearwood, due to poor driving conditions between Calgary and Edmonton on Friday night. Instead, Eric was scheduled to take the first bus from Calgary on Saturday morning, but this meant that Richard Pua would be playing board 1 in Eric's stead.

Richard is a decent player but he is nowhere near Eric's calibre, and it didn't take long for Robert to suggest that Tyler change his team's name from Rybka Incarnate to Fritz 5 Incarnate, or even Gnu Chess Incarnate. I thought this was a hilariously good idea, but Tyler didn't agree, and he stuck with his team's original moniker.

It turned out that Tyler's optimism was justified, as Richard Pua dominated Rob Gardner on board 1, but then let his advantage slip and drew. Tyler and Chris both won their games quickly and Rybka Incarnate took an early lead. My team E4 Effort was comprised of Robert Sasata, myself, and Josh Timm, and in the first round we played IM Porper's crew East-Z.

Josh Timm was the first to draw his game, and Robert defeated Porper shortly after that. My game lasted until the bitter end; when instead of resigning my opponent (Allan Wu) opted to let his time run out in a completely lost position. He also repeatedly stared at me, presumably trying to intimidate me, while he was in a worse position.

I was white in an irregular Grunfeld, and the position after black's 13th move is shown below.
Although I've never encountered this position OTB before, I have played against it a few times in online blitz, and if I recall correctly, I don't think I won a single one of those games! On the one hand this made me a bit nervous, but on the other, I realized I was at a critical juncture and spent a considerable amount of time coming up with a plan.

White's problem is that his centre is being busted, and if he takes on e6 then black doesn't have any developmental problems, and white's pawns might prove to be overextended. With that in mind I came up with the following idea: play Qd4, followed by 0-0-0 and Ng5, which should give me enough compensation for the 2 pawns I was prepared to sacrifice.

14.Qd4!? exd5 15.0-0-0?!

Rybka points out that white should not sacrifice the second pawn, but play 15.e5 instead, with good compensation.

15...Be6 16.Ng5 dxe4 17.Qe5 Qe7?! 18.Ncxe4

17...Qe7 was dubious because it allows white to regain all of his invested material and still have an attack. Instead, I thought the paradoxical self-pinning 17...Bd5 was strong, because white doesn't have a way to exploit the bishop's awkward position. Rybka points out that Nbd7 was best, giving back one pawn in exchange for white's most active piece on g5, and an open f-file.

At this point my opponent was forced to play 18...Rfe8, as white is threatening Qxf6 (among other things), followed by a fork on h7. Instead, Wu played 18...h6??, and after 19.Nh7!, black could have resigned.

In round 2 I was white against Aaron Sequillion in a benoni, and the game was very complicated. Interestingly, after making a slightly inaccurate move in the opening I again sacrificed two pawns for the initiative, but Aaron defended extremely well, and the position remained unclear for a long time. I managed to get my two pawns back, but at the cost of turning the initiative over to black. The position after 23...Nfg4 is shown below.

Here I thought that Nf4 was a good move - improving the position of my poorly placed knight and preventing black from playing Nxd3 because he would lose the queen after Ng6+. Unfortunately, my assessment was way off.

24.Nf4? c4?!

It turns out that black can win in glorious style with 24...Nxd3!!, because after 25.Ng6+ fxg6 26.Rxf8+ Rxf8, white can't play 27.Qxd3 because of 27...Bd4+, followed by 28...Nf2 winning the queen.

25.Be4 Qc5+ 26.Kh1 Qd6 27.g3 f5! 28.Bc2

At this point I could feel the momentum shifting to my opponent, and since Josh had drawn on board 3 and Robert was up an exchange in his game against Yearwood, I offered a draw to Sequillion, and he accepted. Rybka agrees with my intuition and suggests that black has an advantage after 28...b5!

In the third round we played Tyler's team, and it was a hard fought battle. On board 3 Josh dropped an exchange after misplaying a very promising attacking position against Tyler, and lost in short order. Robert obtained a great position against Hansen, but Eric found a very cool idea to get active and ensure he had equal winning chances, and that game ended peacefully soon after. In my game, I was black against Chris Achtemichuk in an irregular French.

White has just played 15.Qh5, and while this move serves several functions (pressurizes the kingside, taps the knight for future exchange sacs on e6, helps facilitate f4-f5, eyes potential Bxh6 ideas), it also exposes the queen to attack. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to come up with a plan here, and the one I eventually played started with a Nakamurian b5.

15...b5!? 16.Nxb5?

Chris didn't sense the danger - 16.h3 was necessary, after which I planned 16...Nd4 17.Rac1 b4 18.Ne2 Nxe2 19.Rxe2 a5 20.Rce1 and I assessed this position as approximately equal. Unfortunately, I underestimated white's exchange sac on e6 (it flat out wins if black doesn't stop it), and if black is forced to make defensive moves then white continues with f4-f5 with a dominant position.

16...Bg4! The point behind b5 17.Qxd5 Qxd5 18.Bxd5 Rxd5 19.Kg2 c4 0-1

By the time the third round was finished it was already quite late, and after stopping by a pub to unwind with some drinks and discussion on the day's games, we went back to Andrew's where we discovered our 4th round opponents.

In my case I had black against the only undefeated player on board 2 - Richard "Super" Wang. I have played Richard once before, again as black, and that game was a Colle where Richard got a comfortable position with the 2 bishops, and I only won because Richard imploded. This time I decided to steer the game away from a Colle using a dark squared strategy advocated by Robert Sasata.

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Nd7 3.c3?

Richard doesn't realize what's happening yet, so he continues to make typical Colle moves.

3...e5 4.e4

Now Wang notices that e3 would just be poor, and so he switches to a different setup. White's position would be for choice if not for his pawn on c3.

4...Ngf6 5.Bd3 g6 6.Bg5 Bg7 7.0-0 h6 8.Bh4?! g5 9.Bg3

Here I played the logical follow up to g5, 9...Nh5, reasoning that if I'm allowed to plant a knight on f4 and continue with a kingside pawn storm, I would be able to mash Super Wang in short order. Before playing Nh5 I noticed that white has a Nxe5 shot, but without doing much calculation I concluded that after taking on e5 the knight doesn't have a good square to go to. Although this assessment was correct, black's position is still dangerous and precise play is required.

9...Nh5 10.Nxe5!? Nxg3 11.Nxf7 Ne2+?

This is me panicking. Instead of accepting that I missed white's Nxf7 follow up and taking time to calculate, I played this move instantly without fully appreciating the pros and cons of keeping the f-file closed. It was a rookie move, and I almost paid dearly for it.

12.Qxe2 Kxf7 13.Qh5+?

This move is a mistake, and afterwards black's position is tenable. There is no need to force the black king off the f-file, while giving black a future tempo after Qe8 is played. Instead, 13.f4! would have exposed the problem with keeping the f-file "closed" on move 11. It's not hard to see that allowing fxg3 with check was preferable to the destructive power of the f-pawn's subsequent lunge.

The rest of the game saw me develop my queenside and consolidate my extra material. Eventually a position was reached where I had an extra pawn in a rook endgame, and I won easily after Richard failed to keep his rook active.

The 4th round was interesting because Rybka Incarnate swept the Calgarian team that we struggled with in round 2, and as a result we needed to sweep our opponents 3-0 in order to have a shot at first place. My game with Richard was the first to finish, and Josh looked like he was winning on board 3, but Robert's position looked awfully drawish against Sardul Purewal. Fortunately, though, Robert kept the pressure on and eventually converted a R+P endgame.

In the final round Rybka Incarnate played Two Rooks and a Pawn, which consisted of Keith MacKinnon, Don MacKinnon, and Kevin Me, and the result was a 2-1 win for Rybka. That meant that we had to score 2.5/3 in the final round in order to take clear first place. Josh spent 3 minutes for his first 25 moves and achieved a draw in a R+P endgame, and Robert handled Rick Pedersen on the black side of a Dragon. In my game, I was white against Geoff Newton in a Semi-Slav.

Compared to my other games this tournament where I was either being attacked or the positions were highly complicated and irrational, my game with Newton was fairly positional (some might even say boring). That is not to say I won easily, or it wasn't a challenge playing Geoff, because the opposite is true - for a long time I thought that my slight advantage wouldn't be enough to secure the full point.

It's white's move here, and for a long time I struggled to find a plan. Part of the problem is the activity of my pieces - my knight doesn't have many options because of the sensitivity of g2, my bishop is passive, and moving a rook to the d-file will just result in mass exchanges. On the positive side, though, I have a queenside majority and an active king in an endgame, so I assessed this position as being slightly better for white.

