PDA

View Full Version : How to beat juniors



shaun
24-04-2004, 07:22 PM
Here are 3 games I have played against junior players in the last 15 months. I have removed the names to protect the innocent but two of the players were Australian junior reps and regular high finishers in the Aus Junior, while the third is a younger but quickly improving player. All games were played in Canberra and all players are ACT juniors.


1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.exf5 e4 5.Ng5 Nf6 6.d3 d5 7.dxe4 h6 8.exd5 hxg5 9.dxc6 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Bxf5 11.cxb7 Rd8+ 12.Bd3 Bg4+ 13.Ke1 Bc5 14.Nc3 0-0 15.fxg5 Rde8+ 16.Ne2 Nd5 17.Rf1 Bb4+ 18.c3 Nxc3 19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Bd2 Nd5 21.Rc1 c5 22.a3 Nf4 23.Bb5 Bxd2+ 24.Kxd2 Rd8+ 25.Ke1 Nxe2 26.Bxe2 Bxe2 27.Kxe2 Rb8 28.Rxc5 Rxb7 29.b4 Ke7 30.Ke3 Ke6 31.h4 Rd7 32.Ra5 g6 33.Ke4 Rc7 34.Rc5 Rd7 35.Rc6+ Kf7 36.Rf6+ Kg7 37.g4 Rd1 38.h5 gxh5 39.gxh5 Rd7 40.h6+ 1-0



1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nf3 a6 8.c3 b5 9.a4 Qd5 10.Bd3 f5 11.Qe2 Bb7 12.Neg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 bxa4 14.Qh5 Qd7 15.0-0-0 Qe7 16.Rhe1 Kf8 17.Qh6+ Ke8 18.Nxe6 Qd6 19.Bxf5 1-0



1.Nc3 Nf6 2.e4 d6 3.d4 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.Be3 Nbd7 6.Qd2 0-0 7.h4 Re8 8.h5 Nf8 9.hxg6 hxg6 10.Bh6 N8h7 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.Qh6+ Kg8 13.Nd5 Be6 14.Nxf6+ exf6 15.Qxh7+ Kf8 16.0-0-0 f5 17.Qh6+ Ke7 18.Qh4+ Kd7 19.d5 Bxd5 20.Qxd8+ Raxd8 21.exd5 Re5 22.Bb5+ Kc8 23.Nf3 Re7 24.Rde1 Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 a6 26.Be8 1-0

shaun
24-04-2004, 07:35 PM
Lessons from these games

Juniors might know some openings well, but they don't know all openings.
1.Nc3 is always a good opening move against booked up players
Juniors like to attack, and they like to counter-attack. But defending is often something they do less well. Therefore the trick is to get your attack rolling real early.
Junior opponents are under just as much pressure as you are, if not more. That is because you are an adult and they are not. Almost every other situation in society has an adult in control of adult-child interactions. In a tense position the junior player will crack under pressure. Therefore just make sure you don't crack first.
Another point is to beat them early and beat them often. If you can rack up a plus score before they get really good, this gives you an edge going into every subsequent game.
And finally a general tip. In situations where difficult decisions have to be made, breathe slowly. I'll just repeat that. Breathe Slowly. The more excited you get, the faster you breathe. The faster you breathe, the more co2 in your system. The more co2, the less efficient your brain becomes. Seriously. 13 breathes a minute is what you should be aiming for.

Garvinator
24-04-2004, 08:59 PM
Lessons from these games

Juniors might know some openings well, but they don't know all openings.
1.Nc3 is always a good opening move against booked up players
Juniors like to attack, and they like to counter-attack. But defending is often something they do less well. Therefore the trick is to get your attack rolling real early.
Junior opponents are under just as much pressure as you are, if not more. That is because you are an adult and they are not. Almost every other situation in society has an adult in control of adult-child interactions. In a tense position the junior player will crack under pressure. Therefore just make sure you don't crack first.
Another point is to beat them early and beat them often. If you can rack up a plus score before they get really good, this gives you an edge going into every subsequent game.
And finally a general tip. In situations where difficult decisions have to be made, breathe slowly. I'll just repeat that. Breathe Slowly. The more excited you get, the faster you breathe. The faster you breathe, the more co2 in your system. The more co2, the less efficient your brain becomes. Seriously. 13 breathes a minute is what you should be aiming for.

