Friday, July 29, 2005
Step 4 Complete
Found a TCT error: Step 4, 17e, #8 move 3. both Rf8# and Qf8# are mate , but it marks Qf8# as incorrect.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
Friday, July 22, 2005
Busy Again
I am making sure I am getting in 30+ minutes of problems in, and I can happily report improvement on Step 4.
In a sleep avoidance "tactic" I logged onto the ICC saw some of harmless's game last night - congratulations on the 2000+ rating!
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | *91% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
Monday, July 18, 2005
Finished Step 3
I have been having some problems with TCT forgetting the results if I take long breaks during a session. I suspect my Windows 98 isn't stable. I redid problems that TCT forgot about, and my results probably are inflated about 1/2 of a percent because of that. I guessed alot on this last step. Still, I cannot argue with good results. I am really looking forward to the end of TCT.
I did find a incorrect answer in TCT.: Step 3 10d #5- there are actually 4 valid answers for the second move, but it only accepts Rg6+ and rates the others as incorrect.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Chug chug chug
I have been thinking about Tempo's comment about defense. I will say that Looking for Trouble has been helpful in that area. It's somewhat difficult reading, and demands readers to thoroughly calculate things out. Simply put, it exercises the brain in what if my opponent gets an extra move type of threat assessment. One thing the book seems to be missing is that many threats exist only after a bad move. That seems to be a ailment that many intermediate players suffer from.
I got in a standard game which I won against a strong beginner. I was much better about writing down the moves before making them, although that possibly was made easier by having a 1 pawn lead for most of the game. I was simply focused on checks, captures, threats, and hanging pieces and that was enough. I had one opportunity to end the game more quickly but calculation failed me then. More to work on I suppose...
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% |
| Step 3 | 93% | *98% |
| Step 4 | 80% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Question for Tempo and Mousetrapper (and Anyone Else Who's Game)
- Can a scan force you to see moves that do not just pop out on their own?
- Does scanning work effectively on defense?
- Where do you draw the line between scanning and calculation for decision making?
I was wondering if you guys could use your scan methods to take a look at a couple of positions, treating the situation like you are Black in a standard game and are using around 5 minutes per move. I was looking over a game I won and realized how tough some of these positions were was had I been playing the other side. I have my "scan" and move choice after the pics.
-=-=-=-=-
Black to Move
Hanging List:
White: Rh1, Nd5
Black: Qa5, Rh8, Nb8
Checks, Captures, and Threats:
White Captures: obviously Bxa5 wins the Queen, although if it were white to move Nxf6+ first gets the Knight off-prise with tempo, destroys Black's only well developed piece, and essentially converts to a more overwhelming material advantage. White has pressure on the b5 pawn but Bxb5 appears unsound.
White Threats: I don't see much of any additional threats except possibly Ne5, threatening the Bishop on d7 and weakening b5.
Black Checks: Qd2+?? is met by either Nxd2 or Qxd2, although it does allow Nxd5 or exd5
Black Captures: Nxd5?? or exd5?? both lose the Queen.
Black Threats: I see very little in the way of threats beyond Qa8 or Qa2, ganging up on the Knight. Arguably b4 parries a threat and pushes a passed pawn, but the Knight on d5 also controls that square, making for ...b4 Bxb4.
I would see candidate moves as Qd8, Qa4, and Qa2. Qa4 looks a failed attempt to hold on to the pawn and possibly invites Nc3 and Nb6. Qa2 seems rather loose but is the most attractive to me, desperately holding on to the b pawn promotion threat by guarding the b1 square. Qa2 puts pressure on the Bishop on d2, too. Qd8 seems like undeveloping, but looks like better defense as it protects both Knights.
After ...Qd8 Nxf6+
Hanging List:
White: Rh1, Nf6
Black: Rh8
Checks, Captures, and Threats:
White Checks: Nxf6+ was the last move, and I don't see any follow up checks or mate threats.
White Captures: White has pressure on the b5 pawn, but Bxb5 still appears unsound.
White Threats: I have already looked at this game so it's difficult for me to not know what I played next. As Black I would guess that 70% of the time I wouldn't see any additional threats, and 30% of the time I would notice that Qb1 and Qb3 outnumber b5.
Black Checks: None.
Black Captures: Qxf6, gxf6
Black Threats: Qxf6 doesn't seem to threaten much, but it does hang the Knight on b8. gxf6 gives Black's rook an open file at the cost of doubling pawns and weakening f6.
I would lean towards gxf6. The game continued
...Qxf6 Bxb5! Bxb5 Qb1 and White is skewering 2 Black minor pieces.
Fritz had some different opinions about the whole thing:
1. +- (2.99): 14...Qa7 15.Nb6 Be7 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Qb3 0-0 18.Bxb5 Qc7 19.0-0 Nc6 20.Ra1
2. +- (3.09): 14...Qd8 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Qb3
3. +- (3.15): 14...b4 15.Bxb4 Qd8 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.e4 Bc6 18.Bd3 Bg7 19.0-0 0-0 20.Bc3
4. +- (3.39): 14...Qa4 15.Nb6 Qa6 16.Nxd7 Nbxd7 17.Qb1 Be7 18.Bxb5 Qc8 19.0-0 0-0
...Qa7 15.Nb6 was surprising, and my Qa2 was rated at +- (4.30).
