An Experiment in Rapid Chess Improvement

Record of my experience in undertaking Michael de la Maza's "Rapid Chess Improvement" program.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Tragedy Strikes!

Well, my weekly game with OJ could have gone better. Things were going okay- I was playing the black side of the modern defense to the King's Gambit accepted. I was under a bit of pressure, but holding. Then I chose my next move, N8d7. The 8 was necessary when I wrote the move down because there were knights on both b6 and b8. So I wrote down N8d7 on my scoresheet, carefully checked all my opponent's reasonable replies, and seeing nothing threatening I made my move and pressed the clock. Then after a few seconds I realized with horror that I actually made the move N6d7, not N8d7 as I intended. Suddenly the position went from probably +/= to +-. About two moves later, my thought-process in tatters, I dropped my queen, and promptly resigned. The really frustrating thing was in the post-mortem it looked like a few moves later I would have won a central pawn and gained a strong position had I played the correct knight move. Sigh...

On a positive note I was doing a good job of considering my opponent's replies up until I moved the wrong knight. Unfortunately my friend is getting ready to travel for a few months, so I won't have a weekly game for a while. After today's loss, my record is against OJ is +9 -11 =3, so -2 overall. Not bad considering I used to get my clock cleaned regularly, so I've made up quite a bit of ground.

BTW I have now finished levels 10 and 20 on the second circle, so here's the stats so far:

Circle 1 % Circle 2 %
---------- ----------
Level 10 96% 99%
Level 20 91% 93%
Level 30 74%
Level 40 69%
Level 50 67%
Level 60 55%
Level 70 60%
Level 80 57%
Level 90 55%

So, a modest improvement in % overall, all while doing twice as many problems per day than in the first circle. I still missed a bunch of problems on level 20, but hopefully I'll do better on circle 3. In looking at my circle 1 percentages, it is interesting to note that my second-worst score in the first circle was on level 60. Weird.

11 Comments:

At 4:14 AM, Blogger Chris said...

Those kinds of things will happen :) I was once playing someone in a G/45 tournament (too little time for me, I rarely do well in those things), and I was up a knight in the endgame (and he had three pawns to my two). Now this guy was rated about 400 points below me and had just attacked my knight with a pawn. I stare at the position and calculate out all these lines. I get so involved with my plan of what to do after moving my knight, that I forget to move my knight!! Strangest thing. It was like that pawn attacking my knight just dissolved from my field of view. My opponent then took a long time staring at the position (he later said because of my higher rating he was convinced I had some diabolical trap set up), and then finally took the knight. It all turned out okay in the end, as I handled our mutual blitz ending much better than he did and won (it would have been a draw if he had remained calm).

 
At 6:41 AM, Blogger CelticDeath said...

Chris, I wish I had a dollar for everytime something like that has happened to me. That is the worst feeling in the world!!!!

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger fussylizard said...

Well, was it Karpov that said you have to lose about 10,000 games to become a GM? At least now I'll probably not make that exact mistake again, so better to do it during a friendly game than during a tournament game.

During analysis my friend said "oh, you should have just taken it back and played the move you meant to play", but I felt I should stick to the rules and hopefully learn a good lesson.

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Pawnsensei said...

Way to go! I don't believe in takebacks either. If you play like that in casual games, you will play like that in tournaments too. Learning from your mistakes is worth more than winning a game that doesn't count IMO.

PS

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger Temposchlucker said...

Something equal happened to me. I had sacrificed a rook for a crushing attack. Then I thought for half an hour and took...the wrong Bishop. The two Bishops were standing next to each other. I had no reasonable place to put my wrong Bishop, and I gave up with the Bishop still in my hand. Strange experience.

 
At 5:57 PM, Blogger Don Q. said...

I know this moment well. Check out this link on Chessbase. They have two great pictures of Bianca Muhren. One when she's looking at the position and one half a second later when she's just discovered she's in deep trouble.

 
At 6:27 PM, Blogger fussylizard said...

When I blunder and I know it, I usually try not to let on anything is wrong, just in case my opponent doesn't notice. I often know when OJ realizes he's made a mistake, but I can't think of an occasion in which he tipped me off to something...usually I've already seen it and am looking at the lines following it.

One time we had a game where he had a winning position but I got some counterplay. Then he blundered and I had a forced mate, but it took me about 10 minutes to calculate out all the lines (there were two knight moves that both looked promising, so I wanted to make sure I chose correctly). I finally moved and quickly won, and OJ told me that he once he had realized he had a forced loss, he sat in silent agony for 10 minutes while he waited to see if I saw it. Sometimes when I see I have a winning move I think about taking my time to let him stew, but I generally just play on normally.

 
At 5:12 PM, Blogger Chris said...

There's a great video of Kasparov playing Anand years ago in a blitz match (I think it's on the recent Chessbase magazine anniversary DVD). Kasparov makes a move that blunders away material, and as Anand's hand reaches for the piece to make the winning move, Kasparov reels back in astonished horror, making the most exaggerated gestures of despair and disbelief! Anand has said that playing with Kasparov is like having Fritz running during your games, since Kasparov hides none of his emotions when mistakes are made :)

 
At 7:18 PM, Blogger Margriet said...

It happens to me all the time. But fortunately my opponents blunders as much a I do.

 
At 3:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry to much, it even happens to me that i play the second move of my plan because of "over calculation" (thinking that the first move is already done on the board).

To Chris, that disolving of the pawn has probably to do with a retained picture in your mind. You were probably to focused on that position that you totally forgot about your N because in your minds eye there was no pawn on that square anymore. Sometimes a quick check up after you decided which move to play can be a healty thing. :)

But what i am amazed at is that you guys know more about openings then i do. When i see an analyse of your guys i always say that you mention the opening by name. So i wonder if you guys don't put to much time into learning openings instead of first having a good thoughtproces (openings you can easily play if you have the opening principles in your mind).

logis
http://logis.modblog.com

 
At 8:58 PM, Blogger fussylizard said...

Interesting observation re: openings, logis. For me, I didn't really spend much time "studying" openings...it is more a case of general knowledge I've acquired from reading various books more for enjoyment than serious study. Now that I'm on the MDLM plan I'm actually doing some serious study. :-)

My thought process is one of my biggest weaknesses at this point. Part of it is tied to my tactical knowledge, which I'm working on now. I think I just need to play more slow games to work on my thought process, possibly against the computer where I can reference a printed thought process to help.

I need to get that anniversary DVD...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home