If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Bob, you would jump more than 100 rating points by stopping the engine and doing your commentary.
I didn't realize this until recently and I'm still breaking myself of the habit of running a chess engine in the background while entering a game. It's just too easy to click a button.
I would actually also like to read what Bob has to say about what was going through his mind, observations during the game, etc. This sort of commentary is almost always interesting. But it's up to Bob ... he may not want to change the way he does things in the middle of an event.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
I didn't realize this until recently and I'm still breaking myself of the habit of running a chess engine in the background while entering a game. It's just too easy to click a button.
I would actually also like to read what Bob has to say about what was going through his mind, observations during the game, etc. This sort of commentary is almost always interesting. But it's up to Bob ... he may not want to change the way he does things in the middle of an event.
Hi Nigel:
You are 100% correct that more personal commentary would make the game much more interesting. I have been told this and agree.
But.....I feel contrained:
1. I want, at the moment anyway, to implement my Comprehensive Analysis System (CAS). It takes a ridiculous amount of time (many have advised it makes no sense on a return for effort basis...maybe...but not for me yet). I cannot afford to add more time to the process. I can only make some quick superficial comments of my own. This adds little time to the process.
2. Making detailed, thoughtful interesting insight annotations takes time, especially for those of us less gifted players. As I said, I have no time for this, at the moment anyway, with my life schedule.
3. I am a relatively weak player. My thoughts and analysis, though perhaps interesting, will often be clearly wrong, or at least incomplete. Works against annotated game being of interest.
I am trying to do more of what you suggest, but I must be fairly sure of my ground, and I cannot say I am that firmly ensconced. It is the correct direction, but I simply may have to do what I can do, and leave it to others to annotate in the style you suggest, with which I do agree.
1. I want, at the moment anyway, to implement my Comprehensive Analysis System (CAS). It takes a ridiculous amount of time (many have advised it makes no sense on a return for effort basis...maybe...but not for me yet). I cannot afford to add more time to the process. I can only make some quick superficial comments of my own. This adds little time to the process.
You'll save your time just printing scoresheets with own short notes. Those who will need engine evaluations can do on their own time (and more thoroughly)
3. I am a relatively weak player. My thoughts and analysis, though perhaps interesting, will often be clearly wrong, or at least incomplete. Works against annotated game being of interest.
I think you are wrong here. 1200 players like to read annotations by other 1200 players, 1600 players like to read annotations by other 1600 players, and so on. The path to improvement has many stations along the way, and each one is of interest to those nearest to it. In any case, you can always run your engine, with your annotation system, afterwards, and just include the bare minimum that you think prudent. (What did you and your opponent miss? etc., stuff like that.) Any fool who finds fault with such an approach, even if you make errors, won't be worth paying attention to. [Edited to add: let me rephrase that. Any player who finds errors might be helpful provided they put their remarks in a way that is useful. ]The advice to annotate your own games goes back to Mikhail Botvinnik, and probably earlier, is the soundest advice one chess player can give to another ... at any level of play.
The other point, which Egidijus made earlier, is that you will derive more from such an annotation approach. And you might find more motivation in a process that has some palpable benefit to you.
As I noted earlier, you may not want to change things for this event. I know that I would not be comfortable annotating games during an event; it would use up too much energy for me. But consider these ideas for future then. Cheers, and keep up the good work!
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Friday, 25th July, 2014, 02:35 PM.
Reason: let me rephrase that
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
You'll save your time just printing scoresheets with own short notes. Those who will need engine evaluations can do on their own time (and more thoroughly)
Hi Egis:
You are right that some people will do their own much better than mine. But many have no time to do it better. It is much quicker to play over an analyzed game than to have to do the analysis. So for them, they need a quick fix. I try to provide that, to those who need it. And I do believe, despite limitations of my software, hardware and time, that my annotated games are at least 80% close to the mark.
Blog # 6 - Pt. I - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
2014 Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)
Blog # 6 - Pt. I - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
NOTE
1. This blog is duplicate posted: a) on the FQE Canadian Open website ("Follow the tournament"); b) on the CMA Chesstalk. But the FQE website has the great advantage that it includes a game-viewer. So my Rd. 2 game, and that of Mario’s, that are in the text, can be immediately played over. The URL for the blog there is: http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/suivre_en.html .
2. The advantage of the Chesstalk site, is that there is capacity for anyone to comment and discuss any CO matters. The URL is: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/foru...hp?2-ChessTalk
Starting the Day Off Right – Wee Hours of the Morning
After midnight today (Wednesday), I continued work on the draft Blog # 5 (for Tuesday) and finished it, but did not want to try to send it out and post it when somewhat tired (error rate goes up). I went to bed at 2:30 PM.
Mid-Morning
I awoke at 5:00 AM – a bit shorter than I would regularly sleep, but not uncommon during tournaments. So I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. I started the draft for this Blog # 6, covering Wednesday. Then I reviewed my draft of this blog # 5 I had finished early Wednesday morning before I went to bed. I made a few minor corrections. Then at 7:30 AM I sent it out to the FQE (Roman) for posting. Then I posted it myself on Chesstalk.
I felt pretty good about the timing. All other prior blogs have been posted in the late afternoon or even just before 11:59 PM the night after the day blogged about. So…what is the new challenge?? What about a new goal of “scooping the administration” for the U 2000 section – that is, to get my blog sent to the FQE and posted on Chesstalk BEFORE midnight of the day blogged about, and BEFORE the FQE organizers get it up on the web. My blog would be the ONLY place to get the latest breaking news on the U 2000 section.
Well this thinking didn’t last long – the organizers/arbiters now seem to have asserted full control over the entire ship! Before 11:59 PM Wednesday, all (to my knowledge) section standings/pairings were on the net! This I can’t beat. Congratulations guys! I’ll now trash my new goal, and go back to trying to get it out before 9:00 AM the next day.
At 8:00 AM I dressed to go get breakfast at McD’s in the train station below us. Mario was not yet up, and I needed to eat early, since I’m having lunch at noon with my adult daughter who lives here in Montreal. Since the hotel room, due to all this blogging, was becoming a bit claustrophobic, I needed to get out a bit and so had breakfast there. Then back to continue working on the draft of this Blog # 6.
Mario had gotten up while I was away and was at his laptop happily doing something, but, I think, as an employer who is paying him the big bucks, not attending to his position as “Official CO Blog Researcher”. As they say, good help is hard to find these days….you take what you can get, and try to grin and bear it!
Mario went to get and bring back breakfast.
On Facebook, I PM’d my adult son and his partner who also live here in Montreal, to set a time for me to also get together with them, even though they had just spent last week with my wife and I up at Spirits’ Den (our hobby farm/swamp, about 3 hours drive north-west of Toronto). Then I returned to working on the draft of this blog # 6.
It is hard to realize that after our Rd. 6 game, we will have completed 2/3 of the tournament……as they say: “Time flies when you are having fun!” It has been most enjoyable, though I would have liked to play somewhat better chess in the first three rounds. But Mario and I hang out well together, and I’ve enjoyed spending some time with many of my chess friends. And though this blogging business is a bit of an albatross around my neck, it is fun to do (I try not to take it too seriously), and I get positive feedback that it is a contribution to Canadian chess.
I do admit that, with this blog pretty much up to the present now, it will be pleasant to not have to be trying to meet any working self-imposed deadlines. I like to pace, and I will be able to do that if I want. I find it clears my head; I also practice “contemplation” (different from meditation). You can go to my Canadian Spirits’ Den Contemplation Centre FB page for more on this: https://www.facebook.com/spiritsden?ref_type=bookmark ). I also saw a recent report that asserted that walking stimulates certain parts of the brain so that a mild happiness feeling is generated. So are all of you now going to start pacing while waiting for your opponents’ move??
Mario was doing who knows what! But boy he looks intense hunched over his computer . I think he is getting off a bit on his new life as the official “CO Blog Researcher”. And I’d like to suggest that you keep those proposals of marriage coming in to Mario (his exposure in this blog has apparently been quite favourable). I’d like for him to have a nice range of choice! In his new office, I guess in the public eye, he is now considered an equal subject of these fascinating blogs. Such is life (sigh). A prophet is without honour in his own country.
I won’t mention about him suddenly disappearing and ending up going for a nap. He did eventually surface again. At 11:30 AM I went down to go for a short walk before my daughter arrived. But it started to rain so I returned. In the lobby I met Rahul Gangoli of Toronto, who plays in both the clubs I do. We have been discussing chess improvement a bit, and so we’ve gotten to know each other. So we paced back and forth across the lobby together, discussing the tournament, chess learning, local chess politics, etc. We saw Mario briefly and he said my daughter had called she was running a bit late (not unexpected!).
Afternoon
About 12:20 PM my daughter arrived, and I assured her it was no problem and that subject to her schedule, I had just taken the afternoon off from my full time blogging job with the FQE! I offered to take her to a nice pizza place Mario and I had found about 15 min. walk away. She said that would be fine, but she knew of a nice little Chinese place that had great food, further west on Ste. Catherine. So we walked that way. Guess what….closed this week! But my daughter is quite resourceful. The immediate Plan B was to go Japanese, at the restaurant close-by where she had taken my son for his 35th birthday (both had lived in Montreal for years). It was great – crab, eel, squid, tempura, teriyaki, fish, mango and green ice cream………..
She belongs to a dance cooperative, and was in the process of general contracting for the coop a new dance floor in their studio. Tough doing this in a co-op. It was driving her crazy….she was about ready to resign since everyone was all over the map about which bid to accept. And of course, she hadn’t had time for personal dance exercise now for weeks. I told her that good chess players, when they go into chess administration, all seem to suffer the same phenomenon……..their ratings sink like a stone. She said she’d put on 10 lbs.! So we walked back to the hotel, and she happily trooped off to conquer the world. A delightful 2 hours.
Mario was slacking again when I got up to the room – totally sacked out, the room in complete darkness, with the curtains all closed. As an employer paying him big bucks as my researcher, I thought I needed to deal with this harshly. But then I considered…..maybe he is meant for me, to be a role model? So I quickly hopped into my bed, and went out like a light for over an hour.
When I got up, Mario advised that the blog was still not up on the FQE site, though sent out to them at 7:30 AM. I advised that it might be that they don’t schedule to post it until the poster gets to the playing hall late in the afternoon before the round.
I then continued filling in the afternoon portion of this blog # 6, and Mario did his now familiar non-researching mucking around. At 5:45 PM I went down to Timmies to get a nice coffee to nurse me through the opening of Game 6 (I am white again – now have 2 W’s; 3 Bl’s)
Round 6
I was paired up a bit. But it should have been more. The arbiters were, unfortunately, still using my higher FQE rating for pairing, rather than my lower CFC rating (which I have unsuccessfully tried to get corrected now three times – I’ve given up). I lost. I got myself early into a bad bind, and just had to play defensive all game. But it is somewhat interesting. Our game finished at about 9:00 PM. The game is below.
So I watched some games for a while and then went back upstairs to work on this blog # 6, and deal with some other matters I then entered my game and started analyzing it for this blog. In the meantime, I did go up and down to get a glimpse of the remaining games in the hall. Mario (win) and Omar Shah (win) then came in, and went out for a late dinner.
I also collected the results I needed for my blog from the hard copy results posting sheet, so I wouldn’t be dependent for the U 2000 section on when the arbiters got it posted. Danny Goldenberg and Alexandre Ber helped me complete my missing data, despite being busy. Thanks guys. So at 11:00 PM I had all the game data I needed. Mario and Omar then came in. They looked over the top board Rd. 6 game. I continued working now on the draft blog. I went out to pick up some juice and donuts, and then returned to complete the draft blog, except for my Rd. 6 game, which I still still analyzing.
Re: Blog # 6 - Pt. II - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
Blog # 6 - Pt. II - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
Continued from Part I Above
My Games
(Because new readers come to the blog from time to time, I want them to have the following information, and so I am repeating the template of it each day – I’d ask the daily readers of the blog to tolerate the repetition)
As I’ve said in prior year’s blogs, I like to think “class” games, like those in the U 2000 section, down in the middle of the bowels of the tournament, have some interest. I believe in some ways they are more educational to class players than GM games, if properly annotated. They are understandable, because we all think similarly – GM moves are many times incomprehensible to us class players.
For years now, I’ve used a chess website, Chess5 (http://www.chess5.com ), as my own personal chess games blog and back up storage site – I have gotten to know the owner/administrator Eydun, quite well over the years. I introduced Canada to his website, after I first saw it. Canada is now one of the main posters to this on-line databank. I post all my games, using what I call my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, hoping that this makes them even more helpful to viewers. In prior years, this is where I have posted my Open games for those interested to play over. Click on the heading link “public games”, and you get a list of games posted this month so far. There is an option to go back and look at posted games from prior months. In past years, my Can. Op. games have been posted there during the tournament. But I am not doing that this tournament, since I am now blogging on the FQE website, and there now is a gameviewer in my blogs.
My games may not be dramatic, but I am told I am a somewhat messy (I prefer the phrase “somewhat unorthodox”) and adventurous player (I lose a lot!), and that my games, win or lose, are often interesting to play over (some friends say, so they’ll learn how not to play chess…sigh). However in this tournament so far, I must admit I have played quite conservatively, even passively, in the first three games (all losses). My Rd. 5 game showed more spirit – a win. The Rd. 6 game is kind of messy, and I never really was in it. But in any event, the viewer will decide.
The 4 U 2000 Leaders Post Rd. 6
1/ 2. – 5 ½ pts. (Undefeated) – 2 players – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC); Petit, Raymond (1789 – QC);
3/ 4. – 5 pts. – 2 players - Weston, Paul (1963 – QC); Thanabalachandran, Kajan (1798 – ON
5/ 14. – 4 ½ pts. – 10 players.
Our section started with 13 top players who I termed the “favourites”. They were all in the 1900’s. But a number of them were not in the full Can. Op.; they were only in the Mini-COC and so they should not have been in our favourites group, which should have been only 8 players. 6 of them are now among the leaders set out above. Here are the true remaining 2 non-leader favourites and their scores – I kind of like to keep tabs on them since, though they may not be doing well early on, they are quite capable of suddenly again rising to the top:
The time control is 40/90 min. SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
Here it is – it is annotated using my own “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), Fritz, and my own annotations – I asked for feedback on my system, and have received some good analysis, critical of the method. That is good – I intend to consider it carefully after the tournament, to see what I can learn But I do hope you enjoy playing it over, and that much of the analysis, particularly tactical, is instructive and sound:
(1070) Armstrong,Robert J. (1645) - Zhou,David (1707) [E11]
Canadian Open (U 2000) (6), 23.07.2014
In copying a Fritz game into Chesstalk, some symbols change. Here they are:
2 = plus/= (CT cannot print the plus sign)
3 = =/plus
U (with a tail) = - over plus
1.d4= [0.15 (thank you Egis - but I am still concerned that this may be /= - we'll see).]
1...Nf6 2.c4 [2.Nf3² 0.35 (verified depth 28) 2...e6 (2...d5 3.c4 e6²) 3.c4 Bb4 ² I am uncertain of this evaluation because I have insufficient time available to allow Fritz to go as deeply into the position as it needs to, to give me a high odds answer, that it believes is correct]
10...h6 11.Be2 Nf4 12.Rg1?!µ [a totally misjudged K-side attack by me. I just freeze my pieces into the position. David gets a "clear" advantage.]
[12.Bf1 I should just acknowledge my plan is stupid, correct it, and salvage what I can. Has to be better than stubbornly playing a bad plan, with vain hopes of finding a way out. 12...a5 13.g3 Nh5³]
12...a5?!³ [12...Nd7 13.Qe3 Nc5µ]
13.b3?–plus [David gets a "winning" advantage]
[13.Bf1 the computer knows! 13...Na6 14.0–0–0 Nh5³]
24.Kf2 [my game has been difficult, being so tied down, and trying to find something good among very limited options. I only had 9 min. left to get to move 40; Dave had 1 hour.]
24...Qa8 25.Kg3 Ra2 26.Qd1 Ne2 27.Kh2 Nxg1 28.Kxg1 [Dave is up the exchange P]
28...Bxe4 29.fxe4 Ra1?–plus [-plus 7.43]
[29...Qa7 30.c5 Qxc5 31.Kh2 Qe3–plus 12.42]
30.Kh2 [Down to 1 min.; Dave has 54 min.]
30...Qa2?–plus [- 6.59]
[30...Qf8 31.Qc1 Qf2 –plus - 13.08]
31.Qg4 [I hovered for the rest of the game between 1 and 2 minutes.]
40...Rxe7! 41.dxe7 [If I live in a bubble, I could say that I am only a P down, but my passed P is on the 7th rank! But since I live in the real world, I'll just say I have nothing more I can do; I am lost.]
41...Kf7–plus [- 19.92]
0–1
Early Thursday Morning
At midnight Thursday, Omar left – had to catch the Metro back to Larry Bevand’s, ED of CMA. I went out to get some juice and donuts to keep me going while I continued to work on the blog. I worked on the blog ‘til 1:00 AM, but couldn’t finish it – the text was all completed, but analyzing the Rd. 6 game the way I do it, move by move with my chess engine, called my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), was going to have to go into tomorrow. It does require a time commitment. I hit the sack at 1:00 AM, a bit earlier than usual, but my one medication sometimes does wipe me out by early morning, and I just can’t fight it to stay awake.
Mid-Morning Thursday
Thursday morning, I managed to get 6 1/2 hrs. sleep. Quite nice really….more than I usually get under non-tournament conditions. I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued analyzing my Rd. 6 loss for this blog # 6. But since I am meeting with my son for lunch (he lives in Montreal; his partner couldn’t join us…had to work), I needed to have breakfast early and I didn’t know when Mario might be up. When I got back he was still asleep, but got up about 8:30 AM.
I continued analyzing. It was going to take a few hours with my super-detailed annotation system. I went to lunch with my son, and returned and finished it.
At 3:30 PM, I sent the blog and game out to Roman to post, and I posted it on Chesstalk.
The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 7 Pairings (top 14)
Round 7 on 2014/07/19 at 10h10
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 8 Germain Michel 1947 5½ 5½ Petit Raymond 1789 46
2 6 Weston Paul 1963 5 5 Thanabalachandran Kajan 1798 43
3 1 Shah Omaray M. 1999 4½ 4½ Yie Kevin Yi-Xiao 1874 25
4 48 Pulfer Luke 1784 4½ 4½ Pomerantz Daniel 1937 11
5 16 Chang Michael 1912 4½ 4½ Miettinen Eric 1854 28
6 38 Desautels Richard 1813 4½ 4½ Gunapalan David 1912 18
7 53 Baumgartner Christopher 1766 4½ 4½ Pinho Tiago 1889 21
My Rd. 7 Pairing
34 69 Richardson Kai 1709 2 2 Armstrong Robert J. 1845 30
Re: Blog # 6 - Pt. III - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
Blog # 6 - Pt. III - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
Continued from Part II Above
The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 6
First prize is $ 4,000. There are 42 registered players (one shown actually in U 2400).
Here are the 6 Co-Leaders:
1/ 6. – 4 ½ pts.
GM Tiviakov, Sergei (2656 – Netherlands)
GM Kovalyov, Anton (2636 – Canada – top FIDE-rated Canadian, playing for Canada)
GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands)
GM Hansen. Eric (2596 – Canada)
GM Ghaem-Maghami, Ehsan (2586 – Iran)
GM Fedorowicz, John (2422 – USA)
(no pic because the computer program balking, after no problems getting first pics. in; no time to get advice)
The Top Section Leaders’ Rd. 7 Pairings
Round 7 on 2014/07/24 at 18
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 4 GM Hansen Eric 2596 4½ 4½ GM Tiviakov Sergey 2656 1
2 2 GM Kovalyov Anton 2636 4½ 4½ GM Ghaem-Maghami Ehsan 2586 6
3 3 GM Van Kampen Robin 2636 4½ 4½ GM Fedorowicz John Peter 2422 15
Invitation.
Unfortunately, the website format FQE uses, does not allow for any comments, questions, etc. concerning the blog material. This is why it is being duplicate posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association national chess discussion board, Chesstalk. There this can be done. So, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion on Chesstalk by making comments, suggestions, questions, constructive criticisms , etc. Anything to do with the Can. Open is welcome. I will try to respond on Chesstalk if that seems appropriate.
Re: Blog # 6 - Pt. III - Day 5/ Rd. 6 – Wednesday, July 23
I notice there has been some discussion in this blog of Bob Armstrong’s ‘Comprehensive Analysis System’ that he uses when publishing games online. There have been some criticisms , some even suggesting that we ordinary players stop relying on Fritz’s or Houdini’s suggestions. Rather than add to the criticisms, I will share my own approach to computer use.
I enter games into my database using Fritz’s ‘infinite analysis’ mode. The computer shows its analysis as I enter the moves, but I don’t pay any attention unless it shows a big swing (1.0 or more) in the evaluation. This usually shows a critical point in the game where I , or my opponent, either blundered or failed to spot and exploit the opponent’s blunder. When publishing games, I focus mainly on these situations. I consider the smaller evaluation swings indicated by the engine largely irrelevant to me and probably to those who would be most interested in viewing my game. Nor do I have the chess strength to describe (usually) why I or my opponent are ‘losing their advantage’ (I guess this is where a human chess coach would come in handy).
As has been pointed out in other posts, it would be of interest if we amateurs shared our personal thoughts on the moves we make and why. Other amateurs will likely be able to identify with such comments (and maybe learn something!), sometimes even more so than in GM games annotated for strong players.
Blog # 7 - Pt. I - Day 6/ Rd. 7 – Thursday, July 24
2014 Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)
Blog # 7 - Pt. I - Day 6/ Rd. 7 – Thursday, July 24
NOTE
1. This blog is duplicate posted: a) on the FQE Canadian Open website ("Follow the tournament"); b) on the CMA Chesstalk. But the FQE website has the great advantage that it includes a game-viewer. So my Rd. 2 game, and that of Mario’s, that are in the text, can be immediately played over. The URL for the blog there is: http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/suivre_en.html .
2. The advantage of the Chesstalk site, is that there is capacity for anyone to comment and discuss any CO matters. The URL is: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/foru...hp?2-ChessTalk
Starting the Day Off Right – Wee Hours of the Morning
After midnight today (Thursday), I continued work on the draft Blog # 6 (covering Wednesday) and finished it, except for the game 6 analysis. I went to bed at 1:00 PM.
Mid-Morning
I awoke at 7:30 AM – a very long sleep for me, especially during tournaments. So I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. I reviewed my almost complete draft of this blog # 6, and made minor revisions. Then I continued analyzing the Rd. 6 game for this blog # 6. Mario was not yet up, and at noon I was going to lunch with my son (he lives in Montreal). So I needed an early breakfast. I went to McD’s and brought it back to keep on the game. Mario was up, and then he went down, and brought back breakfast. We happily worked, chatted and philosophized in our new CO Blogging Office, provided to us by the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth Hotel.
Afternoon
At noon I went down to the lobby to meet my son. But he apparently was running late. I just paced back and forth in the lobby (I love to pace). Then a woman came up to me and said: “Do I know you”. Initially I looked and didn’t recognize her. Then I did…….”Day”. “Angela” she replied, but I’m remarried. I introduced myself and she then remembered. She was initially married to Canadian IM Lawrence Day. She said she was not really all that up on chess anymore. But, if I understood correctly, she said she and her husband were about to have lunch with their friend, John Fedorowicz! I noted that he was one of the 6 co-leaders, and she asked who the others were and I told her. She then had to be off. One never knows at chess tournaments what the future holds. We had not seen each other for at least 20 years I think. And I only got the beard and mustache in 1990. Surprising that she recognized me. A nice, pleasant little event to have had happen.
My son showed up, and I took him to a nice Pizza place I knew. It is big and popular. But at 1:30 PM, crazy busy. It was so loud with all the talking, you couldn’t hardly hear each other…not really ideal for a nice intimate parent/child interlude. So I came up with Plan B – a restaurant under the hotel that I knew would be more sedate. He and I chatted about our visit last week at Spirits’ Den, our family hobby farm/swamp (his partner had been with him). He is working part-time on an organic farm, and so we talked farming a bit. We chatted about how he and his partner were living their lives, etc. He was on his way to work in the afternoon, so we each downed our beer went up to the hotel, and he then headed out to work. Nice to get some quiet time alone with him!
At the hotel….the slave job……this blog # 6, and Fritz (sigh – I’ve created a monster!). But I finally finished it, and at 3:30 PM out it went to Roman (FQE). Then I posted it on Chesstalk.
I felt a little disappointed about the timing for getting Blog # 6 out. I have been shooting to get it out before noon. But that is difficult. But I will shoot for it again with this Blog # 7.
A little after 4:00 PM Mario and I went downstairs for dinner. I wasn’t really hungry though, given a bit of a late lunch with my son, and just got a dessert. On the way back we met Omar Shah of Toronto and of our section, getting his dinner. So he brought it up to our place.
I now could start work on a draft of this Blog # 7 covering Thursday.
Round 6
At 5:45 PM Mario and I went down to Timmies to get a nice coffee to nurse us through the openings of Game 7 (I am black again – now have 2 W’s; 4 Bl’s). Omar went directly to the playing hall.
I was paired up a bit. But, as I have mentioned a number of times previously, it should have been more. The arbiters were, unfortunately, still using my higher FQE rating for pairing, rather than my lower CFC rating (which I have unsuccessfully tried to get corrected now three times – I’ve given up). I lost (a blunder that led to a quick mate – game over in about 2 hours). I have some concern whether it really is of blog quality, but I generally hold that things can be learned, even from flawed games. Plus, Kai (a BC Junior) is very efficient at mating me thereafter, and that is instructive. So, the game is below.
We did go and analyze the game, and Kai showed me where I did have a key move in the opening, that leads to winning material – I admitted I had missed it totally. Then I watched some games for a while.
Richard Berube then approached me and asked if I had received the little FQE gift for doing the blog for me (they also had paid my registration fee and playing up fee initially). I advised that I hadn’t. So we went to the hotel registration, and they advised that the card had been taken up to my room – Richard said it was a small gift certificate for a meal in the hotel restaurant. I thanked him, and said I hoped the blog had given FQE more visibility in English Canada.
I then went back upstairs to work on this blog # 7, including entering the game. The card and breakfast credit were there. I then continued analyzing.
I did go up and down to get a glimpse of the remaining games in the hall. I also touched base with my wife, up at Spirits’ Den, our hobby farm/swamp, 3 hrs. drive northwest of Toronto, and told her the sad tale of my chessing (no sympathy there! ). Mario came in at 9:30 PM, having won. He had booked up on his opponent in the afternoon, and learned a lot he didn’t know before – and he made successful use of it! So Mario now has 3 ½ pts. I then informed Mario he was going to be treated for breakfast Friday morning!
Omar Shah then came in – he’d drawn – gave him 5 pts.
The organizers now are getting the standings/pairings on the net before 11:59 PM, and I use them for the blog. But in case there should be a glitch, I still manually collected the results I needed for my blog from the hard copy results posting sheet. By 11:00 PM, I had all the relevant results I needed for the blog. Omar and Mario then went to watch some of the last games. Omar left and Mario came back up to prepare for his opponent – the admins had everything up again before midnight – now running a tight ship!
My Games
(Because new readers come to the blog from time to time, I want them to have the following information, and so I am repeating the template of it each day – I’d ask the daily readers of the blog to tolerate the repetition)
As I’ve said in prior year’s blogs, I like to think “class” games, like those in the U 2000 section, down in the middle of the bowels of the tournament, have some interest. I believe in some ways they are more educational to class players than GM games, if properly annotated. They are understandable, because we all think similarly – GM moves are many times incomprehensible to us class players.
For years now, I’ve used a chess website, Chess5 (http://www.chess5.com ), as my own personal chess games blog and back up storage site – I have gotten to know the owner/administrator Eydun, quite well over the years. I introduced Canada to his website, after I first saw it. Canada is now one of the main posters to this on-line databank. I post all my games, using what I call my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, hoping that this makes them even more helpful to viewers. In prior years, this is where I have posted my Open games for those interested to play over. Click on the heading link “public games”, and you get a list of games posted this month so far. There is an option to go back and look at posted games from prior months. In past years, my Can. Op. games have been posted there during the tournament. But I am not doing that this tournament, since I am now blogging on the FQE website, and there now is a gameviewer in my blogs.
My games may not be dramatic, but I am told I am a somewhat messy (I prefer the phrase “somewhat unorthodox”) and adventurous player (I lose a lot!), and that my games, win or lose, are often interesting to play over (some friends say, so they’ll learn how not to play chess…sigh). However in this tournament so far, I must admit I have played quite conservatively, even passively, in the first three games (all losses). My Rd. 5 & 7 games showed more spirit – though only one was a win. The Rd. 6 game is kind of messy, and I never really was in it. But in any event, the viewer will decide.
Re: Blog # 7 - Pt. II - Day 6/ Rd. 7 – Thursday, July 24
Blog # 7 - Pt. II - Day 6/ Rd. 7 – Thursday, July 24
Continued from Part I Above
The 7 U 2000 Leaders Post Rd. 7
1. – 6 ½ pts. (Undefeated) – 1 player – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC);
2. – 6 pts. – 1 player – Weston, Paul (1963 – QC )
3/ 7. – 5 1/2 pts. – 5 players – Chang, Michael (1912 – QC); Pinho, Tiago (1889 – Portugal); Barko, Maxim (1887 – QC); Gunapalan, David (1872 – QC); Petit, Raymond (1789 – QC).
Our section started with 13 top players who I termed the “favourites”. They were all in the 1900’s. But a number of them were not in the full Can. Op.; they were only in the Mini-COC and so they should not have been in our favourites group, which should have been only 7 players. 3 of them are now among the leaders set out above. Here are the true remaining 4 non-leader favourites and their scores – I kind of like to keep tabs on them since, though they may not be doing well early on, they are quite capable of suddenly again rising to the top:
The time control is 40/90 min. SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
Here it is – it is annotated using my own “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), Fritz, and my own annotations – I asked for feedback on my system, and have received some good analysis, critical of the method. That is good – I intend to consider it carefully after the tournament, to see what I can learn But I do hope you enjoy playing it over, and that much of the analysis, particularly tactical, is instructive and sound. As I said, this is certainly to be considered a somewhat flawed game, but for what it is worth, here it is (I now have 1 win; 5 losses; 1 forfeit win):
Richardson, Kai (1709) - Armstrong, Robert J. (1645) [A91]
Canadian Open (U 2000) (7), 24.07.2014
In copying a Fritz game into Chesstalk, some symbols change. Here they are:
2 = plus/= (CT cannot print the plus sign)
3 = =/plus
U (with a tail) = - over plus
23...Bh4?? – [5.23 an awful tactical blunder, while trying to develop an attack. I saw the sac line one way, which was good. I failed to see the line the second way, which was bad. The game is pretty much lost now.]
30...Ke6?? – [14.64 Hopeless. I needed to tell myself that there was no hope for an attack, and I needed to just hunker down and try for a draw. The K should be headed to the back rank. This leads to mate.]
[30...Kg8 31.Qe2 Qe6 – 4.62]
31.Rc7?? – [14.46 misses the computer mating line]
[31.Qb1 Kf6 32.Be5 Kg5 33.Rxg7 Qxg7 34.Bxg7 g3 35.Qb7 gxh2 36.Kh1 Kg6 – and white mates in 12 moves]
32.Rxc6 ? – [7.32 Kai is up B vs P. This is the longer computer mating line ]
[32.Qb1 Rxg3 33.hxg3 Qh3 34.Rxc6 Kf7 35.Qb7 Kg8 36.Rxf5 Qxg3 37.Kf1 Qh3 38.Ke2 Qh2 39.Kd1 Qg1 40.Kc2 Qg2 41.Kb3 Qh3 and white mates in 8 moves]
32...Kf7 33.Rc7 ?? – [6.29 again missing the long computer mating line]
[33.Qb3 Kg8 34.Rd6 Rf8 35.Rxd5 Kh7 36.c6 Qh6 37.Rc5 Rxg3 38.hxg3 Qh3 39.Rfxf5 Qxg3 40.Kf1 Qh3 41.Ke2 Qh2 42.Kd1 Qg1 43.Kc2 Qh2 44.Kc3 – and white mates in 26 moves]
33...Ke6?? – [leads to mate]
[33...Kg6 34.Qe2 Kh7 – 8.15]
34.Qa4 Rxg3 [desperation; BUT, if it is any consolation to me, Fritz says it is the best move in a losing situation!]
35.hxg3 [Kai is up R vs P]
35...Rd6 36.cxd6 [Kai is up 2 R's vs P]
36...Qh3 [this will not work]
37.Qe8 – [mate in three moves]
1–0
In the Wee Hours of Friday Morning
At midnight Friday, I was finished the text of the Blog # 7, but only part way through the Game 7 annotating. Mario and I then went out to get some fresh air and picked up something from our 24/7 Timmies, to keep us going. I worked on the blog ‘til 1:00 AM, but couldn’t finish it (I take a medication earlier in the evening, that when it kicks in hours later, wipes me out)– the text was all completed, but analyzing the Rd. 7 game the way I do it, move by move with my chess engine, called my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, was going to have to go into tomorrow. It does require a time commitment. I hit the sack at 1:00 AM.
Mid-Morning Friday
Friday morning, I managed to get 4 ½ hrs. sleep (my tournament “sleep disorder I’ve referred to in earlier blogs). I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued analyzing my Rd. 7 loss for this blog # 7.
Mario got up at 7:15 AM, just as I was beginning to send the blog out to Roman to post. I then posted it on Chesstalk.
