Saturday, October 29, 2005
Step 5 keeps going and going...
In spite of the siren's lure of increasing my rating in just under 3 seconds, I am not using CompulsiveTacticsServer regularly, and my focus on finishing my TCT circles. I want to post on CTS later, but I can summarize by saying that it seems like it is testing me on what I know more than building up my foundation.
I haven't been playing at all, which probably isn't good. Still, it seems pointless to attempt to play when I don't have mental focus and (of course) time available.
I hope to at least get in some drills today.
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 83%* |
Friday, October 21, 2005
Whenever
For quite awhile I have been saying to myself, "I'll get to those later". Right. Sure I will, um, ...whenever. I realize without some healthy attitude adjustment this will continue indefinitely. It wasn't until listening to Dan Heisman on the ICC that I had even considered adjusting said attitude. He was talking about creating a "Hall of Shame" collection, much like I have been considering, but he stressed that this should only have big mistakes, not under time pressure or from a position that was beyond your level to play accurately. It all clicked. I need a grouping: my beginner mistakes (which is essentially the same as the "Hall of Shame"), my intermediate mistakes (where spending 10-25 minutes would have yielded a better move), and my advanced mistakes (where I aim to get more elements of the total picture).
I'll get to this whenever :-). Perhaps using smaller groups of positions increases there chances of being looked at... seriously... by someone. Ahem.
I have started visiting the tactics chess server at emerald.net. I will make some more posts about it later, right after I have recoved from my excessive-compulsive tactics disorder ;-).
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 88%* |
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Reassessment
Otherwise I have been busy, so busy in fact that I haven't gotten in even one serious game in two weeks. I got a Mephisto travel chess computer to remedy this, and am now playing a fraction of a game several days a week. I have yet to win against it at beginner "6", which is like 1600. It really makes me appreciate analysis capable programs like Fritz and Chessmaster, as with Mephisto a post-mortem is quite cumbersome.
Still getting in 25-30 minutes of TCT daily of course.
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | 89%* |
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Circle 3, Step 4 Complete
Fritz is proving itself quite useful, analyzing one of the TCT problems that may be wrong. I really like how Fritz compares multiple moves.
TCT Step 4 16d #9
(I attempted to put a larger pic up, but Blogger's image upload is changing "large" images to medium small :-(.)
This is one of those middlegame positions that I struggle with, one where I am just as likely to play something good as bad. Every time I went through this problem I calculated that although Qxc7 Qxc7 Rd7+ was possible, I felt that there must be something better. That line does lead to a trading down of material, leaving White's rook dominating the 7th with Black's pieces passively defending, but it's not entirely clear to me. Both sides are going to lose their Knights, and it's going to take alot of moves to get to the win.
My first instinct was that Bxc6 Qxc6 Qe5+ was stronger, when Black cannot interpose his Queen without hanging his Rook. I didn't see the followup move Rd6 which chases Black's Queen with tempo, but Fritz did, as well as several more bizarre, sharp lines. Sadly, I didn't even look at Ba6 ...maybe I need to take my own advice and remember to rule out the crazy looking moves first. Fritz's assessment of that line is so high it's remarkable, especially compared to the "correct" Qxc7. Here's more of Fritz's analysis (note: "{[%eval 2661,0]}" means 26.61 pawns up for White):
[Event "Tasc Chess Tutor"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.10.03"]
[Round "?"]
[White "White"]
[Black "Black"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r5b1/pqr3kp/1pn3p1/1Bp2pN1/4p3/2P3QP/PPPR1PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]
({Fritz 8: 1)} 1. Ba6 Qb8
(1... Qxa6 ? 2. Qxc7+ Kh6 3. Qf4 Qf1+ 4. Rxf1 Kg7 5. Rd7+ Ne7 6. Rxe7+ Kf6 7. Nxe4+ Kxe7 8. Qd6+ Ke8 9. Qc6+ Ke7 10. Qb7+ Ke6 11. Qxa8 fxe4 12. Qxg8+ {[%eval 2661,0]})
({Fritz 8: 1)} 2. Rd7+ Rxd7 3. Rxd7+ Kf8
3... Kf6 4. Qh4 Ke5 5. Bb5 Qe8 6. Bxc6 Qxd7 7. Bxd7 Kd6 { [%eval 1126,12]})
({Or)} 3... Ne7 4. Rxe7+ Kf6 5. Rc7 Qxc7 6. Nxe4+ fxe4 7. Qxc7 Bd5 8. Qd6+ Be6 9. Qf4+ Ke7 10. Qxe4 Re8 11. Qh4+ {[%eval 1002,11] })
({Fritz 8: 1)} 4. Nxh7+ Bxh7 5. Qh4 Qd8 6. Rxd8+ Rxd8 7. Qf6+ Ke8 8. Qxc6+ Ke7 9. Bb5 Rd1+ 10. Kh2 a6 11. Qc7+ {[%eval 988,12]} *
{-----------------------------------------------------------------}
({Fritz 8: 2)} 1. Rd6 f4 2. Qxf4 Rf8 3.Qxe4 Re7 4. Qxc6 Qxc6 5. Bxc6 {[%eval 560,13]})
({Fritz 8: 3)} 1. Nxh7 Re7 2.Rd6 Ne5 3. Nf6 Bf7 4. Nd7 Nxd7 5. Bxd7 Rh8 {[%eval 358,13]})
({Fritz 8: 4)} 1. Nxe4 Rf8 2. Rd6 Qc8 3. Bxc6 fxe4 4. Qe5+ Kh6 5. Qxe4 Bxa2 {[%eval 311,13]})
({Fritz 8: 5)} 1. Bxc6 Qxc6 2. Rd6 Qb7 3. Qe5+ Kh6 4. Qxf5 Re7 5. b3 Kg7 6. Qf6+ Kh6 7. h4 {[%eval 275,13]})
({Fritz 8: 6)} 1. f3 Re7 2. fxe4 Rf8 3. exf5 Rxf5 4. Ne4 Rf8 5. Nd6 {[%eval 167,13]})
({Fritz 8: 7)} 1. Qh4 Ne5 2. f4 exf3 3. Qe1 Kf6 4. Qe3 f2+ 5. Kxf2 Nc4 {[%eval 137,13]})
({Fritz 8: 8)} 1. Qxc7+ Qxc7 2. Rd7+ Qxd7 3. Rxd7+ Ne7 4. Nxe4 fxe4 5. Rxe7+ Kf6 6. Rxe4 {[%eval 125,13]}) *
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 97% |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | 90% |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | ?? |
