Long-ish term goal

In light of the last post on "real" rankings, where it was found that, once you got rid of the low-ranking juniors, the median rating of active players in the USCF is around 1800, I decided to revise my long-term goals slightly. I think my long-term goal will be to get to a solid class A level. I think that is very attainable if I work at it. I will then be able to compete reasonably in open events, though I won't come close to winning anything with decent competition. I think part of the reason for the high median rating is that people, either kids or adults, don't stick with tournament-level chess unless they're good at it. If they aren't, they're much more likely to stop going to tournaments because it's a lot of time, work, and money to go to a tournament, especially if you're not playing at a reasonable level. You can enjoy chess a lot without going to tournaments, after all. Also, the people who really enjoy chess as children and continue that through to adulthood are probably much more likely to improve to a reasonable level while still a kid.

So, where do you really rank among active players?

I like the feature on the USCF rating website which tells you where you rank among active players in America (active players are those who have had a rated game in the last year). However, the ranking is a little deceptive, since there are large numbers of junior players ranked below 1000. Naturally, one would probably want to compare oneself to adult players or at least reasonable chess players, no slight on underrated juniors intended. The discrepancy can be pretty great, since there were 46,000 active players, but 33,000 of them are juniors and those are mostly toward the low end of the spectrum. I was bored, so I did a little exercise. I picked a random junior player with a rating of around 1450. His overall ranking was in the 77th percentile and his junior ranking was in the 92nd percentile. Approx 11,000 out of 46,000 and 2700 out of 33,000 respectively.

Now, suppose you're an adult player of a similar rating and want to figure out how you compare to adult players only. It's a simple bit of math: (11,000-2700)/(46,000-33,000). This puts you at around the the 25th percentile, which is a lot worse than the 75th percentile, I tell you what. A better adjustment might be to disregard the juniors rated beneath you, but include the ones rated higher than you, so the equation becomes 11,000/(46,000-33,000+2700) which is again around the 25th percentile. I think this ranking is much more reasonable for an adult player of that rating.

Then again, I find low rankings and bitter defeats to be inspiring: I'll fight for a higher ranking and learn from my defeat. Some people don't get motivated by that, so they probably should not find out that, instead of being in the 80th percentile, they're really in the 30th. Me, I just like having another metric to track my progress and evaluate my performance.

EDIT: For instance, in this method, a 1700 rating only puts you at the median. I think that seems realistic. A 2000 rating puts you at only the 80th percentile of active adult players and a 2200 is about 95th - perhaps a little harsh. It might be a good idea to include all juniors above a threshold rating rather than just those higher rated than the test rating. Perhaps above 1300.

EDITED AGAIN: A junior rated 1200 will be ranked around 4900/33,000. I think that's a good point to start at. This would put somebody with a 2000 rating at around the 86th percentile of active players. I think that's still kind of surprising.

How I botched a knight vs bishop endgame

I had an advantage, then blew it to go to a drawing endgame, but my opponent right here made a critical mistake a couple moves ago, so now I, White, have a win. Unfortunately, I missed it and made a move which loses instantly. I got a gift back later, though, and drew the game.

The correct move here is 1. h5! Both ...g5 and ...gxh5 lose. After 1. ...gxh5 2. Nf3 White puts the knight on h4 and starts pushing the f-pawn. Black will lose the h-pawns and have to give up the bishop for the f-pawn, leaving an easy win for White.

attacking chess

I've been studying a bit of tactics and endgames while going over games collections (mostly Alekhine) and reading Lasker. I think my next project should definitely be going over some work specifically on attacking, like Vukovic. I really don't know how to attack well and I'm almost helpless against my opponents' attacks. I'm playing a rather informal correspondence game against a friend of mine who seems to be getting his groove back and I slipped up, ignoring his mounting threat on the kingside. He hasn't executed the attack yet, but it's really a rather textbook attack and I don't see how to get around it. I might find something. I don't know. It's not a "serious" correspondence game, so I'm not going to spend several hours looking at the position, just as I didn't spend several hours getting into this position. Anyway! Attacks and attacking. This is not an atypical experience. I'll also look at the section of Polgar's brick with the example games with the attacks characterized by location.

EDIT: Yes, I realize that I said previously that I also have no positional sense and would need to work on that. But I think preventing oneself from getting blown off the board and being able to blow people off the board is a good idea.

