If I recall correctly, this should be the 5th event I served as an arbiter since passing the examinations at the FIDE Arbiter's Seminar (25-27 Jan 2019). They are:
Even though these events were informal and I do not get any arbiter norms, I enjoyed the experience very much. Hopefully, I can become a more effective arbiter with time.
This event was marvellous! Great players (not only in terms of playing strength but also etiquette and sportsmanship), great venue at LeVeL33 and great organiser! I love the thoughtfulness put into this event: a video cam set up to capture games to be selected as game of the tournament, and there was even a professional photographer covering the event! Everything was great.
Thanks for making such a nice pic for me, PubXChess!
Frankly, PubXChess is 1 of the 3 current local chess initiatives I will do my upmost to support. Check out their facebook page for updates and meetup page to register for the weekly free-to-play blitz tournament. (The other 2 local initiatives I support wholeheartedly are the Singapore Chess Meetup and the QCD Adults Team Chess League. For the former, you would probably know about my existence if you are part of the meetup community, and for the latter, I helped to matchmake players to form 3 new teams this year!)
Nevertheless, despite the great experience, I think there's still much more room for me to improve my service as an arbiter. I will share what I thought I did well, as well as what I thought I could've done better in future services.
What I thought I did well
Pre-tournament briefing. Even though most of the players are active players familiar with the FIDE laws of chess, I still made an effort to go through the rules. What I covered includes the correct procedure to make a pawn promotion (and what happens if you cannot find the piece you wish to promote to), situation / penalty arising from the making of an illegal move, reminder that it is the arbiter's right to call any flag fall if I observe it (and explaining the rationale in doing so), encouraging players to press the clock even if the move they are making delivers checkmate (this is not required under the laws of chess, but I encourage the players to do so to avoid any potential claims that the checkmate may have occurred after the flag fall). Even though the organiser finds me a bit long-winded (LOL), I felt it an obligation to manage the players expectations at the onset.
Managing minor incidents. There were 2 minor incidents which I thought I handled well. First, one of the players kept switching on the alarm / countdown "buzz" of the chess clock by mistake. Because it was unintentional, I just reminded all players not to do it again, as the countdown buzz may distract other players or their opponent. In the other incident, one of the players was so passionate about the game, he made a shout out in the midst of his own game (e.g. if he made a serious blunder), or he made a cheer seeing his friend defeat a tough opponent. For both incidents, I did not single out any player to name and shame. Rather, I was just conveying my general feedback before the start of the next round of games, first explaining to all players that these offences were unintentional and then remind players not to do that again in case they cause unnecessary distraction to other players. I think the players who made these offences knew who they were and case closed. I don't think they warrant any concrete penalty.
What I thought I could've done better
Choice of tie-breaker. The choices I recommended to the organiser (who followed my recommendations) were, in order of priority, a) direct encounter (because it is the most straight-forward, and which I argue is the fairest) ; b) Sonneborn-Berger (sum of the defeated opponents' scores, because the organiser specifically requested tie-breakers that will result in clear-placing, as due to schedule and time constraints, we are unable to play Armageddon tie-breaks) and c) Koya system (The number of points achieved against all opponents who have achieved 50 % or more, again with the intention to come up with clear-winners).
While the top 3 placings (who get a prize) need not resort to any tie-breakers, it was evident afterwards that while Sonneborn-Berger was useful, Koya seems quite useless. As shown on the chess results page, while Sonneborn-Berger generated values with big variations / differences, many values were the same under the Koya system tiebreak. On hindsight, I should have proposed the Extended/Reduced Koya system instead -- that would have probably generated values with wider variance / differences. This is a learning point for me.
Anyone who is interested to have a general understanding of how various tie-breaker system works can refer to this site with a rather concise explanation.
A player did not want to claim an illegal move (he's allowing his opponent to take back without seeking to exploit the situation with a "discovered check"). There was 1 incident whereby 1 of the players pointed out his opponents illegal move, but rather than either claiming it for 1 minute to be added OR playing his own move to exploit the situation (he can make any legal move and the position becomes the situation of a "discovered check"), he actually requested his opponent to just change a move. Given that the player was a willing party, and in the spirit to not cause any undue disturbance, I allowed the game to continue with no time penalty imposed. (This was exactly what I did in a local team tournament 1-2 years ago as well, before I became an arbiter.) Luckily, this result would not have affected the final standings. However, what if it actually had an effect on the final standings? I would have been guilty, or possibly been accused of being guilty, to be unfair. On this, I still do not know exactly what I should have done. But during the half-time break in the tournament, I actually asked the player again regarding the incident, and he confirmed that he had no intention to make a claim and exploit the penalty. For now, I can only hope that such incidents would be kept at a minimum.
Final concluding thoughts
After serving as the arbiter for this pleasant event, I have to say that, I feel that to serve well as an arbiter, one should be, or had been, a tournament player. Because I feel that I can better empathise incidents of minor illegal actions. (For instance, adjusting the pieces during opponent's turn. Especially for blitz, sometimes the pieces are not placed in the most centralised position in the square, so after making the move and pressing the clock, the player proceeded to adjust the piece, arguably, to help his opponent confirm the intended piece placement.) Also, after the arbiter's seminar, I realised that my natural tendency was way too strict on imposing possible penalties on players, so I tried to counteract as much as possible. I do feel the quality of my service today was fine. Hopefully, I will continue to serve well in future chess events!
A game can be good despite losing. I enjoyed 2 of the games I played with a younger adult opponent, even though I lost both. I also took the liberty to attempt reviewing a long game played between 2 of my long-time chess friends, Weng Chew and William.
All the 3 games (self-attempted review on my own, followed by Chessbase 15's tactical analysis) can be replayed on the following external link:
Here, I really wanted to play 16...Be3, but I had concerns over 17.Bxe3 Nxe3 18.Qb3 Nxf1 19.Rxf1, despite Black winning an exchange, I did not enjoy the fact that both my b7 and f7 pawns are vulnerable to the White Queen. Instead, I played a much tamer 16...Nxf2 forcing 17.Kxf2. I knew something bad was going to happen -- Caissa will never forgive a chess player for giving up such an opportunity. Yet I tend to try and (over) simplify whenever I'm down on time. Need to grow some... courage.
Game 2: newbie_learner v.s. young adult
Position after 6...c5
Here, I really like my own find of 7.Bxb8 Qxb8 8.Bb5+ causing Black practical inconvenience -- the Black King had to stay in the middle of the board with so many pieces yet on the board. Unfortunately, I went astray too much and despite having a 1 pawn advantage, I blundered horribly in the endgame and lost. Maybe the final position was still playable, but I was too disgusted and demoralised with my own play and simply opted the easy way out ^o^
The best, most interesting one is saved for the last!
Game 3: Weng Chew v.s. William
Position after 28...gxh4
Here, the Asia Square folks who were observing this game were debating over what is the best continuation for White. I actually like my "safe and quiet" approach of 29.Qc3 (which turns out to be the engine's preferred choice too!) The point being, it is the easiest to deny Black Queen control over the c-file, and the resource of ...Qc1+. Of course, 29.Bxd7, which was played, is also winning, although interestingly, the engine recommends 29.Bxd7 Qc1+!? as best try for Black. Even in a losing position, the engine prefers to go all out and get some activity, rather than the passive recapture with 29...Qxd7. Interestingly, another 2 candidate moves that were discussed, 29.Qd6 and 29.Qe7 were dismissed, as Black Queen will have the resource of 29...Qc1+ followed by 30...Qxb2+. If White is careless, the b5 Bishop would even fall (so 29...Qc1+ 30.Kf2 is forced and then 30...Qxb2+ 31.Be2 should be a draw.
From my own games and the Weng Chew-William game, these are my current "conclusions":
Time management is a HUGE part of the game. Are there actually any chess books that teaches time management? Also, for players with ambition to improve, always play with a clock. It does not matter so much what time control is played -- you can play a long time control, but the very presence of a chess clock ensures fairness in terms of time resource and forces you to play well under time pressure.
We (Or at least I, lol) tend to play badly under time pressure. No more "pressing the clock with 1 second left" kind of luck I used to have last year. Which is fine, I'd rather seek real improvement than rely on luck in a dishonourable fashion!
There was 1 period of time when I severely doubted the very little bit of chess understanding I have. After yesterday, my conclusion is that it is not all-bad. I have my strengths and weaknesses. There are certain positions which I do not play well (e.g. not taking enough chances) but on the other hand, my judgement to deny Black of any counter-play with 29.Qc3 in the Weng Chew - William game is on-point. And this is important to me, because most of my other chess friends do not appreciate the value of denying counter-play completely. Not that they are wrong, but I am even more assured that there's nothing wrong with my "safety first when winning" approach. I just need to be even more effective with it!
Last but not least, I really think Weng Chew improved in his play. He shows great understanding in simplifying a won position. And his accuracy in this particular game is a high 43%. Engine scores evaluate (so it's "objective") White to be at least equal if not better, from the beginning to the end.
May losses be a source of motivation to improve our future play. Again, we can always turn to Juga's music for some comfort!
Yours sincerely
Ong Yujing (Eugene)
a.k.a. newbie_learner
Siglap South CC Chess Quartet
Interesting game experiences, again with both new and familiar opponents alike
Post-session supper
Discussion of the just concluded National Schools Individual Tournament (Rapid, for students) and the upcoming QCD Teams Chess League (Standard, for adults)
After 6...dxc4, I played 7.Qc2 based on it "feeling right". A safer way to play this is 7.a4to discourage Black playing ...b5 to hold the c4 pawn. After which, Qc2-Qxc4 can be done under a more favourable situation.
(II) Middle Game Transition in the exchange Slav
After 14.Na4, I chose to neutralise the light square Bishop with 14...Bg6. It is not so good for White to spend time inviting White to just exchange off the Bishop. Rather, Black can consider alternatives such as 14...Nd7 to fight White's Knight on a4, or initiating 14...Bxf3 (although Black would have played an earlier ...Bxf3 instead of ...Bh5).
(III) Opening: The Semi Slav
After 10.0-0, I went on "auto-pilot" with 10...0-0. In a blitz game and in general, surely castling asap must be good? Wrong! White's pawn centre is too dominating after 11.e4! Instead of 10...0-0, the engine suggests Black to play 10...Nbd7 and respond to 11.e4 with an immediate 11...c5 to work on White's centre pawns immediately. Black must play actively in the spirit of this opening!
(IV) Opening Phase in the Caro-Kann: Advance Variation
After 8.Nb3, if Black wants to insist on achieving the ...c6-c5 pawn break, he must prepare for it with something like 8...Qc7 instead of playing 8...c5?! which I did in the game. Alternatively, Black can also consider making full use of the options arising from the waiting move ...a6 and consider 8...Bh7/g6 to make way for ...Nf5 to continue with development while exerting additional pressure over the d4 pawn, or take a more aggressive approach with 8...g5 (threatening to achieve ...g4 to kick the Knight on f3 supporting the pawn on d4.