Im still trying to work out why adults reckon there has to be a 'special' plan or something of the like about playing juniors. I would have thought the right plan is to just play the best moves you can find, in accordance with what you feel is right. I dont see why there has to be a special plan for juniors. I am still seeing the same problems on here that exist in real life. this is the thinking i see alot in real life- this child is so small, how can i possibly lose to him/her, then when the junior wins, the adult looks for every excuse possible, instead of just accepting that they didnt play well enough.

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2004, 11:59 PM
And finally a general tip. In situations where difficult decisions have to be made, breathe slowly. I'll just repeat that. Breathe Slowly. The more excited you get, the faster you breathe. The faster you breathe, the more co2 in your system. The more co2, the less efficient your brain becomes. Seriously. 13 breathes a minute is what you should be aiming for.

Also I find playing slowly to be useful against some juniors. They don't like it when you take ten minutes over a move.

There are exceptions, if I've seen a sneaky combo and satisfied myself it's sound I'll often play it instantly. But I do that sort of thing against anyone really.

jay_vee
25-04-2004, 12:17 AM
And finally a general tip. In situations where difficult decisions have to be made, breathe slowly. I'll just repeat that. Breathe Slowly. The more excited you get, the faster you breathe. The faster you breathe, the more co2 in your system. The more co2, the less efficient your brain becomes. Seriously. 13 breathes a minute is what you should be aiming for.

Hmm, I seem to remember from physiology that breathing faster under stress actually reduces the co2 in your blood. That is, because with every breath you exhale co2. What happens though, is that in the process of exhaling more co2 your blood becomes more alkaline (hco3- + h+ --> h2co3 --> h2o + co2) which in turn is bad for your brain efficiency. So breathing slowly (and deeply) is still a good advice. :-)

Never mind, just being a smart-a*s :owned:

Garvinator
25-04-2004, 12:31 AM
Also I find playing slowly to be useful against some juniors. They don't like it when you take ten minutes over a move.

I would say this is a good tactic if a person can play slowly and use the time productively.
I remember a certain WIM saying to me late last year that she was surprised how many juniors liked playing her and looking at the clock afterwards and liking the idea that they had used about 10 mins to her 60 mins, ignoring the fact that they had been hammered from the start and ended up losing all their material :doh:

ursogr8
25-04-2004, 10:29 AM
Im still trying to work out why adults reckon there has to be a 'special' plan or something of the like about playing juniors. I would have thought the right plan is to just play the best moves you can find, in accordance with what you feel is right. I dont see why there has to be a special plan for juniors.

gg''
A good question you ask.
The answer might go to the personality type of the player.

For example, BD, has repeatedly defended rapid chess because he likes the thrill of a snipers win against a higher rated player. In other words he uses the benefits of speed and inaccuracy to win, rather than what you are proposing...just the best moves in the position.

Some players just value the win, however it is obtained legally. At the extreme of this subset are those who like to read about a trap in a GMs book and commit this opening to memory, later to spring it on an unsuspecting opponent who thought he/she had come to the Club to play chess against an equal.

Stick with your plan gg''..play the best moves.
Leave the 'how to play against a junior strategies' to those looking to take short cuts for the (unearned) win.



starter

Ian Rout
25-04-2004, 04:17 PM
One of the arguments for chess being a sport rather than a mechanical mental exercise is that players have individuals styles, and individual strengths and weaknesses, so it is sensible to adapt to particular opponents. I doubt that sportspeople like Lleyton Hewitt, Ricky Ponting, Wayne Bennett etc adopt the same strategy independent of the opponent.

Playing the absolutely best move in the position is probably also a good strategy. But it doesn't help when there is a choice of equally good moves, and being able to identify the best move can also be a limitation.

Rincewind
25-04-2004, 04:52 PM
There is a discussion to be had here on the purist approach of playing the best move in the position, vs the pragmatist who will choose the "best" move based on other factors as well. Picking the "best" between these two approaches (which one will win you the most games) is not obvious. Although at shorter time controls I suspect the pragmatic approach to show better results.

shaun
25-04-2004, 04:57 PM
Leave the 'how to play against a junior strategies' to those looking to take short cuts for the (unearned) win.

starter
I am at a complete loss at how this totally absurd statement was arrived at.
If I was to post "how to play against Kasparov stategies" would you claim any subsequent victories be "unearned"?
The advice I gave was a) just sensible suggestions that help make us all better players (I hope) and b) intended to demonstrate to the panic stricken "all juniors are under-rated" mob on this BB that this certainly isn't the case.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2004, 05:04 PM
I would say this is a good tactic if a person can play slowly and use the time productively.

Yes. If you play very slowly they may sense a chance to win the game on the clock. I don't have this problem though, since I've only lost four rated games on time ever, and tend to finish games with a good 20 mins or so left on average.


I remember a certain WIM saying to me late last year that she was surprised how many juniors liked playing her and looking at the clock afterwards and liking the idea that they had used about 10 mins to her 60 mins, ignoring the fact that they had been hammered from the start and ended up losing all their material :doh:

Yes I see things like that too. Junior A smashes Junior B and Junior B is really proud that he used only 7 minutes to Junior A's 11. Go figure. Too many video games is my guess.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2004, 05:08 PM
There is a discussion to be had here on the purist approach of playing the best move in the position, vs the pragmatist who will choose the "best" move based on other factors as well. Picking the "best" between these two approaches (which one will win you the most games) is not obvious.

I think playing the man is quite effective so long as you don't overdo it. Putting yourself into an outright bad position to try to play to the opponent's weaknesses is not a good idea, but playing a move that is marginally weaker objectively but doesn't suit the opponent's known playing style seems to me to be justified.

Ian Rout
25-04-2004, 05:48 PM
Doing what your opponent least wants you to do, within the limitations of knowing what that is and not damaging yourself more than your opponent, is a good approach in any sport.

Anybody who genuinely believes it is unethical, rather than just saying silly things to promote discussion, really need to divest themself of that notion as soon as possible as they are severely handicapping themselves in terms both of their results and their enjoyment of the contest.

Alan Shore
26-04-2004, 04:58 AM
gg''
A good question you ask.
The answer might go to the personality type of the player.

For example, BD, has repeatedly defended rapid chess because he likes the thrill of a snipers win against a higher rated player. In other words he uses the benefits of speed and inaccuracy to win, rather than what you are proposing...just the best moves in the position.

Wrong Laddy, it is most certainly NOT to do with 'inaccuracy'. A blatant attempt by you to twist the truth. It is still 'just the best moves in the position', simply w.r.t time, as in any tournament game. However in rapidplay the clock is simply more critical.

Furthermore, wtf do you mean by interpreting my enjoyment of rapid chess to meaning 'the thrill of a sniper's win against a higher rated player'? Do you want me to start making stupid inaccurate comments about why you do the things you do? I don't think you'd like it either.



Stick with your plan gg''..play the best moves.
Leave the 'how to play against a junior strategies' to those looking to take short cuts for the (unearned) win.

I agree with Shaun, you haven't thought this one through at all. Like it or not, juniors DO play differently to adults in many cases. I don't like the little 'unearned' part either - every single victory in chess is earned, some are simply earned easier.

ursogr8
26-04-2004, 08:33 AM
I am at a complete loss at how this totally absurd statement was arrived at.
If I was to post "how to play against Kasparov stategies" would you claim any subsequent victories be "unearned"?



Shaun,
I did appreciate your post on how to play against juniors; it contained some good advice. Particularly the piece about breathing.

