View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:29 am



Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
JumpNMustang's Training Journal 
Author Message
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post JumpNMustang's Training Journal
Hi,

A little introduction, if any of you know me from other sites feel free to say so and I am interested in getting to know people for study purposes.

First, my handle on ICC is DocHoliday (~1890), FICS is Nemisis (~1900). My ratings have been declining because I found a really cool chess program called mobi that allows me to connect and it lacks timeseal/timestamp, so I lose on time a lot.. Or I lose positionally because I am worried about the time. Still I think if I take those games critically I will eventually get use to the program and those minor things won't matter.

Second, My name is Jesse Turner (~1820). If anyone is interested my uscf number is 20052503. I recently broke 1800 in my last tournament. Very proud, but some people are still concerned I am too low for my strength. Someone made an interesting observation at the club that said I play a lot different in competitive games. This indicates I need to relax and play what I know rather than worrying so much.

I will look for my games because I feel that giving critical analysis of my recent games is best. I have most of my games since I started playing OTB competition again in 2005 (1213 rating then, won the u1600 section of a local tournament.) I am not posting for pride rather serious consideration of all my games good and bad. Unfortunately I have only one tournament in my database and will start with that one. I do not believe in luck in chess. I do believe there is a little luck in who you are playing in tournaments, but when it comes down to playing, it's not lucks fault you win or lose. It's yours.

So My first games are from the North American Open 2007 u1700. It's going to seem bad form but all of the games are wins. I won 7-0 and they floored me at 1700 because of this. The problem is in at least two games I played very poorly I feel, and I would like to see if this site will help me work this out. I hope you guys thrash me in insults because I probably need it.

Thanks for posting this site chessvideo gods!

Jesse

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:25 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal


Ok, So first game of the tournament was against Hasham. I was 1635 at the time. The time control was G/45 because I entered the 2 day format in a 5 day tournament (5 games in one day 2 the second for a total of 7 games.) In the 5th round at the end of the first day you get to merge and play in the 40/2 sd/1 crowd. If you are good enough to emerge in the top 30 list you are watched for cheating.

The game was a Danish because, well I was an e4 player, I like flying tactics, and I was assessing gambits at the time. What better way to assess it than in a large tournament where a lot of money is on the line and your time control is G/45? 8) .. Unfortunately the game kind of played was in the "poorly played" category by my opponent. Probably the pressure.

[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.12.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Turner, Jesse"]
[Black "Hassan, Hasham"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C44"]
[WhiteElo "1634"]
[BlackElo "1575"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Nc6

This is my idea. I will post the game in the replayer and then post it again so I can point to notation. Hope it works. Anyway this is obviously opening theory.

6. Nf3 Bb4+

7. Kf1

Kf1 is something I wanted to test out in this tournament. I believe the recent theory says to play Nd2 with development. You learn in these openings quickly that development is really what keeps you a live.

7. .. Nf6

Nf6 I believe is an inaccuracy. It develops yeah but it develops into the logical plan of white. I believe the logical idea here is either 7. .. d6 or 7. .. Nh6 which is safe from bishop taking lines. With Nf6 now it allows e5 and makes developing the c8 bishop hard. And the strength of a gambit is how well you can make your opponent worry about developing/defending.

8. e5 Ne4 9. Qd5 Qe7

I was expecting Ng4, which seems to get one of my sacrificed pawns back. Black should realize I am the one that needs to prove I am winning here. Which I didn't feel I was until this point.

10. Qxe4 d6 11. Bb5 Bd7

Slips another piece, any more notation needed about this game I think not. I really don't like posting wins but need to be critical.

12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Qxb4 O-O 14.
Nbd2 Rad8 15. Re1 Qd7 16. exd6 cxd6 17. Qd4 f6 18. h4 Rfe8 19. h5 Rxe1+ 20.
Nxe1 h6 21. Rh3 Re8 22. Nef3 Bb5+ 23. Kg1 Qe6 24. Rg3 Kh8 25. Qxa7 Bc6 26. Qd4
Qxa2 1-0

This was obviously a fun post, but I will get to the good ones next game.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:41 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
Here is one of my controversies. I played the KID again after a long hiatus and got into a position I thought I knew and took a poison pawn.

The controversy was the opening debate... The person playing the opening felt he was winning because of the move 6. h3, claiming that it just simply busted the KID in half at all levels. I told him he was crazy, and we left it at that.