Ratings and stuff

So I went back and calculated what my rating would be if the tournaments I played in this year were my first forays into rated chess. The calculator spit out that I would have a rating of approximately 1580 (based on 15 games). This is pretty far from the rating I started at this year, but not terribly far from what my rating is right now. I think it's probably a pretty decent approximation of my actual playing strength, but who really knows? These are really just labels we attach to things.

Sometimes people dislike the rating system because ratings don't "accurately" portray the play of somebody who is returning to chess from a long break (they've either grown weaker in absence or stronger in absence), but I think my rating is catching up very quickly to my playing strength even after only 4 tournaments, especially given that 2 of the 4 tournaments I've been at I played at a mediocre level (losing two rating points at one, even). I played around with the rating tool and found that, if somebody rated 1200 plays at about a 1600 level for 16 games, their rating will be over 1500. The exact parameters depend on the number of games in each tournament, exact ratings of opponents, and exact performances in the tournaments, but that seems like a very reasonable amount of activity to get to one's "real" rating after a spell of inactivity.

Survived the Marshall Attack.

That was a close one. My scheduled opponent forfeited, so I played a game against somebody who had a bye. He played the Marshall. I thought, oh, drat, I don't know any Marshall theory and this is a highly theoretical system. Anyway, I held onto my pawn and I think I went into the ending with a positional advantage, but I think erroneously simplified down to a knight vs bishop ending (I had the knight and an extra pawn) instead of keeping the rooks and keeping some pressure on. I still had all the winning chances, I think, but I made a mistake which let his king in and rapidly changed the evaluation. I think I had a draw set up, but then I made a mistake which let him simplify to a very easily won pawn endgame. Oops. I was about to resign, but I decided to let it go just a little bit longer and he made a mistake which made the ending turn into a dead drawn Q vs Q+P ending. I queened first and then won his extra pawn, forcing the draw. Hard work. A swindle.

EDIT: Since my scheduled opponent forfeited, that puts me at 6-0 for the tournament. It's a round-robin with 8 games and, based on the scores, I think it's highly unlikely that anybody will catch me in my section. I also think I'm 7.5/8 for all the CICL games I've played - still undefeated!

Mysterious Line in the Cordel: When Does Bxf2+ work?

Twice now scholastic players have played the Cordel and, when I eventually went for the center fork trick, played Bxf2+. The first time, it was at a point where he could recover the piece, but he wasn't doing himself any favors. The second just gave up the piece for nothing, but I played inaccurately and had to give it back. For those wondering, here's the latest line (IIRC): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 d5 5. Nxe5 Bxf2+?? Okay, this isn't a fork trick right there, since the knight is pinned. But it was the other time.

What I'm wondering now is if some coach in the area is showing them some games where there is a thematic Bxf2+ sacrifice after Nxe5 and they are incorrectly following the theme, thinking it always works in similar positions. That's twice now that I've seen it (and the third time somebody has played the Cordel against me, I didn't try the center fork trick in any way in the first encounter).

Also, the kid annotated my c3 with a question mark and his ...d5 with an exclamation. I wondered whether I should get the tournament director to inform him how making annotations during the game is not allowed or inform him myself after the game, but it didn't seem worthwhile. We didn't have time to go over the game, either, as I would definitely have informed him that c3 is the book move and ...d5 isn't. Anyway, I presume I'll keep seeing this ...Bxf2+ move, since the Cordel seems popular with kids around here and I like Nxe5 at some point.

strategery about who to play

I didn't really get much chance to face strong opposition while playing scholastically, so I didn't get much of a chance to fill out my chess knowledge in high school. Perhaps I should have been more diligent about seeking out strong opposition. Look, for example, at my history here (and, if you want, subtract the stuff from the last year): Player History


Note how much of my opposition was rated below 1200: almost all of it. I was rated around 1200-1300 for much of that time and didn't go up. This is not a coincidence. There are two problems here: it's impossible to go up much in rating if you're toward the top of the rating list in a tournament and it's impossible to become stronger if you don't play people stronger than you. The rating range I needed to be playing, if rated 1300, was probably 1200-1600, not 900-1300 with occasional games against a 1600. The range I'm playing right now (see last 12 months) is pretty much the right range for my current rating (almost 1500), though I should be dropping some of those lower rated players soon and adding more 1700s. It's no coincidence that I'm adding lots of rating points as I'm playing stronger players (and, I think, getting stronger, too, they aren't the same).