1. +- (3.06): 15...gxf6 16.Qb3 Bg7 17.Bxb5 0-0 18.e4 Bc6 19.Bxc6 Nxc6 20.d5 f5 21.dxc6 fxe4 22.Ng1
2. +- (3.81): 15...Qxf6 16.Ne5 Bxc5 17.Nxd7 Nxd7 18.dxc5 0-0 19.c6 Nb8 20.Bxb5
Interestingly after Qf6 the sacrifice Bxb5 gives up .21 pawns worth of advantage.
2. +- (3.54): 16.Qc2 Qd8 17.Ne5 Qc7 18.Be2 Bd6 19.Nxd7 Nxd7 20.Bxb5 Be7 21.Qa4
3. +- (3.36): 16.Bd3 Qd8 17.Ne5 Be7 18.0-0 0-0 19.Qf3 Be8 20.Ra1 f6
4. +- (3.34): 16.Bxb5 Bxb5 17.Qb3 Bc6 18.Qxb8+ Qd8 19.Qxd8+ Kxd8 20.Ne5 Be8 21.e4 f6 22.Ba5+
That doesn't take into account that the sacrifice's shock value has got to be at least .3 pawns.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% |
| Step 3 | 93% | *97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
Friday, July 08, 2005
Discipline vs. Oblivion
There are plenty of things that my "each move" discipline is shaky on, and I have been lucky that it hasn't cost me more. I have been good about scanning for hanging pieces each move, and that's about it. I think my subconscious attitude towards defensive positional elements has been one of everything better just pop-out or I am going to relegate it to oblivion! I need a better approach.
Although I was waiting until finishing TCT, Tempo and Mousetrapper's posts now have me considering beefing up my own "each move" discipline sooner rather than later. My theoretical bent towards chess makes me inclined to first make a large list of material and positional weaknesses, essentially everything you might want to achieve or prevent. Over time I hope to incrementally incorporate several of these things into my "each move" discipline. The rest of these deserve enough training such that they do begin to pop-out, as relegating them to oblivion has not paid off.
- Mate and Check threats
- Draw threats (stalemate, perpetual check and chase, fortresses, drawn endings, 50 move rule, 3-fold repetition)
- Material exchange and gain threats (both straightforward and tactical)
- Promotion and underpromotion threats
- Outnumbered pieces (both en prise and partially defended)
- Evenly attacked pieces (both hanging and equally defended, tacking threats)
- Rook threats on open/half open files, 8th and 7th rank weaknesses
- Pinned and threatened defenders
- Overloaded defenders
- Castling prevention threats
- Development hampering threats and undevelopment threats
- Weak squares and weak line occupation threats
- Immobilization threats (both piece and pawn blocks)
- Piece trap threats
- Endgame conversion threats
- Pawn cover around King threats (both pawn exchanges and sacrifices)
- King and Queen only defended squares and pieces
- Activity threats (both "big attacks" and defensively tying down)
- Space gain/loss threats
- Tempo gain/loss threats
- Pawn structure weakening threats
- Prophylaxis and shutting down/plan killing threats
Mousetrapper has done a nice post of his working list, and is the source of "Evenly attacked pieces" and "King and Queen only defended squares and pieces" in my list. I wasn't really considering those specifically before, and now I can see that there is merit in doing so.
There are plenty of little details missing in I list, but I think I have most of the larger categories well laid out. I would appreciate any comments on stuff I left out. Arguably putting tactics under "- Material exchange and gain threats" is a bit oversimplified.
Another "each move" thing is writing down moves before making them. I am beginning to realize that this can be tough. When I played my last standard game, I was good about writing moves down first in the opening, but then, somehow, I got squirrelly entering the middlegame and started moving pieces first half of the time. I had over 40 minutes on the clock, and a slight opening advantage with the White pieces, yet somehow I must have felt that the pressure was on. I actually did write something down first that was a bad move. I looked at it, crossed it out, and saved myself from going down the exchange, proof that my discipline was worthwhile. In spite of that, these impulses appear difficult to curb. Maybe I need a big sign saying, "Crossing out text won't unmove pieces".
Lastly, I highly recommend an after the move visualization blunder check. Not doing this probably cost me more games than anything else I can think of.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT ResultsCircle 1 Circle 2 Step 1 97% 99% Step 2 93% 96% Step 3 93% 96*% Step 4 80% ??% Step 5 74% ??%
Finished Step 2
I have some free time right now, and that means more chess. I think my intense study of TCT is helping me to avoid simple mistakes, although I actually think that I now am slightly weaker in terms of calculation. This next game shows what I am talking about.
I want to play like him! lol. Seriously, I was impressed how he didn't hang his pawns and pieces at all.
Anyway, I am beginning to think these circles are a improving my pattern recognition more than calculation.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% |
| Step 3 | 93% | ??% |
| Step 4 | 80% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Knight Scanning
(If anyone knows why blogger's image upload finishes with a blank window in no image, please let me know. Only links elsewhere seem to work.:-/ )
The difficulty of 2-ply Knight scanning.
I never realized that even a Knight in the center is unable to reach its full potential on a 8x8 board.
-=-=-=-=-
I found some book problems I forget to review. DOH! Someday I will finish these crazy circles and work on better scanning, endgames, and openings. Back to TCT...
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | *98% |
| Step 3 | 93% | ??% |
| Step 4 | 80% | ??% |
| Step 5 | 74% | ??% |
