Showing posts with label Kotov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kotov. Show all posts

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Sunday Book Review: Why You Lose at Chess, 2nd Ed.


Why You Lose at Chess 2nd Ed
Tim Harding
Dover (2001)
softcover, 130 pages
figurine algebraic notation




I suppose that you can sense a pattern in the chess books that I have mentioned lately, the last two being Surprise in Chess and Danger in Chess: How to Avoid Making Blunders.

There are a number of links to be made between these books, Why You Lose at Chess,(*) and the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and I suppose I should get around to reviewing the titularly more inclusive Why We Lose at Chess (emphasis mine) by Colin Crouch and the more distanced Catalog of Chess Mistakes by Andy Soltis  but the real hook for me (besides the fact that I have loved every book by Dr. Harding that I have ever read) with Why You Lose at Chess (emphasis mine), which left me laughing out loud, was Harding's main theme of the book
Before you can play well, you must stop playing badly.
Ain't it the truth??

The table of Contents promisess a killer's row of self-induced pain

Why You Lose Material
Why You Lose In The Opening
Why You Lose In The Endgame
Why You Lose In The Middle Game
Why You Lose In Good Positions
Why You Lose In Difficult Positions
Why You Lose On Time
Why You Lose At Correspondence Chess
Why You Lose To Computers

Each chapter not only has examples of chess players behaving badly, and coming to no good ends, but also contains explanations by the author about what is going on, what should be going on, and how things could be corrected.

Of special interest is the chapter "My Most Instructive Loss" where IM Harding, IM Cenek Kottnaur, IM George Botterill and IM Bob Wade all share their insights.

I found his "Acknowledgements & Bibliography" chapter interesting as well, where Harding recommends Gerald Abrahams' The Chess Mind, Kotov's Play Like A Grandmaster and Think Like A Grandmaster and Krogius' Psychology in Chess. (I touched on all of these a while back in "My Chess Psychology Book Shelf".)

Harding maintains an optimistic, at times humorous, but always encouraging outlook

Three results are possible in a game of chess – win, loss and draw. This book is intended to cut down drastically on your rate of losses, by recognising the danger signals in time, and by analysing what went wrong in the games you do lose.
To let a potential win slip into a draw is a disappointment but, for most players, it cannot compare with the blow to one's confidence that comes from losing in a serious game. The occasional loss to an acknowledged superior is no bad thing, as an insurance against overconfidence and for the lesson in technique it may give you. However, most of your losses are probably of a more painful variety.
Most of the games you play are likely to be against opponents of approximately your own standard; yo win some and you lose some, yet you always feel that you could do better. By a little extra study beforehand, and more effort while at the board, you could turn that 50 per cent success rate into 80 or 90 per cent and so raise yourself into a new class of competition...
I've read the book through once and am working on it again. After all, an 80 or 90 per cent success rate in the Jerome Gambit would be awesome!

(*- here's
a relevant list of reasons attributed to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Bill Wall)

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Dizziness Due to Success

Alexander Kotov, in his classic Think Like A Grandmaster, wrote about players who were

over-confident, complacent in their recognition of the fact that they had a marked advantage, and so their vigilance was blunted.
We call this widespread complacency when the win is near 'Dizziness due to success' .
perrypawnpusher - bnxr
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+


4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6


7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.O-O Kf7


Black returns the tempo that I spent on "the nudge" (see "Nudge 2.0")

11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Rxe4

While analyzing my game against stcamillis (see "Stand up! Fight back!") where I had played 12.d3, I had realized that 12.f5 was playable – in fact, it had been played as early as Vazquez - Carrington, Mexico, 2nd match, 1876, because the immediate threat against the pawn at e4 was an illusion.

That my opponent grabbed the pawn (his plan from move 10) is one more example of the negative "halo effect" that surrounds the Jerome Gambit: If White blunders so badly in the opening, he is going to blunder throughout the game. So any move that appears bad [like 12.f5], must be bad.

13.fxg6+ hxg6

An unfortunate reflex action. Black needed to play 13...Kg8, when 14.gxh7+ Kh8 15.Qd3 would have left White with a pawn advantage.

14.Qxe4

14...Bf5 15.Rxf5

The position looked messy after 15.Qxb7 Bxc2, so I decided to return a bit of my extra material (Rook for Knight + pawn) to reach a quieter position.


15...gxf5 16.Qxf5 Qe7 17.Qf1


This borders on anxiety, however. Simply 17.Nc3 was fine.

17...Rh8 18.d3 Qe5 19.Nc3

Up  a piece, a little bit of development – what could go wrong?

19...Qxh2+

Well, that's annoying.

The game would have been much simpler after the alert 19.h3. Now my opponent had chances to make my life uncomfortable, and I was fortunate that he did not torture me as much as he could have.

20.Kf2 Qh4+

After the game Rybka preferred 20... Re8, and showed that White would be fine after 21.Ne2 Nd5 22.Ke1+ Kg8 23.Bd2 b5 24.Rc1 c5 25.Kd1 Rf8 26.Qg1 Qe5 27.Rb1 Re8 28.Qf1 c4 29.dxc4 bxc4 30.Ng1.




analysis diagram








Uh, right...


21.Ke2 Kg8

I was very happy to see Black block his Rook from the e-file.

22.Bd2 Qg4+ 23. Qf3 Qe6+ 24.Kf2 Ng4+


Enter: the Knight.

25.Kg3 Nh2

I would not be surprised to learn that my opponent was feeling a bit dizzy, himself. This move allowed me to exchange Queens – and win the Knight.

26.Qd5 Qxd5 27.Nxd5 c6


This move is a slight distraction from the fact that Black's Knight has no safe retreat.

28.Nc3 Kf7 29.Rh1 Black resigned