[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.12.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Churchill, Walter"]
[Black "Turner, Jesse"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E92"]
[WhiteElo "1548"]
[BlackElo "1634"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. h3 e5

Here we are at the controversial position. From my knowledge it's dangerous, but no where near the threat of the bayonet attack. The problem with that is? How many people at my level can honestly say they can execute these things with precision? So according to my opponent I was lost here. I will show you where I think I was lost. :mrgreen:

7. d5 a5

This was common in my KID theory. The purpose is to allow Na6 and Nc5 without allowing b4 in one go. If white plays a3 to try b4 anyway then white can play a4 and create a small bind. I am finding that this could be a bad plan as it might waste time. But I am not sure.

8. Bg5 h6

I believe what we have here is a kind of Anti KID line when people play Bg5, in this game I don't feel I hurt myself with h6. To be critical about it, it could have hurt me in the long run. You will see that the main idea if h3 is to play for a KSA with g4. He seems to hold the attack a little but considering I fell HL&S for his game I stopped playing this for a while. I am currently studying Nimzo/bogo ideas.

9. Be3 Na6 10. Be2 b6?

This I assess as a waste of time. There is no reason the bishop would worry about the knight on c5 if it got there unless he wanted to show his weaknesses.

11. g4 Nc5 12. Nd2 Nfd7?

Again I don't like this because it blocks the bishop. Obviously I need to move it somewhere, but maybe e8 would have been better.

13. Nf3 Ba6 14. Nd2 Kh7 15. h4
Qe7 16. b3 Nxe4??

A blunder, the thing about this move is it was made when he had like 15 minutes on the clock, and a lot of money rides on this game, I feel I got the psychological advantage here because this is obviously bad. I thought I had a similar trick to the Fischer comeback where Spassky did similar to Fischer. His game was better of course.

17. Ndxe4 f5 18. gxf5 gxf5 19. Ng5+ hxg5 20. hxg5+ Kg8 21. Bh5
f4

Interestingly enough, this is what I calculated. I took about 2 minutes to come up with this and I wanted this. When I put it in crafty, it has me approximately equal. The problem is when the sac occurred, it rated me around -3 which means I just basically sacced a piece for nothing no matter the out come. The conclusion is this is a perfect sac to do in large tournaments as long as you understand the positions. As you will see I over estimated the position and did a bad thing on move 25.

22. Ne4 fxe3 23. fxe3 Nc5 24. Qc2 Nxe4 25. Qxe4 Qxg5

Ok, I felt I was losing here. The comp disagrees, still I don't like comp analysis and rarely look at it. Probably should more often I guess. Anyway, I get a +5 advantage here which makes me happy. The problem is I felt I was losing soon after this, and he even had a mate in dos.

26. O-O-O Rf6?

Around this time he gets up, obviously proud of his cool position, and goes to the rest room. His clock is at 12 minutes. I play the move Rf6 as soon as he leaves (Laugh) and he comes back when the clock is at 4:85. Brilliant tactic I think. I was still at 20ish. the problem is I feel this is my first real bad mistake even though the comp I am using now says otherwise. I should put Rybka on it, but it's not important. I should have played Qf5. The part that gets me is it's obvious, and I didn't even consider it when playing.

27. Rdg1
Qf5 28. Qg2 Qd7??

A second big blunder, I started feeling bad here. But hey never give up right. :evil: The problem is after Bg5 he gets a huge attack. The better move is Qh7 with a slight advantage to white.

29. Bg4 Qe7

I am badly losing here, and my critical mistake Rf6 was because of my silly trick of gaining time on the clock. :shock: I learned a lot here.

30. Be6+ Rxe6 31. dxe6 Ra7

This leads to mate. I saw it on the board, he didn't. It's amazing how much your opponent can see when your killing him, after he blunders. So I guess I can leave this out for you under the "B" class people if you want to guess the move that wins. Mate in 4 here. As you will see it gradually gets better.

32. Rh6 c5

Mate in 7

33. Qf2 Bc8

Mate in 7 again.

34. Qf5 Bxe6

.4 from crafty! HAH I got out of the mate and I am just losing gracefully.

