2005 Atlanta Championship

The 2005 Atlanta Championship just finished and had a moderate turnout. FM Todd Andrews from Tennessee and FM Miles Ardaman from Georgia were there, along with the usual suspects from the Atlanta Chess Center where the tournament was held. I played up in the A-section again (the largest section in the tournament), and scored 2½ out of 5, gaining some rating points. I noticed last night after I got home that my out-of-date USCF rating has dropped one point, apparently because some games my opponents played previously finally got registered, and they recalculate everyone's rating from that point forward. With the huge delay the USCF has in updating tournaments and ratings (I have 4 tournaments they haven't yet posted, going back to last November), it's a wonder anyone is playing in the section they should be in. The USCF is becoming like Microsoft in the sense that everyone loves to put in a dig, such as Mig's Daily Dirt. Anyway, back to the tournament. The only incident that stood out was in the last round, when I believe in the row of tables behind me, a kid who was leaning his chair back leaned a little too far and crashed to the floor!

Bye City and Rating Mismatches

I'm playing in the 2005 Atlanta Championship this weekend, starting tonight. I'll be playing up in the A section for the fourth time. If you're really bored, you can track my progress (updated daily) here. So far, every time I've played up in the A section, my first round has been a full-point bye. I drive over 30 miles to find out I won't be playing. So that's the big question for tonight? Will I play or will I go? Place your bets now.

It'll be hard to match my performance in the last tournament I played up in the A section. I scored clear 1st place (and everyone else in the tiny section also got full-point byes). I've noticed that playing people rated far above you has certain advantages. They feel they have to win, and thus won't play for a draw. This provides far more opportunities for mistakes on their part. In that tournament there was only one game that I felt I outplayed my opponent from the beginning. The other games were lost by my opponents blundering in games they could have drawn. In the Tennessee Open last year I beat two experts -- well, they beat themselves actually, presumably because they felt they must win against a B-player.

Unfortunately, this principle also applies when you're playing people rated a good bit below you. They'll be happy with a draw, and you probably feel that you must win. My embarrassing performance at last year's Emory Castle Grand Prix is a good example. Four of my opponents were young kids, having just completed a week-long intensive chess camp, led by GMs and IMs. I'd like to say they must have been inspired from the chess camp, and that scholastic players have deflated ratings (all of which is true), but in fact I just played horribly. Incidentally, this was my last tournament before the tactics boot camp effects started kicking in.

So what's the best way to play against a much-stronger opponent? And how should you play against a much-weaker opponent? IM Timothy Taylor will tell us how to defeat a weaker player in upcoming articles. I know some players (master-level) who just try to play solidly and wait for their weaker opponent to make a mistake. And I've seen these same players start to get very worried when their opponents don't seem to be making any mistakes. Some stronger players aim for a complicated position where they can blow away their opponents tactically. When playing against stronger players, I definitely feel an absence of pressure I normally feel, because hey -- I'm expected to lose! And now that I feel more confident with my tactical ability, I'll happily enter into crazy complications with stronger players, and so far, I've held my own. So personally, I just try to play good chess, regardless of who I'm playing. I even prefer not to know their rating beforehand.

Thought Process

I was inspired to write this after reading Fussy Lizard's post in which he asked a question about thought process. An OTB thinking process is something I have struggled with a lot. At first I tried elaborate thought processes, but like Fussy Lizard I'd always revert back to my old ways after a few moves. After analyzing my tournament games, one thing I've noticed is that I will tend to miss things if I'm distracted by an idea that I did see. Two quick examples:

My opponent (Black) just played ...g7-g6. I thought, "He wants to retreat his bishop back to g7 because Ng4 will threaten to capture it or divert it from the a1-h8 diagonal." And I stopped thinking about his move, and missed a game-winning tactic. Can you find it? Solution

My opponent (White) has apparently just hung a knight on c7. Suspecting a trap, I calculated what would happen if I took the knight, and saw that I could defend against his "threat". And I stopped thinking about it and took the knight. He then showed me the "other" threat that caused me to resign immediately. Do you see how he can win if I take the knight? Solution

In both cases my mind latched onto something and I dismissed further investigation. In the first example, had anyone said, "White has a game-winning tactic here," I could have found it. In the second example had anyone said, "Does White have any other threats?" I could have found it.

Noticing this pattern led me to a simple idea: Always ask, "What else?"

In the first example, "What else has changed because of my opponent's move?" Well, ...g7-g6 removes a defender of the f6-bishop. Is there any way I can exploit this? It's already protected once by the e8-knight. Oh look, Ncd5 attacks the f6-bishop twice and also attacks the queen. Let's calculate some variations.

In the second example, "What else (i.e., forcing moves) can my opponent play?" It has to be forcing since he's sacrificed a piece.

What else... what else... what else...

So I try to keep things simple. My thought process outline goes something like this (always asking what else!):

1) Understand my opponent's move. Understand his idea(s) and what all has changed by the move.

2) Any tactics?

3) Make a strategic plan

4) After deciding on a move, do a final blunder-check.

I'm leaving a lot out here, stuff I already naturally do. But this is the structure I try to impose when I feel I need to. I leave a lot of room in the thought process to go with an idea and see where it takes me. Sometimes I find the right wave and everything flows naturally, and no intentional thought process is needed. So the other area of focus for me is physical conditioning, which includes being able to relax and slow down (while still remaining focused). This seems to help me find those nice waves more often.

Karpov Coming to Nashville

GM Anatoly Karpov is coming to the 2005 SuperNationals Chess Championship in Nashville, Tennessee on April 10, 2005.

Chess, Music and Programming

I love to play chess. I've also played the guitar since I was ten years old, and almost chose music as my profession, but settled instead for the more secure job as a computer programmer. I was surprised to learn that many programmers are also musicians, and I wonder now if many chess players are also musicians. Anela Pasovic has noticed a common thread between chess and music, and here's a few games of musicians who play chess. Some rock musicians play chess between concerts. In fact, the history of chess has some first-rate musicians. Many have debated whether chess is a game, sport, art, or science. I say it's all of these things. Chess lends itself to creativity, as does music (and programming). While some consider chess a metaphor for self-transformation, for me the artistic aspect is more like starting off with a blank canvas. Two artists then begin to slowly create the work, each stroke defining it a little more, removing more and more possibility and actualizing a specific shape. The moves on the board are just an outer record of the dynamic interaction of creative ideas that play out within the artists. I don't despise my opponents and desire to crush them; I try to enjoy a creative process that always produces a unique result.

Tactics Boot Camp

A few months ago I completed the most intense tactics training program I have ever seen. The program is from Michael de la Maza's book, Rapid Chess Improvement. (You can get the same information for free in two online articles by de la Maza: 400 Point in 400 Days, parts one and two.) You can also check out an entire blogging group, Man de la Maza, who are working on the program. First let me say that de la Maza presents tactics as the sole solution for class players, and while that claim is rather silly, a firm foundation in tactics is required in order to improve. Fighting for a weak square or aiming for a knight outpost won't be very productive if you drop a piece along the way. But to ignore endgames and strategy and only focus on tactics is not the best long-term strategy. Michael went from a Class D player to an Expert in around two years, which is quite a phenomenal accomplishment, but he now appears to be stuck and hasn't played since winning the U2000 section of the 29th World Open.

For those not wishing to read his book or the articles, here's a quick summary of the training program. After spending a few weeks on chess visualization exercises, select a collection of about 1000 tactics problems. I chose the excellent CT-ART, as recommended by the author. Now set up a training schedule, where you will do all 1000+ problems in 64 days, followed by all 1000 problems in 32 days, then 16 days, then 8, 4, 2, and 1 day. At first spend no more than 5 minutes trying to solve a problem, and 5 minutes studying the solution. Cut that time in half (down to 30 seconds) for each subsequent cycle. A big part of the program is to stick to the schedule, and never miss a day. If you're sick or you're playing in a tournament, you never miss a day. This is a huge committment, requiring many hours of your time, and your brain will hurt!

I followed a schedule very close to that recommended by the book. I was sick and I played in several tournaments during that time, and I stuck to the schedule. Did it help my chess? Most definitely, yes. When I started the program my rating was in the low 1600s, and my first practical test was in the 2004 Peach State Open, held in Atlanta. I scored 4 out of 5 and tied for first in the U1800 section. Now here's the interesting part. I don't feel like I got much more "tactically aware" because of the program. I already had a good tactical eye. But this training program was building up this "tactical chess muscle" in my head. I don't know how else to describe it. When you do the program, there are many times when your head will hurt, very much like a muscle will hurt when first undertaking an exercise program. Over time, you feel the muscle strengthening, and it aches less. In the past when I played in a weekend Swiss tournament, I'd always reach a point when I'd get very tired, and my concentration would start waning, and I'd sometimes play poorly. Well, I still got tired in the Peach State Open, but my ability to concentrate stayed razor sharp! My games in the tournament were not exceptionally tactical in nature, but my concentration remained at a high level, and so I won most of my games. My performance rating was 1912. Amusingly, my only loss was due to a horrible one-move blunder I made that dropped a piece (something I rarely do).

My second practical test was a little over a month later when I played in the 58th Annual Tennessee Open (yes, I brought my laptop to the hotel so I could still do my tactics problems!). This was an open tournament, so I had to play with everyone rated above 1600. This time I beat two experts, tied for first in the U1800 prize, and got a performance rating of 2108! I definitely felt this "chess muscle" at work during my games. Perhaps my proudest game was one I lost, however, against FM Todd Andrews, rated over 2400 at the time. He happened to play the one line of the French Tarrasch that I knew 16 moves of theory for, and I achieved a very promising position in the middlegame. I then gave him a very tough fight, and I'm sure he was starting to worry that this B-class patzer was not making any serious mistakes! Alas, I finally erred near the endgame and Todd brought home the full point. Again, my other loss was due to another horrible one-move blunder in the final round against another expert. This suggests I need to work on de la Maza's final part of the program, which involves modifying your thinking process to look for tactics on each and every move.

So for all those considering or already involved in this training boot camp, I can say that for me it was successful. Just remember that tactics is a fundamental skill in chess, and not the only thing we should work on. I would imagine that D-class players would benefit even more from this type of training program, since they are generally much weaker tactically and have much more to gain. My rating is now "officially" in the mid-1700s, but after winning 1st place in the U2000 section of the 2005 Atlanta Winter Congress, it should "unofficially" be well into the 1800s. What do I do now for chess training? Actually, not that much in the way of tactics. My main areas now are physical conditioning and studying both my own and Grandmaster games. I practice tactics and endgames when I can, and I look for opening ideas in lines I've faced in my games.

$10,000 Georgian Peach Open

Cajun Chess made another appearance in Georgia last weekend for the $10,000 Georgian Peach Open, which actually ended up being a $5,000 prize fund based on the weak turnout. Maybe scheduling a chess tournament on Superbowl Weekend and during a Saturday G/45 Championship at the Atlanta Chess Center wasn't such a good idea. This was my first experience with Cajun Chess, and I wasn't sure at first if the tournament would even take place. The former owner, Richard Crespo, was recently arrested by a SWAT team for kidnapping a woman he had met at one of his chess tournaments. The new owner was quick to say that the tournament would go on, and that Crespo was no longer associated with Cajun Chess. The tournament was held at the Holiday Inn in Marietta, and for the most part was run professionally.

GM Aleks Wojtkiewicz, FM (IM-elect) Stephen Muhammad, IM Ron Burnett, and other titled players were present. Of course I was playing in the U1800 section, hoping for a share of the $1700 -- oops -- make that $850 allocated to our section. And our section had a whopping five people in it, meaning byes were handed out left and right, and I was paired with the same player twice during the tournament. The rounds started on time, and the only complaint I had during play was someone pushing their baby around in a stroller as they watched games! Nothing like having a baby start making noise while you're in a tense position with less than five minutes on your clock.

The final round brought some controversy to this otherwise smoothly run tournament. I sat down knowing full well that a draw would guarantee me second place. My opponent sat down knowing full well that a draw would guarantee him first place. When the round started, my opponent played 1.e4 and offered me a draw. I accepted and we went to collect our prize money. The organizers were not happy. They were sure we had prearranged the draw (we had never agreed to any such thing beforehand), and spent a good while going through the USCF rule book, looking for any way to disqualify us. They finally concluded they had to pay us our prize money, and offered the advice, "Next time, make a few more moves. It looks better." Ah well, lessons learned.

I'll keep going to their tournaments in Georgia, because I can't get enough of tournament chess. Hopefully they'll plan their next tournament a little better and get a larger turnout.