EDIT: This is obviously an economic problem. If I'm going to spend my time and money on playing chess, I'm going to spend the time and money playing strong opposition. I wouldn't refuse, on principal, to play in the Chicago Class this weekend because I'd only play players in my (former) class, but I'd refuse because, in combination with that, it's also more expensive and more time-consuming than an alternative. Going back in time, I wouldn't have forgone scholastic events, I would have added other events, of which there were and are surprisingly plenty given the relative emptiness of the state of Iowa.

this week's super fun chess times.

I played in the monthly NSCC G/45 tourney. In the first game, I drew against an 1800. It was a dead drawn double rook endgame from a Winawer French. That's all I was shooting for. In the second, I beat a 1590 who foolishly sac'ed his bishop on like move 6. I slipped and had to give it back, but won the game. Another double rook endgame, I got a pawn up and he foolishly simplified to the pawn ending. The rook ending has practical drawing chances, the pawn ending is just a dead loss. I lost the third game to a 1770, but it was a long, tough fight. I was down positionally the whole time, though. In the end I went for some practical chances in time trouble, but the tactics just didn't work. I had a worse position and, like, a minute to his 10 minutes, so it was worth a shot. The last game was a gift from a 1100 player, he straight up gave me his queen. I was playing quickly and in a slightly inferior position, actually, and then he just gave me his queen. I need to review how to play the Black side of the Ruy Lopez, I'm just not getting anything good here. I keep having problems with my d-pawn. Anyway, performance rating of like 1700, should give me a good 80 rating points or so.

EDIT: results are in, I gained 78 points, so I've gained a total of 205 rating points in the last month. Not so bad.

And I did the first four levels of CT Art yet again.

I am embarrassed, though. I probably went through the exercises too quickly, and therefore didn't improve. I calculated less and played more moves that "looked" right.

Level 10: 97%
Level 20: 92%
Level 30: 79%
Level 40: 73%

Oops! Just like last time, except worse on level 10.

Today's super fun happy chess post.

I'm up to Alekhine's match against Capablanca in his game collection. I've noticed that I have been going over the games faster lately. I went through two this morning on the train. I think this is not good. I should make a conscious effort to slow down a bit. I think one per train ride is a good pace for my purposes. It's enough time to reflect a bit on the game and work it out but fast enough that I can do it.

I played two quick games at lunch today against the ~1650 player. He's been wanting to play me ever since my success last month. I won one - he made a mistake in the Najdorf and I stole his queen. I lost the next. I need to figure out how to go against his "slow kingside buildup and attack" plan in the Two Knights with d3. I think maybe I need to be more aggressive and open things up before he can get it rolling, as he keeps his king in the center for a long time.

Anyway, I've been having some fun playing games besides chess lately. I played softball last night and I'm going to a "game night" at a friend's tonight. He's a chess player, but we're going to be doing other board games.

I'm not going to go to the Chicago Class tournament, but I will go to a tournament on Sunday afternoon. I just can't spend an entire weekend at a tournament right now (or spend $100 on entry fees). I can justify spending a Sunday afternoon and $20, though. It would be unrealistic to expect as good a showing at this tournament as last month's, but I think there's a good chance I'll do okay. I'll be happy if I win one game and play some good games against stronger players. Okay, scratch that: I really want a performance rating over 1500 for this. That's modest. So, if I can win one game and have a 1500 performance, I'll call that a good showing. There are plenty of reasonably rated people showing up to this event usually, so that might not be a problem.

Boost Your Chess!

I started Boost Your Chess 1 and am enjoying it. More of the same good stuff. It is very nice.

On chess.com, I just bungled a game against a friend of mine, but he bungled it, too, and I managed to get him to force a draw. I don't know whether I had a forced win earlier, and since it was a three-day-per-move game I probably should have taken more time to verify I did not (I'm pretty sure I didn't). But I am happier with the draw than with the loss for sure. One thing I don't like about chess.com is that it presumes that somebody who is unrated is 1200 when it calculates how your rating takes a hit.

I also started up a game against somebody who turned out to be undefeated and, though only rated 1865 on chess.com, is rated 2000 in real life. He's only 1865 on chess.com because he has mostly played low-rated players. My only hope, I think, is to go for a "correspondence game" type position - sharp tactics and what-not and hope that my theory ends up being sharper than his theory, but it looks like he's playing a staid line of the Vienna Game. Drat!

