Pahtzer Move

Round 1

It was the first time back to the club in over a month, and I got an unrated player, his first rated game. Not a kid, at least in his late 30’s.

I started out with the notion to play fast, gain time on the clock, and figured there might be a win there early, but was content to simply see how this guy plays, wasn’t trying to knock myself out.

He plays 6..Na5, and I like my position after 7.Bd3, but suddenly think I am winning a piece with 7.Qa4+ only to discover that I forgotten about 7..c6, which I’ve played 1,000 times myself.

When I got home I noticed scores like +2 from the engine starting with 5.exd, and as soon as I saw that score I thought “Oh, snap! Must be a Bf7+ deflection winning the queen.”

I was rusty. I didn’t feel like 10.b3 was best either, felt correctly that 10.Nbd2 was best, but I thought I was playing this unrated so decided to play 10.b3 instead, should be fine. I thought of winning the a-pawn at the end, but didn’t like 23..Nd3, 24.QxQ (BxQ or RxQ), 25.Rc1 and now ..Nb4 is -+, but I did not see this move, just saw variation where Black can win my e4 pawn.

I wasn’t Mr. Intensity for this game, that was the big difference. I liked the 12.d5 idea and couldn’t figure out how to fit in a4 idea, which seemed best, but what I missed was combining the two ideas 12.d5 Bd7 (saw this), but then 13.a4! now.

I was half-expecting him to just lose (he was asking the TD about touch-move and how to keep score, like it was something new to him), but I lost the initiative and then it was like playing against myself, and I felt that it would be a draw. The c4 and d5 was a sort of defensive posture on my part to ensure at least a draw.

I liked his recapture with the knight on d7, but he was playing with his hand, almost recaptured on d7 with his queen.

Thing I did wrong in this game was to play too quickly in the opening, got ahead on the clock by 20 minutes but missed my chances. It also takes a while to get used to the 3-d board, which is why ..c6 was not spotted – I always see that in the online 2-D board.


9 thoughts on “Pahtzer Move

  1. I played once against this screwed up Filidor – 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f6 and managed to punish the guy. You were really rusty, otherwise you would do the same.
    I don’t like this idea of gaining time on the clock. If it happens naturally, that’s fine, my opponent in the last game got behind, but he was trying to find a win, and I was trying to defend, if I would hurry I would lose.
    Also with patzers you should be careful from the very beginning, because they can blunder or they can get you into some trouble because you are too confident.
    You missed 15. exd5 winning h7 pawn.
    Anyway I wouldn’t give too much weight to this draw, just try to get back into shape.

  2. Hey LinuxGuy,

    For what it is worth I have never been a fan of openings that play an early Bc4 with the White pieces.

    It always seems to be an overly committal move that often gains nothing unless the opponent allows it to gain something.

    But that is probably just a matter of taste and style of play.

    Personally on just a quick glance I might have played 4. d5 and then thought about either 5. Nc3 or 5. Bc4 when the bishop seems to be on more solid ground and since Black has played three pawn moves anyway up to this point you are still ahead in development and some nice space and have clogged up the center with 4. d5. making it hard for Black to get in a lot of action!

    Just my two cents.

    ( figured I would actually start suggesting moves for better or for worse…:)

  3. RollingPawns, so 14.d5 was just winning the game then, wow, didn’t see the Bxh7(+) move there. 😉 Yes, a lot of rust, mostly with the competitive aspect of the game, not just seeing moves.

    TommyG, give those suggestions for better or worse! 🙂

    4.d5, I don’t want to play this because it allows ..f5 to be more effective and it feeds ..c6, plus his light squares are no longer so weak for his king if Black can keep the center clogged.

    In the opening, I didn’t want to stop and try and find the win, wanted to win the game based on experience, an endgame, but it didn’t get that far. It was hard to care as much as I had in the past about winning now that I have a job and have been happy with it, after years of unemployment. In fact if I stopped playing chess it would be because I’m too happy with my life right now to want to play chess. Before, okay, I could win and make someone else’s life miserable because if I lost my life would seem much more miserable than theirs, but this time I didn’t want to win so much, just not lose, and everybody’s happy. For me, that’s the hardest part to overcome, and my fear with continuing to play is that I can’t overcome this. I didn’t have that “I want to mortalize this guy” at all sort of feeling when playing, it’s like I didn’t want to do that, and I didn’t have that “it’s him or me” feeling at all.

  4. You know, I can’t agree with that approach, I think it hurts your chess.
    Nobody loses his life savings or dear one losing a chess game. Everybody comes (at least should come) with an expectation that it’s a game and he can lose. You will agree that we are usually fully satisfied not with a just win, but when also we could play a good game.
    There is an artistic satisfaction out of too, you want to find a good attack or defense, nice combination, play a great endgame.

  5. No, all anyone really cares about is who won.

    I played terrible and drew an unrated. He “won” in the eyes of others for his amazing first-game feat. I was having trouble not forgetting about my Bxh7+ in variations, and I kept forgetting about it. That draw was a huge “loss” for me, in quality of play.

    I encourages my friend who lost, he knows that it doesn’t matter, he lost, and won’t show me his game.

    A “game” is if me and you play a pickup game of basketball. No one cares who wins, we are simply having fun and getting a good workout and probably both suck at basketball “to the nines”, and yet neither of us would care in the slightest.

    Chess, we could have multiple PHD’s if we had applied all of that talent and skill to something else. If you get even one PhD, you are expecting some financial compensation for the opportunity cost and time lost by specializing in a field. Losing a game of chess to a “non-player” for us is like getting a Rhode’s scholarship PhD, and then holding up a “will work for food” sign at the side of the freeway and live next to the river, and actually that scenario is more uplifting than the losing at chess scenario. That’s not being negative, that’s just the reality of it.

  6. OK, I get you. 🙂

    The thing is anyway it’s a game. You are tired, out of shape or whatever and you draw with a patzer or lose to a “street chess” player, like in my case.
    But if you play a match you/me will definitely win.
    It’s like a good hockey team losing to a bottom feeder. They feel horrible too, moreover fans and home press are on them. But then they play a good game and everybody is happy.
    Any super-GM can blunder like a patzer, does it mean he is a patzer? No!

    Regarding PHD. I was working on it back in Russia, had a few good articles, but due to some circumstances (which were one of the main reasons I left and don’t have a nostalgia) didn’t actually have conditions to do/finish it. I can tell you that it’s much more work than chess and much more disappointment, than losing/drawing a chess game.

    So, just relax, distract yourself by something, then come back, play a good game and you will be cured. :).

  7. RollingPawns, thanks! 🙂

    Yes, I am very out of shape, mainly in regard to becoming impatient. I work in a call-center, where impatience can take care of issues quickly, but in chess it’s the exact opposite. In chess, impatience doesn’t lead to handling more call volume because there is only one game of chess going on, and you can’t take care of it in one move and then go onto the next game/call. It only gets worse when you make a mistake or miss an opportunity in a chess game.

    We’ve spent decades playing and studying chess, so I like your hockey analogy. It’s kind of like when the Detroit Red Wings lose to the Nashville Predators or Columbus Bluejackets. People wonder what’s wrong with them, must be a losing streak with, an injured player, back to back road games at a different time-zone, a better goalie on the other team, etc.

    You are the same as me, shouldn’t lose to any street-player. You are way too good at spotting opponent threats to be losing to anyone below 1700, really – better than me at spotting threats in positions where one wouldn’t want to really have to go tracking those threats down.

    Sorry to hear about the PhD thing gone awry over there. I figure if I’ve spent well over the magical “10,000” hours mark studying and playing chess, then I should be able to play well, but chess is largely a performance, and not simply ability. It is like being able to play a song that everybody wants to hear, but then playing it badly on an occasion.

    I’ll try to do my best this Wednesday. 🙂

  8. Now you sound better. 🙂

    I played on Monday, won, posted the game. Despite of it I will go a couple of points below 1800, but hopefully will get back soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s