19.Rab1

Rybka doesn't like this move because it sees a better way to activate the pieces with 19.Ng5! I didn't even consider this move because I thought I was simply losing the g-pawn, but after 19...Bxg2 20.f3! h6 21.Rg1 hxg5 22.Rxg2 g4! 23.fxg4 white is significantly better because in addition to his advantages listed above (Q-side majority, active king), he now has a favorable B vs N imbalance to work with as well.

19...Rac8 20.bxc5!? Bxf3 21.gxf3 Rxc5 22.Rb5

As a result of the last few moves I've managed to create the B vs N imbalance I was aiming for, but at the cost of a damaged pawn structure, and I was acutely aware that this change in the position both increased and decreased my winning chances at the same time! I agreed to enter this line, though, because if given the choice between grinding out a win a la Kramnik (no risk, but good drawing chances) or spicing it up a la Topalov (somewhat risky, with good winning/losing chances), I usually prefer the latter.

When assessing the position on move 19 I felt that black needed to keep both sets of rooks on the board in order to exploit my weak c-pawn. Fortunately for me, my opponent didn't come to this conclusion and instead played:

22...Rxb5?! 23.cxb5 Rc8+ 24.Kb3 Nd5

25.Be4 Rc3+ 26.Kb2 Rc5 27.Bxd5 Rxd5 28.a4

Believe it or not, I actually had all of this worked out before playing 19.Rb1. I don't think it is overly difficult to calculate 9 moves ahead in that position though because the play is fairly forced, especially after black trades rooks on b5. However, what I wasn't completely sure of was if this position was winning or losing for white! All that I knew was it was the only way that offered me any winning chances, and so I went for it.

Needless to say, I spent a considerable amount of time on my 19th move, but after that I rattled off the rest of the line very quickly. My opponent, on the other hand, was chewing up a lot of time on each move and before long he was down to only a few minutes on his clock. So, when I played 28.a4, if he hadn't already calculated the consequences of grabbing my kingside pawns with Rd2+, then he probably didn't have enough time to hash it out, which explains his next move.

28...Kf8

Although this is a good move, it gave me confidence that I not only held the initiative, but my winning chances were increasing with every move, simply because the longer black waits to get active, the more dangerous my queenside pawns will become.

29.Rc1 Rd7 30.Kb3 Ke7 31.a5 Kd8 32.Kb4 Rd2

33.b6 axb6 34.axb6 Rb2+?

Over the next few moves my opponent plays very strangely, and the only possible explanation for his play that I can come up with is he has never seen the Lucena position before. Tyler had a slightly different theory, which was Geoff got the Lucena position and Philidor's position mixed up, and he actually tried to reach the losing side of the Lucena.

35.Ka5 Ra2+ 36.Kb5 Rb2+ 37.Ka6 Ra2+ 38.Kb7 Rb2 39.Ka7 Ra2+ 40.Kb8 Rb2

Black embarked on the wrong plan by repeatedly checking my king. Normally it would have taken me several moves to reach this position, and in that time most, if not all, of my kingside pawns would have been lost. In that case, black would still have winning chances after sacrificing his rook for my last remaining pawn.

My opponent was in very serious time trouble at this point, though, and he genuinely looked shocked when I moved my king to the 8th rank to avoid the checks. A part of me thinks he expected to draw by perpetual check.

41.b7 Ke7

He can't be coming to c6, can he?

If black would have pushed one of his kingside pawns instead, white's winning method is as unorthodox as it is instructional. Compared to the regular Lucena position, black does not have to oscillate his rook to wait for the inevitable, but instead can improve his position by marching his mass of kingside pawns up the board. Note that this would be exponentially more dangerous if Geoff had eliminated my pawns prior to my king reaching b8.

In this case, ie. white bereft of his 2nd rank pawns (it's unlikely black would have time to take all of white's kingside pawns), white's typical winning method of building a bridge on the 4th rank will not work, because there is always that moment in "pure" Lucena positions where black has no better move than to check white, forcing the king to the 5th when the next check is blocked by the rook on the 4th. If, on the other hand, black doesn't check when white's king reaches the 6th rank, and instead marks time with a rook move, white can then play his rook to the 5th rank (creating a suspension bridge!) when it is protected from black's king and white will win next move. This might all sound confusing without the aid of an illustrative diagram, but if it is, I urge you to pull out your endgame manual, set up your board to the position in question, and hash it out for yourself. If you're anything like my opponent, it may save you a valuable 1/2 point someday.

So, to continue with this endgame rant, white's "traditional" (read text book Lucena) winning method actually involves building what I like to call a suspension bridge, for its greater complexity and vulnerability to failure (the movies you saw in high school science class of suspension bridges oscillating at higher and higher frequencies prior to collapsing was usually the result of a single link, or eyebar, failing. Similarly, even the tiniest detail, such as the position of one of black's pawns, will result in white's plan failing miserably here).

Building a suspension bridge involves white moving his rook to the 5th rank, instead of the 4th, in order to promote the pawn without black being able to improve his position (using his "free" move) with a kingside pawn push. In my game with Geoff, though, this is not possible because of black's pawn on e6. For that reason, white needs to shift to a different plan: move the rook to the a-file, preparing to move the king when the pawn will promote. Note that in endgame textbooks this plan is not possible, because the weaker side's rook is not behind the pawn, but on the file next to it, farthest away from the king.

Again, if this is confusing, please pick up a book on basic endgames and work it out! It's the only way you are going to improve.

42.Rd1+ Kc6

Hmmmm, look at that. Black was going to c6 after all. Lucky me.

43.Kc8 1-0

With the win I helped my team secure first place in the WBX, won top 2nd board for the second consecutive time in this event, and gained approximately 19 rating points with a performance of 2163.

Finally, I'd like to thank Vlad Rekhson for a very well organized event (as always), and Robert Sasata and Josh Timm for their time and dedication to the cause. Robert came through in dominating fashion, as usual, and Josh held his own against some very tough competition. Josh also showed how humble and selfless he truly is when at the end of the tournament he volunteered to lose a couple hundred rating points to be able to play on our team next year.

You Do It To Yourself

2008-12-10T08:41:00.001-08:00

Although I don't know exactly what he said, I imagine it went something like this.

Zeitgeist - The Spirit of the Times

For those of you who take the time to watch the Zeitgeist films, congratulations. You are now on your way to personal freedom through awareness and enlightenment; that is, if you weren't on that path already. Chances are that since you're an intelligent, independent chess player, you've already began to question the institutions of our society, and furthermore, you've noticed some inconsistencies between what you've been fed by your parents, your teachers, and the media, and what is really going on around you everyday.

For those who can't be bothered to spend the time watching the movies, here are some of the more thought-provoking, controversial excerpts taken from the Addendum. If you don't share these views, hopefully you'll at least be open to them, and will strive to understand - or even disprove - the underlying message. In the process, you just might find that there is more truth to these ideas than you'd like to admit. On the other hand, if you reject these ideas as mere conspiracy theories without investigating them sufficiently, you probably are angered by these views because they question your entire belief system. If that is the case, just remember that your anger stems not from the views expressed by society's critical thinking minority, but from your own ignorance.

You do it to yourself, and that's what really hurts.

The Monetary System

Society today is composed of a series of institutions: from political institutions, legal institutions, religious institutions to institutions of social class, familiar values, and occupational specialization.

It is obvious the profound influence these traditionalized structures have in shaping our understandings and perspectives. Yet, of all the social institutions we are born into, directed by, and conditioned upon, there seems to be no system as taken for granted and misunderstood as the monetary system.

Taking on nearly religious proportions, the established monetary institution exists as one of the most unquestioned forms of faith there is. How money is created, the policies by which it is governed, and how it truly affects society are unregistered interests of the great majority of the population.

In a world where 1% of the population owns 40% of the planet's wealth. In a world where 34,000 children die every single day from poverty and preventable diseases, and where 50% of the world’s population lives on less than 2 dollars a day… One thing is clear. Something is very wrong. And, whether we are aware of it or not, the lifeblood of all of our established institutions, and thus society itself, is money.

Therefore, understanding this institution of monetary policy is critical to understanding why our lives are the way they are. Unfortunately, economics is often viewed with confusion and boredom. Endless streams of financial jargon coupled with intimidating mathematics quickly deter people from attempts at understanding it. However, the fact is: The complexity associated with the financial system is a mere mask. Designed to conceal one of the most socially paralyzing structures humanity has ever endured.

Terrorism

The World is being taken over by a hand-full of business powers who dominate the natural resources we need to live, while controlling the money we need to obtain these resources. The end result will be world monopoly based not on human life but financial and corporate power. And, as the inequality grows, naturally more and more people are becoming desperate. The establishment was forced to come up with a new way to deal with anyone who challenges the system, so they gave birth to the ‘terrorist’.

The term ‘terrorist’ is an empty distinction designed for any person or group that chooses to challenge the establishment. This isn’t to be confused with the fictional ‘Al Qaida’, which as actually the name of a computer database of the U.S.-supported Mujahadeen in the 1980’s.

In 2007, the Department of Defense received 161.8 billion dollars for the so-called global war on terror. According to the national counter-terrorism center, in 2004 roughly 2000 people were killed internationally due to supposed terrorist acts. Of that number, 70 were American. Using this number as a general average, which is extremely generous, it is interesting to note that twice as many people die from peanut allergies a year than from terrorist acts. Concurrently, the leading cause of death in America is coronary heart disease, killing roughly 450,000 each year. And in 2007, the government’s allocation of funds for research on this issue was about three billion dollars. This means that the US government in 2007 spent 54 times the amount for preventing terrorism than it spent for preventing the disease which kills 6600 times more people annually than terrorism does. Yet, the name 'terrorism' and 'Al Qaida' are arbitrarily stamped on every news report relating to any action taken against US interests, and the myth grows wider.

These so called “Counter-Terrorism Measures” of course had nothing to do with social protection, and everything to do with preserving the establishment amongst the growing Anti-American sentiment both domestically and internationally, which is legitimately founded on the greed based corporate empire expansion that is exploiting the world.

The true terrorists of our world, do not meet at the docks at midnight or scream “Allah Akbar” before some violent action. The true terrorists of our world wear $5,000 suits and work in the highest positions of finance, government and business.

Civilization

The social values of our society, which has manifested in perpetual warfare, corruption, oppressive laws, social stratification, irrelevant superstitions, environmental destruction, and a despotic socially indifferent profit oriented ruling class, is fundamentally the result of a collective ignorance of two of the most basic insights humans can have about reality: The emergent and symbiotic aspects of natural law.

The emergent nature of reality is that all systems; whether it is knowledge, society, technology, philosophy, or any other creation, will, when uninhibited, undergo fluid perpetual change.

What we consider commonplace today such as modern communication and transportation, would have been unimaginable in ancient times. Likewise, the future will contain technologies, realizations, and social structures that we cannot even fathom in the present.

We have gone from alchemy to chemistry, from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric one, from believing that demons were the cause of illness to modern medicine. This development shows no sign of ending, and it is this awareness that aligns us and leads us on a continuous path to growth and progress.

Static empirical knowledge does not exist; rather it is the insight of the emergence of all systems we must recognize. This means we must be open to new information at all times, even if it threatens our current belief system, and hence, identities. Sadly society today has failed to recognize this, and the established institutions continue to paralyze growth by preserving outdated social structures.

Simultaneously, the population suffers from a fear of change, for their conditioning assumes a static identity and challenging one's belief system usually results in insult and apprehension. Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when in fact to be proven wrong should be celebrated as it is elevating someone to a new level of understanding, furthering awareness. The fact is, there is no such thing as a smart human being, for it is merely a matter of time before their ideas are updated, changed, or eradicated.

And this tendency to blindly hold on to a belief system, sheltering it from new possibly transforming information is nothing less than a form of intelectual materialism. The monetary system perpetuates this materialism not only by its self-preserving structures, but also through the countless number of people who have been conditioned into blindly and thoughtlessly upholding these structures, therefore becoming self-appointed guardians of the status quo. Sheep which no longer need a sheep-dog to control them, for they control each other by ostracizing those who step out of the norm.

This tendency to resist change and uphold existing institutions for the sake of identity, comfort, power and profit is completely unsustainable, and will only produce further imbalance, fragmentation, distortion, and very invariably destruction.

Religion

Dominant world views such as theistic religion operate with the same social irrelevancy. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and all of the others exist as barriers to personal and social growth, for each group perpetuates a closed world view. And this finite understanding that they acknowledge is simply not possible in an emergent universe.

Yet religion has succeeded in shutting down the awareness of this emergence by instilling the psychological distortion of faith upon its followers - where logic and new information is rejected in favor of traditionalized outdated beliefs.

Religion Part 2

The concept of god is really a method of accounting for the nature of things. In the early days people didn’t know enough about how things formed, how nature worked. So they invented their own little stories, and the made god in their own image: A guy that get’s angry when people don’t behave right. He creates floods, and earthquakes, and they say it’s and act of god.

A cursory glance at the suppressed history of religion reveals that even the foundational myths themselves are emergent culminations developed through influence over time. For example a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is the death and resurrection of Christ. This notion is so important that the Bible itself states, ‘And if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain.’ Yet it is very difficult to take this account literally, for not only is there no primary source denoting this supernatural event in secular history, awareness of the enormous number of pre-Christian saviors who also died and were resurrected immediately puts this story in mythological territory by association.

Early church figures such as Tortullian went to great lengths to break these associations, even claiming that the devil caused the similarities to occur. Stating in the second century, ‘The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins… he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the Devil, who copied certain things of those that be Divine.’

What is truly sad, however, is that when we cease the idea that the stories from Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all the others are literal history, and accept them for what they really are, which are purely allegorical expressions derived from many faiths, we see that all religions share a common thread, and it is this unifying imperative that needs to be recognized and appreciated: Religious belief has caused more fragmentation and conflict than any other ideology. Christianity alone has over 34,000 different subgroups.

And this point on division, which is a trademark of all theistic religions, brings us to our second failure of awareness: the false assumption of separation through the rejection of the symbiotic relationship of life.

Apart from the understanding that all natural systems are emergent, where all notions of reality will be constantly developed, altered, and even eradicated; we must also understand that all systems are in fact invented fragments merely for sake of conversation, for there is no such thing as independence in nature. The whole of nature is a unified system of interdependent variables, each a cause and a reaction, existing only as a concentrated whole.

Random Chess Post

2008-12-01T13:39:00.000-08:00

I've spent the better part of the last two weeks refining my opening repertoire with Rybka's help, and I thought I'd share a few cool ideas I've stumbled across. Before going any further, though, I should mention that one of the reasons I've been able to devote so much time to chess recently is the Roomba. This little marvel of modern technology has saved me a bunch of time by sweeping every floor in my house! One of the disadvantages of living in a house with hardwood floors is the dust that collects on them, and although sweeping the entire house would only take an hour or two, that's still time I could spend doing other, more important, things. So, if you're like me and have hardwood floors and a spouse that is very sensitive to the dust they collect, do yourself a favour and buy a Roomba. Now, back to chess...

Busting the Snake

The Snake Benoni is characterized by black adopting a benoni pawn structure, but placing his bishop on d6 instead of g6. Typically black will spend a few tempos to get this piece to a5 where it is outside the pawn chain and indirectly attacking white's e4 pawn. One thing I learned about the Snake, though, is that if white has played a pure benoni move order (without an early Nf3), the Snake is totally unsound! Take a look:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 Bd6

6.e4 0-0 7.f4! Nxe4

This move is practically forced, otherwise white will play e5 and black will be hopelessly cramped. Note that 7...Re8 doesn't work either, as white simply plays 8.e5 Bc7 9.Kf2! and the knight is lost anyway.

8.Nxe4 Re8 9.Qe2 Bf8

9...f5 doesn't work because white plays 10.Nxd6! and the rook and 2 minors are better than the black queen.

10.g4! stopping f5 10...b6

This is considered to be black's best try. Other moves like 10...d6 run into f5 by white, when black has very little compensation for the piece.

11.Nh3!

A novelty as far as I can tell, and the move that is recommended in the excellent Dangerous Weapons: Benoni book. The idea behind this move is to play Nhf2 (in some lines) to protect e4, and ultimately to give back the piece for a completely crushing attack. By the way, this is a game I played against Crafty (2500+ engine) this weekend.

11...Bb7 12.Bg2 Bxd5 13.0-0! Bxe4 14.Bxe4 d5

The computer has won its piece back, but its search horizon hasn't calculated the consequences of white's next move. In fact, despite Crafty's evaluation of this position as being equal, black is completely lost.

15.Bxh7+! Kxh7 16.Qd3+ Kg8 17.Ng5 g6 18.Qh3 Bg7 19.f5! Bd4+ 20.Kh1 Qf6

21.Ne6+! 1-0

French Theory

In a previous entry I mentioned playing a game against Rick Pedersen in an advance French where I failed to seize the opportunity to play aggressively on the kingside and ended up in a passive position. Here is what I should have done:

White has played the way a lot of club players would, if given the white pieces in this line. Instead of thrusting with g4 to displace the knight, thereby releasing some pressure on d4 and making it easier to develop, white has contorted himself in order to get his pieces out without losing a key central pawn. Black should respond in typical french fashion - aggressively!

11...h5! 12.Qd3 preparing Nbd2 and Nb3 12...g5!

The point of h5 was to prevent the g4 thrust once and for all, just in case white "remembers" that he should be kicking the knight. 12...g5 is designed to attack the f3 knight with g4 when d4 is again a problem. FYI, the g5 thrust in the French is as thematic as the Rxc3 exchange sacrifice in the Sicilian. Check out what happens if white continues with routine moves.

13.Rd1 g4 14.Ne1 Na5! 15.Nc3 if Nd2 then Ba4! -/+ 15...Nc4 16.Bc1 Bh6!

Complete domination! 0-1

Benko Goodness

The Benko is one of the few openings that I play as both white and black, and furthermore, I actually enjoy playing both sides of it. For example, sometimes I will get tricked into playing the white side of a French, but when that happens I will often think to myself: I'd rather be black. This is not the case with the Benko.

While reviewing my Benko repertoire this weekend I came across some very interesting lines for black that I'll hopefully get to use soon. However, I won't be revealing them here until I've had a chance to play them OTB. The reason I wanted to mention this opening in this entry is because of the moves:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Nf3

Did you know that black can transpose to a Blumenfeld here with 4...e6? Somehow that thought never crossed my mind until yesterday.

Frustrating

2008-11-14T15:30:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing I can't stand, it's dealing with incompetent people. In my line of work I'm fortunate to be able to limit my exposure to it because there are many companies who will cater to the purchasing power of the clients I represent, and if one of them pisses me off, I'll gladly deal with their competitors. There are other instances in my personal life, however, where struggling with dimwits just can't be avoided. Take this afternoon as an example.

I left work a bit early so that I could go to the bank and then the post office. I needed to send off some documents to be translated into Spanish for the wedding, and the company I was dealing with required payment in US funds via a money order. When I arrived at the bank and approached the teller, she looked at me like I was going to rob the place. I don't know if it's because I now have a mustache, or if I just "look like a terrorist" [good old racial profiling] in general, but she wouldn't make eye contact with me, and the first question she asked was, "Are you a Royal Bank client?"

There was no "Hi, how are you?" What can I do for you today?", just the accusatory words of a middle-aged, overweight woman.

"Yes" I replied, as I handed her my client card. When she swiped it she realized I didn't have enough money in my account to cover the cost of the money order. I knew this, as I don't use the Royal Bank for my day-to-day banking needs, and I was prepared to transfer money, via cheque, from my primary bank to the Royal.

"I'd like a money order in US funds for $300, and I'll cover that cost by writing you a cheque from another account."

"Oh, we can't do that sir. In order to issue guaranteed funds in a money order, we need those funds to be taken from your account, not a cheque."

"Would you prefer if I walk over to the bank machine, deposit this cheque, and then return to you? Or perhaps you could just save us both some time and deposit my money for me."

Those were my exact words. I was not happy at this point, but I think she got the message and the remainder of the transaction occurred without incident.

Moving on to the post office, I needed to send my documents via FedEx, so as I approached the teller I asked to do just that.

"Sir, this is Canada Post, not the FedEx office." was her reply.

The only thing worse than being treated like a terrorist is having someone patronize me like I'm a fucking idiot.

"Do you see that envelope behind you that says "FedEx" on it? I'd like that one."

My tone was even more condescending than hers, and it did the trick. The rest of the transaction went smoothly, at least for me (I enjoyed it tremendously when she started blushing and then nervously shaking).

I'm an asshole, I know.

Chess in Edmonton: Nov. 8

2008-11-10T09:18:00.000-08:00

I drove to Edmonton on Saturday morning so that I wouldn't be around while Amanda's shower/stagette was going on. My plan was to stop by the Edmonton Chess Club, play some active games in their weekly John Chess tournament, and then meet up with my good friend Andrew Boik for some beer and blitz.

I arrived at the club about an hour before the tournament started, and to pass time I played blitz against anyone who sat across from me. First I defeated Mike Zeggelaar (1738) 2-0, then Rick Pedersen (1885) 2-0, and then Sardul Purewal (2080) 2-0. It was an auspicious start, and one that made me realize that I am a much better player at 5-0 than 3-0, and I'm also a lot stronger in OTB blitz than online blitz. There's something about staring at 2-D pieces on a computer screen that makes my brain shut off and refuse to calculate.

I was the top seed in the John Chess tournament, and because the pairings were accelerated I was paired against Sardul in the first round, and I had white.

In our blitz game Sardul played the Semi-Slav against me, but I managed to limit his queenside counterplay while mating him on the kingside, and probably for that reason he decided to play a different line in our active game.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Nf3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Qa5

Black's position is already difficult because he has no answer to white's strong center and constant threat of creating a passed pawn with d5. To make matters worse, after white's next few moves it is going to be very difficult for black to develop his queenside.

10.Rb1! Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 0-0

If you're interested in learning something about this opening, or these types of positions in general, I suggest you try to anticipate white's next move, and the reason behind it. I should mention, though, that I do not deserve credit for the genius behind white's play because all of this has been played before by players much stronger than I am, and moreover, 5 years ago while I was taking lessons from Robert Sasata I was shown a very famous game in this line that explained all of its nuances, so while sitting across from Sardul on Saturday, all I needed to do was remember what I already knew.

13.Bb5! a6 14.Bd3 b5 15.Rbc1!

The point of white's 13th move was to provoke black into playing a6 and b5, which weakens his queenside considerably. After that was complete, the rook on b1 no longer had any reason to stay on the b-file, so it moved to the c-file where it is ready to invade on c7. All very logical, but surprisingly difficult to find if you've never seen this type of position before.

15...Ra7 16.Rc2 Nd7 17.Rhc1 Nb6 18.Rc7 Nc4+

19.R1xc4 1-0

My next game was against Rick Pedersen, and in our prior blitz encounter he had played the exchange against my French. But, even in an exchange French black can steer the game into aggressive channels, and I managed to trap his queen on g3 by advancing my kingside pawns. In our active game, Rick played a solid line of the advanced variation.

I had a slight advantage out of the opening, but lost my way in the middlegame when Rick didn't execute white's typical g4 lunge to kick my knight from f5. The problem with the advanced variation from black's perspective is that if black doesn't find counterplay at exactly the right moment, his pieces lack scope, and black will suffer a slow death. It turns out that I should have executed a kingside thrust of my own, starting with g5. Instead I simply 0-0, exchanged light squared bishops, then queens, and only then played g5 to gain space in the endgame. The result was a draw, although Rick played the resulting 2N + 6P vs 2N + 6P endgame very well, and it was a struggle to save the half point.

My third game was against Mark Stark (1962), and we played a topical line of the Nimzo. The position after white's 10th move is shown below.

This is all theory, but black must play actively to compensate for his poor pawn structure and multiple weaknesses. In this position 10...Ba6 is needed, which prevents white from castling, and white should respond with 11.Kf2, intending to play Rd1 next. In the game, Mark deviated and allowed me to castle.

10...0-0?! 11.0-0 Ba6 12.Rd1 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Qb6 14.Be3 Qb5

I had a deep think at this point, and decided on the following plan. I will play Rac1 and then Qc4, which will attack his d7 pawn and threaten to play a3, which will make his c-pawn a target as well. This will practically force a trade of queens on c4, after which I will still have the d7 and c5 pawns to target. This is all well and good, but 15.Rac1 would drop the e2 knight, so I needed to deal with that threat first. With the above plan in mind, though, white's next move is easy to understand.

15.Kf2!

If the queens are coming off, it makes sense to centralize the king and protect the bishop at the same time. Besides, as I said earlier, in the main line white's king ends up on f2 to begin with.

15...Re8 16.Rac1 Re5 17.Qc4 Qxc4 18.Rxc4 f5

This is the position I had anticipated when I played 15.Kf2, and although I didn't analyze what white should do here while considering my 15th move, my general feeling was that white should be alright as long as black doesn't get too active. For this reason, taking the f5 pawn is out of the question, as is taking the d7 pawn. The best move, in my opinion, is to control the e5 square.

Besides being tactically justified in this position, controlling the e5 square in this line is the deciding factor when asking yourself if white can take on d7. If the e5 square belongs to white, and black won't get too active, then white can take the pawn. Otherwise, white should leave it alone. With that in mind, I played:

19.f4! Rxe4 20.Rxe4 fxe4 21.Rxd7 c4 22.Rc7 Na5 23.Rxa7

Rybka points out that 23.Bd4 was even stronger, but I was in convert-endgame-advantage mode, not kingside-attack mode.

23...Rxa7 24.Bxa7 Nc6 25.Bb6 Ne7

Another critical position, and one that I spent some time considering. My assessment of this position, prior to doing any actual calculation, was that if white could trade knight for bishop, the resulting endgame would be winning (pawns on both sides of the board, passed a-pawn, weak c4 and e4 pawns). The only thing left to figure out was if white could still win if he had to sacrifice a kingside pawn or two as well.

26.Nc3! Bxc3 27.bxc3 Nd5 28.Bd4 Nxf4 29.Ke3!

The point! White offers a pawn with check, but black can't take on g2 and still stop the a-pawn.

29...Ne6 30.Kxe4 Nc7 31.Ke5 1-0

By this time I was getting hungry - and thirsty - so I decided to withdraw from John chess without playing the 4th and final round. After meeting up with Andrew at a nearby pub and eating some supper, we made our way to his place for our marathon blitz session.

Andrew and I have a long history when it comes to late night blitz sessions. In 2004/2005, I traveled to Edmonton on several occasions to play in ECC tournaments, but the real highlights of those trips were playing blitz against Andrew. At that time Boik was a 2100+ player, and very active in tournament chess. I, on the other hand, was a 1900+ player that still had a lot to learn in order to compete with the Edmonton elite. During those encounters we developed a tradition of playing 5-minute chess until one of us reached 10 points, and we followed suit this time as well.

Boik was white in our first game and he opened with 1.c4. Andrew is very aware of my opening knowledge, and so he tried to steer the games into positions that were equally unfamiliar to both of us. The result of this tactic were a few draws, as although he obtained some promosing positions, his advantage was never enough to win. However, when I was white I didn't shy away from 1.d4, and soon I held a commanding lead in the match.

Normally I wouldn't take too much pleasure in defeating Andrew in a few blitz games played in conjunction with some beverages, but given that in the past he had mercilessly crushed me 10-0, I couldn't help enjoy the moment when the tables were turned. Making my victory even sweeter was the fact that Andrew is now a Master rated 2204.

In the end I won the match 10.5 - 1.5, which is a performance rating of 2504! However, I should mention that Andrew has not played much recently, and I, on the other hand, have been studying a lot. Andrew also made a come back towards the end of the night, and managed to limit the damage to a 7-point spread.

Laptop for Sale - SOLD!

2008-11-06T09:54:00.000-08:00

The laptop is sold. Thanks to everyone for their interest.

It's been over 3 years since I purchased my laptop, and I've decided the time has come to replace it. Although the laptop still works great and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, I've been fantasizing about purchasing a MacBook ever since Apple released their new design last month.

I bought this laptop primarily so that I could work on chess while traveling, and it served me quite well in that regard. The laptop's small and light design makes it extremely portable and great for use in vehicles or airplanes. The screen on this machine is a joy to watch, and at the time of its release it was the first of its kind in Dell's lineup. In fact, the entire laptop was cutting edge when I purchased it, and back then it cost me $1,900.

But, all computers ultimately suffer the same fate. Newer, faster, and prettier models are released, and users like me are quick to discard their trusty companions for discounted prices. I'm asking $500 for this machine, and based on the research I've done I think this is a fair price for the product; however, I am open to price negotiations. The specifications are listed below, so please take a look through them if you are interested.

Note that I've also listed all of the software I currently have loaded on the laptop. Although it is illegal to sell copies of software, I don't think it is against the law to leave copies of software on a machine after selling it. So, the laptop will come equipped with everything listed below, and you can choose to remove items if you desire.

Finally, feel free to read some reviews on the 700M from unbiased, independant sources. I encourage you to do whatever you can to make an informed decision, and contact me if you feel my laptop is right for you.

Dell Inspiron 700M
-1.6 GHz Pentium M
-1 GB RAM
-40 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
-12.1" Widescreen Glossy Display
-Samsung DVD/CDRW
-Integrated Flash Media Controller (for camera cards)
-Windows XP Service Pack 2
-Two batteries (one lasts approximately 2 hours, the other 4-5 hours).
-AC power adapter
-Built-in speakers

Windows Software
-Microsoft Office 2000
-AVG AntiVirus
-Zone Alarm Firewall

Chess Software
-Chessbase 10
-Ultimate Games Collection 5
-Rybka 3
-Plus 50+ more chess engines

Chess DVDs
-Kasparov: Queen's Gambit Declined
-Kramnik: My Rise to the Top
-Kortchnoi: My Life for Chess Vol. 1
-Andrew Martin: The Czech Benoni
-Ziegler: French Defense
-Kasimdzhanov: Beating the French Vol. 1

Movember

2008-11-06T07:48:00.000-08:00

I am growing a mustache for the Movember Movement. Taken from their website:

Movember (the month formerly known as November) is a charity event held during November each year.

At the start of Movember guys register with a clean shaven face. The Movember participants, known as Mo Bros, have the remainder of the month to grow and groom their moustache, raising money and awareness along the way.

Men lack awareness about the very real health issue they face (prostate cancer). Many feel they have to be tough - "a real man" - and are reluctant to see a doctor about an illness or to go for regular medical check ups.

The aim of Movember is to change this attitude. Make men's health fun by putting the moustache back on the face of Canadian men and raising some serious funds for prostate cancer.

Every year around 24,700 Canadian men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 4,300 die of the disease, making it the number one cancer threat to Canadian men.

I will be collecting money throughout the month for this cause, so if you'd like to help, simply post a comment and we can work something out.

In order to document the mustache-growing process I will be posting pictures on this blog. Day 5 is shown below.

Time and Time Again

2008-11-04T21:19:00.000-08:00

Danny and his mother were very close. I frequented their home regularly to play with Danny and do typical kids stuff, and more times than not, Danny’s mom would participate in what we were doing. Granted, at the time we were still at the age where it was cool to hang out with your mom, but from what I remember, Danny’s mother was a lot of fun. It was also abundantly clear that she loved Danny tremendously.

Danny and his father, on the other hand, were not as close. This could have been because Danny’s father was typically the disciplinarian, so if there was hell to pay, Danny’s father would be the one collecting. More than that though, Danny’s father was just not the type of man you could get close to – by nature he was an imposing figure, and he thrived on being intimidating. But, although Danny was raised to fear his father, there is no question that his father loved Danny as much as any father could love his son.

I’m not sure exactly when things took a turn for the worse, or if they were always bad and we were just too young to notice, but the bulk of Danny’s stories started from the age of ten. According to Danny, there was no single reason for these problems, just the accumulation of marital difficulties in conjunction with drugs and alcohol.

Unfortunately, Danny's parents argued a lot, and during these bouts they didn’t consider acting civilly for his sake. In fact, the opposite was true: Danny was often woken up, removed from his bedroom by his father, and forced to sit at the kitchen table while his parents yelled and screamed, as this was his father’s idea of dealing with problems as a family.

The incidents at the kitchen table weren’t the only way his parents resolved their conflicts, either. Many times they would go into the garage to yell at each other, or go into their bedroom, close the door, and yell at each other. In both cases, Danny could hear everything that was said. Sometimes their fights would escalate to the point of being violent, and although Danny doesn’t remember his father actually hitting his mother, he does remember him throwing a wedding ring at her head, and throwing her off the bed, on separate occasions.

Perhaps even more damaging than the initial confrontation, though, was the aftermath. If Danny’s father felt an issue hadn’t been completely resolved via the kitchen table sit-down, he would spend the next several weeks in a state of silence, which practically forced everyone else to be silent as well. This would go on until another confrontation took place at the kitchen table, and so it went.

Over the course of the following year Danny’s mother started to drink more than usual, and the more she drank, the more unstable she became. At one point she was involved in a car accident on her way to work, and although the accident was not her fault, the fact that Danny’s father removed a bottle from under her seat before the police arrived at the scene didn’t help her at the ensuing kitchen table discussion.

After she had been drinking, Danny’s mother would also confide in him secrets that no son should have to hear, let alone one who is 10 years old. As an example, one night she let him know that her preferred way to die was to get behind the wheel and hit a semi head-on. She also regularly informed Danny that she desperately needed to leave his father, but she was afraid to because she might not be allowed to see Danny again.