Continued in Part III Below
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 25th July, 2014, 07:56 AM.
Re: Blog # 7 - Pt. III - Day 6/ Rd. 7 – Thursday, July 24
Blog # 7 - Pt. III - Day 6/ Rd. 7 – Thursday, July 24
Continued from Part II Above
The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 8 Pairings (top 14)
Round 8 on 2014/07/19 at 10h10
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 6 Weston Paul 1963 6 6½ Germain Michel 1947 8
2 21 Pinho Tiago 1889 5½ 5½ Chang Michael 1912 16
3 18 Gunapalan David 1912 5½ 5½ Petit Raymond 1789 46
4 43 Thanabalachandran Kajan 1798 5 5 Shah Omaray M. 1999 1
5 11 Pomerantz Daniel 1937 5 5 Mok Yuen Tak 1816 37
6 22 Barko Maxim 1887 5 5 Perna-Fraser David 1812 41
7 25 Yie Kevin Yi-Xiao 1874 5 5 Pulfer Luke 1784 48
My Rd. 7 Pairing
37 30 Armstrong Robert J. 1845 2 2 St-Cyr Xavier 1730 62
The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 7
First prize is $ 4,000. There are 42 registered players (one shown actually in U 2400).
Here are the Leaders:
1. 5 ½ pts. - GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands)
2/ 4. – 5 pts.
GM Tiviakov, Sergey (2656 – Netherlands)
(computer problem inserting pic; no time for advice; I am no techie!)
GM Kovalyov, Anton (2636 – Canada – top FIDE-rated Canadian, playing for Canada)
GM Hansen. Eric (2596 – Canada)
GM Ghaem-Maghami, Ehsan (2586 – Iran)
The Top Section Leaders’ Rd. 7 Pairings
Round 8 on 2014/07/25 at 18
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 2 GM Kovalyov Anton 2636 5 5½ GM Van Kampen Robin 2636 3
2 6 GM Ghaem-Maghami Ehsan 2586 5 5 GM Hansen Eric 2596 4
3 1 GM Tiviakov Sergey 2656 5 4½ GM De Firmian Nick 2509 8
4 5 GM Moradiabadi Elshan 2593 4½ 4½ IM Panjwani Raja 2432 14
5 7 GM Sambuev Bator 2526 4½ 4½ FM Preotu Razvan 2341 20
6 15 GM Fedorowicz John Peter 2422 4½ 4½ IM Xiong Jeffery 2441 13
7 33 FM Cao Jason 2177 4½ 4 GM Vera Gonzalez-Quevedo Reynald 2468 10
Invitation.
Unfortunately, the website format FQE uses, does not allow for any comments, questions, etc. concerning the blog material. This is why it is being duplicate posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association national chess discussion board, Chesstalk. There this can be done. So, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion on Chesstalk by making comments, suggestions, questions, constructive criticisms , etc. Anything to do with the Can. Open is welcome. I will try to respond on Chesstalk if that seems appropriate.
Bob Armstrong, the U 2000 Blogger
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 25th July, 2014, 08:30 AM.
The Dutch Defence - Inferior to other 1.d4 Defences?
Hi Jack:
I have my official blog researcher on the case!
But as he advises on his first go-round, Chessgames.com says that the Dutch wins a whopping 28% of the time??? A great defence???
You research: isn't the normal split for standard openings 55% - 45% in favour of white.
The Dutch isn't even on the radar. The Dutch is inferior and deserves "?! /=". I rest my case.
And...I am not denigrating those elite players who by choice decide to play what they recognize clearly is an inferior defence (note that I have played it, so I am in good company). They are NOT playing computers. They are playing humans....and if there is some surprise value because he knows the lines 30 moves deep, and his opponent elite GM will not, then maybe this will be a successful judgment call on his part. He will win out of an inferior opening! We humans choose what the computers tell us are inferior moves all the time...by choice...for what we consider justified reasons.
But as he advises on his first go-round, Chessgames.com says that the Dutch wins a whopping 28% of the time??? A great defence???
You research: isn't the normal split for standard openings 55% - 45% in favour of white.
The Dutch isn't even on the radar. The Dutch is inferior and deserves "?! /=". I rest my case.
And...I am not denigrating those elite players who by choice decide to play what they recognize clearly is an inferior defence (note that I have played it, so I am in good company). They are NOT playing computers. They are playing humans....and if there is some surprise value because he knows the lines 30 moves deep, and his opponent elite GM will not, then maybe this will be a successful judgment call on his part. He will win out of an inferior opening! We humans choose what the computers tell us are inferior moves all the time...by choice...for what we consider justified reasons.
Bo A
Bob, I think I've detected a fundamental flaw in your analysis (:
Your "28%" figure must be adjusted to account for draws!
You might also note that 1. ...f5 is the 4th most common response to 1.d4 at chessgames.com and that your 28% figure tops the win % of the 3 more common responses (:
Tweet
Comment