I/O part 2

If you want better outputs, use better/new inputs.

So I’m just beginning to read Atlas Shrugged. Why? I’m actually developing an interest in governance, particularly as it pertains to economic issues. This week I watched on CSPAN a plenary session of a Federalist Society meeting that featured a panel of two law-school professors, Steve Forbes and a labor union representative. (Did I really just write that sentence?) It was really interesting, particularly as it highlighted the fact that two smart people can look at the same historical events and pick exact opposite reasons as the causal factors. Anyway I am trying to shrug off the most shrill and sensational voices in politics and instead gain a real understanding of conservative economic philosophy. Atlas Shrugged checks in at an intimidating 1000+ pages of small type, but I keep telling myself I’ve plowed through Shogun 10 times, so I can do it.

On the chess front, I’ve lucked* onto a squad for February’s US Amateur Team East that could compete on the top boards. So I better get my books on. To that end I’ve ordered an endgame book and an opening book, and constructed a study/practice plan to be in top shape by the time I hit Parsippany. Good inputs + hard work = better play.

*Actually it’s not luck. The key is to know Boston Blitz assistant manager Matt Phelps.

Endless love

Not really endless. Last linking post:

“Mathematics has always been used for denotation. However, our interest is to use math as a language for connotation.” – Mathematical Poetry. The concept of poetry expressed in math form is interesting in and of itself; it gets even more weird when you start merging and/or solving the resulting equations.

My wife designs and builds websites (and marketing plans and…). Like one for those who need a charter flight, or another if you of more modest income and have to go by bike (of course biking in Provence is much nicer than biking in Framingham), or another if you aren’t traveling and want to make your home much nicer through remodeling. She’s extremely talented and smart.

If you want to compete with her level of genius and need inspiration, these guys at Tiny Gigantic always find fascinating creative ideas and projects.

Want more chess? Unless you’ve been under a rock you know about the pure thrills of the US Chess League. I kinda maintain its Wikipedia page and follow/support my local team. And here’s some love for Wang’s Chess House, and Smitty’s Chess Corner, and Strong Among the Weak….

If you’re a blogger, pass some links around to those you love.

Going through your reads

In football, on a passing play, the quarterback usually has a primary receiver. Ideally, that’s where the ball is going.

If that option is taken away – the DB knocked the receiver off his route, the safety is cheating over that way, etc – the quarterback has to look to his second option. And so on, maybe checking all the way down to a dump pass to a running back. Of course, there are several 300-lb men rushing to try to flatten the QB while he still has the ball.

So I’m quite impressed with the brain of the quarterback. They have to read the defense at the line of scrimmage, make and communicate a coded play adjustment if necessary, take the snap, drop back, and then go through this mental and physical progression of reads  – each one requiring a microsecond throw/don’t throw decision - while trying to sense and avoid the rush.

So in chess, what’s your progression? If your first plan doesn’t work, are you prepared to check down in an orderly manner?

Sometimes I get a position that I just don’t understand. Don’t know the themes, can’t figure out a plan, don’t know where the pieces belong, don’t know who’s better. I have a reputation for stewing endlessly over these positions – a 20-minute think is not that unusual for me, which in the context of our club time control (40 in 90) is que estupido. It’s roughly like a quarterback holding the ball for 10 seconds – an invitation to get flattened.

It would be smarter to give myself a time limit for any particular move (I think Howard G does this) and then check down to a simple question like “Which of my pieces is least active?” and attempt to improve it.

This approach undoubtedly applies at work and elsewhere too. What about you – do you have ‘checkdown’ strategies for dealing with complex situations?

The debatable value of trying too hard to win

Okay, the chessplayers have spoken. But I’m also going to write “running with your belly” later.

When you try too hard to win, you lose.

If this happens to you frequently, as it does to me, the game is trying to tell you something. But most of us come up with a wrong rationalization for these results. Tell me if this sounds familiar: “Well, at least [higher rated opponent] knows I wasn’t playing for a wimpy draw.” Yes, we tell ourselves that we play like cavemen because that’s more honorable than making draws. So the ‘value’ of this style is that it makes us feel mas macho.

There’s certainly such a thing as a wimpy draw. But for most players who frequently experience these tried-too-hard losses, here’s what it should teach you:

1) Your ability to evaluate a position is poor. This reflects lack of technical skill.

or

2) You aren’t objective enough. This reflects emotional immaturity (in the context of competition – don’t take it personally :).

Which problem is yours, and how do you fix it?

1) Ever do a post-mortem with a good (2300+) player? Almost without fail they will frequently assess positions — it’s equal, white’s a little better, black has enough compensation. If you don’t think this way, if you never draw these conclusions explicitly DURING PLAY, lack of technical skill is indicated. Read “Reassess Your Chess” by Jeremy Silman. Follow his methodology until it develops into a habit. Working and analyzing with a strong chess coach will also help.

2) Game scenario: You have an advantage but you are now presented with a choice. The line that makes the most sense seems to let your advantage slip. This makes you unsatisfied or angry, so you sacrifice material instead to try for a knockout blow. Then you lose the endgame. If that happens to you a lot, read “The Seven Deadly Sins of Chess” by Jonathan Rowson. Stop saying “Well at least I went for it” and work on developing the habit of trying to play the objectively strongest move at all times, regardless of result. Notice that in the language under point 1 above, strong players often say “White’s a little better” rather than “I’m a little better”. It’s that objectivity thing at work.