35. Rxe6 Qf7 36. Qg4 a4 37. bxa4 Rd7 38. Rg6 Kf8 39. Qg2 0-1


After this I don't remember the moves, we got into serious time trouble and rules of tournament play say you don't have to write moves when either player reach under 5 minutes. (At least most swiss in the US) What happened was we traded down to a piece up ending with queens and he started dropping pawns on c4 and a2 and a4. All with check. Which means he wasn't good in blitz. Yay for me! My next move was a doosie. I played 39. .. Ke8 which basically dropped the g7 bishop. In the end I had five pawns vs the rook. He offered the draw with 30 seconds on his clock right before that and I declined. I won on the board, but at this point.. I am losing, which is what is important.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:27 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
So, I use to be a common poster on chessdoctor.com, I use to post this way in there and everyone loved it. amazingly they used PHPBBS too and they had no game replayer. So we were stuck with regular notation. I am loving this site the more I use it!

Here is game three. I was reeling from the fact that I came back from a lost position and I wanted to play "decent" chess now. So I played an opening that I not only know, but I feel I developed "my own theory" on it. I have seen similar moves in chessbase, but really, who cares. I get positions I like in it. The club masters don't like it cause it gets them out of theory and they can't refute it yet. If I find a refutation or someone else does, by all means let me know.






[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.12.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Turner, Jesse"]
[Black "Piacentini, Eugenio"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B02"]
[WhiteElo "1634"]
[BlackElo "1621"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Bc4 e6 5. Qf3 c6 6. Nge2 Nd7 7. a3 Ne5 8.
Qe4 Nxc4 9. Qxc4 Be7 10. d4 O-O 11. O-O Bd7 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13. Qd3 a6

I am open for improvements here, but up to here is all theory. I am not too proud of losing the bishop pair, but I am not concerned about it yet. 13. a6 is new to me, the obvious point was he wanted to plant the bishop on b5. The problem with this was it's a one move attack and really does nothing to improve his position except for taking the knight on e2 which gives back the pair and gets rid of his problem bishop. As you can see that was not on his mind. All that was on it was to attack things that didn't matter.

14. Re1
Bb5 15. Qd1 Bf6 16. c3 Qc7 17. Bf4 e5

I believe Bf4 could deserve a ?! mark, because black can equalize again with Bxe2. I also believe that 17. .. e5 deserves a ? because it seems to misread the position? I feel the knight on e2 is better than the bishop on b5 in the resulting position after e5. of course I take on e5 and his was planning to open the position, but again I think it's wrong. Bxe2 was certainly better. No?

18. dxe5 Bxe5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Nd4 Qf6
21. Nxb5 axb5

The decision to take here was soley based on the fact that I calculated that I could win two pawns. It was about 7 moves, and my calculations didn't go farther than that because I am lazy. I don't feel I played poorly in this game at all.

22. Qxd5 Qc6 23. Rad1 h6 24. h3 Rad8 25. Qb3 Rd7 26. Rxd7 Qxd7
27. Rd1 Qc6 28. Rd5 Qe6

This was the move I saw. Maybe my calculations are flawed, maybe not. I feel my poor play maybe later when I was trying to convert the game. Also this is where the calculations went up again. I had to made sure I could save the pawn on b2, so when the time came I decided to take the pawn with the queen and plant the rook on d4 to b4. I feel this game taught me a lot too, however I still can't calculate well in the complex positions. I need to learn how to do that.

29. Qxb5 Qe1+ 30. Qf1 Qe4 31. Rd4 Qc2

Here is where Rd4 came into play, I knew at move 28 that he would try this, and so I planned to plant my rook on b4 when it came time.

32. Qb5 Qb1+

I changed my idea here. I like being flexible. The king was not really that open so I felt the queen was ok to venture out. I found that the rook was a multi-purpose piece on the F rank.

33. Kh2 Qe1 34. Rf4 Qd2 35. Rf3 Qd6+ 36. g3 b6 37. Qd3 Qc7

So here is the problem with this kind of endgame. Realizing when you need to advance. I think I played this pretty good, but it's possible I could have pushed pawns as well. what I wanted (Which I got) was a position where my queen was on the h1-a8 diagonal and the rook was on the 7th rank. I got this, shortly after he got dangerous and slipped another pawn. I can stop here cause I feel this is the end of the critical parts. Hopefully I can think of improvements in my analysis. I am very poor in annotating my own games. But I need to practice, and this is a good incentive site I think.

38. Qe2 Qc6 39. Re3 Rd8
40. Re7 Qa8 41. Qc4 Rf8 42. Qe4 Qd8 43. Qb7 Qd6 44. Kg2 Qc5 45. Re4 Qb5 46. Rb4
Qe2 47. Rxb6 Rd8 48. Rb4 Rd1 49. Qc8+ Kh7 50. Qf5+ g6 51. Qxf7+ Kh8 52. Rb8+
Rd8 53. Rxd8+ Qe8 54. Rxe8# 1-0

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:51 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
Goodness I am going too quick maybe? If anyone finds this let me know if I need to edit the analysis, cause I really want to be super critical if I can.

The intro to this game is I was still in the mindset of playing what I know because of that silly second game. Crazy enough, I still didn't know this position that resulted because he played a passive closed sicilian type opening and I am to this day still unsure how to take advantage of this. Maybe I do know now, we will see.




[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.12.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Milicevic, Aleksandar"]
[Black "Turner, Jesse"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B30"]
[WhiteElo "1639"]
[BlackElo "1634"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Be2 Nc6

So Be2 was strange. I do like the move I played because it follows the rules. "If a move seems bad or passive continue to do proper development." I forget who told me that. It helps in a lot of games.

4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 g6 6. b3 Bg7 7. Bb2 O-O

He was playing these moves very fast so obviously it's a safe line for him. The problem is I felt I was better, I just couldn't find a way to take advantage. I am thinking I did well here just lost my way later.

8. Nbd2
a6?

Ok, after considering this again, its a poor move. The reason it is does nothing! Seriously what was I thinking? Anyway, obviously now b5 was much better. The QS expansion is a good plan I feel but wasting time with a6 was bad.

9. a3 b5

So here is an example, If I had played b5 here a move sooner I would be able to play a5 now and continue with dominating the queen side. I follow Silman's advice a lot these days, I feel there is not a lot of calculation needed in a lot of positions and this is one of them.

10. h3 e5 11. Nh2 Ne8

I never really understood the move Nh2. I mean if it's only to play f4 and if it's correct because of this idea, then the move Nf3 has to be a positional blunder, no? I feel at least with my knight retreat it has more squares to go to in the event I want to change my plans a little. Also Ne8 is a common idea in a lot of KS Fianchetto positions. I feel I am better here. I would also like to point out that we were still in the G/45 time control land. And I am a really fast player as it is. So the advantage should go to me in a lot of cases anyway. Maybe. 8)

12. f4 f5 13. fxe5 Bxe5

I was once told that stronger players know when to release the tension. I feel this is a case here even though I still think I should find where I could have improved. This here frees my bad bishop and actually threatens to possibly play Qh4.

14. Bxe5 dxe5 15. a4
Rb8 16. axb5 axb5 17. exf5 Bxf5

I thought he was crazy here, just helping me develop, but obviously I didn't do much.

18. Bg4 Ng7

I noticed here he was going for piece trading, so maybe this was my error, I allowed it?

19. Ra6 Nb4 20. Ra1 Qd4+ 21. Kh1
Bxg4

Possible faulty planning. I saw the win of a pawn, so I relieved a bunch of pressure I could still build up. Maybe let him relieve the pressure with a move like h5. I really like my position here. I liked my position in the resulting too, but honestly we started getting low on time around here. I believe the times were like 10 (me) and 5 (him).

22. Qxg4 Rxf1+ 23. Rxf1 Nxc2 24. Qxd4 Nxd4 25. Ng4 Ngf5 26. Kh2 Rf8

At this point I picked up the rook to place it on e8. Funny I saw Nf8 and decided to play off like I knew it and played Rf8. In hindside I think maybe Rf8 wasn't as bad as I thought when I played it, cause I thought it simply lost a pawn. The problem was we were moving quite fast now and I wasn't taking time to calculate anything really. The obvious threat is if Nxp then Re8 is now possible and he has to find away to defend. Granted I lose a pawn, but when your low on time you may not notice the obvious moves so well. (Re1 defending the knight for example.)

27. Nxe5 Re8 28. Nef3 Re3 29. Nxd4 Nxd4

30. Rc1? Rxd3

I think this is a serious blunder, again I didn't think I played this right, but It seems to me I gain a huge advantage here. I hold this till the end, but the time control really hurt me converting anything. Plus when he resigned it was a little controversial because I was low enough on time that the ending could have drawn.

31. Ne4 Nxb3 32. Rb1 c4 33.
Nf2 Rd8 34. Ne4 Nd2??

This was a time control blunder. No excuse though. 8) I thought when I played it that he could not take the b5 pawn because the c2 pawn could advance freely. I choked on this idea.

35. Nxd2 Rxd2 36. Rxb5 c3 37. Rc5 c2 38. Kg3 Kg7 39. Kf3 h5
40. g3 Kh6 41. h4 Rh2 42. Ke3 0-1


Ok so the reason I don't have the rest again is because of time control dropping under 2 minutes so we blitz'd it out. What happened was I sacced the rook on g3 when his rook was on c3 and his king was on g5. Can't tell you how they got there. He resigned there, and after that someone pointed out that it was just a QVsR position and that he could have tried for a draw. I agreed and posted the result. :twisted:

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:22 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
Ok, so this is a bad game to post because it was clean and I had a lot of people compliment me. I have really only one correction, and I will mention it. The reason I am posting it is because I want to stick with posting my games for critical analysis.



[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.12.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Turner, Jesse"]
[Black "Weiner, Alex"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B11"]
[WhiteElo "1693"]
[BlackElo "1634"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6

So this is an opening trick. He fell into it actually, The purpose is not to really mate. The purpose is to get such an overwhelming positional advantage that your opponent dies in his chair. Which I think mine wished he did after this game. The thing to notice is this game follows mainline. 1. e4 c6 2. d4<ML> d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 which has an equalizing idea which he plays. The mind trick that this move order does, is it attempts to make the illusion that the variation is the same. "Why can't the bishop go to g6 in the mainline and not here?" The answer to that is on move 7, when black commits the bishop and then plays h6. The knight goes to e5. Notice the knight the previous line is still on g1 and the other difference is there is no pawn on d4. The problem is people tend to fall hook line and sinker for the positional trap after that too which is where I will take up the next comment.

6. h4 h6 7. Ne5 Bh7??

Here I believe I have a liking for Qd6. I saw a master play this when I played it against him and I only had a decent advantage. The game was a blitz game but hey! he was still a master darn it! The problem with this move is that it still follows main line theory of the other line. One reason this is a bad game is because this was round 5, which means I had over 6 hours to plan my game, and I already have an overwhelming position after this move.

8. Qh5 g6 9. Bc4 e6

I don't give exclams to moves that are obvious to me, or common theory. Why should I? Anyway, this is still theory. The g pawn cannot take because of Bxf7# I would call that a "Dee Dee Dee" move. I have never seen one in my tournaments yet. I have seen one in correspondence where I planted a big bomb on my opponents rear end with the Legall's mate. Kind of funny if you think about the game was correspondence.

10. Qf3 Qf6 11. Qe2 Bd6

So here is the improvement part. Qf3 IS theory, and played and respected. The problem is it doesn't do anything after Qf6, so 10. Qe2 is muchas betteras. Qe2 has a hidden threat of Nxf7.

12. d4 Nd7 13. Nxd7! Kxd7

This move keeps the king in the center, which proves you really should pay attention to that kind of thing even in positions that seem harmless.

14. Be3 g5
15. hxg5 hxg5 16. O-O-O Ne7 17. Nh5 Qg6 18. Bd3 f5

Funny, I thought when I played this move that it won a piece. Be careful when doing this kind of game that you don't get overconfident during the game.

19. g4! Raf8 20. f4! gxf4

I had an expert compliment me on these two moves. I agree they are pretty nice when you think about it. Even though it does not seem like much. The point is I am stronger on the king side so why not rip it open? It also took a little calculation. I had to consider the consequences of a possible NxB I get a blunder check from crafty, but really I don't care... I will blunder check more later and maybe even post updates to my analysis.

21. gxf5 Nxf5 22. Nxf4 Bxf4 23. Bxf4 Qf7 24. Qe5! Rc8

Qe5 is a double attack, Threatens Qc7 and Qd6. Seems the problem is black could not find the move to defend both.

25. Bxf5 Qxf5 26. Qg7+ 1-0

Bad bad analysis game. But, I will be posting better I swear! If you liked the action good I am sure it was flawed somewheres.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:47 pm
Profile YIM WWW
King

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 412
Rating: 1601
Rating Class: Class B (1600-1800)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
welcome to chessvideos! And u won U1700 at the national open? U must have won a bunch of money

_________________
USCF - 1601
USCF Quick - 1667


Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:50 pm
Profile
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
Thank you, I came back with about $8070.00. So yeah it was a pretty penny. Helped out a lot. I got known in Fresno as the largest money winner in 2007. (They almost think anytime, but they are being safe.) Gives me Fresno celebrity status when it comes to Fresno chess players even though I am only rated ~1800. The general chess population don't really see over "A" class players here, and the chess club kind of over rates the higher rated players they do have. It's an ego boost till someone like me goes to a tournament like the North American Open to see that I am somewhere in the middle usually on the upper half but certainly not near the top.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:18 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
I felt good in this game, until we analyzed it. The reason being, when I played it I thought every move was called for. When he mentioned a few things they concerned me. Obviously he knew the opening he plays. When I got back to Fresno Chess Club I let a local life master look at it. (The only one we have) He confirmed a few things and so I have rearranged my moves and my thoughts on this game.




[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.12.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Cooper, Timothy J"]
[Black "Turner, Jesse"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A12"]
[WhiteElo "1699"]
[BlackElo "1634"]
[PlyCount "112"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. b3 Bf5

The funny part of this game is Mr Cooper is a talker. So you hear things from him like "That was a good move, nice. I don't think he expresses when he thinks you make a bad move, but I know he expresses knowledge of an opening line because at this point he said "Ah yes, The Lasker Defense!". When I looked it up, it was indeed the Lasker Defense! I did not know this at the time. Amazing!

4. g3 e6 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Bb2 Nbd7 7. O-O Bd6

I played this like it was an awesome move! After the game I was told by Mr Cooper that this was an opening mistake because it allows e4 without problems. I believed him with reserve because I am like your suppose to be which is keep your ideas until everyone disagrees and your beat up about it. In this case I asked someone (The local master I mentioned) who is somewhat an expert on Larsen/Lasker type positions. He verified the idea. So now I play things like Be7.

8. d3
O-O 9. Nbd2 Re8 10. Re1 Bg6 11. e4 dxe4

So According to the mass public, 11. e4 is the reason Bd6 is not played. You have possible side tactics of pushing to e5 and in some cases the queen will hit the bishop in an X-ray tactic. I am still unsure it was that bad. The only thing I don't like about it is the fact that it could be biting on granite. Opinions, opinions.

12. dxe4 e5 13. Nh4 Qc7 14. Nxg6 hxg6

I don't mind this, I have seen a lot of people do this including some masters. I don't understand why it's good because to me its a waste of time. Maybe I can get a master in here to explain to me why it's good to go after the bishop like this.

15. Qc2 Rad8 16. Rad1 Bc5

I was hunting for a plan here. The main idea is to see if I can reroute things. Like Ng4 or if he stops it maybe a6 then Ba7-b8. I decided not to go through with this plan because if you think about it, it wastes a lot of time setting up a battery that has no breakthrough. IE: the only thing that can break through is the knight, so I would need another rook and pawn to even thing about breaking down the king position, and I am playing here with a faulty plan. I guess the bishop could be placed on a good square here, but I don't yet know.

17. h3 Qb6 18. Nf1 Nf8 19. Rxd8 Qxd8

Rxd8 drops a pawn. I am feeling like I cannot do anything here except play a mind trick on him. Which I was able to later.

20. Ne3 Qc7 21.
a3 Ne6 22. b4 Bd4

Ok, so the first real critical moment. I thought about a5 here to blunt b4. At the time I didn't really think it was that important. I am still not very sure. He kind of confirmed it a little bit by saying he thought I needed to stop the b4 advance. At this point he thought he was better, I thought we were equal. The pawns he advances can prove to be a weakness as well as a strength.

23. c5 a5 24. Nc4 axb4 25. axb4 Ra8 26. Qb3 Qe7

At the point I played this I thought it was a huge losing mistake, because I put down the queen and thought, "CRAP he can take the e5 pawn. Which is true and it probably could have won. Because Psychology plays a big part in winning. When you put it into the comp it says play Nxe5. The problem is, the deeper it goes the lower the score. At depth 12 (basically 6 moves) it evals as equal. Of course that is if you play like a computer, which I don't. However, it does make me feel a little better. I thought it was a lot worse.

27. Rd1 Qc7

I played this wiping my brow because I felt I was fixing the previous mistake.

28. Kf1 Nd7 29. Nd6 Ndxc5

He mentioned after the game that he thought this was simply winning. During the game he was proud up until I played my move. Which all comps agree with this completely. He blurted out. "Nice shot!". Told you he was a talker. I don't mind but someone might call him on it one day.

30. bxc5 Nxc5

The Comp likes Qb4 here... I was calculating similar to the comp at this point I was surprised. I think thought that I misplayed the game after his move, Nb5.

31. Nb5 cxb5?

Yeah at this point the comp says Qa5, which keeps a two pawn advantage. Here I give back one pawn, and I go into an ending a pawn up. I am usually comfortable playing pawn up endgames and this one is no different.

