Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    CC resident nutcase Trent Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Picton, The Dilly, NSW
    Posts
    2,936

    Tparker at the NSW Champs (U1600 division)

    I'm going to post my games from the NSW Champs U1600 here. Comments and analysis welcome.

    Event: NSW Champs U1600
    Site: ?
    Date: ????.??.??
    Round: ?
    White: Kresinger, F.
    Black: Parker, T.
    Result: 1-0
    ECO: D05
    Annotator: TP
    PlyCount: 127

    PGN Viewer
     

    i ended up playing to mate just because i was peed off at making so many analytical errors.
    Last edited by Trent Parker; 30-08-2004 at 02:10 AM.
    GO THE DRAGONS!
    GO Western Sydney Wanderers!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski's signature
    God exists. Short and to the point.
    This is the reason I do not wade into religion threads.

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,388
    You were very competitive for most of the game but I think where it slipped away was around the early 30s, in particular 33...Rcd8 which yielded the seventh rank to your opponent and ultimately assisted him to knock off your a-pawn, which won him the game. Your e-pawn had no real future with rooks on the board and maybe you were just trying to be a little bit too tricky at this stage. I would have played 32...Rxc5 followed by 33...Rc8. Haven't put it in the computer but I believe this should be drawn whether White exchanges the remaining rook pair or not.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  3. #3
    CC International Master Kerry Stead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,204
    Trent, a few comments.
    Firstly, your opening, although it wasn't bad, seemed a bit inflexible and automatic. White's setup with d4, Nf3, e3, Bd3 can hardly be called enterprising, yet you did nothing to try and disrupt this plan for equality, and allowed white to get a good to OK position from the opening. You could have looked to play c5 or e5 early, however you seemed to just sit and tread water while white did the same.
    As Kevin pointed out, Rcd8 was your big mistake at the end of the game ... trading rooks looks like it draws pretty safely, although there were still chances to trade the rook that had made it to the 7th rank before it could cause too much damage.

    Methinks I might do the same though Trent - puttin gmy games from the NSW Champs up ... although perhaps that's only because I had a good win in round 1!

  4. #4
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    [the pgn stops at #27 ?!?!?]

    From what is saw, niether of you had a go. You both played for safty. I remember playing FK a few times. He plays safe and hates being attacked (especially by Max Illingworth ) and starts making panicy moves.

  5. #5
    CC International Master Rhubarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    I have to say that I completely disagree with KB and Kezza here. Black should be doing everything possible to keep both sets of rooks on to assist his monster pawn in the attack (the bishop covers the white squares, the pawn covers the black squares). So if anything, you should have played ...Rcd8 a move earlier.

    The Bb7-c8-e6-b3 manoeuvre is very fine and if instead of 39...Rd1+? (understandable since you thought it was mating) you had played 39...Rb2! threatening 40...Rd1# you'd be winning comfortably. E.g. 40.Nd3 (40.Rd3 Rb1+ 41.Ke2 Bc4) Rb1+ 41.Ke2 (41.Rc1 Rxc1+ 42.Nxc1 Rd1+) Re8! 42.Nc1 (else Bd1+) Rb2+ 43.Ke1 Rxg2! 44.Nxb3 e2.

  6. #6
    CC International Master Kerry Stead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_Canfell
    I have to say that I completely disagree with KB and Kezza here. Black should be doing everything possible to keep both sets of rooks on to assist his monster pawn in the attack (the bishop covers the white squares, the pawn covers the black squares). So if anything, you should have played ...Rcd8 a move earlier.

    The Bb7-c8-e6-b3 manoeuvre is very fine and if instead of 39...Rd1+? (understandable since you thought it was mating) you had played 39...Rb2! threatening 40...Rd1# you'd be winning comfortably. E.g. 40.Nd3 (40.Rd3 Rb1+ 41.Ke2 Bc4) Rb1+ 41.Ke2 (41.Rc1 Rxc1+ 42.Nxc1 Rd1+) Re8! 42.Nc1 (else Bd1+) Rb2+ 43.Ke1 Rxg2! 44.Nxb3 e2.
    I'll admit to laziness ... I saw the Rb2 idea that you mention, but couldn't find a way to make it work. Is 42.Rc1 any better than you 42.Nc1 in trying to hold the position?

    I just figured that Trent was looking for things to improve on in the game ... and the obvious part where he went wrong was to go for the mate that wasn't there. Kevin's comments about letting the rook get to the 7th are pertinent, but of course if all continuations are as winning as you suggest after Rb2, then that definitely was a better option.

    One thing I've noticed is a difference between different levels of player is the handling and recognition of a winning position, and how to defend a tough position. Most players can hold their own in a simple position, although obviously the better player will play better moves more often than not. Its how you handle the difficult positions that make you the chessplayer you are.

  7. #7
    CC International Master Rhubarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry Stead
    Is 42.Rc1 any better than you 42.Nc1 in trying to hold the position?
    Kezza, if 42.Rc1 Rxc1 43.Nxc1 Bc4+.

    Kevin's comments about letting the rook get to the 7th are pertinent
    I thought the White rook was fairly useless on the 7th, and that by the time it's gone scabbing the a-pawn Trent has a decisive attack.

  8. #8
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.



    Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?



    Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.



    Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.

  9. #9
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840

    style council

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.



    Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?



    Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.



    Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.
    "style? what style? i have no style" - karpov <--(i think?) (a paraphrase)

    my reading of silman's books is that you should choose the style which best suits the board position at any given time

    the style should be what wins overall but tactical oversights caused by thinking of the finish line rather than the hurdle you are about to jump (from another thread) can suddenly make you look very unstylistic!!

    of course we can play some extremely short games where we never get the time to develop style ... eh, matt?

    eclectic
    .

  10. #10
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    of course we can play some extremely short games where we never get the time to develop style ... eh, matt?
    but was a drawn match

  11. #11
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_Canfell
    I have to say that I completely disagree with KB and Kezza here.
    And rightly so.

    Trent, any time I say I haven't computer-checked my analysis, feel free to ignore me and listen to Mr Canfell instead.

    The understandable mistake 39...Rd1+ is indeed where it all goes wrong and 39...Rb2 is indeed winning, and there is indeed nothing wrong with 33...Rcd8 (it's better than swapping rooks), all as Greg says.

    I'll add that 39...Rb2 would only have won because White made a bad mistake with 39.Rc3. 39.Ra5 (intending to meet ...Rb2 with Re5) and Black is much better but lacking an obvious way to crash through (maybe Greg can find one). As Greg says, "Your Bb7-c8-e6-b3 manoeuvre is very fine" - it's not quite clear if it's objectively the "best" but at U1600 level a sound and imaginative attack often reaps a full point even if it isn't winning by force.

    I think you played a lot of good stuff in the game and were just unlucky that at the point where you could have knocked him over, you missed it because you thought something else won.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,388
    Matt, these are all good questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.
    Oddly enough my errors made above while analysing sans computer were caused by far too much reliance on something I have learnt from computers - at club level most attacks are unsound. In this case the attack gained by keeping the rooks on the board is at least good for a strong position before White can cash in on the a-pawn.

    Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?
    I think so.

    Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.
    Often yes and often no respectively. It is easy to get hoist on your stylistic predelictions, but it won't happen against a much weaker player too often. I think the stronger players have a much better idea of the need to apply different styles to different positions - of when it's time to simplify and when it's time to keep pieces on and keep attacking. Below 1500 level there are lots of players who either attack when it is suicidal or else fail to counter-attack when it is the only way to protect the position, in both cases because anything else isn't in their style - they are too one-speed aggressive or cautious.

    I like endgames and I like eliminating risks of losing but swapping one pair of rooks would actually have only given Black a small edge insufficient for serious winning chances, and swapping both could even have lead to a loss if Black wasn't careful enough.

    Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.
    Many club level games are strewn with decisive (with best play) tactical errors. But to say that tactical mistakes lose simplifies it a bit, because often opponents do not see them. I think that's still more a tactical skill question than a style issue.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  13. #13
    CC International Master Rhubarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I'll add that 39...Rb2 would only have won because White made a bad mistake with 39.Rc3. 39.Ra5 (intending to meet ...Rb2 with Re5) and Black is much better but lacking an obvious way to crash through.
    Yes, 39.Ra5 is a tougher defence. In fact it virtually forces 39...Re8 because if e3 goes, so does any advantage. My feeling is that Black's still winning, though, as there's lots of promotion-type tricks. E.g. 40.Rc3?? e2!; or 40.Rb1? Rf2! 41.Rxb3 (41.Ne2 Bc4; 41.Nd3 Bc2!) e2 42.Nd3 Rf1+ 43.Kd2 Rd1+; or 40.Ne2 Bc2 followed by Bd3. Black's default winning plan will be to play...Rf2, and some combination of ...Bc4 and/or ...e2 or Bc2/d3, and I don't really see how White can stop it, even if he gives up the a-pawn straight away.

  14. #14
    CC International Master Rhubarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.
    That's true, I made an assessment first and then went looking for variations to justify it. The thing about analysis is it lends an aura of objectivity to proceedings. In pre-engine days the young Kasparov used to publish reams of variations to justify his brilliancies against best defence in a search for chess perfection, and it was only analysts of the calibre of Timman, Hubner, Dvoretsky who would occasionally point out holes.

    Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?
    But the stronger the player, the more likely "value" in the above sentence will become "preference".

    Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Often yes and often no respectively. It is easy to get hoist on your stylistic predelictions, but it won't happen against a much weaker player too often. I think the stronger players have a much better idea of the need to apply different styles to different positions - of when it's time to simplify and when it's time to keep pieces on and keep attacking. Below 1500 level there are lots of players who either attack when it is suicidal or else fail to counter-attack when it is the only way to protect the position, in both cases because anything else isn't in their style - they are too one-speed aggressive or cautious.
    Yes, I'd agree with all of this. On a philosophical note, I think that a "perfectly" played game should be a draw, but that there would be many paths to this draw encompassing different stylistic choices.

    Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.
    The thing about tactical mistakes is they always take precedence over stylistic or positional considerations. If you look at Karpov's finest positional wins, it's easy to miss just how fine a tactician he has to be to keep everything under control. I got this feeling recently in the Australian Masters when Johansen put me under the squeeze.

  15. #15
    CC resident nutcase Trent Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Picton, The Dilly, NSW
    Posts
    2,936
    Thanks for the comments peoples! even those not directly related to the game

    Today i had a win with the white pieces against T.Accola
    I played a knight sac which perhaps looking at it afterwards might have been dubious but he didnt take my offer which enabled me to force mate.



    Tparker - Accola,T [B07]
    NSW U1600
    [Tparker]
    PGN Viewer
     
    GO THE DRAGONS!
    GO Western Sydney Wanderers!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski's signature
    God exists. Short and to the point.
    This is the reason I do not wade into religion threads.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. NSW August Weekender
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 18-08-2004, 10:31 AM
  2. Fairfield Winter Cup
    By arosar in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 14-07-2004, 06:54 PM
  3. Mingara May Major 2004
    By Brian_Jones in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 31-05-2004, 08:04 PM
  4. Desperate and dateless: NSW Club Teams
    By PHAT in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 13-04-2004, 06:02 PM
  5. NSWCA - 2004 Australia Day Weekender
    By arosar in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 28-01-2004, 07:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •