Todd has recently blogged about my success at the Chess Stars Orlando Sunshine Open where I scored 4.5 out of 5 to share 1st Place in the U2000 Section.
I was lucky, of course, and I can show you "how".
Normally it's somewhat customary for a tournament winner to show a game or two as a highlight of the event. Unfortunately, all of my games range from nondescript to boring, so there's nothing that stands out from the "complete annotated game" perspective. For instance, in my 5 games, I really only managed a slight plus out of the opening only once. I was black, and it was my only draw.
In the other 4 games, I was only equal at best, and in some cases I was a little worse.
My tournament result was based on the endgame, and even then is was a near thing, as there were some critical spots where the results could have been different. Let's take a look.
Our first stop is my game against William Bowman (1883) in round 2. I had a nice opening, but William outplayed me after I (silly me) declined his draw offer, and I had to spend another 40 moves to correct that error. Eventually I steered the game to an opposite color bishop ending to reach the following position at move 60:
White had just played 60. h5, and I played 60. ... f6! At the time I thought it was a good move, breaking up the white pawn formation and allowing me to set up a blockade fortress on the dark squares.
It was only later, in the quiet of my home with only my thoughts, my cat, and Sygyzy Tablebases that I learned it was the only move- everything else loses.
It doesn't end there. After White plays h6+:
I played 61. ... Kh7- another only move, as ...Kh8 is a mate in 4 and ...Kf8 is a mate in 9. We drew a few moves later, so the "Lucky Ledger" reads +0.5.
Our next stop is round 3, against Club and Blogmate Todd Durham (1852). It's always a tough matchup playing your homeys, and this was made worse because it was too early in the tournament for either of us to want to consider accepting a diplomatic solution during the game ( we both wanted to win, of course!). We would have lived with a draw, naturally, but we would have both left unhappy.
After much "back and forth" play, I had emerged with an "Alekhine Fourth Phase"-type endgame advantage, leading to the following diagram at move 70, where Black had just played ...Qe8:
Black is losing, but the last move is the best practical attempt, as White only has one move that wins, which is 71. Qxe8!
For fun, here is how my Silicon Sancho Panza shows me how close it was:
Analysis by Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT:
1. +- (8.40): 71.Qxe8 Rxe8 72.Rxb7 Rc8 73.Rb6+ Kd7 74.Rxa6 Rc4 75.Rb6 Rc3+ 76.Kf2 Ke7 77.a6 Kf6 78.Ke2 Kf5 79.Kd2 Ra3 80.b5 Ke4 81.Rxe6+ Kf5 82.b6 Kxe6 83.b7 Ra2+ 84.Kc3 Ra3+ 85.Kc2 Ra2+ 86.Kb3 Rxa6 87.b8Q Ra1 88.Qe5+ Kf7 89.Qxd5+ Kf6 90.Qe5+ Kf7 91.Kb4 Rb1+ 92.Kc3
2. = (0.00): 71.Qxe7+ Qxe7 72.Rxe7 Kxe7 73.Kg4 Kf6 74.Kg3 Kf7 75.Kh4 Kf6 76.Kg3
3. = (0.00): 71.Rg8 Qxf8 72.Rxf8 Rg7+ 73.Kf3 Rc7 74.Rd8+ Kc6 75.Re8 Kd7 76.Rb8 Kc6 77.Re8
4. = (0.00): 71.Qf6 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
5. = (0.00): 71.Qg8 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
6. -+ (-11.35): 71.Rxe7 Qxf8 72.Rxb7 Qf5 73.Ra7 Qd3+ 74.Kg4 Kc6 75.Re7 Qg6+ 76.Kh3 Qe4 77.Kg4 Kb5 78.Rb7+ Kc4 79.b5 axb5 80.Kg5 Qf5+ 81.Kh6 Qxf4+ 82.Kh7 Qxd4 83.a6 Qe4+ 84.Kg7 d4 85.Rc7+ Kd5 86.a7 Kd6 87.Rc1 Qb7+ 88.Kh6 Qxa7 89.Rd1 Qc5 90.Ra1 Qe5 91.Ra2
White is clearly winning
A playable version of this mess is here:
The Lucky Ledger now shows +1.0.
Our next stop is Round 4 where my opponent was newly-minted 13 year old Zoe Zelner (1786), playing on her birthday (which I did not know until after the game). After our knight shuffling from c4-d6 and f6-e8, we had repeated the following position with Black to move:
My record against young ladies is abysmal (I am ashamed to say that, having two daughters, but chess player motivations are complicated and I will say no more), and I would have happily drawn, but Zoe was after bigger game. Unfortunately, she played 21. ... b6?!, after which I went to work on the weak c-pawn, eventually generating a queenside pawn majority and winning the endgame.
It could easily have been drawn, so now The Lucky Ledger reads +1.5.
My last dodge occurred in the last round against the up-and-coming Bach Ngo (1832). We had played a very boring and nondescript opening and middlegame to reach an interesting knight ending (I think I can say "interesting" because anyone still reading probably finds endgames interesting, and all the rest have long since gone back to watching chess opening videos...).
Bach had just played 38. Rc7 to take us to the following position:
My assessment during the game was that I could draw a rook or a knight ending, but that I could possibly win a pawn ending, but work at home shows me that even the pawn ending is drawn.
(Side note: One way I study such endings is to remove all the pieces, and then analyze the pawn ending with my thoughts, and then the computer. I then add and subtract pieces to the board. It has helped me correct misconceptions I have had, and sometimes good technique can be learned.)
I played 38. ... Nf5, completely oblivious to the fact that it is the ONLY MOVE that draws!
Click here for a playable version of the analysis
Even worse (for Bach, not me), he later blundered a knight in a drawn position, which moved my Lucky Ledger to +2.5.
I don't want to overstate the idea of luck, of course. My tournament strategy was to "volley the ball across the net" each game to play into an endgame, where I thought I could separate from the pack, and it worked. However, there are no guarantees, and I am fully aware that a few moves played at some critical spots pushed the result. I am even MORE fully aware that I did not have concrete, thorough analysis to back up those moves when I made them, and a few alternate conclusions on my part would have produced an alternate result.
The bottom line? Only a few moves separate 4.5/5 from 2.0/5, which is why we play the game!
It was only later, in the quiet of my home with only my thoughts, my cat, and Sygyzy Tablebases that I learned it was the only move- everything else loses.
It doesn't end there. After White plays h6+:
I played 61. ... Kh7- another only move, as ...Kh8 is a mate in 4 and ...Kf8 is a mate in 9. We drew a few moves later, so the "Lucky Ledger" reads +0.5.
Our next stop is round 3, against Club and Blogmate Todd Durham (1852). It's always a tough matchup playing your homeys, and this was made worse because it was too early in the tournament for either of us to want to consider accepting a diplomatic solution during the game ( we both wanted to win, of course!). We would have lived with a draw, naturally, but we would have both left unhappy.
After much "back and forth" play, I had emerged with an "Alekhine Fourth Phase"-type endgame advantage, leading to the following diagram at move 70, where Black had just played ...Qe8:
Black is losing, but the last move is the best practical attempt, as White only has one move that wins, which is 71. Qxe8!
For fun, here is how my Silicon Sancho Panza shows me how close it was:
Analysis by Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT:
1. +- (8.40): 71.Qxe8 Rxe8 72.Rxb7 Rc8 73.Rb6+ Kd7 74.Rxa6 Rc4 75.Rb6 Rc3+ 76.Kf2 Ke7 77.a6 Kf6 78.Ke2 Kf5 79.Kd2 Ra3 80.b5 Ke4 81.Rxe6+ Kf5 82.b6 Kxe6 83.b7 Ra2+ 84.Kc3 Ra3+ 85.Kc2 Ra2+ 86.Kb3 Rxa6 87.b8Q Ra1 88.Qe5+ Kf7 89.Qxd5+ Kf6 90.Qe5+ Kf7 91.Kb4 Rb1+ 92.Kc3
2. = (0.00): 71.Qxe7+ Qxe7 72.Rxe7 Kxe7 73.Kg4 Kf6 74.Kg3 Kf7 75.Kh4 Kf6 76.Kg3
3. = (0.00): 71.Rg8 Qxf8 72.Rxf8 Rg7+ 73.Kf3 Rc7 74.Rd8+ Kc6 75.Re8 Kd7 76.Rb8 Kc6 77.Re8
4. = (0.00): 71.Qf6 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
5. = (0.00): 71.Qg8 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
6. -+ (-11.35): 71.Rxe7 Qxf8 72.Rxb7 Qf5 73.Ra7 Qd3+ 74.Kg4 Kc6 75.Re7 Qg6+ 76.Kh3 Qe4 77.Kg4 Kb5 78.Rb7+ Kc4 79.b5 axb5 80.Kg5 Qf5+ 81.Kh6 Qxf4+ 82.Kh7 Qxd4 83.a6 Qe4+ 84.Kg7 d4 85.Rc7+ Kd5 86.a7 Kd6 87.Rc1 Qb7+ 88.Kh6 Qxa7 89.Rd1 Qc5 90.Ra1 Qe5 91.Ra2
White is clearly winning
A playable version of this mess is here:
Our next stop is Round 4 where my opponent was newly-minted 13 year old Zoe Zelner (1786), playing on her birthday (which I did not know until after the game). After our knight shuffling from c4-d6 and f6-e8, we had repeated the following position with Black to move:
My record against young ladies is abysmal (I am ashamed to say that, having two daughters, but chess player motivations are complicated and I will say no more), and I would have happily drawn, but Zoe was after bigger game. Unfortunately, she played 21. ... b6?!, after which I went to work on the weak c-pawn, eventually generating a queenside pawn majority and winning the endgame.
It could easily have been drawn, so now The Lucky Ledger reads +1.5.
My last dodge occurred in the last round against the up-and-coming Bach Ngo (1832). We had played a very boring and nondescript opening and middlegame to reach an interesting knight ending (I think I can say "interesting" because anyone still reading probably finds endgames interesting, and all the rest have long since gone back to watching chess opening videos...).
Bach had just played 38. Rc7 to take us to the following position:
My assessment during the game was that I could draw a rook or a knight ending, but that I could possibly win a pawn ending, but work at home shows me that even the pawn ending is drawn.
(Side note: One way I study such endings is to remove all the pieces, and then analyze the pawn ending with my thoughts, and then the computer. I then add and subtract pieces to the board. It has helped me correct misconceptions I have had
I played 38. ... Nf5, completely oblivious to the fact that it is the ONLY MOVE that draws!
Click here for a playable version of the analysis
Even worse (for Bach, not me), he later blundered a knight in a drawn position, which moved my Lucky Ledger to +2.5.
I don't want to overstate the idea of luck, of course. My tournament strategy was to "volley the ball across the net" each game to play into an endgame, where I thought I could separate from the pack, and it worked. However, there are no guarantees, and I am fully aware that a few moves played at some critical spots pushed the result. I am even MORE fully aware that I did not have concrete, thorough analysis to back up those moves when I made them, and a few alternate conclusions on my part would have produced an alternate result.
The bottom line? Only a few moves separate 4.5/5 from 2.0/5, which is why we play the game!
My 4.5/5 at the 2016 Space Coast Open was similar. In the first round (in what was really my best creative achievement of the tournament), I blundered in the endgame and gave my opponent a chance to halve the point. Fortunately for me, he missed the opportunity and I got the whole point. Lucky Ledger at 0.5.
ReplyDeleteMy second round game looked like a squash - until I checked it with a computer. I actually blundered at one point, and instead of getting a full point, I should have lost. Neither of us saw it. Lucky Ledger to +1.5.
My third round game was a smooth win. The fourth round game was an early draw when we were both confused by the opening.
And the fifth round game was a blunderfest due to mutual exhaustion. There was one LONG sequence of moves where the evaluation went from one side winning to the other side winning on almost every move. To say I could have lost that one is an understatement. Lucky Ledger to +2.5!
So my own 4.5 could have been a 2.0 easily. That's just how it is for class warriors.