In other news, I'm taking up the role of co-captain on my company's CICL team.

Finished Build Up Your Chess 1

I found it tremendously helpful and informative. The exercises were hard work and were very rewarding. I am going to review the material some more, play over some of the variations in the chapters and exams a few more times to make sure I've got it all and then I will start Boost Your Chess. I have to guard myself against laziness in doing this, especially as I work these things out on the train. You are supposed to go over every variation and spend 1-2 hours on each lesson. Then you are supposed to spend 1-2 hours on each exam, writing out all the relevant variations. The temptation to do less is great. I passed the final exam with a "Good" score, but not "Excellent", and there were a couple problems I just did not get at all.

Still undecided about what I'm going to do in terms of chess tournaments in the next few weeks. There are several opportunities to play on Sunday afternoons and there is the opportunity to play in the Chicago Class, but that would take all weekend and the wifing unit might feel neglected if I do that. I'm taking the car in to get some work done on the brakes, so I might not have it back by this Sunday, so that would answer the question of this week's tournament. Beyond that, who knows?

I played better on the second day.

I won both my games for a final score of 2.5/5 (I took a third round bye). My opponent from the first game in the tournament won the section, he played very well. My first win was against the guy I played in the last round of the Evanston tournament a few months ago. He played the English again and I was a bit more ambitious. I think I had a bit of a positional advantage and then he slipped up, dropping a pawn. His position fell apart quickly after that. In the second game, I was against a low-rated junior. He played the Ruy Lopez, Classical Deferred, but got himself a cramped position. I used the fork trick to gain some central space and then won two pieces for a rook. I picked up another pawn and then went into an endgame with a rook, two minor pieces, and a couple extra pawns against two rooks. I didn't have to use my super endgame skills, though, as he made a tactical blunder and lost a rook. I think I'll lose a couple rating points from this tournament, which I don't particularly care about. I think I also picked up a few dollars. The tournament seemed to have far fewer people than they had hoped for (50 as opposed to far more, the quoted prize fund in the advertisements was b/250). I think it was because it conflicted with another large local tournament, the FIDE Continental Amateur something or other, which had about 100, as well as, of course, the World Open and everybody's 4th of July plans.

I'm still undecided about playing in the Chicago Class in a couple weeks. It's a choice between that and playing the NSCC G/45 event. On the one hand, I did get some cash money to make the entry fees a little better and it's a long time control. On the other, it takes all weekend and, even playing up a section, I'll probably face weaker opposition than I would at the NSCC event.

EDIT: Going over one of the games on the computer - I realize it's no substitute for master human commentary - I think it's amusing that, for four or five straight moves, Houdini insists that Black needs to play ...Nc5 and White needs to play c4. In retrospect, those are good moves...

I played horribly today.

Perhaps I can redeem myself tomorrow.

EDIT: The first game, I just got steamrolled in the Alekhine. Lost a pawn early. In the second game, I had a pretty decent positional advantage, but I foolishly gave it away to equalize when I thought my opponent had an attack that needed equalizing. I then made a major blunder which lost.

Tournament tomorrow!

I'm playing in the double class tournament starting tomorrow. It's a 40/90, SD/30 time control, which is a little slower than I'm used to, but it's a time control I should learn to play. I've been playing G/90 lately, but I've been going fast because I've been getting winning positions. I'll try to make the most of my time. The SD/30 is kind of fast, IMO, for a secondary time control, so I'll think of this as like a G/120 and possibly leave some time at the end of 40 moves unless the game looks like it won't need that much for the finale.

I think if I win money at this, I'll go to the Chicago Class in two weeks. If not, I'll go to the North Shore Chess Center tournament in two weeks. It sounds kind of lame to predicate this stuff on winning money, but it's one thing to spend $100 on chess tournaments in a month, another to spend $200. Even though it's a shorter time control, I think the NSCC tournament would be better for my development as a player because the players will be stronger than the ones I'd play in the class tournament (even if I played up a section). A challenging (but feasible) G/45 is going to be better than a less-challenging or trivial 40/2 SD/60. As I said, if I do win money, I thnk I'll play in the Chicago Class, but then it's a question of whether I'll play my own section or play up. I just don't think I'll get good games if I play my own section - Section D (!). I probably need to play against B and maybe C players to get a good game. So I could play in the C section - but what about the chance of filthy lucre in the D class? Ah, filthy lucre...