Trivia of the Night
No consensus on when / whether to resign, but mostly in agreement on the etiquette of draw offers. Most of my friends and I agree to disagree on when / whether to resign. While more of my friends subscribe to "Respect your opponent by resigning in a dead lost position", and even though I do that in my own games, I can accept the alternate point of view, "You do not win a game through resignation." More importantly, I do respect a players right and preference to play on in any position.
But where the offer of a draw is concerned, most of us agree that "If your position is better, why would you allow your opponent to escape with a draw? If your position is worse, why would your opponent allow you to escape with a draw? And if the position is equal, there is no harm in playing the position out!" So essentially, there is no point, and no need to offer a draw! (The exception I can think of is when a player only needs a draw in the final round of the tournament.)
Personally, even though there is nothing against the laws of chess when a player in a worse position initiates a draw offer (so long as he/she does not harass the opponent with ridiculous draw offers), with the exception of team tournaments, I do make it a point to only offer a draw when I am better off. Like one of this evening's game, I had a pawn on the h-file against a lone King. The opponent knows the endgame and hinds his King in the corner. There's nothing I can do to make progress, so I offer a draw. Speaking of which, I recall my encounter with a young local CM in my debut standard chess tournament. I was down a pawn in a Bishop of opposite colour endgame. Rather than pestering my opponent for a draw, I just allowed him to keep pressing and attacking until he gave up on his own and offered me a draw. To date, we still respect each other very much when we meet in tournaments.
Why do some players psyche themselves to lose when they play against their own friends / players they know in person, before the game even starts? Even though I'm a firm believer of "matchup" in chess (i.e. Based on what you know about your opponent, steer the game away from his/her comfort zone. As far as possible, bring the game towards your own turf instead. But having said that, at such beginner/club level like myself, the time is better spent on playing / studying instead of studying the opponent.), I feel that this is more of one's own problem to solve.
If I'm playing against a friend, I will tell myself that in the worst case scenario, any wins/losses of rating points would be in good hands ^o^ If I'm playing against a stronger opponent, I will treat it as an opportunity for a free lesson. (You need to pay to play training games against titled players, so why not get a free training game in the tournament you're playing in?) Above all, I like my attitude in treating all my opponents the same, in that I try to play my best every game. In this way, there's no regrets after the game, and no excuses whenever I lose!
Yours sincerely
Ong Yujing (Eugene)
a.k.a. newbie_learner
Siglap South CC Chess Quartet
P.S. Do note that due to renovations, the last session at Thomson CC Chess Club will be on next Friday, 29 Mar 2019. From April 2019 onwards, all sessions will be held at Classroom 4 in Bishan East CC (The same CC where the Singapore Chess Federation) is located.
Today, I played 3 rapid games (15 minutes initial time + 10 seconds increment per move) with a couple of kids. Hopefully, it will help them in their upcoming National Schools Individual tournament next week.
Again, I don't have the luxury of time to review the games played at Siglap South CC Chess Club today, so the one-click tactical analysis function of Chessbase 15 will have to do.
Just 1 to share the most interesting moment of the game (to me):
A Different Kiddo (White) v.s. newbie_learner (Black)
Game Position After 10.dxe5
Even though not objectively best, I accepted the challenge with 10...Nxe5 and after 11.Qd4! which my young opponent played, I found 11...Nfd7! and after 12.Bb5!? I burnt quite a bit of time on my clock but managed to find the only move 12...f6. (The exclamation marks were given by Tactical Analysis, not me).
It's unfortunate that I only "managed" to draw a won position again, but better draw than lose a winning position due to time pressure right? Was living on increments in the endgame, as always. (Bishop + 6 pawns v.s. Knight + 4 pawns).
First and foremost, my condolences to the victims, family and friends of the Christchurch shooting incident.
Today, I played 3 rapid games (20 minutes per side with no increment) with Ms Zhemin, a regular at Singapore Chess Meetup and Thomson CC Chess Club. Results-wise, it was indeed disastrous in that I lost 2 games. In fact, I might have lost all 3 games. I will explain the "controversial" result in game 1. Personally, I really enjoyed game #2 despite losing. And I guess my friends who follow a little bit of my games will understand why.
Before I show the game moves, I do want to share the following thoughts:
I was surprised to learn that chess is indeed a rather sexist game even at the social level. I have more than a couple of male chess friends who admitted to me in private that they cannot stand losing to female chess players in particular. But I am happy to say, I have no such gender-related ego problem at all. Which is why I can be candid about my losses today like a man ^o^
If anything, I am more curious to find out how my opponent managed to improve so much over a short span of time. Or did my play really deteriorate so much after my diversion into "arbiterhood" and organising chess events?
There is nothing "unfair" about a chess game. We start off with equal time, symmetrical positions. I used to lament after some losses that "it won't happen in a standard game". I've manned up and stopped being such a sore loser! In fact, it was unfair that I took White twice (and still got my ass kicked).
After sharing my 'misadventure' tonight, I have a couple of (adult) chess friends who are eager to challenge her already ^o^
Game 1: newbie_learner v.s. Ms ZM
1. d4 d5
2. Nf3 e6
3. g3 Back to 1 of my old love (does that count as a "fling", lol) the Catalan.
