When You See a Good Move, Look for a Better One.
I loved the game of chess as a kid.
Chess is a cerebral game—so losing can be a stark confrontation with the limits of your intellect and imagination. While I think it is a mistake to equate chess ability with raw intelligence, (or vice-versa), intelligence has a part to play. One does not need to be smart to be successful at chess, but it doesn't hurt—and losing can make you feel foolish and imbecilic.
[? - Inaccuracy.]
I loved the idea of the game of chess as a kid.
Even more accurately: I wished that I was better at chess than I really was.
I still do.
The problem was that I didn't have the patience, or the emotional fortitude, to withstand the many necessary defeats that are needed in order to improve my game.
Chess is a series of incremental lessons born out of multiple defeats. Many of them are just absolutely crushing.
And if you've played chess, and if you cared about winning, you may have an inkling as to how painful these losses can be.
(Though, couldn't this statement be true of anything?)
But especially chess!
Chessroach.
The more one-sided and devastating your loss, the more heavily it serves as a credit against your mental capacity to navigate and manage opportunities or threats.
So while I was infatuated with the game of chess, I fell into a conundrum of not wanting to play it because of the bitterness I felt toward my own limitations. My soft, tender young ego couldn't face the reality of defeat—and so, to my own misfortune, my sensitivity robbed me of years of enjoyment (and improvement) in the game of chess.
My sensitivity also robbed me of the armor that can develop as a result of a young ego being checked (or, in my case, checkmated).
It was decades before I came to my senses.
"No, no. Calm down. Learn to enjoy losing."
During the COVID malaise, I realized it was time to revisit the game. No sense of aspiring to be any rank of player other than what I naturally was. I recovered the password of a previous (formerly dead) account, and endeavored to re-learn the game and even revisit my losses (how navel-gazing; but essential for growth) to see what lessons could be gained from them.
It was a novel idea. It was a novel coronavirus, after all.
The process of reinvesting myself in the game of chess has been... interesting. I wouldn't call it "fun", and I wouldn't call it "relaxing". I admit—defeat is still powerfully crushing. But in that regard, I like to think of myself as the cockroach of chess. You can stomp on me and flatten me into a little pulpy smear of green and brown protein on the board, but when you look back at the spot where you thought I lay, perished—you discover that my little body is gone. To where? To lick my wounds, to learn from my mistakes, and to live to fight another day.
Because after all, nothing beats a strenuous day of prolonged mental exertion—only to then fire up a game of chess with a randomly selected opponent from Bangladesh, and then be utterly and completely wiped out with humbling efficiency. That can really put a nice little 'pin' in your day.
But something about tolerating defeat, in an effort to mitigate future defeat, is the real lesson. We should never be "ok" with defeat, but we shouldn't shy away from it, either. And if you can endure the constant threat of defeat with every new engagement, then—wonder of wonders—you surprise yourself sometimes by achieving some comparatively impressive victory once and again.
And that can really put a nice little 'pin' in your day.
I would love to not make blunders (??). But I do, in spite of myself.
Chess requires creativity and foresight. It forces you to be deliberate in your choices and respond to consequences. I'm a very average player, much to my chagrin—but I've had the pleasure of (not enjoying)—but benefitting from the game, once I was able to learn chess' most important lesson:
Loss is inevitable. Winning is a rare and hard-fought pleasure. It is worth losses if it can afford us the occasional joy of success.
This is also true in life.
For some, this will offer nominal entertainment. Nonetheless, here are two recent games of mine. A loss, and a win (with provided commentary).
Gm. 1 - Blundered a Winning Position
The whole bloody affair.
(For the full effect, select the "flip board" icon so that it displays the position from black's point of view. The icon looks like two arrows pointing in opposite directions, and should appear at the bottom right of the user interface. I played as black in this game.)
I strongly favor the Karo-Cahn opening for black. I employ it as an all-purpose defense against most openings initiated by white. It has its deficiencies, but on most occasions, I can at least mitigate threats through a balanced approach, and try and get some counter-play in the mid-game. But black is always at a strategic disadvantage because your early game is just a response to white's setup for attack.
However, by the second move, I see that white's bishop diagonal attack isn't going to go very far with my defense pawns on the D and C files. He recognizes this and gets his knight out, blocking his bishop, I suppose to set himself up to castle with his rook and protect his king.
He doesn't do that, though. I push out my white bishop and bring out my E pawn to complete a defensive triangle for the center. He doesn't want to commit to castling yet, and activates his dark square bishop.
Here, I recognize that if I can orient my dark square bishop and queen along the same diagonal, I can capture his F pawn and threaten his king safely, spoiling his chance at castling. He should have done this when he had the chance, because when I push my queen out, I've taken white's initiative and he now has to respond to my developing attack by advancing his pawns.