32. Qxb5 Bxb2 33. Qxb2 Rd8
34. Rxd8+ Qxd8

Rd5 is the better move. He noticed it after the game. It gives better resistance.

35. Qc2 Qd3+

Feeling good here. I can trade down the queen and now there is no perpetual checks. Get the king closer to the action and I "should be winning".

36. Qxd3 Nxd3 37. Ke2 Nc5 38. Kd2 Kf8 39. Kc3 Ke7
40. Kc4 Kd6 41. h4 Kc6 42. f3 b5+

I don't know what to say about this part. I think he could have stopped the pawn from checking. The resistance didn't seem the best to me. Like 41. Kb5 for example was one thing I was afraid of. The comp agrees so I do have good instincts. I was still winning in that position, but it was harder IMO.

43. Kc3 Na6 44. Bh3 Kc5 45. Bd7 Nc7 46. Kd3
f6 47. Kc3 g5 48. hxg5 fxg5 49. f4 gxf4

I felt 49. f4 dropped a pawn for nothing he felt it had drawing chances. I don't know, but the comp puts it at +4.

50. gxf4 exf4 51. Kd3 b4 52. Ba4 g5 53.
Bd1 Ne6 54. Bf3 Nd4 55. Bd1 b3

At the time he said I pushed the right pawn. I believed either b3 or f3 won, but he insisted that f3 draws. Crafty agrees with me, with a +8 score. Anyone disagree?

56. Kc3 f3 0-1


This was my best game of the tournament. I believe that Tim should have been my 7th round game. The next game was against a player I should have played better against, but I think my stamina was getting the best of me. I don't want to post this next game because it was a comedy of blunders on both sides, but I have to stick with the program and post ALL my games. :oops:

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:07 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
This poor fellow took advantage of me pretty well. According to a Colorado master he felt the game went my way a few times even though I felt like I was being beat up the whole time. In the end came a classic brain fart. It happens even in long time controls.




[Event "North American Open '07 U1700"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.12.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Turner, Jesse"]
[Black "Wright, Warner"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C14"]
[WhiteElo "1634"]
[BlackElo "1659"]
[PlyCount "151"]
[EventDate "2008.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.12"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. f4 a6

Funny, cause I have been getting use to English lines lately. I hope I don't have to look at these lines much anymore. Even though I still kind of like them.

8. Nf3 c5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. O-O-O cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. Qxd4 O-O 13. Bd3 b5 14. a3? Rb8

This is my first mistake, and it was fresh out of the opening. I played a3 to try to stop b4, but there really is no reason to do that. Also with trying to stop his natural plan, a3 gives a nice target in which would not be there otherwise. Makes it easy on him to focus on something.

15. Nb1? b4

One mistake deserves another apparently in patzer chess.

16. a4 a5 17. Qa7?? Bb7

This actually blunders the game immediately but I did not know that and he did not catch on good thing. One massive plan that should be considered in this position is f5. Possibly going to f6 and attacking on the KS.

18. Bb5 Qc5?

If I remember the analysis correctly the line went Nc5 threatening Ra8. The best white can do is sac the queen to avoid losing it for nothing. So in a way Qc5 let me go. An example like might be: 18. .. Nc5 19. Qxa5 Nb3+!! 20. cxb3 Qc5+ 21. Nc3 d4 22. Rd3 Ra8 23. Qxa8.

19. Qxc5 Nxc5 20. Nd2 Rfc8 21. Kb1
Bc6 22. Bxc6 Rxc6 23. b3 Rbc8 24. Rhe1 Nd7 25. Rc1 Rc3 26. Nf3 Nc5 27. Nd4 Ne4
28. Re2 R3c5 29. Rxe4? dxe4

This is my decline again. I felt here I was worse, but the master and the computer both said I was gaining ground I didn't have just to give it all back here. Apparently I start out playing again, to go for another faulty plan.

30. Re1 Rd8 31. Rxe4 g6 32. Kb2 h5 33. h3 Kg7 34.
Nf3 Rd1 35. Re2 Rcd5 36. c4 bxc3+

c4 is forced, or black gets real nasty mating threats going.

37. Kxc3 Rc5+ 38. Kb2 Rcc1 39. Ka2 Ra1+

According to humans this is hard to win, according to computers its easy. Get a 2200+ rating they can get the right plan by instinct. Obviously don't move so many rook moves, get the king closer! After Rcc1 white is pretty much hopeless, and black starts to lose his way. Although he does get the idea of moving the king eventually. Again, amazing how much you can see when you think your losing especially when your right.

40. Kb2 Rdb1+ 41. Kc3 Rc1+

I have to keep the rooks on. If Kc2 the Ra2 and I trade off a pair of rooks that are extremely importante.

42. Kb2 Rd1 43. Kc2 Rf1 44. Kb2 Rfb1+ 45. Kc3 Kf8!

This is what I was afraid of in the game. I felt pretty bad here.

46. Rd2 Rc1+ 47. Kb2 Rab1+ 48. Ka2 Ke7 49. Re2 Rd1 50. Nd2 Ra1+

I came up with a plan on move 49, to move my knight to c4 and kind of hope I can get some counterplay with the pawn on a5. It worked but imediately after that I make a game ending blunder, and I could have safely resigned.

51. Kb2 Kd7 52. Nc4
Rab1+ 53. Ka2 Kc6 54. Nxa5+ Kc5 55. Nb7+ Kb4 56. Re4+ Kc3 57. Rc4+ Kd2 58. Ka3
Ke2

I have approximate equality here. With black having slight advantage.

59. Nd6 Rd3 60. Rb4 Kf2 61. Nxf7 Kxg2 62. Ng5 Ra1+ 63. Kb2 Rf1 64. Nxe6
Rxh3

I was told that h4 here was better cause Nxe6 can come anytime, here I had around a pawns advantage and the Nxe6 gave back some to equality.

65. Ng5 Re3 66. Rb6?? Rxf4

This is the game ending blunder. I didn't realize it at the time but losing the f4 pawn really messed me up, and he can fork my pieces if I take the pawn on g6. Funny how that can just happen out of no where. Of course when people look at this they make fun of me as if it's just obvious I made these mistakes.

67. Rxg6 Rg4 68. e6 Re5 69. e7 Rxe7 70. Re6 Rxe6
71. Nxe6 h4 72. a5 Ra4??

Anything won here but this. Even the most obvious. Pressure can do it easily to anyone, so I feel for the guy. Plus I have done worse. He is a good guy too, hope to see him in a revenge game soon.

73. bxa4 h3 74. Nf4+ Kg3 75. Nxh3 Kxh3 76. a6 1-0

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:26 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
After this tournament came the March/April tournament in Reno. Western states or something like that. They have two really really nice tournaments a year. This was a poor tournament, if I remember correctly. I believe this is the one I stopped playing gambits because I don't seem to have the heart for them. I felt I needed to assess gambits for tactical reasons. Now I just feel like I need to learn real chess.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:32 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
I am going to start picking random games to analyze from a book I am reading and put them here no analysis from the book will be here for copyright reason it will only be MY analysis.

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:48 am
Profile YIM WWW
Endgame Virtuoso
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:21 am
Posts: 1453
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
Hi Jesse :wave:

Nicely done analysing your own games :thumleft:
I was flicking through the last game posted ( the one in the french defence ) and it seemed to me that already in the opening white may have gone wrong. As far as I am aware 10. 0-0-0 is just asking for trouble as white commits his king to the queenside too early in a rather blocked position whereas black is just ready to attack him there
Image

So I started wondering what about simply c4 here? :scratch:
Image

This does look quite good to my eyes at least. Next comes b5 and I don't really see a satisfactory way for white to organize counterplay, while black seems to have a very easy plan.

Thus it seems to me that instead of 10. 0-0-0 white had to flick in dxc5 first :roll:

Or did I overlook something?

_________________
"It is never too late to be who you might have been." George Eliot


Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:48 am
Profile
Rook

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Fresno, California
Rating: 1967
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
It doesn't seem like that would be a huge problem to me. I certainly didn't hear a problem when it was analyzed by Brain Wall. He had a problem with my Qa7. Which to this day I have no idea why I played it. He also had a problem with some of the endgame things I did. I understand why I did them, and I understand now why they were wrong. I could research your idea if you like?

_________________
Proud supporter of Igor Smirnov's Remote Chess Academy. If you are interested in a good training program, here is the link:
http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=1517_2_3_1


Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:24 am
Profile YIM WWW
Endgame Virtuoso
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:21 am
Posts: 1453
Rating Class: Class A (1800-2000)
Post Re: JumpNMustang's Training Journal
JumpNMustang wrote:
I could research your idea if you like?


Thanks, that would be great :wink:

_________________
"It is never too late to be who you might have been." George Eliot


Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:32 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF