An Analysis, Lest You Doubt the Depth of My Addiction

There are a few things that one remembers throughout his or her entire life. The birth of a child. The death of a president. Meeting that red-headed kid from Problem Child at Rolland.

For me, it was the first time I beat a player rated over 2000.

A few qualifiers: A 2000+ rating on redhotpawn doesn't really mean CRAP in the real world. There are a few players on the site that I'm sure a legitimately excellent players (there's a CC IM, and some kid who supposedly beat Garry Kasparov in a simul), but for the most part, the ratings are rather generous. Secondly, the guy that I beat was comparatively new to the site, so his rating may not have "settled" yet. He did mention in his profile that he was rated around 1900 OTB.

Play online chess

1.e4 c5 2.d4!?
{The Smith-Morra gambit. An interesting move, but what he's told me is
that he's afraid of playing the Sicilian. I'm inside his head. I
should start talking smack, a la Any Given Sunday.}
2...cxd4 3.c3 Nf6
( 3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 {Also commonly played here is 3. dxc3 4. Nxc3, which
is the main line of the Smith-Morra Accepted. But that seems to play
right into what he wanted, and, as it is against any opponent, you
can't win if your pieces aren't developed, and just look at the board
(diagram) after the variation! Not bad compensation for a pawn
investment} )
4.e5 Nd5 5.Bc4 Qc7 6.Qe2
( {A viable option would have been to take on d5, and after} 6.Bxd5
Qxe5+ 7.Ne2 Qxd5 8.O-O e5 9.cxd4 d6 {things are pretty even } )
6...Nb6?
{Too passive. I should have moved my e pawn to e6 which would have
proved meritorious in triplicate: blockade white's e-pawn, protect my
knight, and influence the center. Nb6 just concedes centrality. It
does attack the bishop, but to no avail, as that threat is avoided by
Bd3 or Bc5}
7.Bd3 d5 8.exd6
{A brief aside about e.p. captures. I believe that given the choice
whether or not to push a pawn one or two square and in doing so will
force the opponent make an immediate decision regarding an e.p.
capture, it is always beneficial to push it two squares (this
obviously comes with the qualification that there will be numerous
specific examples of the opposite being true, but in principle, I
believe it is good practice). In regard to game theory, it is
beneficial in general to limit your opponents choices, and that is
exactly what you do when you provide an e.p. opportunity. Your
opponent has one chance to capture the pawn, and any variations he
calculates in which he does not capture it must be made knowing that
the e.p. capture is no longer an option. In this particular
situation, capturing was definitely the best option, but it's always
something to keep in mind.}
8...Qxd6 9.Nf3 Bg4
{I had been wating for this move, hoping to damage his KS pawn
structure (after 10. h3 Bh5 11. g4 Bg6)}
10.h3 Bxf3
{Looking back, I think this move was somewhat too aggressive. A
player of his strength would definitely be able to utilise the
advantage of the two bishops...}
11.Qxf3 Qd7 12.O-O Nc6 13.Bf4 e5 14.Re1 f6 15.Bg3 Bc5?
{I can't tell you why I made this move... I think it's been said
before, but sometimes I move just because it's my turn.}
16.a4?
{My opponent follows suit with a misplay of his own. I don't
understand the reasoning behind this move. If he's initiating a QS
pawn storm, I think it's a little too early to do so, plus I haven't
committed my King to the QS yet (although most signs indicate that I
will eventually). I think a better move would have been b4: }
( 16.b4 Bf8 {Just conceding that my previous move was pointless.} 17.
b5 Na5 18.Re4 dxc3 19.Nxc3 Qf7 20.Bxe5 fxe5 21.Rxe5+ {and white is
extremely dangerous in this position} )
16...a5 17.Qh5+ Qf7 18.Bg6??
{This was it, the move that cost him the game; he simply gives away
the bishop for free. }
18...Qxg6 19.Qf3
( {His other option was to trade queens} 19.Qxg6+ hxg6 20.Nd2 dxc3 21.
bxc3 O-O-O {and black is coordinating and mounting an attack (see
diagram 4)} )
19...O-O?!
{rendering his a4 push useless, but also leaving myself open to a
surprise attack; he still has a queen after all.}
20.Nd2 Qc2?!
{I played an OTB game against this guy once who would talk about his
moves. It was a friendly game and we'd discuss to some degree what we
were thinking. He made a move similar to this, positioning a queen
deep in my territory where she wasn't directly threatening anything
that couldn't be easily defended. I asked him what his reasoning was
behind it and he thought for a moment and said "Just to cause some
general discomfort." That reasoning has always stuck with me, and
I've used it to justify some of my more aggressive queen placements in
the past, including this move. I'm not seeing very far at this point
and perhaps a passive move would be in order here, but to be honest, I
felt like Rocky Balboa after he had just cut Ivan Drago for the first
time in Rocky IV.}
21.Nc4 dxc3 22.bxc3 Rad8
{I finally exchange the pawns and give him two isolated pawns and an
ability to gain control of the d-file.}
23.Nxb6 Bxb6 24.Rab1 Rd3?!
{Too aggressive. If I'm not careful, white is going to slip in behind
my defenses. Much better would have been Ba7}
( 24...Ba7 25.Rxb7 Qxa4 26.Rc1 Qc4 {and white rook are neutralized for
the most part. The rook on c1 is tied to the defense of the c3 pawn
(if it leaves, the queen will be tied to it), and the rook on b7
doesn't have any good squares to occupy} )
25.Qe4 Ba7 26.Rxb7 Qxc3 27.Rc7!
{Ruh roh... if only there were some way...}
27...f5!!
{BAM! Permit a little self indulgence, but this move should be used
as an example in a book about deflection.}
28.Qxc6??
{Another blunder, but this is the fatal one. Much better would have
been:}
( 28.Qe2 Rxg3 29.Rxa7 Rg6 30.Rc7 Qxh3 {and he's dug his heels in. I
still think that black stands better here, but that fact goes back to
the blundered bishop} )
28...Qxe1+ 29.Kh2 Rd1 30.Qe6+ Kh8 31.Bxe5
{I poured and poured over this position, CONVINCED that there had to
be a forced mate. I knew I had to give check again (or capture his
bishop) to defend against Bxg7#. I say, without a hint of regret or
shame, that I spent close to an hour analyzing this position. I
slowly started to think that there was no forced mate, and that I was
going to let his king slip through, but I got up, stretched my legs,
made a cup of tea, came back, and found mate in 4. }
31...Qg1+ 32.Kg3 Qxf2+ 33.Kh2 Rh1+ 0-1 and white resigns.

The King's Gambit: An Exercise In Futility

So I've done it. 20 games playing the King's Gambit in light of that little online quiz I took, and I must say: CRAP! Okay, perhaps I'm being too harsh. I have, after all, been a d4 player since I first learned about the Queen's Gambit and all the stunning and beautiful complexities it offers, so maybe the transition to the King's should take longer than a mere 20 games. I just could not get comfortable in it. The early advance of the f-pawn, coupled with the expository advance of the e-pawn just leave the king too open in for me. I found myself constantly worrying about whether or not the e1-h4 diagonal was exposed and if my opponent could fool's mate me (which did happen a few times... Not "fool's mate" in the strictest sense, but more like I felt like a fucking moron for not seeing it).

In terms of the "gambit" itself, it was never accepted, and I found myself at a loss as to how to proceed after the 2. ...d6 that inevitably followed. How can I truly call it a gambit if it were never actually accepted?

Overall consensus: I'll stick with my current repertoire: 1. d4 as white, and 1. ...c5 or 1. ...d5 to 1. e4 and 1. ...d5 or 1. ...f5 to 1. d4 as black.

Online Quizzes Are Bullcrap

What a great word: Bullcrap. Let's bring that back into the lexicon, shall we?

Anyway, I took a stupid online quiz about which opening I should play and my result was a staggering: King's Gambit.

Hence, the title of this post. I've never played the king's gambit, not once. I'm a through and through 1. d4 player. But it did get me thinking. Maybe I'm missing something. Do I play 1. d4 because I feel it's superior to 1. e4, or because I am comfortable in that opening? Maybe I fear the Sicilian and that's why I don't play it. Hmmm...

So, in light of today's quiz, I've decided to do a little experiment. 20 games with the king's gambit. This should determine the merits of this opening, and also of online quizzes, both of which I believe to be: bullcrap

What, In God's Name, Is This?

I found this beauty while being too lazy to type the url of my blog into the address bar. I sign into Google, go to the blogs tab, and search for "chess terrific," and multiple links come up, all with the same heading as my blog. I clicked on one and saw that it was clearly my page, translated into another language, then translated back. Here's an excerpt from my last post:

"You are a child. You are of average or above average intelligence. One day, while visiting your grandfather, you ask him what the old, antiquated checkerboard with all the funny looking pieces is. He laughs, and tells you that it's not checkers, but chess."

And here is the same passage, after it has been through the translator:

"You are a neonate. remarkably One hour, while visiting your grandfather, you interrogate him what the former, prehistoric checkerboard with all the irrational looking pieces is. You are of emblem in the main or select to already emblem in the main shrewdness."

This phenomenon baffles me. I take great pains to make sure this thing is readable and relatively grammatically correct, and suddenly I see a twisted, bastardized version of my work readily available to anyone searching for "chess terrific." This is unacceptable!

Anyway, enough bitching. Big news. Big news! I've been hired by a website to write a column about chess. Yes, you read that correctly. Soon, I will be getting paid to write about chess. I haven't gotten everything set up with them yet; I just got the news a few minutes ago.

I played Dilligents again on FICS, and again, he battled me to the end. Here's the game:

(show chess board)(hide chess board)

Again, a gentleman, he offered me a game directly after (we had played a game immediately before this one, during which I became disconnected and lost. The game was, I think, undecided at that point, but hey, rules is rules), which, again, I had to decline. Seriously, I had ordered a pizza which arrived right at the end of our first game, which sat there while we played the one above, so I didn't want to play again; I had to eat!

Chess Prodigies

You are a child. You are of average or above average intelligence. One day, while visiting your grandfather, you ask him what the old, antiquated checkerboard with all the funny looking pieces is. He laughs, and tells you that it's not checkers, but chess.

"Wow," you say. "What's the difference?"

"Well, it's similar to checkers, but all these different pieces move in different ways."

Enthralled, you sit patiently while he explains the rules.

"How does the horsie move again?"

"Two squares ahead, and one to the side. And it's not called a horsie. It's called a knight."

You play a few games, losing to your grandfathers passing knowledge of strategy and tactics. Then, slowly, you begin to see the pieces differently. Before your move, you can visualize how your grandfather will respond. You take steps to counteract what you think his next move will be. Suddenly, your bishops don't hang anymore, and you realize the importance of stationing knights on key, central outposts. You many not know what a pin is, but you understand that it makes things more difficult for your grandfather if you force his knight to stay in one spot because moving it would put his king in check. It makes sense to double your rooks on open or half open files.

Your grandfather recognizes your potential, and signs you up for some junior tournaments. You plow through them, winning the trophies easily. Your FIDE rating climbs steadily, earning the ranks of Expert, FM, and IM. The chess world takes notice of you, saying how you are the next super-grandmaster. Lesser mortals fall before your towering calculation skill.

You have become, this kid: The Most Feared Competitor Ever

Magnus Carlsen: Hero, Patriot, Legend

This, friends, is Magnus Carlsen. He is younger, smarter, and better looking than you.




Magnus is currently ranked number three in the world, with a rating of 2772. To give some level of comparison to this young man's genius, once a player reaches a rating of around 2600, he or she is generally considered to be able to move the pieces with his or her mind. Also, only four players have ever exceeded a rating of 2800 (Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik, and Anand), So Mr. Magnus is poised to overthrow (he's only 19).

Magnus has a knack for kicking ass and taking names. He single handedly wiped out a tournament full of top competitors at Wijk aan Zee 2009, then told the Grand Prix tournament to go fuck itself. Why? Because the kid just don't play that way (Okay, in all honesty, I've done no research whatsoever for this post. I remember reading on Magnus' blog that he was not participating in some tournament for some reason, and I don't even know if he competed at Wijk ann Zee, let alone dominated).

This is the game where he beat the bag out of Vladimir Kramnik, one of the eastern European heavies that Russia seems to produce en masse every few years. Watch, and be amazed:

(show chess board)(hide chess board)

Lest you think that he can only play chess, here is a video of him during an interview. Watch as the interviewer tries to make Magnus look foolish, only to be fed a steaming pile of his own ass.

I Find a Disturbing Chess Set and Wonder How Far We as a Society Have Come

Behold:



That's right, it's exactly what it looks like. In case you are having trouble finding the words, allow me to give you some to from which to choose: They are chess figurines which are simulated fetuses preserved in formaldehyde which have deformities and oddities that indicate which piece they represent.

I came across this little gem while I was looking on eBay to see if anyone had a large quantity of cheap chess sets for sale.

Forget for a moment that someone actually took the time to carve these pieces, make or find glass tubes in which to fit them, fill them with a formaldehyde type liquid, and put them up for sale, he had to think up the concept first. His thought process had to be something along the lines "I'm bored with the standard Staunton pieces. If only there were a way I could combine my unnatural and creepy obsession with deformed, prenatal fetuses with my love for chess. Wait! Helga! Fetch me my notebook!"

Seriously. What does it say about us as a society that this is considered art? Even if you don't plan on playing with them, why would you want them in your house? I'd be afraid that they'd come alive in the middle of the night, secure various items of cutlery from my kitchen, and take me hostage. Especially the king. He looks particularly disagreeable.

Actually, that sounds pretty cool. I think I will bid on them...