Thursday, 15 October 2009


This is an online game i played at
I am white in this game and swopped a rook for 2 bishops.
This is me not playing safe moves all the time,also not playing very well,but not playing safe.

(show chess board)(hide chess board)

Once 24.Ne7+ was played it was goodbye rooks for black.


Rolling Pawns said...

Not playing safe is good, you will hopefully change your style, then you always can slow down a bit and do better calculation. But in order to win you have to be aggressive. By the way I didn't see any bad moves from your side.

LinuxGuy said...

ChessX, you did great. It looked like it was over by move 9, not much more I can think of adding other than maybe you should play tougher opponents.

CHESSX said...

When we started this little tournament,the difference in elo rating was 75 points between highest and lowest.

After a few games the difference is nearly 200 points.

Games played outside of the tournament count to alter the elo.

I think in this game i played to my 1474 rating,and my opponent did not play to his.

LinuxGuy said...

1474? Try at least 200 points higher, at least. From your games, your moves and play seem very accurate.

CHESSX said...

I have always said that Linuxguy speaks the truth!!!!
Thanks for the extra elo points you are now an offical chessx friend!!!

My problem has and will be playing at that level consistently.
Whatever level i am i can play a few games at that level then some games that are just crap.
But no reason for it.

If i study i dont get any better,so i dont study chess properly.

Thats why i play over game collections mostly,rather than study openings or endgames.

LinuxGuy said...

ChessX, you could make it to USCF Expert equivalent if you wanted to, and the tournaments were available to you. I don't see that as big of a deal as you might think it is for yourself to get to, you could do it and it wouldn't take anywhere close to 'forever'.

I play a lot of crap games online, but I think I improve if I use Crafty to find ideas, afterward, from a tough position or for reassurance in a way for the moves played.

Consistency mostly seems to be about habits. Other than that, the big thing is to defeat high-rated players so that you can get there quicker and not take forever to reach that rating.

If I played 100 games against 1600 players, I would probably drop a hundred points as they would have fresh ideas, and I may start 'playing down' after a while. Consistency in results is highly overrated, but consistency in habits at the board, boardside-manners is critical, like Katar mentions regarding focus and such.

I feel like bearing down all that focus on weaker players (usually being kids) is a waste of time (as in having to play them). But it is what it is and they are easier to take rating points from anyhow.

Of course, I would love to be consistent as in getting prize money at a big tournament, and having a stellar result there.

LinuxGuy said...

When I was 1300's, I studied chess books/games all the time, and played against computer opponents, instead of going to the club and playing. For years I did that.

Would have been more useful to have gone to the club and meet famous GM's even. That's what my stubbornness got me. I was 1300's for a LONG time. Read tons of books, so I know EXACTLY what you mean.

When I made my sudden jump from 1300's to 1500's it was when I started playing in lots of tournaments again, and there was a club down the street for a while, and I went there each week to play at least one tournament game and blitz some.

CHESSX said...

Thank you for your kind comments,what rating is a USCF expert.
I have been toying with the idead of going to a chess club for a while now,i think your comments have made up my mind.

Thier is a club about 6 miles or so away from me,i may give them a go.

LinuxGuy said...

ChessX, I finished that last thought on my own blog, since I get rather long-winded.

Expert is 2000 rating, it's just above class A.

Stick with your careful style at first, and look out for their tactical cheapos, some of which are on the elaborate side. See if you can't catch some strong players napping at the board or going for too much.

You can learn a lot about another player, their idiosyncracies and style, by playing them. I don't get quite that same sort of sense when I am playing people online, as it's more impersonal and quicker.

Rolling Pawns said...

linuxguy - in the past you "studied chess books/games all the time", I did the same. I don't think it was for nothing. Me and you use that knowledge now. Yes, practical play is very important, but you should know what you are doing on the board.

chessex - it's a shame you have chess club 6 miles away and you don't go there. My club for more than 1.5 year was 20 miles away.
Online play is nothing compared with OTB, 10 times less useful and interesting.

chesstiger said...

You played well, punishing the mistakes of your opponent. It's like LinuxGuy says in one of his comments, your playing strenght in this game was much higher then that 1474 rating you mentioned.

Offcourse one game doesn't say anything but if you can keep this level of play up nice things will happen in chess world for you.

Linuxguy said...

"I did the same. I don't think it was for nothing. Me and you use that knowledge now."

A lot of games in books ended "and the rest is a matter of technique". So I tried to work out why those positions were winning, and I became a capable technical player, and calculator, even though tactically I was not holding it all together against stronger players.

Once I spent half an hour on a move, then got into a time-scramble and did not realize I could have won by moving my king (he had put his queen in front of his king to give check, and my rook was behind my king, then the king steps aside, pinning his queen). So, I had this position one, simply did not have the tactical werewithal, comofortability to find something like that quickly.

The knowledge from studying games helps when it comes to find positionally sensible looking moves. Some A and B players don't really seem to have this same knack; their moves look like they thought of them (not inspired by some GM's game).

linuxguy said...

When I look at your games RP and ChessX, I don't see those freaky, odd-looking solutions/moves. All three of us have studied GM games quite a bit.

I don't see how RP could handle that Bb5 Sicilian so well if he hadn't studied some GM games, in general. Someone who isn't some kind of genius, or who hasn't studied games much, is probably going to have a hard time navigating that opening, unless they have played it a lot, and even then probably at slow time-controls.

Then there is Chesstiger who is simply strong. ;-)