For the record, I have both problems :) But I am making a little progress.

Anyway you can always go back to playing like a caveman, but why not try to be strong instead of trying to look strong?

Play like men

When we sat down to play chess at the club Tuesday, my opponent David Harris tried to set up his digital clock and found the battery dead. I pulled out my ancient Jerger windup. Seated on a neighboring board, Rolf Wetzell offered to lend his digital clock instead, but David, in his typical dry humorous manner, made a dismissive gesture and said “Who needs increment? Tonight, let’s play like men!”

So we did.

Harris (2070) – Slater (2128)
1.e4  In ancient Persian and Indian forms of chess, anyone who played the un-manly 1.d4 was unceremoniously fed to wild animals.

1…e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4  The testosterone-fueled McCutcheon variation! Named after a bloodthirsty Scot who rebelled against England and killed all his battlefield victims with dental floss.

5.e5 h6 6.Be3 Ne4 7.a3 Ba5 8.Qg4 Kf8 Castling is for cowards!

9.Ne2 c5 10.b4?! A manly sacrifice! White plans to attack on both wings at the same time! See diagram 1.)

10…Nxc3 11.Nxc3 cxb4 12.axb4 Bxb4 13.Bd2 Bd7 14.h4 Nc6 15.Rh3 Ne7 16.Bd3 Rc8 17.Rg3 g6 18.Ne2 Bxd2+ 19.Kxd2 a6 20.h5 g5 21.f4 Nf5 22.Bxf5 exf5 23.Qf3 Be6 24.fxg5 hxg5 25.Qa3+ Kg7 Mutual hyperaggression has earned both players a terrible position!

26.Qe3 Kh6 27.Qb3 Rc7 28.Rb1 Qe7 29.Rc3 Rhc8 30.Rxc7 Rxc7 31.g3 Qd7 32.Qa3 Qe7 33.Qe3 b5 34.Nc1 Rc4 35.Nd3 Qa3 36.Rb3 Qa1 37.Nb2 Rc6 38.Nd3 Rc4 39.Nb2 Rc8 40.Nd3 Qh1

Ha ha, on to sudden death! (I laugh at sudden death!) Second time control is g/30.

41.Nf2 Qh2 42.Rb1 f4 43.gxf4 gxf4 44.Qe2 Qg3 45.Rb3 Qg5 46.Qf3 Bf5 How’s that bad French bishop look now, Mr. Phelps? See diagram 2.

47.Nd3 Rc4 48.Qf2 f3+ 49.Kd1 Qxh5 50.Ne1 Be4 50…Rxd4+ didn’t occur to me – 51.Qxd4 f2+ wins, though White can keep slogging on for a few moves with 51.Nd3 instead.

51.Ra3 Rc6 52.c4 Trying to close lines and keep the Black rook out.

52…bxc4 53.Qe3+ Kg7 54.Nxf3 Rg6 Simplification is for cowards!

55.Kc1 Rg3 56.Rxa6 Fighting to the end! See diagram 3. This could still go badly for Black with 56…Qxf3?? 57.Qh6+.

56…Qh1+ 57.Kb2 (57.Kd2 c3+) Qb1+ 58.Ka3 Rxf3  0-1 Afterwards we all went outside to drink beer, smoke cigars and shoot stuff.

Eureka

The stock market isn’t chess; it’s a game of RPS (rock paper scissors).

The ennui of champions

[For Yermolinski] winning the U.S. Open in a six-way tie is no big deal. “I have nothing to add to my titles. I won this tournament four times,” he adds, noting that in 1995, 1997 and 2000 he won the event outright.

- as reported on uschess.org.

Ah yes. It is the irony of success: Once you have reached your goals, what is left to achieve?

Alexander the Great, having conquered everything, sat down and wept for the prospect of overwhelming boredom.

Aspiring pop-queen Alanis Morissette (a longtime supporter of this blog), having scorched the charts with Jagged Little Pill in the mid-90s, flew to India to find balance in yoga and meditation.

Donnie of Liquid Egg Product, first among equals at the Houston Open, now wallows in the same un-directed-ness that consumed me after I tied for first (with four-year-old Chris “The Bear” Williams!) in the Class A section of the New England Open in 1946 (or was it 2004?).

Once you have won everything, really, what next?

The Westerners are at it again

The British Chess Championship is wrapping up today.

In the unlikely event you haven’t been glued to your screen watching every move – you’ve missed a lot.

This first diagram is move 10 from GM David Howell versus IM/book author Richard Palliser on board one, in round 9.

White won.

The type of chess being played is, dare I say, not what you’ll find in the Absolute Russian Super Mega Ultra Championship. England seems to be awash in self-taught 2500-ish GMs who steer away from the dry and technical and toward the crazy and tactical. (Post title refers to earlier groundless speculation about linguistic/cognitive differences between east and west.)

Oh, full game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1552828 

 

This second diagram is GM Gawain Jones against GM Simon Williams (a personal favorite as he sometimes blunders with 1.d4 f5?!). In this position White played 15.Nxe5.

There’s a lot more to this sacrifice than might first meet the eye – aside from just the first idea, 15.Nxe5 Bxe2 16.Rxe2 dxe5? 17.Ba4+ and gets the queen back.

Black played for a long time without his kingside pieces. In fact, when White resigned on move 44, Black had still not moved the bishop from f8.

Full game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1552829