Wolf Hunt

In chess, one of the hardest things to accomplish as a patzer like myself is knowing how to convert your advantage.

You know the game is won. You just don't want to let it slip or worse, give your opponent counter-attacking chances to salvage a draw or even turn it into a win.

Yet it is one of the most common failings in chess, one in which even Grandmasters are not immune to. After looking through my games, I find that it's usually down to a couple of factors.

One of them is "Over-enthusiasm to finish off your opponent quickly".

This weakness is very dangerous. You sense your opponent has been wounded, you smell the blood in the air, your adrenaline goes up, your muscles tighten and you get ready to pounce. Crazy as it sounds, this is also where you are in fact, at your most vulnerable.

In such a circumstance, it's wise to adopt the hunting and killing technique of a wolf. Wolves by nature sometimes hunt smaller animals but it is the skill in which they take down a large animal like a caribou that shows their true mastery of the hunt.

Wolves usually hunt for the weakest prey in a herd. In chess, you should also do the same, look for the weakest spot in your opponent's camp and target it. This may be a pawn, a square, a piece etc.

And back to the wolf analogy, so what does a wolf do when a prey is wounded?

Does a wolf lunge in straight for the kill? No, it does not. It stops, waits and never keeps its eyes off its prey. It looks to see if the prey exhibits further weaknesses or if the prey is still alive and kicking.

Caribous and deers are dangerous prey for a wolf because their horns and antlers can mortally wound an inexperienced wolf. The idea of "if I'm going, I'm taking you with me" is not lost on the minds of the prey. And it should not also be lost on you as well in a chess game. There's nothing worse in a chess (other than losing, naturally) than to be close to checkmating your opponent only for your opponent to get a perpetual check on your king.

What a wolf then does is very calculative and precise. If the prey starts to show a little weakness, the wolf does not go straight for the throat kill (wolves wisely stay away from these areas because that's where the prey's horns/antlers can be a source of problem), it instead continues to further weaken its prey, not by targeting the prey's throat or head but by launching further attacks against other vulnerable parts of the prey.

Likewise in chess, don't constantly attack a weakened position if you know your opponent has the resources to repel the attack. Instead, target another area or create a second weakness. In chess, we call this the Principle of 2 Weaknesses. Grandmasters have this technique down to a pat and it is this skill which is one of the most difficult to learn and acquire.

If your opponent is feeling stretched in defending one side of the board, many a time, quickly shifting a few of your forces to target the other end of the board tends to weaken your opponent fatally.

Likewise, a wolf will attack different parts of the prey until the prey collapses on itself from exhaustion from trying to defend so many different weak parts of the body.

And it is only then that the wolf moves in with the fatal kill.

In the same way, if you notice your opponent's king is on the verge of being mated (or need to spend inordinate resources/loss of material to repel the attack) and you have meticulously calculated that a direct lunge at the king will result in a direct win, by all means, go for it.

Mobile Phones And Chess Don't Mix

Yesterday evening, I fetched my brother-in-law Steven to the chess club after both of us had grabbed some dinner at my place. We arrived early at the Ryde Eastwood RSL and met Joshua Christensen and Shane Burgess at the cafe downstairs and had a little chat.

One of the interesting topics that cropped up in our conversation was the apparent lack of continuity at the club. There are currently a lot of elderly players at our club and not enough young members. The only active young member currently in the club is Vasey, not a particularly good sign.

Ryde Eastwood RSL desperately needs a fresh injection of new, young players if this club is going to survive 5 years later. Without new players, the chess club is going to suffer and might ultimately face disbandment. In addition, the quality of chess at the club is not very good with a huge proportion of players in the 1500s region.

An interesting event happened during the competition last night. It was a bit of a horror show for one player. After about half an hour into the game, a mobile phone rang (and quite loudly, I might add) and everyone's heads immediately lifted up above the board to see who was the unfortunate player who was going to be penalised.

It turned out to be my brother-in-law's opponent, Sotarduga Sitompul. The game was subsequently declared lost by Bill Gletsos.

The funny part was that after the game was declared lost, some 10 minutes later, his phone rang yet again (!), leading to a few chuckles around the room.

My opponent, Douglas Eyres was late but rather than starting the clock on time, I decided to wait for him to show up. Bill Gletsos told me he would turn up and he did, some 15 minutes later.

We settled down, I asked him if he needed some time to compose himself, grab a drink etc. before starting but he said no. We proceeded to shake hands and promptly started the game. My game concluded after roughly 50 minutes.

After the game, I walked over and consoled Sitompul who went on to tell me that he had set one of his phone alarms (either the ringer or the SMS alert) to silent but forgot to do the same for the other. Bummer.

Seeing that I was available, Steven and I started playing some blitz games (ok, a LOT of blitz games) and I kept playing the defence that I've been learning the last week. This time, my outing wasn't so good. I ended up +1-4=0. I found that in blitz games, I don't think rationally, going for risky and unsound play which Steven naturally went on to exploit and win.

Next week, I have one final game against Ray Kitchen while Steven is facing his toughest opponent of the round, Lorenzo Escalante.

After this competition is over, Steven and I would be overseas for a week to visit my father-in-law (it is his 80th birthday) - which would be a nice break for both of us.

Playing With Energy

First off, I would like to thanks everyone for the input regarding the opening minefield in my previous post.

blunderprone in his comments rightly mentions this important idea,

"Target openings you can understand."

As Black, I feel it is Black's duty not to look for a draw but to fight for the initiative.

Warheit asked me what prompted me to choose this opening. I don't know. It was an opening I've always thought of learning and I think it suits my style more than anything. I seriously never gave it a thought.

vs 1. d4 usually I either play the Slav, Queen's Indian, Bogo-Indian, Nimzo-Indian
vs 1.e4 usually I play Ruy Lopez Archangelsk (if I can get the chance), French Winawer/MacCutcheon, Alekhine Defence and even the Petroff.

I like playing dynamically and energetically, grabbing the initiative and my style is suited more towards unbalanced play/structures - which is prompting me to give up some passive defences like the QID.

Incidentally, I played this opening last week in 4 quick games as Black against my brother-in-law (he's rated around 1850 in rapids) last week (he had won his game early so we were playing socially) and the score for this opening was +1-2=1 (and that's without move memorisation beyond the 5th move) - a fairly good result.

In certain lines, if White chooses a sharp line, the battle is of a highly tactical nature and that's where understanding how best to cope with the resulting pawn structure that usually arises is of utmost importance.

My game is tomorrow and I doubt I have the chance to play the opening. However, I might be tempted to give it a shot if my opponent plays it.

Sometimes I wish I can play one of these Magic: The Gathering cards (see left) in chess, my opponent might suddenly see the light and resign immediately!

Not that I mind, naturally.

Nah...... :)

Opening Minefield

Have you ever tried committing to memory a new opening repertoire?

I have been trying to learn one for the last 4 days and it has so far been a frustrating experience.

The opening theory is quite memory intensive with lots of sharp lines to say the least. But no matter how hard I try, I am finding it very difficult to remember certain theoretical lines and I messed up the move order.

This opening minefield I have to tiptoe through to learn it is incredible. Twenty years ago, the amount of theory I have to learn would have been considerably less and these days, I can't believe how much knowledge one has to acquire just to know the ins and outs of a particular chess opening and to not get caught out by opening traps.

I am also starting to show a bit of rustiness. Tonight, I logged on to FICS and promptly got my ass whipped in less than 10 moves ie. after 10 moves, my position was so dire that if this was an OTB game, I would've resigned!

I don't get it. Is my motivation lacking? Am I watching too many chess videos from the couch, eating Twisties and getting lazy?

Last week, my opponent didn't turn up and I got a bye - which was an absolute downer since I was all prepared to play chess. This week, I'm playing Black and I've not checked my schedule to see who I'm playing next. I've decided not to look because no matter what happens, I plan to go out with guns blazing.

Which brings me back to my choice of opening. That's the problem with playing sharp lines, you need to wade through the theory minefield because one misstep is instant disaster for either side.

Do You Read ChessCafe?

I admit it. I'm an avid reader of ChessCafe for quite a number of months now.

ChessCafe has a wealth of information available and each month, I eagerly await 4 columns in the following preferential order:

1. Endgame Corner by Karsten Müller
2. The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
3. Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
4. Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen

I tend to give a cursory look to the other articles. However, it is usually the first 2 articles I tend to give the most attention to.

By the way, did I ever mention that I love endgames? Ok, I absolutely LOVE endgames and studying endgame theory.

This month I received a bonus. Dvoretsky devoted this month's article to endgames and in it, he mentioned how even famous Grandmasters mess up their endgames.

Among the list of guilty parties include Magnus Carlsen and Mark Taimanov who failed to draw certain endings and messed them up.

Of particular note in the article, Dvorestky notes,

"It’s just the same in chess: knowledge of endgame theory does not guarantee that you will know how to play the endgame."

How very true. I can tell you of the number of times that I thought I knew the endgame theory and had it down pat and that I should be able to handle this endgame when it happens. Not so, there always appears to be chinks in the armour and it's extremely important to tighten up and know where these chinks are so they can be eradicated. And I found that my knowledge of endgame theory is still not up to scratch. Knowing and playing them are 2 different matters altogether indeed.

In the endgame, where time is usually a precious commodity, it is vital that you can play the moves as perfectly as possible and as automated as possible. Not only does it place your opponent under severe pressure to find the correct moves, but it also gives you that little "edge" to capitalise when your opponent makes a mistake.

If you have the time I strongly encourage you to read the article, , it's a real eye opener.