3...Nf6
4. Bg2 c5
5. O-O Diagram
I am not particularly scared of Black taking the pawn majority with ...cxd4. My argument is that I get to centralise my Knight to d4 (and unleash my Catalan Bishop. If Black plays ...e5, he has already cost himself with ...e6 first, so it is not a complete waste of time on White's part.
5...Be7
6. dxc5 Again, I justify the initiation of this capture as Black has spent one move on ...Be7.
6...Bxc5
7. a3 Diagram
Similar to Queen's Gambit Declined ideas (...dxc4 Bxc4, followed by ...a6 and ...b5 to
achieve ...Bb7), I am going to play b4, Bb2, Nbd2 and c4 to develop and strike
back against Black's centre pawn majority.
7...Nbd7
8. b4 Be7
9. Bb2 If I can develop and delay ...e5 while preparing to strike back against Black's centre
with c4, why not.
9...b6 A very logical thing to do. In anticipation of White striking back in the centre, Black places the light square Bishop on b7 for an equally awesome b7-h1 diagonal.
10. Nbd2 Bb7
11. c4 Rc8
12. cxd5 Diagram
I do want to reduce Black's centre pawn majority at all cost. On hindsight, perhaps I
should have also considered 12.Ne5!? to take this chance to exploit the
pressure on the diagonal. Fundamentally, my White King is already defending my
g2 Bishop, while Black's Bishop on b7 is still undefended. White should have a
small advantage when the 2 light square Bishops face off in the diagonal.
12...Bxd5
13. Rc1 The c-file is important enough for both sides to fight over it.
13...O-O
14. Qa4!? Diagram
An interesting way to exert a little bit of pressure while completing the opening development by connecting the backrank Rooks. I even saw the possible responses from Black but I really wanted to see how it goes.
14...a5
15. bxa5 Here, I am anticipating either ...Nc5 or ...Ra8. And I guessed right!
15...Nc5 Saw this coming, and I was asking myself who is actually better.
16. Qb5 Exploiting the possibility to go Qxb6. So the White Queen is not trapped at the very least. 16... bxa5
17. Bc3!? Diagram
Even though I felt uncertain about this move, I justified my move based through elimination. If I do not move out either the White Queen or the dark square Bishop out of the b-file, Black is going to cause some disruption with ...Rb8. Rather than waiting for that to happen, why not take this chance to get the undefended Bishop out of harms way. Also this counter-exerts some pressure against Black's a5 pawn.
17...Rb8
Engine: If Black found 17...a4! fixing White's weak pawn on a3 while threatening to advance the a-pawn, White would face an uncomfortable position. 18.Qxa5 Ra8
19. Qxd8 Rfxd8
20. Bb4 Diagram
The way I see it, White cannot be worse. The worst-case scenario that can happen is that Black recaptures White's pawn on a3 and that's still equal.
20...Nfd7
21. Rc2 I am trying to double Rooks. Because my time situation is quite bad, I just want to make sure I do not blunder while maintaining small pressure against Black.
20... Kf8
22. Rfc1 Nb3
23. Bxe7+ Kxe7
24. Nxb3 Bxb3
25. Rc7 Diagram
I feel that I achieved what I wanted: get into a position whereby I can exert a little bit of pressure against Black.
25...Bd5
26.Ne5 Bxg2
27. Kxg2 Ke8 Black played correctly here to avoid getting into trouble. =( Here, being severely down on time, I chose to simplify into a Rook endgame with 1 pawn up.
28. Nxd7 Rxd7
Engine: The best way for White to retain maximum advantage is to keep the Knight and play 28.Nc4. But it is understandable that White wanted to simplify under time pressure.
29. Rxd7 Kxd7
30. Rc3 Diagram
This was the final position I managed to record. I did not have the luxury of time to continue recording as I was in severe time trouble.
Eventually, we reached a position that while White cannot lose objectively, but White only
had 2 or 3 seconds left on the clock. So I played in a totally gamesmanship
way:
(This may not be the exact game position, but it illustrates the point.)
Objectively, White may have a winnable position. BUT in the game, White has only around 2 seconds left on the clock. And because there is no time increment per move, White is going to lose by time forfeit. So it should not be too difficult to guess what move I played out of pure gamesmanship...
x.Rh4! Objectively, it should be given a ?! for completely giving up winning chances. However, if you take the time situation into account, this was the only trick I have for White.
x...Ra4+
x+1. Kf3 Rxh4?! Objectively correct, but as I explained to Zhemin after the game, she could've just made any other Rook move -- basically, just keep the Black Rook alive on the Board and she would've won by time forfeit. But obviously, she wasn't playing on the technicalities here. Good for her!
x+2.gxh4White Flag falls, 1/2-1/2
To be honest, even though I am trained as an arbiter, I was not absolutely sure that I managed to play x+2.gxh4 before my timer hits zero. I mean, I was focused solely on making the moves as fast as possible, I genuinely did not bother to check the clock. It could well be possible that had there been a camera or observer looking, my flag may have fallen before I made the move of x+2.gxh4.
Perhaps Caissa did not like my antics here. In any case, I got my ass rightfully kicked in the 2 games to follow =)
Game 2: Ms ZM v.s. newbie_learner
Pre-game thoughts: Following Game 1 not winning despite having some promising advantage at certain point, I was eager to play for a win (even at increased risks of losing). Something a turtle like myself usually don't pursue. I mean, if I do not play for a win in a casual setting like this, I would never have the guts to do it in a tournament. I have more to win than to lose.
I did feel that I was playing too slowly. In a time control with no incremental situation, every second consumed is lost for good. Throughout my games 2 and 3, I was trying to play faster but in both games, I ended up in worse time situation. I don't know how my opponent just manage to play so much faster with decent accuracy. That was probably a side frustrating point throughout, when I made a conscious effort to not fall (too much) behind on the clock and constantly failed.
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 cxd4 Diagram
My justification is that rather than waiting for White to build the pawn triangle typical in the London System, why not initiate the reduction of White's central pawn majority before c3 is played? After c3 is played, White has additional option to react to ...cxd4. 5. Nxd4 This was new to me. Not wrong, just new. 5...Nc6 6. Bg3 Qb6 Engine: 6...Qb6 is not good because White can just play 7.Nc3 and Black probably won't have the time to be greedy with ...Qxb2. 7. Bb5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 Diagram
I was eager to retain the Bishop pair for a good fight! 9. b3 e6 10. O-O Be7 11. Bh4 I feel that White has spent too much time on the not so important things in the opening phase of the game. Give other pieces a chance to develop instead! 11...O-O Diagram
And Black is faster than White in completing opening development. By 2 moves.
12. Nd2 e5 When we are faster, we open up the position! Also, Bishops prefer open positions. 13. N4f3 Bd6
Engine: The correct way for Black to play is 13...e4 immediately. White has already lost the Bishop pair. So there's no need to allow White to inflict more damage with the remaining Bishop -- Black's Bishop should have stayed at e7 as far as possible to avoid damaging of pawn structure. 14. Bxf6 gxf6 Diagram
Both sides have things to be happy about. White has damaged Black's pawn
structure and weakened Black's Kingside. Black retains the Bishop pair and has
supremacy over centre pawns.
Engine: 14.Bxf6 is a good move. 14.Nc4! would be another good move forcing to take away Black's Bishop pair.
15. c4 White's undermining efforts of Black's centre pawn majority begins. 15...Qb7 My intention is to avoid any danger (e.g. 15...Qc7 runs the risk of allowing White to open the c-file with cxd4 followed by Rc1.) But on hindsight, maybe 15...Be7 was better in that it immediately defends the weak f6 pawn.
16. Nh4 With ideas like Qh5, f4, Nd2-f3, Nf5 etc. 16...Kh8 With options like ...Rg8 for counter-play.
Engine: 16...Be6 would have prepared to fight off White's Kingside attack.
17. Qh5 Be6 18. Nf5 Bb4 Diagram
Trying to buy myself a tempo. Which is really quite risky as White has ideas like Qh6orh4-Qxf6+
19. Rad1 Rg8 Now there is the resource of ...Rg6. During the game, I got carried away realising the threat of ...Bg4. Which led to a horrible blunder costing me the game. 20. f4 e4 Done to keep the f-file closed AND take away the f3 square from White's pieces
(f1 Rook and d2 Knight). 21. Nd4 Bg4 Diagram
I still believe 22...Bg4 is a good move, but because I did not calculate enough, I got worried by White's next move during the game.
22. Qh4 Only after this move was played over the board, I realised that 22...Bxd1 may not be such a great idea after 23.Qxf6+! Rg7 (only move) 24.Nf5 and what exactly am I
supposed to do after this move?I thought it looked really horrible, if not outright losing for Black. But then, I also did not want to lose my opportunity "winning". So I rejected a "normal" response like 22...Be7 which simply holds off the f6 square and threatens ...f5 to kick the White Queen off
(because 22...Be7 White can now move the d1 Rook without losing the Knight on
d2). But what I played was such a horrible blunder. 22...Qe7?? which was immediately punished critically. 23. Nxc6 Basic fork! Honestly, I was contemplating between resignation on the spot, or just play on a few more moves for "completion" sake. After the game, I suggested that 22...Rg6! seems
winning for Black. If 23.f4 Rg5!? And I like Black's prospects. Engine: Indeed, my post-game analysis is correct. 22...Rg6 or 22...Be7 are the best moves for Black. Winning too. 23..Qd6 24. Nxb4 Bxd1 25. Nxd5 Be2 25.Nxd4 first may work out nicely, but White is in such a dominating position, "everything" works. 26. Rf2 Bd3 The rest are really inconsequential moves. 27. Nxf6 Rg7 28. Nh5 Rg6 29. f5 Rh6 30. Qf4 Black eventually lost the game. 1-0
Some additional thoughts and learning points:
Even though objectively, game 2 contained more mistakes, both Zhemin and I liked this game most. I guess deep in most chess players hearts, we want to play more interesting chess, even if that is objectively inferior.
My handling of dynamic positions cannot be compared to the "safe, quiet" type of "turtle" positions I fare better with. But if I do not at least try them out in casual, non-consequential games, such weaknesses will linger on.
Game's 2 loss made me feel more obliged to try and win game 3, only to backfire (Similar pattern to game #1, got a pawn and some advantage, failed to convert and entered into what should be an objectively equal ending. Then I came under huge time pressure, over-pressed and lost). It goes to show that the mentality / expectations one carries (playing to win | playing to not lose | playing your usual self) can greatly affect one's play.
1. d4 e6 2. e4 I used to play the French Defence before I switch to the Caro Kann. Hence, this will make for an interesting and practical choice. 2... Nc6 Okay, I have never seen this, which means this must be objectively bad! But
even if it is bad, I need to work things out over the board. 3. d5 exd5 4.exd5 Nce7
I was expecting ...Ne5 instead.
5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bc4 a6 7. a4 d6 Engine: Instead of a normal move of 7.a4, the engine recommends an immediate 7.d6 to wreck Black's pawn structure for good. 8. Nc3Bd7 9. O-O g6 10. Bg5 Bg7 Engine: Again, not "ordinary" moves. 10.Ne4! There is no 10...Nxe4 because of 11.Qd4 winning back the Knight on e4 and disturbing Black's Kingside development. White can slow down Black's development, which contributes to the most value for White. 11. Qd2 O-O Diagram
White completed his opening development first. But what should he do next? Play Bh6 to trade Bishops? Play Rfe1 to control an open file?
12. Rfe1 Since Black has resources like ...Nf5, I don't think Bh6 is going to be that effective. I thought controlling the open e-file makes more sense. 12...Re8 13. h3 To take away the g4 square from 2 of Black's pieces. 13...b5 Diagram
An interesting counter which is quite thematic.
14. axb5axb5 15. Nxb5!? I do not think this is objectively "correct" But I think it is playable. I just don't want to give Black an easy ...Bxb5 and still get to capture on d5 as the White Bishop on b5 gains a tempo on the Black Rook on e8.
Engine: 15.Rxa8 Qxa8 16.Bxb5 would've given more advantage to White. The problem with getting the White Knight pulled to b5 for no good reason is that Black has a useful resource of ...Ne4 forking White's Queen on d2 and Bishop on g5.
15...Rxa1 16. Rxa1 White gets the open a-file while Black gets the open e-file.
16...Nf5 Diagram
Here, I was really unsure what to do. I know that ...h6 is coming, and also ideas like ... Qb8, ...Ne4 etc. Hence, I simply relocated my Knight back, having won a pawn.
17. Nc3 h6
18. Bxf6 Qxf6
19. Ra7 Just being irritating while showing that White has no concrete plans despite the 1 pawn advantage. I did check that Black Rook does not seem to have any useful square within
White's turf. 19...Qd8 20. Ra3 Diagram
In fear of ...Qb8, I have Rb3 as a resource. 20... Qb8 21. Rb3 Qa7 22. Kh2 I do not want to entertain ...Ng3 ideas. Kill this threat at the onset! 22...Qa5 Diagram
Here, I decided to "go for it". 23. Nb5!? Qxd2 24. Nxd2 Bxb5
25. Bxb5 Rb8
26. c3 Diagram -- this was the last position recorded.
While having the pawns on the same colour as the opponent means that the pawns can become targets, (mini) pawn chains can also take the scope away from opponent's Bishop. This is my choice to combat the fianchetto Bishop on g7. And believe it or not, White eventually managed to lose out of
his all-in "play to win" mentality in the endgame. I don't think this is necessarily a bad mentality. It just means I am currently not tough enough to play this way. So I will toughen myself up to play like this!
Recently, I've come to the realisation that I've played too much blitz chess for my own good. Hence, I'm doing my best to gravitate back towards slower (rapid and hopefully standard) chess.
As always, below are my self-attempt to review my own game, as well as another game I happened to watch between 2 other chess friends and regulars at the Singapore Chess Meetup.
I am trying to improve on the game myself, so please do not take my comments as "advice". Rather I am trying to review my thinking process and seeking to improve along the way. Should you have any comments or feedback, please feel free to leave them. Thanks ahead!
The first game is the one and only I've played against a Teenager I've not met for a LONG time. Time control is 15 minutes initial thinking time with 10 seconds increment per move starting from the first. Teenager (White) v.s. newbie_learner (Black) 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. g3... Diagram
A move I've never seen. During the game, my young opponent was lamenting how this is a mistake. I don't know if this is indeed a mistake, but I do acknowledge that there was no need for White to play g3 in order to develop his light square Bishop.
5...h6
A weird move "demands" a weird response? =) I did it as a possibility to preserve my Bishop pair, in anticipation of Nh4. 6. c4 Ne7 7. Nc3 Nd7 Diagram
I often deploy my Knights this way playing on the Black side of the Caro Kann. The break is usually ...c5 but because White has already played 6.c4 and his Kingside development is faster, I prefer to delay the opening up of the position. "When you are ahead in development, you open up the position. When you are behind in development, you keep the position closed." This general principle is something I tried to apply in this case.
8. Nh4 Bh7 9. f4 Nf5 This was done as an attempt to open up the scope of my dark square Bishop. "When we are short of space, initiate exchanges so that our fewer pieces remaining have more breathing space!" Another general guideline I tried applying here. 10. Nxf5 Bxf5 11. cxd5 cxd5 My rationale of playing 11...cxd5 instead of 11...exd5 is that I do not even want to entertain the possibility of e5-e6.
12. Qb3 Qb6 Diagram
Admittedly, I played 12...Qb6 too casually, and deserved to be punished. I think on hindsight, I would have preferred 12...Rb8. White's series of moves exposes the potential problems of playing Bishop outside the pawn chain -- I have no more light square Bishop to help serve as a defender for my Knight on d7 in the e8-a4 diagonal.
Engine: Although 12...Rb8 is not the strongest, it does suit my playing style best. The engine opine it is okay for Black to continue with normal development (...Be7, ...0-0) and offer Qxb7. I have to admit I am not strong enough to understand such gambiting style (even though I know the opening principle of development over greed).
13. Bb5! Qc7 The problem is, that Black has no obvious way to complete his opening development. Where am I supposed to place my Black Queen? But I think 13...Qc7 made the situation even worse. Somehow, this happens sometime. When a position or situation is already bad, I make it worse =( Here, I think of good ideas for White, including but not limited to just Bd2/Be3, Rc1, playing natural developing moves while harass the Black Queen on c7.
Engine: Indeed, 13...Qc7 made a challenging position worse. The best to the engine is 13...Kd8!? which, despite giving up castling rights, does address the problem: White no longer has the Bxd7 resource with check.
14. Bxd7+ Qxd7 This I find too kind from White. The exchange on d7 solves Black of all the existing problems. Now the Black Queen has found a stable home on d7, there is a clear path to complete opening development (...Be7, 0-0). It simply cannot compare with keeping the tension. Engine: 14.Bd2/Be3 followed by 15.Rc1 is indeed better for White. 15. Bd2 Be7 16. Rc1 O-ODiagram I regard Black as almost equalised already. Time to start fishing for more.
17. O-O Rfc8 Now this must be completely equal for Black at least. Not to forget, Black has the Bishop pair and prior control to the only open c-file. And I do not see a single (pawn) weakness at all.
18. Rf3 Rc6 I want to double Rooks, and I find it easiest to place it on a square already supported by my own pawn. On a good day, I may even triple my major pieces if necessary.
Engine: 18...Rc4, achieving similar doubling of major pieces while threatening the d4 pawn, is even stronger.
19. Qd1 An unfortunate self-disrupt that one must be alert enough to capitalise! Bg4 Diagram
Black wins an exchange, and that's that in a quite position with no much going on.
20. Kg2 Rac8 The material advantage is not running away, so let's take this chance to further improve Black's position. I am placing the worst placed piece I identified (the Rook on a8) onto the only open c-file, as planned.
21.Qe1 Bxf3+ Last chance to go up the exchange, let's do it!
22. Kxf3 a6 Diagram
My intention is to expand on the Queenside with ...b5. Engine: 22...a6 can be avoided as a preparatory move and 22...b5 immediately can be considered. 23. Qf2 b5 24. b3 Here my young opponent was intending to play b4, but realised the presence of the dark square Bishop on e7 and changed his mind with b3 instead. Of course, this is fully permissible, since White has yet to release the piece. Ba3 25. Rd1 As 25.Rc2 would have gotten into even more trouble after 25...b4 (c3 Knight is pinned, cannot be moved because the Rook on c2 is hanging).Rxc3+ 26. Bxc3 Rxc3+ 27.Kg2 Qc6 Diagram
Black is simply a Bishop up. Here my thinking is to avoid any possible approach for White to try and save the game.
28. h4 Rc2 29. Rd2 Rxd2 30. Qxd2 b4 Diagram
My thinking is to prevent the White Queen from "escaping" into Black's territory, as Black slowly but surely will out-maneuverer White. The remaining moves as follows.
Some other learning points / personal interpretation:
A key factor of this variation of the Caro-Kann Defence seems to be whether to initiate ...c5 pawn break, and when to do it.
While bringing the Bishop out before chaining the pawns in may be seen as an "ideal" way of opening development in that we have no "bad Bishop", it is not without any drawbacks. The lack of the Bishop to serve as a defender within your turf can be bothersome.
When a position is bad, don't (try to) make it worse! 13...Qc7 was real bad. 13...Kd8!? is the kind of move I hope to find one day -- may I be relieved from the shackles of general principles soon!
The next game I'm reviewing is a long game played between 2 of my chess friends, William (White) and Weng Chew (Black). I was slightly surprised it was played without the use of a clock, as that would have maximised learning value through mimicking the same playing conditions in a tournament, as well as requiring the players to time-manage. Time management, playing under time pressure is really a practical and important aspect in tournament play.
William (White) v.s. Weng Chew (Black)
1. d4 d5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. e3 e6
4. Bd3 Be7 Diagram
First minor difference straying away from a possible mirror position. Is this very important? I don't think it's much, but looking at things superficially, the Bishop on d3 does look more
active than the Bishop on e7. On the other hand, perhaps the Bishop on d3 may be a little but more vulnerable to some sort of Knight / pawns harassment as compared to e7.
LiveBook: Surprisingly, statistically 4...Be7 fares much better than 4...Bd6. But I have not figured out any concrete reason why.
5. O-O O-O
6. b3 Okay, so William is playing the Colle-Zukertort, something he found comfortable with these days. When will I finally find an opening I'm truly comfortable with? My exploration continues... =)
6...h6 Okay, this move seems a little bit unprovoked. Why not do other things
first? Black's opening development has yet to complete -- he can develop the
Queenside pieces, play ...c5 to challenge the centre etc. ...h6 here feels a
bit too defensive.
7. Bb2 b6 Makes sense. The light square Bishop has no prospects with the c8-h3 diagonal, so it is heading for the b7-g2 diagonal instead.
8. Nbd2 Bb7
9. Ne5 Diagram
I'm not that familiar with this opening. But after seeing the course of the game and hearing some tips from other stronger and more experienced players, I thought that it might've been better had Black
played ...Nbd7 first -- this gives Black the option to play an immediate ...Nxe5 before White gets to play f4. And then we get ...Nfd7,, ...c5 etc. Also, had the dark square Bishop been placed on ...d6 instead of ...e7 right at the start, ...Bxe5 would be an additional option.
9...Nbd7
10. f4 This also resembles the Dutch: Stonewall attack. Something that is an extremely
effective sideline played against me =)
10...c5
11. Ndf3 White has formed this "iron grip" in the middle that is not so easy to challenge. cxd4
12. exd4 Diagram
Black has achieved centre pawn majority. But in reality, I find it so difficult for Black to expand on the Queenside! (While White makes progress in the middle and the Kingside).
12...Qc7
13. Nxd7 Nxd7
14. Ne5 Bd6 Diagram
I'm not sure about the purpose of this move: Does it somehow discourage f4-f5?
15. Qh5 Nf6
16. Qh4 Be7
17. Rf3 Ne4
18. Qg4 f5
19. Qh5 Nf6
20. Qh4 Diagram
Are you as lost over the pieces jumping around as I am? I simply need to insert the diagram here to prevent myself from getting lost! Jokes aside, here, I wonder if there's any issues if White tries something like 20.Qg6 threatening Rg3 and take aim at the g7 pawn.
Engine: 20.Qg6 is indeed very strong for White. Nice find, newbie! But White needs to know what to do as follow-up. E.g. 20...Bd6 (the Queen on c7 protects g7) 21.g4! The point is to open up the d3-h7 diagonal to allow Qh7+ ideas.
20...Ng4
21. Qe1 Nxe5
22. fxe5 Diagram
A good decision to keep the Queens on the board! This increases the difficulty for the defending side (Black).
22...Qc8
23. Rh3 Ba6
24. Qg3 Kh7 Diagram
Seems necessary to hold the Kingside pawns. But the f5 pawn is temporarily pinned.
25. Qe3 Bxd3
26. Qxd3 This series of moves, I feel that White did not play the best. Since White is intending to play Qxd3 (and obviously not cxd3) anyway, why not just play Rf1 first (and
save a move on 25.Qe3)?
26...Qc7
27. Rf1 Rac8
28. c3! Diagram
Simple yet effective. Black will not get the c-file where his pieces have doubled his major pieces.
28...Rf7
29. g4! Very nice move but it does take a bit of guts to play as White opens up his own King cover. The f5 pawn is pinned. 3 attackers v.s. 2 defenders.
29...Rcf8 Okay, Black realises this and decides to increase his defender count.
30. Bc1! I love this move seeing it played live. White knows what he's doing. Yes, it may appear as a "simple, logical" move to most. Even if Black plays correctly, White must be the one calling the shots here.
30....Qd8 Diagram
I guess Black's thinking is to discourage g4-g5.
31. Rhf3 This is where a couple of us were speculating that 31.Rh5 should be better. Not only does the Rook on h5 pressurise the pawn on f5, it also clears the way for possible follow-up like Qd3-h3, and even something like g4-g5 becomes a possibility (out of "nothing"). Still, I do not think Rhf3 is a bad move. Not at all. Especially seeing how the game turns out, that's great!
Engine: After 30...Qd8 (30...Kg8 was easier to play), 31.RRh5 was indeed deemed as a stronger move. But the continuations are not so straight-forward. Anyway, I'm glad my "sense" is at least good enough to detect something more.
31...Bg5 Other spectators do not understand this move, but I do =) I guess I am still "newbie" enough to understand this move. This move was meant as a trick. A possible way White can go wrong include ...Bxc1 Rxc1?? Qg5+ and win the c1 Rook. However, it is often a bad idea to play a move purely based on "trickery", as you cannot tell whether the opponent will fall for it. (Especially in an untimed game like this.) Another spectator suggested Black to just offer adequate defender count with ...Qd7, which seems to at least defend the f5 pawn adequately. Had the White Rook been played to h5, Black needs to guard against a potential g4-g5 as well. Perhaps not immediate, but the threat is
there.
Engine: Indeed, this move loses on the spot. A blunder from an equal position.
32. gxf5! Diagram
White calls Black's bluff. There is no ...Bxc1 because the discovered fxe6 discovered check wins. Objectively, the game is probably decided here. My personal attempt would've been something like 32...Kg8 or ... Kh8 but I highly doubt there would be any adequate defence.
32...Rxf5
33. Rxf5 exf5
34. Rxf5 Rxf5
35. Qxf5+ g6
36. Bxg5 Diagram
I like this move too. My only complaint towards White (complaining for complaining's sake) is that White seems to take so long in an easily winning position ^o^ However, it's better to be safe than sorry. All the prior efforts would've gone to waste had White somehow blunder horribly in the final stage. Here, 36.Bxg5 is good in my opinion as it forces even more exchanges, which simplifies the position and reduces the risks of
complications for mistakes to occur.
36...Qxg5+
37. Qxg5 hxg5 Frankly, Black can consider resigning. But resignation is a very personal choice. I do know of many new / young players sticking to the motto that "You do not win a game by
resigning." Also, from a learning point of view, it is often good to play out a position, even if completely winning or lost, if you have even that 1% doubt. I mean, the worst case scenario is that you lose the game, which is already the most probably outcome in a lost position. There's no "cost" to playing on and losing (other than wasting opponent's time which would be the opinion of some players / spectators). All in all, I personally view that whether or when to resign is completely the player's own decision (and I think everyone else, be it the opponent, or spectators, ought to respect it).
38. Kg2 Kg7
39. Kg3Kh6 Here, I would have made "passing moves" to make Black run out of moves
and lose, but White played a move that is more effective in inducing a
resignation on the spot.
40. c4! With 2 connected pass pawns, it is really all over.
1-0
Some other learning points / personal interpretation:
Do not play a move only for the purpose of hoping the opponent falls for a trick.
Anyone who is interested to have a general understanding of how various tie-breaker system works can refer to this site with a rather concise explanation.