My queen is supporting my black bishop by move 6, ready to check the king without any repercussions. As a deterrence, he advances his B pawn out to rank 4, which I think was the wrong pawn. If he had put his D pawn on D4, that would have closed off my bishop's attack. Alas, he ended up winning this game so I can't be too critical.
I capture his F pawn, checking the king. He has no possible recourse other than to move his king out of check, ruining his hopes of castling at any point. I have now won major tempo, and am a pawn ahead. In the future, he'll have to waste many moves to move his castle out and protect his king.
He moves his king, and I retreat my bishop to E3, threatening a dark square bishop exchange (he takes with his bishop, I take with my queen).
It's risky having your queen out there, so deep into enemy territory, without support—but I have open lines and can retreat to safety if something should come up.
He does not take my bishop and instead advances his knight to A3. I'm not certain what his intention here was.
No matter. Once you have an advantage, it's usually preferable to 'simplify' the board and remove extraneous pieces. I take his bishop, he takes back with his other knight (not his queen!) (now on move 10).
He brings his A3 knight to C2, threatening my queen. I retreat to safety on E5, where I am threatening his C pawn, and possibly also his rook in the corner if he repurposes some of its current defenses.
He still tries to gain tempo by attacking with his D2 knight but leaves his C pawn vulnerable. I capture.
My queen has been very active in this game, and that can be a huge risk. It's the most precious piece on the board for its flexibility, but any two other well-supported pieces on the board can threaten it because of its value compared to others (the opponent would be willing to sacrifice nearly any piece to capture it, especially with as active as mine has been so far this game, only 12 moves in).
However, he opts to maintain this current position, in order to begin a prolonged manual castling combination by bringing his king to F2, allowing his H1 rook to get out and into the game. He's at a tactical disadvantage (the computer has me at a 2.7 advantage at this point) and needs all his firepower.
My queen is out there—but for the moment, she's safe. Now that I see he's in active castling mode, I flaunt my superior position by readying a castling maneuver myself by removing my G knight from in between my king and king-side rook.
He clears his rook and I castle. (Now move 14.)
Out comes his E pawn. We're going to have our first pawn break here shortly, thwarting my nice little defensive triangle I've established in the center. No matter. The pawn break arguably opens his vulnerable position more than mine anyhow. So I take with my D pawn. He re-takes my double-stacked E pawns with his D pawn. The position is now much more open, and his king is very vulnerable.
My bishop is threatened by his pawn, so I maneuver it up to G4, threatening his knight. He finally gets to threaten my queen who has been on his half of the board for the majority of the game at this point—by placing his newly escaped rook out onto E3. Fine. My queen finally retreats, back to F6. C4 might have also worked, but I liked the idea of 'pinning' his F3 knight onto his king. He can't move his knight now, because doing so would leave his king in check from my queen's new position.
Now on move 18, he advances his H pawn to threaten my white square bishop. I could fall back, but that would probably only prompt another threatening advance from his G pawn, which could end up trapping my queen, bishop, or both—all while advancing an attack on my king-side castle defense. Better, I think, to simply take that F3 knight and continue to expose his king.
He takes my bishop with his rook, threatening my queen in the process.
I still want to maintain the pressure, and I still want to maintain a 'pin' on his king, this time by moving my queen all the way up to B2. His second knight now, again, cannot move because it would put him in check. I have to be careful, though, because a false move can expose my queen to several potential threats. This is what ends up happening due to some negligent miscalculation on my part.
Notice, too, that I have used up more of my 10-minute clock at this point in the game, now on move 19. My clock has dwindled to 5:41, and he still has 7:30. It would be good to pick up the pace a little, in case the end game requires some extra thought for checkmating.
He doesn't like that his knight is pinned by my queen, so he tucks his king away back onto the 1 rank (G1). I'd like to get my rooks involved, and the first step is to connect them. The pawn on B4 is potentially vulnerable, so I move my inactive knight to A6 (knights aren't actualized to their full potential on the edge of the board, but I can't put it on D7 because the queen can just take it without recourse.)
He wants to trap my queen, so he pushes his A pawn forward—further limiting my queen's escape routes. However, at this point, I still feel OK. I can always escape to E5 or B3, if necessary. Instead, my corner rook comes out to D8, threatening his queen directly.
White repositions his queen onto E2. He's got sights on my A6 knight but presently it's not a realistic threat. There's now tremendous pressure on how that C2 knight will be implemented.
The attack on the B4 pawn is off the table, now that it's supported by the pawn on A3. I reposition my knight toward the middle of the board on C7, with the idea of perhaps getting it to B5 on the next move.
White connects his two rooks, moving his F3 rook back to F1. Now on move 23 (the end is near), I place my knight on B5. I can reach C3 from here, while covering D4 as well.
The computer believes Martinblunder0 made a poor decision here, as my advantage rises to its greatest so far in the game—a full 4 points ahead. I can't say I can discern what he's gearing up for here. But it doesn't matter. I'm going to save him from the hole he's digging for himself.
The decisive moment begins. On my 24th move of the game, I bring my knight out to D4. He will take with his knight, but it should be an equal trade, if I calculate my moves correctly. Here's where my oversight begins.
He takes my knight with his knight. I can take it with my rook, and then take it safely with my queen, and my focus is on that.
As with so many things, what we're missing is right in front of our faces. What I should have done was take his queen first, which would also be a check to his king! He would be forced to capture my queen back (an equal trade—a queen for a queen, but with my advantage I'm still leading), and then I could re-capture his knight on the D file. But I don't do that! I rush to take his knight with my rook (move 25).
I was at a 4-point advantage. My lapse swings the game decisively in the other direction, giving him a now 5-point advantage. He takes my queen.
And it's over. I resigned. What a wasted opportunity!
Reviewing the computer analysis of my game afterward, despite my blunder it still had me listed as having the greater move accuracy throughout the game. One blunder is really all it takes.
Gm. 2 - Knight Bait
The goal was to annoy the queen.
I considered whether or not I should follow up my loss playing as black with a win playing as black (I actually prefer the black's opening defensive positions to going on the offense with white, and my winning record bears this out), but figured I should keep these two games I share varied. So, here we are, a game where I win with white.
(No need to flip the board for this one, it should default to showing me at the 'bottom' of the screen as white's position.)
I like the London opening for white, which begins with D4. In the right order, it should allow for a nice pawn chain vying for the center, while opening up various opportunities for attack and support, though often gets rid of bishops early in the game.
danielkabika from Canada responded with a defensive opening for black I like, D5. I bring out my dark square bishop to F4, and he responds in kind, bringing his white square bishop out to F5. I support my D4 pawn with my E3 pawn move, starting to build that pyramid of defense. Again, he and I are on the same page, as he brings his E pawn out as well, creating a 'mirror opening' for the game so far.
This trend continues. I advance my bishop to D3. I could bring it all the way up and give a check to the king on B5, but that's easily rebuffed with a few pawn moves that will eventually bring my white bishop to B3. Instead, I offer a direct bishop trade, allowing him the opportunity to take my bishop, before I take his with my queen. But he declines, offering a bishop trade himself—his dark square bishop facing mine with his 4th move on D6.
I have to take it because if he takes my bishop, my only way of recapturing is with my E pawn, messing up my developing pawn-chain defense. So, I capture his dark bishop and he re-captures me back with his queen to D6.
I'm a little early, but I bring my knight out to D2. This was a bit of an oversight because that blocked my queen's defense. He takes my bishop, so I have to sacrifice my pawn triangle by recapturing him with my C pawn to D3; doubling up my pawns on the D rank. Not ideal, and can be a vulnerability my opponent can exploit.
He gets his knight out to F6. This is when I should have put my own knight out as well. But to complete my development, I get my G knight in and set him down on F3.
We both castle king-side (move 9). He gets his last inactive knight out, connecting his rooks, and I push my A pawn forward to A3 to cut off B4 as a potential landing place for his queen. He takes up space on the queenside of the board by pushing his pawn two spaces forward onto B5, but I really am hoping for an eventual pawn break in the middle that can open up a file for my rook, so I move my F rook to E1.
My opponent is hoping that I'll move my knight so he can score an easy defense penetration with a queen move to H2, defended by the knight he placed on G4. This would take a pawn, break my defense, and threaten my king. Previous to this game, I have been delivered some quick and efficient checkmates in this manner, so I'm on the lookout for it (usually) these days. But as it stands, I would need to be careless and move my defending F3 knight for that to work, and for now, I threaten his knight by advancing my H pawn to H3.
If he was feeling daring, he could try and call my bluff by not moving his knight away, daring me to take it, and doubling another set of pawns on the G file, ruining my king-side pawn defense. He doesn't play that gambit and instead retreats his knight to safety on F6, where it's also pulling double-duty defending his king-side H pawn.
I'm still eager for a pawn break in the middle that would ideally 'fix' the double pawns I have on the D file. I push my E pawn to E4, inviting him to capture with his D pawn. He shows admirable restraint, not striking at every opportunity, and instead aligns his rook on the B file.
Not going to take my pawn? Fine. I'll push it again. I advance my E pawn to E5, threatening both his knight and his queen. This pawn is triple-defended by the front D pawn, the F3 knight (remember, I can move it now without risking a check), and the E rook. He only has two options to capture, his knight and his queen—so the math doesn't work in his favor. He retreats his queen, which allows me to capture his knight for the cost of a single pawn, which then opens up my E file and allows my rook an open file for attack.
I take his knight. He takes with his queen. We are now on move 15, firmly in the mid-game.
I like putting my knights on middle-board squares when they're defended by a pawn. I know it will likely end in a trade-off. I think he's reconsidering his measured and patient approach he's maintained thus far now that I have a slight advantage, and he's now more eager for trades and attacks to shift the position. He takes my knight with his knight, and I recapture his knight with my front D pawn, 'fixing' the double-stacked pawns I had on the D file. My new E pawn is far out there in enemy territory, but it is protected by my E rook.
My new E pawn threatens his queen, so he simply moves his queen forward one space to F5. He's targeting my vulnerable D pawn. My defense of the D pawn also serves as another 'trade-off' offer, bringing my queen to F3. Our queens are now facing each other, and if he takes I can recapture his queen with my remaining knight.
He defers (move 18), moving his queen to G6, where he perhaps should have gone when I moved my pawn to E5.
Now I have tempo. What should I do? I want my corner rook on a more open file, and currently the opponent's C pawn is undefended. I slide it over to C1, and he responds by bringing his rook up to B7.
My knight is not doing anything, so even though knights can be cumbersome to maneuver, I start working it into a better position. This knight will end up winning me the game, not because of an attack, but as bait. I move it to B3, seeing where things will go.
He's hoping to get some counter-play with his queen-side pawns, so he brings his A pawn to A6, I respond by threatening his rook and his A6 pawn with my knight to C5. He escapes the threat, and defends his pawn, by moving his knight to A7.
I'm happy to continue threatening rooks with my knight, for the moment secure that his response won't threaten me. I'm hoping for him to get into a position where I can attack multiple pieces at once with my knight—since his rooks and queen are all in some proximity to each other, plus a few pawns that haven't entered the fray yet. He further defends his C pawn with a rook move to C8.
Looking back, I might have dared a knight move to B6, inviting a capture with his knight which would then leave his C rook hanging and delivering checkmate in a single move. Instead, I moved my queen over to E3, threatening his A rook. He doesn't see it and moves his C pawn forward thinking that he's exposing my knight to an attack from his now 'hanging' A rook. I capture his rook on A7 and the game swings heavily in my favor with a 6-point advantage.
Not for nothing, and eager to still capitalize on vulnerabilities, he recognizes that my queen's capture of his rook has left my D pawn unprotected. He takes it. Still, I'm better off for the exchange. His queen is uncomfortably forward into my territory now, but for the moment doesn't pose an immediate risk. I inch my queen forward to B7, threatening his rook and checkmate.
His rook retreats, 'threatening' my horse on D7 (it wouldn't be a good idea—checkmate is still lurking a few moves away), and I can add my rook to the attack by claiming his now undefended C pawn on C6 (now move 26).
He's trying to get some counter-play by threatening my rook on E1 as he moves his queen to D2. This also attacks my vulnerable B2 pawn. If that goes, then there's a chance that he could advance his two A and B pawns forward and eventually claim a queen. For the moment I'm more concerned about my rook, so move my king forward to defend it on F1. If he takes my rook, I recapture his queen with my king. I figure he will probably claim my B2 pawn, but hopefully, by now it's too little, too late. Still, this is where I start getting a little less accurate in my responses.
Black delivers a check to me with a queen move to D3. I block the check with a rook move to E2, which also now defends my B2 pawn. Not willing to give up his checking pattern, he moves to D1, checking my king. Rook to E1, Queen back to D3 (check), and I finally get the message and move my king to safety on G1. At least now my B pawn isn't being attacked, too. He reminds me that's still an option, though, so he returns his queen to D2, threatening both rook and pawn again. Now I make the move I should've made all along and move my rook to F1, giving up my pawn.
He doesn't take it. Instead, he recognizes that he is eventually risking being back-mated (crass, perhaps, but it happens when my queen or rook attacks him on the back rank, with the king blocked in by his own pawns that are there to protect him, ironically), and moves his H pawn two spaces out (too far, I think) to H5, giving his king an escape route, which is looking more and more necessary.
I see his vulnerable A pawn and take it, daring him to take my now undefended knight. But this is a fatal error if he takes it. It looks like a free piece, but with one move I give a check, and attack his rook. There would be no hope of him saving his rook from being captured once his king is moved to safety. On move 33, I move my queen to C8, checking his king, and he forfeits. Even if he moves out of the way, my very next move is to capture his rook on D7, which would put me up two-rooks ahead of him in terms of 'heavy' material.
The game is over.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment