Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

[Jack Maguire]

Re: The Dutch Defence - Inferior to other 1.d4 Defences?

And using your same chessgames.com source, Bob, I guess my much loved 1.d4 d5 2.e4 BDG deserves a double exclamation designation given the 63.6% win rate. Make that 68.1% after adjusting for the 9% (the lowest draw rate of any opening) draw rate (:

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: The Dutch Defence - Inferior to other 1.d4 Defences?

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 (:

Hi Jack:

Seems like a pretty good response, though I will only cry "uncle", after further considered research and thought, if my research confirms your position.

Thanks for being willing to debate it. Hope at least a few other viewers like to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Blackmar-DeimerGambit Defence - Inferior?

And using your same chessgames.com source, Bob, I guess my much loved 1.d4 d5 2.e4 BDG deserves a double exclamation designation given the 63.6% win rate. Make that 68.1% after adjusting for the 9% (the lowest draw rate of any opening) draw rate (:

Hi Jack:

I may be mistaken in using as a source the stats on anecdotal human games in Chessgames.com.

The fact that human white's play terribly against the Blackmar-Deimer Gambit is due to unfamiliarity.

I challenge any human to play the Backmar-Deimer against any good computer. What is anyone's guess of the human black win rate?

We know that computers beat humans. That is not my point. The issue is that on iron-clad computer brute opening calculation, the Blackmar-Deimer is inferior, just like the French.

Though it is successful in the real world, it is not in the virtual chess theology world.

The way to establish this is my Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), much maligned I admit, analyzed on up-to-date software and hardware, and given a significant time frame in which to operate, so that the computer success rate will be quite high (maybe 90 %).

Anyone volunteering to do this with the Backmar-Deimer??

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: The Dutch Defence - Inferior to other 1.d4 Defences?

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 (:

Hi again Jack:

As we discussed in another sub-thread, it may be that I am off entirely in trying to support my case from ChessGames.com, and the result of human play. I take back my initial argument.

But I do need to try to understand more deeply the relationship between the brute calculation/chess program evaluation, and the on-the-ground human results. I am not all that familiar with this. It may be that it would help if some others that understand these things better, now weigh in.

It is, as we are discussing, the fact that computer program evaluation is base on perfect moves. Human result tallies are based on lots of inferior moves. Like trying to compare apples and oranges I think.

So I'll go away and try to think more about this (if that is really possible:D ).

Bob A

[Miroslav Stefanovic]

Re: The Dutch Defence - Inferior to other 1.d4 Defences?

in Mega Database , there are 13731 games with rating of both players over 2200 and white scores 56.5% of points. ( draws included) where first move is 1.d4 f5 ( not counting later transpositions)
Overall 64457 games with 1.d4 f5 with 54.6% of points going to white. ( so weaker players deal worse with it :)

chesstempo shows: 15133 games 39.9% white wins , 35% draws and 25.1% wins for black.

[Jack Maguire]

Re: Blackmar-DeimerGambit Defence - Inferior?

I hate to break it to you, Bob, but both you and I play in the real world, not the "virtual chess theology world" (:

[Jack Maguire]

Re: Blackmar-DeimerGambit Defence - Inferior?

On point, Bob, had I been playing a computer Monday night at the Annex Chess Club, my 4th move, Nb4 (i.e. 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4 Nb4) would probably garner a ?! in your Fritz world. Nonetheless, I'd likely annotate it with a !!?. The extra ! since it was both a favourite of the immortal David Bronstein and the fact that there's a strong possibility it's a winning move against a human opponent, especially against the likes of you and me. And sure enough, there followed 5.Qa4 Nbc6 6.d5?! b5! 7.Qxb5? Ng2 with a totally won game for Black. The sooner you realize you're playing humans, not computers, the better you're likely to score, Bob (:

[Mathieu Cloutier]

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.

I remember Jean Hébert recommending something similar in an article he wrote a bunch of years ago.

That was also my intuitive approach. The first and only time I used Fritz's blunder check function, I saw that the result is a huge pile of garbage of no practical use.

Here's what I do. First, I let the engine off and enter the game AND the main variations I thought of during the game. After that, I go through the game with the engine in 'infinite analysis' mode and look at the suggestions. Of course, blunders are spotted immediately. But I also like to challenge my ideas a little more thoroughly. For example, even if the computer thinks one of my moves is dubious, I will actually force the variation and see if the 'refutation' found by the computer makes sense.

Example: sometimes, you sacrifice a piece and the computer jumps to an immediate plus 2 for your oppenent. Blunder then? Wait a minute. What if the variation that achieves this plus 2 eval requires that the defending side finds 5, 6 or 7 extermely counter-intuitive moves? The computer finds these, no problem. But in practical play? Almost impossible. Computers variations shouldn't be considered as gospel, like Bob and a whole bunch of people seem to think, but rather as tools that can help you unravel the level of complexity in your game.

Also, you could be surprised by the amount of time that is required for the computer to find the 'real' good move in some positions. Example: when there's a relatively long and forced variation (checks, captures and re-captures) that leads to an endgame. You can calculate that easily, visualize the endgame and decide if it's winning or not in just a few seconds. But the computer doesn't know about endgames, it has to calculate everything, including all the non-forcing moves that don't lead to said endgame. So if you go by the computer, it may say you're not winning with move X. But if you actually enter move X and all the forcing moves that follow right until the endgame, then the computer's eval starts going up for you, slowly, but steadily.

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: Blackmar-DeimerGambit Defence - Inferior?

Looks like a typo after 6...b5, Jack. Did you mean Qxb5 Nc2+ ?

[Jack Maguire]

Re: Blackmar-DeimerGambit Defence - Inferior?

Looks like a typo after 6...b5, Jack. Did you mean Qxb5 Nc2 ?

I did indeed, Ken. I've now made the requisite correction. Thanks.

[Bob Armstrong]

Blog # 8 - Part I - Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

2014 Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Blog # 8 - Part I - Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

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 Friday, I continued work on the draft Blog # 7(covering Thursday) and finished it, except for the game 7 analysis. Mario prepped for his Rd. 8 opponent. I went to bed at 1:00 PM.

Mid-Morning

I awoke at 6:30 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 the blog # 7, and made minor revisions. Then I continued analyzing the Rd. 7 game for blog # 7.
Mario got up about 7:15 AM. as I was getting my blog # 7 sent out to FQE, and posted on Chesstalk. Then we went down to the food court for breakfast (not Timmies or McD’s!)
When we came back, I found that Jack Maguire of Toronto, who I know from the Annex CC where I also play, was taking umbrage at my mild criticism of the Dutch Defence in my Blog # 7. I and my trusty researcher came up with a bit of a defence, and so I posted. But Jack pointed out that statistics can lie. He did force me to re-evaluate the “source” I was using to bolster my case. So I then got into the difference between anecdotal collection of human results, and the pure chess theology of computers, demanding the perfect move each time (we humans are a bit sloppy on this front). Jack noted that I play humans….hmmm.
This all tired my official blog researcher out, and the next thing I know, on work time, there he is sacked out on his bed. So I decided to go out for a walk, and get some fresh air, before I commenced working on this Blog # 8. When I came back, Mario was up.

Afternoon

At noon, I was totally zonked…unusual. So I hit the sack for about an hour. When I got up I could hear the laptops whimpering…like two dogs that knew they were about to be let alone in the house for a few hours. They had heard Mario and I discussing going down to the hotel restaurant for lunch …. My treat to my steadfast (well….sometimes) official Can. Op. Blog Researcher. I think I mentioned that in addition to free tournament entry and playing up fee for doing the blog for FQE, they gave me a nice little gift of a credit for the hotel restaurant. So it was almost enough to cover the two of us going there. So down we went about 1:30 PM, hearing the laptop whimpering in the background. We had been told the food there was very good…we both agree – a very nice lunch. Afterwards we went for a walk. We saw the “Vieux Montreal” sign, and decided now that we had escaped from the laptop/alcove prison, we should do the touristy thing. So down we went. It is impressive! We went down to the waterfront and stood at the edge of the St. Lawrence. It was a beautiful day…sunny, not too hot, with a strong, cool wind. Lots of people; lots of benches; interesting streets everywhere.
On the way back we came up through Chinatown on St. Laurent.
On the way back west on Rene Levesque Blvd Ouest, we had an experience that made us very proud….we gave directions to 2 French-speaking gentleman (hesitant English). They were looking for an address on the street. So we were able to explain to the that St. Laurent was the centre for ouest and est, and that the numbers rise on both sides going away from it. They were quite pleased, and Mario and I felt we had thereby met today our good Samaritan quota.
At University, we met the President of the FQE, Bernard Labadie, who I had met earlier in the tournament, when we had chatted for quite a while. He provided me with some sympathy for the fact that I had ended up in the crosshairs of Louis Morin, who I believe edits the FQE magazine, on my own annotation system, the “Comprehensive Annotation System”. I assured him that Louis had been very gentle with me. In the past on Chesstalk, I have been treated much more roughly for some of my “outside the box” thinking…it sort of felt like being drawn and quartered. He went to the playing hall, and Mario and I returned to our room, quite happy (I had advised him a while ago that there was a recent medical/scientific study that established that walking stimulated the brain in such a way as to generate feelings of happiness, and we had had a good 2 hour walk). Back to the blog…oh joy…fun, fun, fun!
At 5:00 PM Mario and I decided we had not had dessert at lunch, and so went down to get a decadent cinnamon bun. Then back to the “slave alcove”. Before the round, we then went downstairs to get a coffee to take to Rd. 8 (second-last round) which began at 6:00 PM.

Round 8

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 – sorry to repeat from prior blogs, but I really think it should have been corrected by now). I lost – 2 blunders (sigh).
After the game, I met Rahul Gangoli of my Scarborough CC, and we talked about my game annotation system and the strong push-back I was getting. We discussed how it might be made more acceptable, given some constructive suggestions I’ve received.
Then, in case there should be a glitch in standings/pairings posting on the internet before midnight, I started manually collecting the results I need for my blog from the hard copy results posting sheet. I then went up to work on this blog # 8, and enter and analyze the game. Mario came in then, and he had won a “garbage game” that he really doesn’t want to see the light of day. He showed me it, and I agreed it was better buried! But it now puts him over 50% (4 ½ pts.)
So I went up and down a number of times, to collect stats and take a quick look at games in progress still.
Mario came in at 10:00 PM, having won. So Mario now has 4 ½ pts.(50%).
One time I was downstairs, Mario and Omar Shah (who had lost – has 5 pts.) showed up and wanted to go to dinner. I was able to get my last stats and join them (Five Guys have great burgers).
On the way back, Omar left to catch the subway. Mario and I came up to the room about midnight.

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. The Rd. 8 game is marred by 2 blunders.

Continued in Part II Below

[Bob Armstrong]

Blog # 8 - Part II - Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

Blog # 8 - Part II - Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

Continued from Part I Above

The 4 U 2000 Leaders Post Rd. 8

1. – 7 pts. (Undefeated) – 1 player – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC);
2/ 3. 6 ½ pts. – 2 players – Weston, Paul (1963 – QC ); Pinho, Tiago (1889 – Portugal);
4/ 8. – 6 pts. – 5 players – Barko, Maxim (1887 – QC); Gunapalan, David (1872 – QC); Thanabalachandran, Kajan (1798 – ON); Petit, Raymond (1789 – QC); Pulfer, Luke (1784 – BC).

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. 2 of them are now among the leaders set out above. Here are the true remaining 5 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:

1. Shah, Omar – 1999 – ON – 5 pts.
2. Have, Didier - 1992 – QC – 4 ½ pts.
3. Pomerantz, Daniel – 1937 – 5 ½ pts.
4. Chang, Michael – 1912 – 5 ½ pts.
5. Sarra – Bournet, Marc – 1911 – QC – 5 pts.

My Round 8 Game

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. My system has been constructively criticized as a consequence of being highlighted in this year’s blog. And I am making some of the suggested changes tonight in annotating my Rd. 8 game. It is just a start, but I would like to make it more user-friendly, dependent on the time I have available. 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; 6 losses; 1 forfeit):

Armstrong, Robert J. (1645) - St.-Cyr, Xavier (1730) [A52]
Canadian Open (U 2000) (8), 25.07.2014

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 (based on my initial "researcher" data, and Egis Zeromskis' request that I check more carefully my initial judgment that white had a "slight" advantage with 1.d4; I am modifying it 'til I can further check it on a better program and hardware)]

1...Nf6 2.c4 e5?!² [Budapest Gambit - the computer is not saying it is unplayable, only that it leads to a valuation less than can be achieved by more standard defences like ...e6, which keep equality (going for a Nimzo-Indian or a Bogo-Indian)]

[2...e6=]

3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4?!= [I had not played against the Budapest for years, and have no memory of most openings I don't play often. I thought he will know all the lines, so I should just play solid and get into a somewhat normal, even if equal, middlegame. So I just played what I considered a classical move.]

[4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.Nc3 Qe7²]

4...Nxe5 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxd2 7.Nbxd2 Nbc6 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Nf3 Nxf3 10.Qxf3 0–0 11.Bd3 d6 12.0–0 Bd7 13.Rfe1 Qg5 14.Rad1 f6 [I achieved my opening goal, in one I didn't know, of getting into at least an equal middlegame]

15.Bc2??µ [Chess Blindness and old age...my only excuses for not seeing this coming at all. And even when I wondered about the odd ...f6 move. I will lose the exchange. In fact, at the time, I was so discouraged with myself that I considered resigning immediately. But I came to play chess. And in the early going, being down an exchange is not necessarily decisive at the class level. If I can get a P, the game will again be relatively equal. Xavier gets a "clear" advantage]

[15.e5 fxe5 16.Qd5 Kh8 17.Qxb7 Bg4=]

15...Bg4 16.Qb3 [makes a few threats in compensation for losing the exchange. The g7 P is attacked and not defended, and there is a pawn-push discovered check.]

16...Bxd1 17.Rxd1 [Xavier is up the exchange]

17...Qc5 [to prevent me pushing c5]

18.Rd5 Qb6?!³ [loses a P when he need not]

[18...Qc6 19.Qb4 Rf7µ]

19.Rb5 Qc6 20.Rxb7 [Xavier is now up the exchange, but I have a P compensation. I now felt like I still had chances to win this game.]

20...Kh8 21.Rb5?!µ [21.g3 a6 22.Qb4 a5³]

21...a6 22.Rh5 g6 23.Rh6 Kg7 24.Qh3 Rh8 25.b3 Qc5 26.Rh4 Rad8 [I've been managing to hold the status quo, though I'm quite a bit behind at the moment]

27.Rf4?!– [- 2.13 Xavier gets a "winning" advantage]

[27.Qd3 Qa5 28.g3 Rhe8µ]

27...Qa3 [threatening checkmate, as well at the same time, attacking the B and R simultaneously]

28.Qf3 [attacking the f6P to give him something to consider, as well as setting up the defence of the two pieces, and a block for the check]

28...Qb2 29.Bd3 Qxa2 [Xavier is now up the exchange]

30.Bf1 [it may get pinned, but at least it won't be in the vulnerable position of having to be defended by the Q while pinned.]

30...Qb2 31.e5 [I had calculated (well mis-calculated) that this was winning. I had thought the pawn was untakable, all three ways, and that by-passing it also was not good. What I missed was his ability to force an exchange of rooks before I can accomplish anything. So all it is, is an equal exchange of material, which further disadvantages me, since I have less material left with which to try to make progress.]

31...dxe5 32.Rxf6 Rhf8 33.Rxf8 Rxf8 [that exchange accomplished nothing but to dig myself into a deeper hole.]

34.Qe3 Qd4 35.Qxd4?– [- 4.96]

[35.Qe1 c5 36.h4 e4– - 4.19]

35...exd4 36.Bd3?– [- 6.37]

[36.Be2 Rb8 37.Bd1 Re8– - 5.38]

36...c5?– [- 5.38]

[36...Rb8 37.Bc2 a5– - 6.21]

37.Kf1 Re8?– [- 4.24 though not the best move, it accomplishes the significant ending feat of blocking the white K from getting over to the passed P]

[37...Rb8 38.Bc2 d3 39.Bxd3 Rxb3– - 5.75]

38.f3?– [- 7.49]

[38.Bc2 Kf6 39.g3 Re7– - 6.13]

38...Re3 39.Bc2 d3– [- 8.54 I resigned. I must lose material (P) and cannot win the passed P.]

40.Bd1 d2 41.Kf2 [- 12.17]

[41.Be2? Rxb3 42.Kf2 Rb1 - 18.23]

0–1

Continued in Part III Below

[Bob Armstrong]

Blog # 8 - Part III- Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

Blog # 8 - Part III- Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

Continued from Part II Above

In the Wee Hours of Saturday Morning

At midnight Saturday, I was finishing the text of the Blog # 8, and doing the Game 8 annotating. My goal was to try to get it out early this morning, since we check out later this morning. We’ll see if I can stay awake to complete it. I worked on the blog ‘til 2:30 AM …..and completed both the text and the analyzed game! I then sent it to FQE (Roman). Then I posted it on Chesstalk. Mission accomplished!