It probably was not deliberate, but you truncated from my post the two paragraphs that led into my statement that gg’’ should not seek short-cuts and that he should just play the best moves. The two paragraphs contained examples of what I regard as ‘unearned’. First example was when a player relies on the speed of the game to cause a slower thinker to have a higher ‘inaccuracy’ rate. Second example was when a player memorizes a book trap and springs it on an opponent. Without these two paragraphs being included in the quote it left my conclusion sentence looking a bit undefended.
If you posted "how to play against Kasparov strategies" I would not call them ‘unearned’ because they are not short-cuts by any-ones description.
And ‘unearned’ does not mean ‘without value’, by the way. A Rhodes scholar PM labelled share-dividends and term-deposit-returns as ‘unearned income’. You can still buy food and the daily paper with ‘unearned income’, it is just that you don’t have to work for it; it is a short-cut.




The advice I gave was a) just sensible suggestions that help make us all better players (I hope) and b) intended to demonstrate to the panic stricken "all juniors are under-rated" mob on this BB that this certainly isn't the case.



And thank you for that contribution; it is sensible, as another poster said, to choose moves that are unsettling for the opponent.


starter

ursogr8
26-04-2004, 09:08 AM
Wrong Laddy, it is most certainly NOT to do with 'inaccuracy'. A blatant attempt by you to twist the truth. It is still 'just the best moves in the position', simply w.r.t time, as in any tournament game. However in rapidplay the clock is simply more critical.



Bruce
My reference to ‘inaccuracy’ was related to the usual adult player whose performance level declines as the games get shorter in time. For this type of player the 90+30spm time-control probably matches his optimum performance and anything slower does not see an improvement because he has run out of chess ideas to think about. I am presuming that your performance level does not drop off much at rapid time-controls (based on your earlier posts). So, if you play a usual adult at rapid chess your capability at speed is enhanced by his ‘inaccuracy’ at speed. Hence the rapid time-control of the game becomes a short-cut for you to beat him.




Furthermore, wtf do you mean by interpreting my enjoyment of rapid chess to meaning 'the thrill of a sniper's win against a higher rated player'?



Again, you have posted eloquently of your liking for the normal SWISS as it gives you an opportunity to be drawn against higher-rated players. And some of those players will not perform to their long rating in rapid games. Hence you maximize your chances of a win (against the ratings-predictor) by playing in rapid games. Now, this is similar to the military ‘snipers-strategy’. A lesser force scores a hit over a stronger force by choosing the time and place of the contest. A perfectly legitimate tactic.




I don't like the little 'unearned' part either - every single victory in chess is earned, some are simply earned easier.


In a post to Shaun today I have described the source of unearned. Please read post #15 to see that it has an historical meaning probably a bit different to expected usage. I did put unearned in parenthesis in my original post as an indication of special usage.

Enjoy you chess victories, even the easily earned ones (your words).

starter

Garvinator
26-04-2004, 10:35 AM
i have a question for bruce, if rapid games are not just as much about 'luck' as they are about finding the best moves, why then are the major events in australia played under a time control of 90 +30 or longer? Under your logic, we could just play the major events at 15/0 and get them done so much quicker.

Rincewind
26-04-2004, 11:12 AM
Wrong Laddy, it is most certainly NOT to do with 'inaccuracy'. A blatant attempt by you to twist the truth. It is still 'just the best moves in the position', simply w.r.t time, as in any tournament game. However in rapidplay the clock is simply more critical.

I agree that all wins are earned. However, as you point point, some are earned more easily than others. So if you want it make the earning of the wins more significant than you should play longer time controls.

To word it another way, mistakes are a part of the game and when your opponent makes a large mistake (blunder) you may get an "easy" win. Such blunders are more common at rapid time controls, therefore the opportunity of such easy wins are more likely.

To answer Garvin's rhetorical question, the majors are not played under rapid TCs because it is not considered appropriate for the Australian Champion to be the guy to whom the most blunder were made. Even though this might also happen with the longer time control, it is generally less significant than at shorter TCs.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2004, 10:49 PM
Re starter's .sig, while I will sometimes remember a well-earned win where I simply outplayed a decent opponent and pushed them off the board without too many blunders from them, I haven't actually had too many of those, and I'm far more likely to remember a ridiculous swindle where I pulled off a hair-raising escape to win from a wretched position two pawns down. :eek:

There are some opponents who I would prefer to beat well, and be dissatisfied if I had beaten them badly. And then there are some against whom I'll savour that point however it cares to come.

As for book traps, I don't bother learning or playing for those. A weak enough opponent will find a trap to fall into without me needing to go looking for one.

ursogr8
27-04-2004, 08:38 AM
Re starter's .sig, while I will sometimes remember a well-earned win where I simply outplayed a decent opponent and pushed them off the board without too many blunders from them, I haven't actually had too many of those, and I'm far more likely to remember a ridiculous swindle where I pulled off a hair-raising escape to win from a wretched position two pawns down. :eek:

There are some opponents who I would prefer to beat well, and be dissatisfied if I had beaten them badly. And then there are some against whom I'll savour that point however it cares to come.

As for book traps, I don't bother learning or playing for those. A weak enough opponent will find a trap to fall into without me needing to go looking for one.

Oops Kevin. My signature confused you. It was meant to refer to your opponent remembering the game, not you. Apology to confuse.

starter

shaun
27-04-2004, 09:30 AM
And thank you for that contribution; it is sensible, as another poster said, to choose moves that are unsettling for the opponent.

starter
OK, fair enough. I apologise for being so snappy in my reply. I was probably still annoyed at the poor refereeing in the Brumbies - Waratahs game (a meaningless reference for Aussie Rules fans), resulting in shorther than usual temper.

Oepty
27-04-2004, 12:16 PM
The way to beat any player is to play better chess than them. What Shaun is saying is there are some positions where a player is more likely to play better than a junior, so engineer the position if possible to these. We do this all the time in chess. We choose openings which suit us and which don't suit our opponent, or it is good practise to do so. I was white against St George player last year and I made the deliberate choice not to play into the opening theory I knew he had studied deeply and I knew next to nothing. He would have been happy if I had played into his knowledge and I feel would have played better in the resulting positions. Not playing into meant I got the kind of game I wanted and frustrated him and I won.
I don't think you earn a game less because you choose to play the game the way you want, instead it shows that you have prepared and thought about the game before you played the game. This should mean you earnt the game more not less.
As to Bruce and the comments about his liking of rapid chess. I don't think it is fair to insinuate his good performances at rapid are just because he plays fast. He beat Smerdon at Glenelg and I don't think he is a slow player who suffers from slow thinking.
Scott

ursogr8
27-04-2004, 10:14 PM
The way to beat any player is to play better chess than them. What Shaun is saying is there are some positions where a player is more likely to play better than a junior, so engineer the position if possible to these. We do this all the time in chess. We choose openings which suit us and which don't suit our opponent, or it is good practise to do so. I was white against St George player last year and I made the deliberate choice not to play into the opening theory I knew he had studied deeply and I knew next to nothing. He would have been happy if I had played into his knowledge and I feel would have played better in the resulting positions. Not playing into meant I got the kind of game I wanted and frustrated him and I won.
I don't think you earn a game less because you choose to play the game the way you want, instead it shows that you have prepared and thought about the game before you played the game. This should mean you earnt the game more not less.


Scott
My guess is that because you used the word 'earned' you are somewhat arguing against my 'unearned' remark. Let me assure you that if you prepared a 'style' of game that unsettled your opponent, then I would deem this an 'earned' win. But if you copied a book trap against his usual pet opening then to me that is 'unearned'. My authority on this is still the Rhodes scholar PM.




As to Bruce and the comments about his liking of rapid chess. I don't think it is fair to insinuate his good performances at rapid are just because he plays fast. He beat Smerdon at Glenelg and I don't think he is a slow player who suffers from slow thinking.

Scott

While your observations may be true, will we ever know if BD chooses to play Smerdon only in RAPID games because of the obvious expected increase in his chances of a win?

starter

Ian Rout
27-04-2004, 10:42 PM
But if you copied a book trap against his usual pet opening then to me that is 'unearned'. My authority on this is still the Rhodes scholar PM.

On the other hand if he plays so predictably, and so lazily as to rely on bashing out theory without learning it properly, then his loss is certainly earned.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 11:11 PM
The way to beat any player is to play better chess than them. What Shaun is saying is there are some positions where a player is more likely to play better than a junior, so engineer the position if possible to these. We do this all the time in chess. We choose openings which suit us and which don't suit our opponent, or it is good practise to do so. I was white against St George player last year and I made the deliberate choice not to play into the opening theory I knew he had studied deeply and I knew next to nothing. He would have been happy if I had played into his knowledge and I feel would have played better in the resulting positions. Not playing into meant I got the kind of game I wanted and frustrated him and I won.
I don't think you earn a game less because you choose to play the game the way you want, instead it shows that you have prepared and thought about the game before you played the game. This should mean you earnt the game more not less.
As to Bruce and the comments about his liking of rapid chess. I don't think it is fair to insinuate his good performances at rapid are just because he plays fast. He beat Smerdon at Glenelg and I don't think he is a slow player who suffers from slow thinking.
Scott
Essentially it comes down to playing to your own strengths and not to your opponents.
The adult should play a style that suits him and not juniors.

Alan Shore
28-04-2004, 01:29 AM
While your observations may be true, will we ever know if BD chooses to play Smerdon only in RAPID games because of the obvious expected increase in his chances of a win?

You really have succeeded in pissing me off starter, even after I asked you to watch it before. As I informed you before, I don't play rapid just to score more wins off higher rated opponents, I play it because I enjoy it more. On the swiss thread, I said it is great to have the opportunity to play higher rated players. It seems you are confusing terms. Suffice to say starter I have no problems playing opponents in longer time controls and obtaining good results (I drew with Andrew Allen in a standard) I simply much prefer the excitement of rapid and lightning.


As to Bruce and the comments about his liking of rapid chess. I don't think it is fair to insinuate his good performances at rapid are just because he plays fast. He beat Smerdon at Glenelg and I don't think he is a slow player who suffers from slow thinking.

Thankyou Scott. It was a good win but it seems starter is confused when it comes to 'playing fast' and 'playing fast and well'. It was not like I flagged Smerdon in a totally lost position either, as I'll show you here from what I remember:

1... gxf2 2. Kf1 Qe7 3. Rd8 Qxd8 4. Nxd8 Kxd8 5. Qxf2

White won in a few more moves. (I wish I could remember the whole game but I only remember the gist, the opening was an Icelandic, 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6).

Oepty
28-04-2004, 10:51 AM
I think I might add that the worst result Bruce had at Glenelg as far as rating goes was a draw against Robin Wedding who was rated just below 1800 I think. He scored 4.5/7 against filed with an average close to 2000.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 11:22 AM
For the diagram to work the fen string should show it as black to move not white and move 1 should be written as 1... gxf2

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 01:02 PM
You really have succeeded in pissing me off starter, even after I asked you to watch it before.


Sorry to do that BD. All I did was ask a question as a consequence of your post 8.58am on 26/4 >>

Going on a hiatus, don't know how long for, see you all.
And as a consequence of this post I wondered out loud about whether you would return to answer.



As I informed you before, I don't play rapid just to score more wins off higher rated opponents, I play it because I enjoy it more. On the swiss thread, I said it is great to have the opportunity to play higher rated players. It seems you are confusing terms. Suffice to say starter I have no problems playing opponents in longer time controls and obtaining good results (I drew with Andrew Allen in a standard) I simply much prefer the excitement of rapid and lightning.

Thankyou Scott. It was a good win but it seems starter is confused when it comes to 'playing fast' and 'playing fast and well'. It was not like I flagged Smerdon in a totally lost position either, as I'll show you here from what I remember:



I have no doubt that you play fast and well.
Not many do; most find their performance declines with the faster time-limits.
In passing, I note that it is a curious feature of our RAPID ratings that they don't track actual qualty of chess but rather relative quality of chess. So it is quite possible for an individual (not you) to have his LONG and RAPID ratings equal but his quality of chess much lower at RAPID games.

starter

Alan Shore
28-04-2004, 05:26 PM
For the diagram to work the fen string should show it as black to move not white and move 1 should be written as 1... gxf2

I'm a n00b at this.. I wrote the following:

1. Nxe6 gxf2 2. Kf1 Qe7 3. Rd8 Qxd8 4. Nxd8 Kxd8 5. Qxf2 (x added in to distinguish) what am I doing wrong?

(I tried doing what you said Bill, but no good, doh)

skip to my lou
28-04-2004, 05:31 PM
I'm a n00b at this.. I wrote the following:

1. Nxe6 gxf2 2. Kf1 Qe7 3. Rd8 Qxd8 4. Nxd8 Kxd8 5. Qxf2 (x added in to distinguish) what am I doing wrong?

(I tried doing what you said Bill, but no good, doh)

1... gxf2 2. Kf1 Qe7 3. Rd8 Qxd8 4. Nxd8 Kxd8 5. Qxf2

Bill said:

Change w to b

Start with 1... gxf2 since knight is already on e6

I fixed it in your original post already.

Alan Shore
28-04-2004, 05:44 PM
I think I might add that the worst result Bruce had at Glenelg as far as rating goes was a draw against Robin Wedding who was rated just below 1800 I think. He scored 4.5/7 against filed with an average close to 2000.
Scott

I am humbled Scott! Mr Gletsos pointed out in another thread I had performed at 2188.

Here's a report:

Rd 1: Win vs. David Smerdon (2400). After a miscalculation by Smurf I wound up a piece for a pawn, then I proceeded to win his queen and the game.

Rd 2: Win vs. Kevin Sheldrick (2100). After losing an exchange in a very complex position (Vienna opening he played) I was able to get some counterplay and win a piece back and the game.

Rd 3: Loss vs. Giang Nguyen (2100). She played a KIA and I got into too passive a position and lost on time in the end.

Rd 4: Draw vs. Robin Wedding (1800). Perhaps fortunate, Robin had the edge in this game yet it was drawn with opposite colour bishops when I was low on time (after Roly enforced 10.2).

Rd 5: Win vs. Amir Amini (1750). I offered a draw at one point in the endgame, my opponent declined due to my low time but I outplayed him to take the win.

Rd 6: Draw vs. Jonny Bolens (2000). A very sharp tactical game with Jonny winning a pawn in the middlegame but leaving his king very vulnerable, as I attacked. I forced a repetition when we both had low time, yet Tristan Stevens pointed out after the game I had a forced win.

Rd 7: Draw vs. Kerry Stead (2000). After losing a pawn early and swapping off it looked grim, going into a rook ending I was 2 pawns down yet miraculously I came back and actually got to a a pawn up (!) and a won position after rooks were swapped off, yet my time was too low to win the game, therefore drawn.

I finished up with 4.5/7, yet did not even get a rating prize! No justice! :)

Alan Shore
28-04-2004, 05:49 PM
Sorry to do that BD. All I did was ask a question as a consequence of your post 8.58am on 26/4

Sure. If you're sorry, no worries.


And as a consequence of this post I wondered out loud about whether you would return to answer.

I tried to stay away, doh, but I couldn't just ignore that post :doh:

I have so much uni work to do :wall:




I have no doubt that you play fast and well.
Not many do; most find their performance declines with the faster time-limits.
In passing, I note that it is a curious feature of our RAPID ratings that they don't track actual qualty of chess but rather relative quality of chess. So it is quite possible for an individual (not you) to have his LONG and RAPID ratings equal but his quality of chess much lower at RAPID games.

It's simply a matter of how fast your mind works, I seem to simply see things quicker. Coupled with a concentration level bordering on poor, it's little wonder such a discrepancy exits for me.

Alan Shore
28-04-2004, 05:50 PM
1... gxf2 2. Kf1 Qe7 3. Rd8 Qxd8 4. Nxd8 Kxd8 5. Qxf2

Bill said:

Change w to b

Start with 1... gxf2 since knight is already on e6

I fixed it in your original post already.

Thanks Jeo.. (my knight was originally on g5 is you were wondering how it got there..)

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 09:33 PM
I tried to stay away, doh, but I couldn't just ignore that post :doh:

I have so much uni work to do :wall:





Some posters on this board are expert at starting arguments.

Thunderspirit
16-03-2005, 07:15 PM
I finished up with 4.5/7, yet did not even get a rating prize! No justice! :)[/QUOTE]

Since when is there justice in chess??