BDK's Chess Survey

I didn't think I would bother with this, but everyone else seems to be doing it....

How long have you been playing chess? Have you played it consistently since you started, or were there lulls in your play? How did these lulls affect your performance?

I learned the rules of chess in third grade from a friend and throughout middle and high school I would occasionally play with a couple of my friends. The same persisted through college, though I would play no more than a few games per year. I've always been fascinated by the game, though.

Sometime in the spring of 2002, while working at my first job out of college, I got really interested in chess. At this point it more or less became a hobby. I learned about online chess, bought a few books, started reading chesscafe.com and began to actually try to improve.

I played online on and off (usually life would get too busy and I'd put it on hold) for a few years. After moving back to Boston from a sojourn to Texas for grad school I decided it was time to take the leap into full chess geekery and play in a tournament. Slightly less than two years ago, in late July of 2005, I played in my first tournament. I was awful, but I was also hooked. 2 years and 57 games later I feel like I'm finally starting to understand tournament chess, but I'm still addicted.

Aside from playing games, what is your primary mode of training?

I think training would be a strong word for what I do, but I think that I spend most of my non-game playing chess time working on tactics. I'm trying to work through some game collections, but to be honest I've never really found out how to best make use of them. If anyone has advice....

What is the single most helpful method of improvement that you have ever used?

I think that playing slow, serious games has done more for my chess than anything else. There really is no substitute for thinking hard about a single game for 3 to 4 hours. Slow games have done a lot for my recall of positions, my thought process, concentration, patience and nerves. I think there's no substitute for this sort of real world competition experience when it comes to improving.

What is your favorite opening to play as white? As black against e4? As black against d4?

I don't think I've ever opened a chess game as white with anything other than e4. My white openings all come from John Emms' "Attacking with 1 e4." That makes it the Bishop's Opening, the Closed Sicilian, the KIA vs the French, 2. c4 vs the Caro Kann and the 150 attack vs the Pirc and Modern. To be honest though I've only had games vs e5, c5 and e6 since picking this book up.

My black openings aren't nearly as well thought out. Against e4 I play the Qa5 Scandinavian. Against d4....well, I'm not sure. My plan is to play the QGA at some point, but I've never had a good chance to learn it, so I generally end up playing some kind of vanilla QGD with d5, e6, Be7, Nf6 and O-O in whatever order seems appropriate. I usually play a very early c5 in these games, often to my own detriment. Clearly I need to work on my response to d4, but I've seen it in 3/57 tournament games, so there's not much incentive yet.

Who is your favorite chess player and why?

I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I don't know any other players' games well enough to pick a favorite yet.

What is your favorite chess book?

Hmm, a tough question. I have many. Too many (there are definitely days when reading about chess seems much more appealing than actually playing) and I find books about chess just plain fascinating. If pressed I might have to pick "The Amateur's Mind" by Jeremy Silman. I'm not sure I love the style of that book, and a lot of the time he just makes fun of his students, but it has taught me that the basis of any plan I try to formulate will have to be based on differences between my position and structure and that of my opponent. I'm still useless at making plans, but I feel this book has taught me something...

What book would you recommend for a friend who knows only the rules of chess?

I recently had a friend in such a position, and I recommended that he look at Dan Heisman's "Everyone's Second Chess Book" and a book on tactics. He outgrew the Heisman book pretty quickly, but I think a lot of that material, while simplistic, is exactly the kind of stuff that someone who has never seriously studied the game won't have run across.

Do you play in in-person tournaments? What is your favorite tournament experience?

I try. Lately I play in month long swiss tournaments in which there is one 40/90 G/30 game per week. It's a lot easier for me to commit every Tuesday night to chess than it is to set aside an entire weekend for the game. Life just gets in the way. The house needs cleaning, the shopping has to be done, etc. Also, looking over some numbers that I've accumulated (and will post soon) I am a lot worse in weekend tournaments...

Please give us a link to what you consider your best two blog posts (on your own blog).

Meh. I'm not that good a writer, and this blog is really more for my own use than trying to acquire readers....it reminds me to work through my games, comment them and post them. There's only about 40 entries now, so if you want to go look for a favorite, you're welcome to :)

What proportion of total chess time should be spent studying openings for someone at your level?

Well, probably less than I do. I really enjoy openings, and I find it makes me feel very uncomfortable to be in an unfamiliar position before move 8 or so. I know that one of my main problems in unfamiliar opening positions is playing rote developing moves rather than being tactically aware, and I'm not sure that's a cause or an effect of the way I feel about openings in general. That's all I'll say about this for now...I have some ideas lined up for a post about my internal chess psychology and it will touch on this.

MCC Independence Day Swiss (Round 1)

A few months ago, a coworker of mine became aware of my interest in (obsession with) chess and asked me, half seriously and half jokingly "If I started to work on chess, how long until I start kicking your butt?"

An interesting question. I told him that if he put serious time into it that it wouldn't take all that long. A few months to a year, perhaps. I was able to sow the seeds of chess interest, and he soon went from a guy who just knew the rules to someone who was spending time doing tactics problems and starting to learn some of the strategic ideas. We also started playing casual games after work. In approximately 40 games he beat me three times.

When I returned to chess after my three month break I convinced him to come with me, so for the past 6 weeks he's been playing in the Tuesday night swiss games at the MetroWest Chess Club. He scored 1.5/4 in the first tournament, which isn't bad for your first serious chess. It took me 6 OTB games to score a single point...

On my advice he's been playing in the lower/mid section with me because the U1350, while technically the appropriate place for him, is so full of kids rated 500 that I feel you don't learn a whole lot. I knew there was a chance, if things worked out just right, that we might get paired up in the first round....and that is exactly what happened this month. He was ecstatic, I was not. First, he's given me a bit of trouble when I've been black lately, and second, I don't think I enjoy playing my friends in serious chess games. It's distracting to know your opponent, and it's hard to play mercilessly when you know and like the person across the board from you. He thought it was pretty awesome, and had once said that his goal was to beat me in a tournament game and that if he ever did he would retire from chess. Looks like he'll have to keep playing until our next matchup...

The game itself was ok. As usual I gave my opponent a chance to make my life really hard (a temporary piece sacrifice that lead to a two pawn advantage, but could instead have given him a chance to trap my queen). He missed the best continuation and after that I had a solid advantage. Still, I need to be more careful

Online replay version (with comments) here.

Dave Silverman (1074)    --    Steve Wollkind (1435)
MCC Independence Day Swiss  (1)   Natick, MA
2007.07.03     0-1     B01o

1.	e4	d5
2.	exd5	Qxd5

I had been playing the Nf6 version of the Scandinavian, but it hasn't worked out that well for me. I tended to get very sterile, equal positions where it was hard for me to find a good plan. The main line of the Qa5 variant seems much more dynamic to me. I was also happy to play differently here since my opponenent has seen my Nf6 Scandinavian 10 or 20 times in casual games.

3.	Nc3	Qa5
4.	d4	Nf6
5.	Nf3	c6
6.	Bc4	Bf5
7.	O-O (D)

Out of book for me, but clearly a logical continuation and one I feel I'm likely to see a lot. I think that unless a player is already familiar with the main line of the Qa5 Scandinavian, they're unlikely to castle on the queen side.

7.	...	e6
8.	Bf4	Nbd7
9.	Ne5	Nxe5
10.	Bxe5 (D)

10.

...

Be7

Qb4 looks interesting, but doesn't amount to much due to threats to trap the queen.

( 10...Qb4 11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 O-O-O 13.a3 Qe7 )

11.	a3	O-O
12.	b4 (D)

( 12.Re1 Qb6 = Brings us, via a different move order, to a sideline evaluated as equal by Emms' Scandinavian book. )

12.

...

Bxb4?!

In retrospect, a mistake. My thinking was that the undefended nature of both the bishop and knight would assure me the return of my piece after the temporary sacrifice of bishop for two pawns. The only queen move that would defend both pieces was impossible due to the other bishop on f5....

( 12...Qd8 )

13.

axb4

Qxb4 (D)

14.

Bd3?

A reasonable seeming move. Black will be up two pawns, but white can make sure that those two extra pawns are part of a tripled and isolated set. More on this idea later, but white here misses the best move: Qd2, which forces black to recapture on c4, and then white has some chances to trap the queen. I find traps difficult to see, and this one is a little tougher than most because the knight on f6 also must be traded before the trap can be sprung. I'm lucky white didn't see it, but I count this tactic a little hard to see.

( 14.Qd2 Qxc4 15.Bxf6 ( 15.Ra4 Ne4 ) 15...b5 )

14.	...	Qxc3
15.	Bxf5

Taking the knight first doesn't allow white to inflict tripled pawns.

( 15.Bxf6 Bxd3 16.cxd3 gxf6 )

15.	...	exf5
16.	Bxf6	gxf6 (D)

White has inflicted his tripled pawns, but I think it was a mistake. Surely, blacks two pawn advantage has been somewhat blunted, but the tripled pawns on the f file are controling a lot of space. Niether the e nor g files can be effectively used by white to invade. On top of this, the white c and d pawns are extremely weak. White will be hard pressed to effectively defend the d pawn.

17.

f4?

Failing to address the impending threat to the d pawn, and

17.	...	Rfd8
18.	Qf3

Again, I think white's chances dwindle as pieces come off the board here, so I'm happy to exchange.

18.	...	Qxf3
19.	Rxf3	Rxd4
20.	Ra5	Rd1+
21.	Rf1	Rxf1+
22.	Kxf1	Kf8

Kg7 may have been better, preventing a later Rxf6, but I wanted to be ready to head to the queenside with the king, and felt that if White took the time to go after those pawns I would be even better off.

23.

Rxf5

a5 (D)

The pawns are all conspiring against white getting his rook back to the defense.

24.

Rc5??

A blunder. It was going to be ugly in any case, but this made it much worse. White now has no possibile way to stop the a pawn.

( 24.Rxf6 a4 25.Rd6 a3 26.Rd1 a2 27.Ra1 Ke7 28.Ke2 Kd6 29.Kd2 Kd5 30.Kc3 (D)



This is perhaps better, but still lost for white. )

24.	...	a4
25.	Rc3	a3
26.	Rxa3	Rxa3
27.	g3	Ra2

0-1

Diagrams generated using Steve Eddins' Chess Imager http://www.eddins.net/steve/chess/chessimager

Goals

Earlier this week at the MetroWest Chess Club in Natick, MA I ran into Joshua Haunstrup of the Chess Praxis blog linked in my sidebar. He pointed out to me that I haven't posted in a while, and that is sadly true. So, here we go.

Today I want to talk about goals. My chess goals, specifically.

My first step into non-casual chess was taken over five years ago when I realized that people play chess online. I quickly got fed up with Yahoo! chess and I discovered FICS. I think my goal at that point was merely not to lose as much. I never gave any real thought to playing in OTB tournaments.

A few years later I met a coworker who was (and still is) far stronger than I was. He had a deep understanding and appreciation of the game, and was able to look watch other games and really understand what was going on. This became my first clear chess goal: to be able to appreciate the beauty of a well played chess game between two strong players. This still remains one of my primary chess goals.

It may seem like a modest one, but then again, chess is a strange hobby. Or maybe it's not, but it seems so to me. The road of chess improvement will extend forever for me: I'll never be the best. No matter how good a player I am there will be thousands of people better than I am, so it becomes a matter of personal satisfaction. At what point would I say to myself "I'm good enough." When will I consider myself a reasonable chess player?

I'm still not sure what the answer to that is. I've already crossed the line where I feel that I should (and for the most part do) beat anyone who doesn't consider himself a chess player. Great, but it's no real accomplishment to win just because I put time into it and they don't.

Ok, so I've officially crossed the line between someone who "plays chess" and "chess players." What next?

I played in my first USCF rated tournament just over 2 years ago. It was a G/30, 4 rounder on a Saturday at the Boylston Chess Club. I got completely destroyed by a 1700, 1800, 1200 and 1500 and came out of it all with a rating of 810 and wondering what I was doing wrong. I've come a long way since then (54 games and 650 rating points).

It's clear to me now that I was never truly an 800 or even 1000 player. Not really. I've played a wide range of players now and I'm starting to get a sense of what each class level really means. What I lacked in those first few tournaments wasn't chess knowledge (though my knowledge has grown in important ways in the last 2 years, to be sure) but experience. Playing in serious tournaments is just plain different.

After a few tournaments I took some time off, and then started playing in the various weekly tournaments in the area, both at the BCC and the MCC. Over the course of the fall and winter months I turned a corner with my tournament experience and my ability to play to my true level, and my rating has been climbing (mostly) since. I've hesitated setting any real goals since I'm sort of waiting for the inevitable plateau: at some point I will reach the point where I am using my current knowledge and experience to its fullest and no further rating improvement will be possible without doing real work. I'm still not there yet, and I have no idea when that will happen, but I suspect I'm close. From discussions with other players and my games I instinctively feel that I'm a mid to high class C player, but who can say? 58 games really isn't that many, and once I got some things figured out I haven't spent very many games at any class level:



Sub 1000 - 17 games
Class E - 18 games
Class D - 12 games
Class C - 11+ games

I've got two more rounds in the current MCC swiss tournament (I'll be taking a bye in the last round) and unless I think it's basically impossible to reach class B in this one, so there'll be at least 6 more games added to that class C number, at a minimum.

I'm rambling a bit, but I'm trying to get somewhere here. The question is: what should my goals be? When I talk to non chess players I normally reference this idea of wanting to be able to look over great games of the past and understand them. This is in part because it is true, and in part because ratings thresholds will have no meaning to non players. My personal goal at each class level has been to reach the next one, but those goals have been coming pretty quickly, as you can see. I guess I'm a little more goal oriented than some, but I feel the need to have a long term plan.

What should it be?

Some of you know me (and have even played against me [I'm 0-2 against the chess blogging community, that I'm aware of]) and some of you don't, but I'll ask anyway: where should I set my goal?

I'm sure that I'll never be a GM, and I'm sure I'll never be an IM. Even plain old vanilla master seems a long shot. Expert? I'd like to think I could make 2000 some day, but....is it possible? What are the limits of the chess skill of a player who got serious about the game at the age of 26 and has somewhere in the range of 10 hours per week to put into it?

For now I'll set my same old short term goal: I want to make class B. But to be honest, I'll be disappointed if I don't do it soon, and in my heart I silently append "by 2008." and wonder what my long term plan should really be?

So, this has been nice and long, and not too taxing to read either! I have two games from July that need a little analysis and posting, and I'm a bit of a stat nut, so I have some insights about my own performance to post and muse about. There's time to write 3 posts in the next week, right?!