The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 9 (Final) Pairings (top 18)

Round 9 on 2014/07/26 at 11h00
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.

1 8 Germain Michel 1947 7 6½ Pinho Tiago 1889 21
2 46 Petit Raymond 1789 6 6½ Weston Paul 1963 6
3 48 Pulfer Luke 1784 6 6 Gunapalan David 1912 18
4 3 Have Didier 1992 5½ 6 Thanabalachandran Kajan 1798 43
5 41 Perna-Fraser David 1812 5½ 5½ Pomerantz Daniel 1937 11
6 16 Chang Michael 1912 5½ 5½ Baran Marius 1700 75
7 37 Mok Yuen Tak 1816 5½ 5½ Barko Maxim 1887 22
8 88 Kearnan Daniel 1618 5½ 5½ Miettinen Eric 1854 28
9 36 Joanis Marc-André 1830 5½ 5½ Low Kevin 1573 93

My Rd. 9 Pairing

38 30 Armstrong Robert J. 1845 2 2 Gao Christine 1587 91

The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 8

First prize is $ 4,000. There are 42 registered players (one shown actually in U 2400).
Here are the Leaders:

1/ 2. - 5 ½ pts. – 2 players

GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands)



GM Ghaem-Maghami, Ehsan (2586 – Iran)



3/ 5. – 5 ½ pts.

GM Tiviakov, Sergey (2656 – Netherlands)



GM Kovalyov, Anton (2636 – Canada – top FIDE-rated Canadian, playing for Canada)



GM Moradiabadi, Elshan (2586 – Iran)



The Top Section Leaders’ Rd. 9 Pairings

Round 9 on 2014/07/26 at 11
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.

1 5 GM Moradiabadi Elshan 2593 5½ 6 GM Ghaem-Maghami Ehsan 2586 6
2 3 GM Van Kampen Robin 2636 6 5 GM Sambuev Bator 2526 7
3 20 FM Preotu Razvan 2341 5 5½ GM Tiviakov Sergey 2656 1
4 4 GM Hansen Eric 2596 5 5½ GM Kovalyov Anton 2636 2
5 8 GM De Firmian Nick 2509 5 5 FM Cao Jason 2177 33
6 13 IM Xiong Jeffery 2441 5 5 IM Sevian Samuel 2464 12
7 16 IM Cheng Bindi 2410 4½ 5 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. And I am open to doing this for a short while after the tournament Rd. 9 is finished. I will be doing a Blog # 9, covering Saturday, likely to be posted Sunday afternoon. I may well post alast “After the Tournament” Blog # 10 as well on Monday.

Bob Armstrong, the Getting Close to the End Blogger 

[Caesar Posylek]

Re: Blog # 8 - Part III- Day 7/ Rd. 8 – Friday, July 25

As the tourney has ended right now, is there any chess player who has achieved an international norm for the titles?

[Bob Armstrong]

Blog # 9 - Part I - Day 8/ Rd.9 – Friday, July 26

2014 Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Blog # 9 - Part I - Day 8/ Rd.9 – Friday, July 26

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 Saturday, I continued work on the draft Blog # 8 (covering Friday), analyzed my Rd. 8 Game, and finished both. Mario went to bed about 2:00 AM, after doing some packing for checking out of the hotel about 9:30 AM Saturday. I then got the blog out to FQE and posted it on Chesstalk about 3:30 AM. Then, finally (whew!) I went to bed..

Mid-Morning

I awoke at 5:30 AM (2 hrs.?? come on!). So I decided to try to go back to sleep, and surprisingly was successful – got up again at 7:30 AM. So I checked e-mails, dealt with my FB site obligations, my daughter and I sent a few e-mails back and forth (she lives in Montreal and we had had a delightful lunch together on Tuesday), started work on this Blog # 9, and I started packing up.
Mario got up about 8:30 AM. So we finished packing. We had arranged for Omar Shah of our section to get a ride back with me. I thought we had agreed he’d come to our room before check out. But if he wasn’t there, he’d keep his bags in the playing hall during Rd. 9. When he didn’t appear, we checked out at 9:30 and went directly to move the car to another lot for the 6 hours.
Then Mario and I had breakfast in the food court below the hotel – an OK breakfast (not at Timmies or McD’s, as we had been want to do on prior days.
On the way back to the hall, Omar spotted us from the lobby: “Where were you guys?” He said that he had said he’d meet us in the lobby at 9:30 for check out and he thought we had agreed. The problem was we checked out on-line, and did not have to go to reception in the lobby. And we had been expecting him upstairs. We just went directly to parking down below, so he didn’t see us! Omar had been waiting for us for an hour! There were apologies all around (sigh). Then Mario and I both realized we’d left our chess clocks in the car, so Omar came to the car with us to put his bags there.
On the way back, we picked up coffees, teas, etc., to get us started in Rd. 9. We just got to the playing hall at 11:00 AM.

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. The Rd. 8 game is marred by 2 blunders. The Rd. 9 game needs to be destroyed!

The U 2000 Top Finishers (Post Rd. 9 Final)

1/ 2. – 7 ½ pts. – 2 players –) - Weston, Paul (1963 – QC ); Pinho, Tiago (1889 – Portugal)
3/ 4. 7 pts. – 2 players – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC); Thanabalachandran, Kajan (1798 – ON)
4/ 9. – 6 ½ pts. – 6 players – Chang, Michael (1912 – QC); Gunapalan, David (1872 – QC); Joanis, Marc-Andre (1830 – QC); Mok Yuen Tak (1816 – QC); Perna-Fraser, David (1812 – QC); Petit, Raymond (1789 – QC); Pulfer, Luke (1784 – BC).

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 top 9 finishers set out above. Here are the true remaining 5 non-leader favourites and their scores:

1. Shah, Omar – 1999 – ON – 5 ½ pts.
2. Have, Didier - 1992 – QC – 5 ½ pts.
3. Pomerantz, Daniel – 1937 – 5 ½ pts.
4. Sarra – Bournet, Marc – 1911 – QC – 5 pts.

Round 9

I was paired down. With only 2 lonely points, Christine Gao (1587) and I (1645) were the bottom board in our section.
I won an error-filled game (see below). I finished with 2 wins, 6 losses, and 1 forfeit win. I placed # 70 out of 90 (the results.com shows 98 players, but 8 were only in the Mini-COC, and so ought not to be really counted as in the main Can. Op.). Considering I was playing up a section, and initially ranked probably around # 80, I suppose I could put on rosy glasses, and say I finished above expectations (but my play was sub-par all tournament in my view, though not terrible. The games were interesting and enjoyable, but I was simply, by the endgame, outplayed – a number of games I lost a P somewhere, and the games went over 40 moves, and eventually I lost).

My Round 9 Game

The time control is 40/90 min. SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
In this tournament, so far, I have presented my games, despite a flaw or two, on my theory that you can learn from any game, and the games weren’t too bad, and had some interesting points.
But that being said, I think I do have to maintain some shred of this low bar, and admit that some games are just not of “Blog Quality”. Games for the blog did not have to be great, but I think neither should they be terrible. This game was terrible: Christine dropped a minor and two P’s. Then I missed a tactic and dropped a minor. Then, in a great show of cockiness and of tactics, in a complicated position, I moved in about 10 seconds – a brilliant Queen sac! Turned out to just lose the Q. But Christine, being shocked by the move (she should have been; it was ridiculous, though looking decisive), took it the wrong way, and I got her Q in exchange. Then, up 2 P’s into the ending, I had major difficulty making progress as Christine totally stymied my attempt to push forward my passed P. I eventually did, and she was lost. But in coming to the finale, I missed a 2-move mate, though I did see it when given a second chance.
So, subject to viewer demand on the wild west Chesstalk, I’m going to initially omit this catastrophe from this Rd. 9 Blog.
Mario won (Against an 1860 player; Mario is 1707; ended with 5 ½ pts.) and Omar drew (with a 1664 player; he is 1999; he also finished with 5 ½ pts.)

Late Afternoon

At 4:30 PM, the three of us headed for the car, after thanking some of the organizers we saw from time to time during the afternoon. But getting out of the underground parking proved a problem! Of course, there was no one in the office to help. First Mario’s credit card was declined when we tried to pay to get the gate up and get out. Then Omar’s card was declined. Then mine! Something wrong with the system…we were trapped for eternity in an underground parking in Montreal! Then Omar managed to get it to take $10 cash and we considered we had been saved from a terrible fate. We happily headed back to Toronto, all having enjoyed a very nice “chess holiday”.

Continued in Part II Below