As an unspoken compromise between leaving Danny’s father and staying, Danny’s mother began to leave the house more frequently, and on a few occasions she brought Danny with her. One night they traveled to Lloydminster to a friend’s house where a party was taking place, and while Danny watched TV in the living room his mother and her friends stayed up and drank for hours. At one point Danny woke up and went to the kitchen to get a drink of water, only to find his mother kissing another man. According to Danny, although his first instinct was to grab the nearby baseball bat and attack both of them, he wasn’t able to do anything but cry. So, standing upright, hands at his side, he wept until his mother noticed, and then he ran away.

It took close to 15 minutes for his mother to track him down on the streets of Lloydminster, but when she did she wasn’t apologetic. She was angry with Danny, and she made him promise to never tell his father about what he saw. In return, she promised to never do it again, and although it was an incredible burden for a 10-year old to carry, Danny held up his end of the bargain. Unbeknownst to Danny until several years later, his mother did not.

Over the next two years Danny’s bond with his mother grew stronger than it ever was before, and while this may seem hard to believe given what she had put him through, Danny was a very typical child: unconditionally forgiving and naive enough to believe his mother when she said everything would be all right. In fact, for close to two years everything was all right. His parents argued less frequently, largely because his father realized he was on the verge of losing his wife, and once again they were a functional family. But, appearances can be deceiving when you're a child, and boiling beneath the surface were insurmountable problems that reappeared when Danny was 13.

That cold September night was the last time Danny's parents argued as a couple, and although I didn't learn about the details until several years later, the entire town knew it was over the following morning when a crowd of people gathered around Danny's house to pick up his mother's clothes that had been strewn across the lawn by his very angry, and extremely demoralized father.

Danny was terse when he told me about the night his mother left, but as his mother came to wish him good night, Time and Time Again by the Counting Crows was playing on his tape deck, and something in the lyrics of that song triggered his mother to do what she had been planning for years. Like a switch she changed from being happy to crying uncontrollably, telling Danny she had to leave now, and asking him - begging him - to come with her.

Danny declined his mother’s invitation, and after telling Danny she loved him, and confronting his father with her decision, Danny's mother drove off into the night. As Danny cried in his bed with intense feelings of loss coursing through him, his father came in his room and wept as well. It was the first time that Danny had seen his father cry, and although he was hurting from what had happened, Danny remained hopeful that things would get better, and that he would see his mother again soon.

Unfortunately, Danny was wrong on both accounts.

To be continued...

Extremely Unpleasant

2008-11-04T09:21:00.001-08:00

To be fair, it's not actually the dentist that bothers me when I go for dental check-ups, it's the hygienists. Those petite, young girls who seem so harmless, but who secretly enjoy inflicting pain and discomfort on their patients; the women who constantly berate you for not flossing enough, not brushing enough, or not being good enough at anything, as they sit perched above you, their voice assuming an omniscient tone while their steely, cold instruments find purchase on your most sensitive areas.

Maybe not all hygienists can be labeled this way, but the one I have is surely a sadist. No matter how often I visit her, or how well I follow her instructions on brushing, rinsing, or flossing (admittedly, I don't floss as much as I should), my teeth and gums are always in worse shape than before. And without fail, after 45 minutes of scratching, sawing, and violent flossing she will say to me, "Are your gums sore? A little sensitive? Feel free to take a pain killer after we're done here today."

I don't need a pain killer. I can handle the pain. I also don't need to rinse the blood out of my mouth at regular intervals like you suggest. You made me bleed, so deal with it. What I do need is for you to drop the sickeningly sweet, caring facade you are projecting because you don't fool me.

I know what you are. I know you are enjoying this.

Chaisson V Gluckie: Match Strategy

2008-10-30T07:47:00.000-07:00

I just read Terry's blog and liked how he dissected the match game by game, so I've decided to do the same here.

My motives for challenging Terry to a match actually had very little to do with gaining rating points. In fact, from a rating standpoint I had more to lose than to gain as I needed to defeat Terry 3.5/4 in order to earn any points at all, which isn't an easy task in a match situation. My real reasons for the match with Terry were personal, and of a psychological nature.

Some of you may remember the 2003 Saskatoon Winter Open where I had my most disastrous tournament result in my career. If you don't, fear not because I remember it well enough for everyone. After that tournament I was so dejected that I didn't play again for over 5 months, but when I came back to the chess scene I did it with a vengeance - I organized a "revenge tournament" where I invited the same people who had beaten me at the Winter Open so that I had a chance to beat them in a rematch. That event was called the War of 2004, and in the end I finished second by defeating one of the people who I had come to the tournament to beat.

That result did wonders for my psyche, and over the next 6 months I became an A-class player by gaining over 60 rating points.

At the recent Battle at the Border I wasn't in great form, and truthfully I wouldn't have played at all if there wouldn't have been an even number of players. But, given that the Battle is only 4 rounds and nearly everyone traveled to attend, I didn't want to force players to take a bye by not pairing myself.

My first game in the Battle was against Terry Chaisson, who was rated around 1825 at the time. It was a hard fought game where I had winning chances throughout, but in the end I wasn't able to capitalize and had to acquiesce to a draw. Later, in the fourth round I was paired against David Steer, another 1800-type, and again I misplayed a great position and drew. These results would not faze some players, but they bothered me tremendously because consistently defeating players below 2000 is something I pride myself on. An interesting statistic: from September 2006 until June 2008 I played 19 rated chess games against sub-2000 players and I won them all. Since June 2008 I have played 7 rated games against A-class players; I've won 3 and drawn 4.

Challenging Terry was my first step to recovering from a sub-par performance at the BATB and the subsequent Canadian Open, and even though Terry didn't realize it, in many ways Chaisson V Gluckie was a "revenge match" where I set out to prove that I could still consistently perform at a 2100+ level. Of course, I had nothing against Terry, he simply personified the catalyst of my recent chess slump, and because of that I needed to defeat him convincingly.

Games 1 and 3

I was to play black in games 1 and 3, and the problem I faced was two-fold. Not only is my response to 1.e4 predictable, but to make matters worse I had played Terry in several active games in the past year where I helped him refine his response to 1...e6, based solely on my French repertoire. This put me in a difficult situation, and the solution I derived was much like what Anand did to Kramnik: deviate on the first move. For that reason I chose to play 1...c5, even though I have never played it before in a tournament game.

Game 1 turned out well for me as I achieved an advantage from the opening that, although my technique left a little to be desired, I converted into a win. The real benefit of playing the Sicilian in game 1, though, was what happened in game 3. Instead of preparing solely for one opening before the third game, Terry was forced to prepare for two, and I believe this worked to my advantage in a couple of ways. Obviously I never intended to play 1...c5 in the third game, and therefore I was able to spend all of my time analyzing the French line I expected to go into, but perhaps more important was the psychological advantage I achieved from this strategy. It's very difficult to play on your opponent's terms - to have your opponent dictate the pace and path of a chess game - and I don't think Terry was ever fully able to alter this course.

Games 2 and 4

I prepared for a Budapest Gambit prior to game 2, as this was the opening Terry chose against me in the BATB. But, when Terry whipped out 1...f5, I realized that there wasn't any point in preparing for my white games as the likelihood of guessing the opening Terry would choose was very slim.

As far as I knew, Terry had never played the Dutch before, and for the first 5-10 minutes of game 2 I sat fixed at the board, trying to figure out what he had prepared. In the end I decided to travel into his preparation just enough to get the type of position I was comfortable playing before I deviated from the line he was expecting.

Game 4 was different in that Terry played his regular King's Indian, but I was confident that even if I played the line he expected me to I'd still emerge from the opening with an advantage, which is basically what happened.

Final Impressions

I enjoy playing matches because of all the strategy that goes into preparing for them, and in my career I'm now 7/8 against an average opposition of 1871 in match play, which translates to a performance rating of 2171.

As I become stronger and more experienced, a piece of advice a friend of mine gave me becomes more and more applicable: If you are the stronger player, it's more important for your opponent to be uncomfortable than for you to be uncomfortable, and if I could sum up my match with Terry in one sentence, I'd say that our respective comfort levels with the opening/middlegame positions made all the difference.

Chaisson V Gluckie: Part 4

2008-10-29T07:58:00.000-07:00

Last night Terry and I finished our 4-game match, and although I won the final game, it was a lot closer than I would have liked. Terry is in his element when he is provided with a clear attacking plan, and for some reason (likely too much blitz) my brain didn't want to calculate at all.

I didn't spend any time preparing for this game because I had no idea what Terry would play as black. I also figured that even if I managed to guess Terry's opening in advance, he would deviate so early that all of my preparation would be moot. Strangely enough, that is exactly what happened.

The position after 16...Nb6 is shown. In a King's Indian Terry sacrificed a pawn in Benko Gambit style, and I tried to keep things closed on the queenside while building up for the e5 thrust in the centre. When looking at this position the first thing I considered playing was 17.e5, but I saw that after 17...Nfxe5 I couldn't take back because my knight is pinned, and I stopped analyzing there. Of course, it isn't hard to spot the Bxa6 intermezzo at my disposal, which would win for me. So, instead of making the logical follow-up to my previous play, I switched plans and lost all of my advantage.

17.Bxa6? Qxa6 18.b3 Nc8 19.e5 Ne8 (Nd7 was stronger) 20.Nb5

I think black should have played 20...Na7 here to break the blockade, but Terry spotted a combination that traded some material.

20...dxe5 21.fxe5 Bxe5 22.Rxe5 (according to Rybka, 22.Rac1 was much stronger) Rxb5 23.Bxe7 Nxe7 24.Rxe7 Rxb3 25.Rae1 Qxa4?

Black should have played 25...Nd6 here when white's passed pawn is firmly blockaded and the position is equal.

26.d6?

Instead of calculating I tried to envision what Rybka's evaluation of this position would be, and I came to the conclusion that since Rybka likes passed pawns I should push mine. I don't recommend this approach. It turns out that 26.Ne4 is much stronger because black's knight is deprived of the f6 square, and black's weak dark squares around his king make themselves felt.

26...Nf6 27.Ne4?

Losing the advantage again. 27.d7 is the obvious alternative, and if I would have actually calculated before playing d6 I would have discovered that black's most natural reply 27...Rd8 loses to 28.Qd6 when Nxd7 29.Qd5! picks up a piece. I also might have noticed that black can't protect the knight with 28...Kg7 because of 29.Rxf7+!, followed by 30.Re7+, when black is mated.

27...Nd7?? (27...Nxe4 is at least equal, if not slightly better for black).

28.Rxd7!

I didn't see this move immediately because I was fixated on getting my queen to the f-file; however during those calculations I kept noticing the fork on f6 being problematic for black, and so I went back to the original position and tried to make it work there. Of course, black can't capture the rook, but some accuracy is still required from white because black's pieces are very active.

28...Rb1! 29.Re7! R8b2 30.Nf6+ Kg7 31.Qc3

This was as far as I had calculated, and although I didn't work out the mating sequence if black doesn't block the diagonal, I figured it had to be winning for me. In the game Terry played 31...Qd4+, but once the queens came off I converted the endgame without difficulty.

I expect to gain approximately 25 points from the match, which should bring me close to 2080 at the next rating update.

Chess in the City: October 17 & 18

2008-10-19T16:50:00.000-07:00

I just returned home from a very memorable weekend in Saskatoon. On Friday night I met with a few chess friends at around 8 p.m.. The original plan was to study rook and bishop endgames from Dvoretsky's manual - a project that had been started over a month earlier. However, despite the educational value of this type of session, it is hard work and not the most fun thing to do on a Friday night. With that in mind, Kibitzer-1 suggested we review an opening common to all our repertoires, which turned out to be a line of the Semi-Slav.

I've decided not to reveal the names of the people I was spending time with this weekend because of an incident that occurred late Saturday night, which I will be discussing. Although most people in Saskatoon Chess Club circles have probably heard about it already, in my opinion the lessons I learned from said incident are best shared with anonymity for the involved parties, at least via this blog. In order to make this entry easier to understand, though, the three other people involved shall be referred to as Kibitzer-1, Kibitzer-2, and my Opponent.

Kibitzer-1's idea was to create a database file for our opening of choice and analyze all of its relevant variations with the help of Rybka3. Of course, this approach is nothing new, but the true genius of this plan was what followed after the file had been created. Once we had a complete repertoire for the line, we played a series of matches against weaker engines using our analysis for the "book moves", and then Rybka's evaluation once we were out of book. This eventually lead to us reaching a winning position (usually an evaluation of +2-3 pawns), at which point one of us would have to finish off the game without any external help.

Prior to the event starting, Kibitzer-1 predicted that after 3 or 4 games against weaker engines with Rybka's guidance we would be able to defeat those same engines in our prepared line by ourselves. Initially I was skeptical that after only a few games I'd be able to defeat a 2500+ strength entity, but all my doubts were dispelled shortly.

The first few games went according to plan - we emerged from the opening with an advantage, increased our advantage with Rybka's help throughout the middlegame, and then entered an endgame with a winning position. Unfortunately, while trying to convert the games on my own I repeatedly failed to find the most precise continuations and lost one winning position, then drew another, much to the chagrin of my team. In the third game, though, I played the endgame well and won.

In the fourth and final game of the night the engine we were playing was Chess Tiger, and it chose to enter a variation another engine had played previously. Because of this I had the opportunity to play it without outside help, starting from the first move. We played approximately 15 moves of book, at which point Tiger deviated. Because of my experience with the resulting endgame from the previous match, I was able to slowly increase my advantage and reach a winning position completely on my own, which I converted in short order. It was a great moment for me: not only did I defeat a 2500 strength engine by myself, but from that point on I truly believed in Kibitzer-1's study method, which I will undoubtedly use in the future.

When Saturday night rolled around, all of us were ready to resume our studying where Friday night left off. To begin with we spent a couple of hours on Dvoretsky's rook and bishop endgames, but after that it was onto analyzing a different opening - this time a Grunfeld line - using the same study method as described above.

Emotions were running high on Saturday night. At one point Kibitzer-1 shared with us that his childhood dream was being realized through the study method we were engaged in- that is, as a child Kibitzer-1 fantasized about being able to have access to the strongest chess entity in the world in order to improve his play. It didn't take long for someone to point out the very funny realization that Kibitzer-1 didn't fantasize about girls as a child, but rather machines being used by a bunch of guys. Later, while we were analyzing a critical opening position in the Grunfeld, Kibitzer-1 had tears in his eyes when he said, as his voice attained the highest pitch any man has ever reached, "This would be a perfect time to run a Monte Carlo!" I was laughing so hard I also couldn't help but shed a few tears.

After that the evening progressed much like it did on the previous night: our opening analysis was verified, and we all had a chance to test our skills against engines from the resulting positions. At about 2:30 in the morning, just as we were about to call it a night, my Opponent wanted to test his skills against Rybka3 in a rook-up, material-odds handicap match.

I don't remember who first mentioned the idea of placing a wager on the match, but Kibitzer-2 was quick to bet $10 on Rybka not losing to my Opponent. Kibitzer-1 stayed out of the gambling, but I, too, wanted to bet on Rybka being able to either draw or win, and I quickly offered my Opponent the chance to accept my $20 wager.

Things went downhill quickly from that point. Up until then our evening was light-hearted, jovial, and fun for everyone involved, but my Opponent obviously took exception to my offer and immediately started verbally attacking me. For the record, I don't feel that placing a wager against a friend constitutes a personal attack - in fact, I believe that when the wager relates to chess and Rybka3 is involved, the only sound financial decision is to bet that Rybka won't lose, which is what I did. Furthermore, I have experience with this type of match against Rybka, as I have played close to 10 games against it while being a rook up, and based on those games I know all about the practical difficulties associated with winning.

My opponent began speaking very quickly, and although I don't remember everything he said, his main point was that I should be betting on my own chess skills against Rybka, not on his. At various points throughout his rant he had some choice words for me, including calling me a "shit head", telling me to "shut-up", and to "take my money and go outside" (while saying this he also threw my wagered $20 that was sitting on the table on the floor). During all of this his body language assumed a very confrontational stance, and it was clear to me he was looking for a fight.

Of course, while this was going on I didn't have time to analyze the root cause of my Opponent's actions, and the following is based on the 2.5 hours of reflection I did while driving home today. There was an incident that happened after the Battle at the Border where I have seen this type of behaviour from my Opponent before, although it was not directed at me. The day after the BATB was over my Opponent, Kibitzer-2, and I went out for a few beers and some speed chess. I was late arriving to the venue, and by the time I got there my Opponent and Kibitzer-2 had already played several blitz games and drank several beverages. Kibitzer-2 wasn't having much success in blitz against my Opponent, and so I teamed up with him. The tide quickly shifted, and soon my Opponent was losing game after game. Naturally, I initiated the trash talk as soon as I started to play, and Kibitzer-2 followed suit seamlessly. My Opponent didn't appreciate this, and soon started personally attacking Kibitzer-2, saying things like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "You're not good enough to trash talk, you're only winning because Jamin is on your team." Here, too, my Opponent started talking rapidly, and his stance became confrontational, but in response to this Kibitzer-2 politely excused himself from the table and went to the washroom. While my Opponent and I were alone I let him know I thought he was overreacting and he should give Kibitzer-2 a break. Once he calmed down my Opponent agreed and confessed that his guard raises automatically when he feels he is being ganged-up on, in chess and in other areas of life.

Coming back to Saturday night's incident, my Opponent's prior revelation is unquestionably the underlying cause of everything that happened. The only difference is that my Opponent's comments were directed at me, and for better or worse, I employ a different approach to dealing with conflict and personal attacks than Kibitzer-2 did. I'm also not ashamed to admit that growing up, particularly while playing competitive billiards in bars for money, I've dealt with my fair share of personal conflicts that sometimes resulted in a physical altercation. I'm not saying I'll resort to violence if someone disagrees with me, but rather I'll do what the situation warrants, and ultimately, I won't back down from a fight if I feel the issue in question is worth fighting for.

I spent a good amount of time this afternoon trying to decide if this was a positive or negative characteristic, and truthfully I still don't know the answer. What I did realize is the "fight or flight" reflex is instinctual. Of course, how one handles the urge to either fight or run can be conditioned through practice, but the initial reaction to a conflict is largely beyond one's control. As my Opponent verbally, and unjustifiably (in my opinion) lashed out at me, my immediate response was to push back. After he threw my money on the ground and disrespected me through name-calling, I let him know that if I was going to go outside (as he suggested), he was coming with me, and I would be teaching him a lesson.

My Opponent's behaviour changed drastically at that point, and the only reason I recall these details is that, based on personal experience, in confrontational settings the subtle changes in an adversary's demeanor can mean the difference between winning and losing everything, and realizing these changes is often the key to victory. From that point on my Opponent didn't look me in the eye, and instead focussed his gaze on Kibitzers 1 and 2, as if he was looking for some external support. The Kibitzers kept their eyes downward in an attempt to stay out of the conflict, which I appreciated because it was not their battle, and I had something to prove before any sort of third party intervention took place.

Realizing my Opponent didn't want to pursue the conflict any further, I offered him a way out - agree to drop it and we'll move on as if nothing had happened. I did this because I consider my Opponent to be a friend, and fighting friends is not something I take lightly. In addition, strange things can happen when chess is played in conjunction with drugs and alcohol and although this doesn't excuse his behaviour, it does offer another possible explanation for it. Initially, my opponent refused my offer to end the confrontation amicably, possibly because he interpreted my gesture as a sign of weakness, or maybe because I wasn't making myself clear enough, and instead he insulted me once again.

The tension in the room reached its peak, and although every part of me wanted to drag him outside, I resisted this instinctive response and instead offered my Opponent another escape, this time less subtly, by letting him know that he could either drop the issue, or continue to push my buttons and take his chances. It didn't take long for my Opponent to back down once his options were laid out explicitly.

The rest of the night proceeded without incident, and I am thankful for this. Despite my desire to respond to my Opponent's aggressive actions in kind, I have a feeling that if we would have went outside, the lesson I was trying to impart on my Opponent would have been lost on him. Not everyone has been raised the same way I have, where fighting is considered acceptable if it is undertaken on principle, and it's likely that our friendship would have been permanently altered if events would have taken that path. Having said that, I truly hope he learned something from the incident, and will handle his disagreements with me differently in the future.

There are only a few things in life that will elicit that type of response from me, and at the top of the list are being bullied, intimidated, or pushed around. In the end it doesn't even matter if I win or lose the ensuing physical confrontation, only that I stand my ground and let my Opponent know that there are consequences to treating me like shit, and friend or not, I will only tolerate so much.

Chess Improvement in the Bathtub

2008-10-08T07:55:00.000-07:00

If you're laughing at the thought of me studying chess while having a bath, you are not the first person to do so. I've shared this secret with several of my friends and students, and the common reaction is always to assume I'm joking. Well, this is not a joke.

When I was a university student, during the summer months I'd move to Lloydminster and work two jobs to pay for my education. At that point in my chess career I was rated around 1800, and although I desperately wanted to improve before coming back to Saskatoon in September, I just couldn't find the time to do it. Between working, eating, sleeping, and showering, all of my time was spent. However, I was determined to find study-time somewhere, and so I embarked on a journey that would change my life forever.

I had already decided to spend my entire summer working on tactics, as I felt that was the weakest area of my game. At first I tried to solve tactical puzzles while eating, but I found that too distracting. It's actually quite difficult to get food into your mouth, chew it, and swallow while solving chess problems, and on more than one occasion I mixed up that order, often with disastrous consequences. The only alternative left in my busy schedule was to study chess at the same time as I cleansed myself.

Now, I'm sure that many chess players would simply allocate the 20 minutes per day spent on personal hygene to studying, and only shower/shave/brush/floss on weekends and/or statutory holidays. I wasn't prepared to go this far - there are limits to what I was willing to sacrifice for chess improvement. But, by spending 35 minutes in the bathtub instead of 15 minutes in the shower, I was able to solve my daily dose of tactical puzzles while attending to my personal hygene.

It's been more than 4 years since I graduated from university, and although I only work one full-time job now, my problem of not having enough time to study chess still exists, as anyone with a girlfriend/wife/kids will attest to. However, the great part about studying chess in the bath tub is that no matter what happens in your day-to-day life, you still need to cleanse! How many times has your significant other insisted you study chess before coming to bed? Conversely, how many times have you been asked to shower before bed? I'm willing to bet the latter request far outnumbers the former.

The next time you're in your bathroom, bring a chess board and have a bath instead of a shower. You might be pleasantly surprised to find your tub and toilet are at the same height, making a convenient surface for your board to rest on. It may also help to print off training material instead of reading a book while bathing to reduce the risk of water damage to your chess literature.

Dear Danny

2008-10-04T23:44:00.001-07:00

I feel it fitting, in fact obligatory, that my first non-chess related post be dedicated to Danny, a friend who, for reasons that will become apparent in time, is unable to share his story with anyone. Danny and I grew up together in a small town, and for many years he was all I had, and I'm absolutely positive he felt the same way about me.

When we were growing up things were never completely clear, partly because we were kids, and when you're young nothing really makes sense, but mostly because Danny's life was too fucked up for anyone without a psychology degree to fully comprehend. Even now, when I reflect on what he has told me about his childhood and early adulthood, I have difficulties coming to terms with it all. I can only imagine what is must have been like for him.

Before I go any further, the following information is, to the best of my recollection, Danny's biography as was explained to me over several years, and several late night talks. During one of these talks I made a promise to Danny that I have never forgotten - to share his experiences with as many others as I could. You see, at that time I aspired to be a writer, and although our conversation that night started out with us discussing our future plans, it quickly turned to Danny's past, as it usually did, and he made me promise to one day document everything that he had told me.

Given that I didn't become a professional writer, and this blog is my only literary outlet to the real world, I've decided to post Danny's story here. So, without further adieu, here it is.

Like me, Danny was born in 1981. He came into this world slightly prematurely via a c-section, at a time when c-sections were much more dangerous than they are now. An ultrasound had revealed that the umbilical cord was wrapped around Danny's neck in his mother's womb, and if he wasn't extracted ASAP, there was a chance of him being stillborn. Fortunately, the c-section went well for everyone involved. Danny survived, and his mother didn't have any scarring, which was of great import at the time.

Danny was an only child, and by most accounts a completely normal one, except for the fact that he was never supposed to walk straight. Right from birth the doctors had diagnosed Danny with a rare defect that caused the bones in his legs to grow crooked, meaning that as he reached his toddler years his legs would be unable to support any sort of upright movement. To correct this Danny was subjected to very painful procedures where the bones in his legs were broken and reset. Even after this surgery the doctors held out little hope that Danny would ever walk right, but Danny proved everyone wrong.

Naturally, Danny doesn't remember much of his infant-hood, and as a result, he never shared much of his early years with me. Having said that, if I recall correctly he had a serious bout of pneumonia when he was 4, had his tonsils removed when he was 8, and he was the one in a millionth person who had a tooth grow from the roof of his mouth, which was also removed when he was a child. Other than that things for Danny were fairly routine, at least until he turned 10.

To be continued...