I played against Mark tonight, he tried to play the Nimzo Saemisch against me. I don’t know what really happened in this game. He correctly saw that 0-0-0 was dangerous more astutely than I did. I think he beat himself. Okay, he blunders a pawn, but then every move after that was only making it much easier on me. I think he was looking for a swindle instead of sucking it up and simply making the “win” difficult for me (IOW, I could still possibly mess up a win, if he had challenged me more on it).
TommyG, I can’t see the comments in your blog! It just times out when I click to view comments. I came down too hard against the online play and the computer analysis. It’s great to look at how an engine finds a crushing conclusion to a position, but I’ll say what I was getting at, I was getting at the competitive aspect of a chess game. Also, even G/90, at least for me, is still not enough time to play a significant chess game. The competive part is important, for example I had 42 minutes at the end of this game and my opponent had just under 16, which is meaningless other than to say I was playing confidently enough.
Online games, so many of them are “Hey, that tukey won a lost game because of their stupid time control!” sort of thing. Then you play another game and repeat a whole bunch of stuff you already know because you wanted those online rating points. Online rating points are sort of bad stuff. The best one could do in online chess is almost always, to find out where the traps are, where and how you blunder when playing fast. IOW, it also is a performance shaper, but I wouldn’t read into the results too much. I wouldn’t read into or care about the results at all in fact.
In online chess, it is more beneficial to simply lose your butt off in games as that is the only way to learn because they are so quick and emotional. Winning a game online is bad because you probably didn’t learn anything and thought that your bad moves were actually good. hehe. If you go over them with an engine, that is great, but it’s so easy for online chess to devolve into this “repertoire building exercise”, which you will find out means a lot less than you think it did in an OTB game. If you play tricky openings then, okay yes it will help a lot , though, but after a while it doesn’t and it’s best to stop playing.
What I meant was that time is better spent on tactics, endgames, or even openings somewhat if you are really studying them. I see you’ve improved a lot but I think it’s because you have studied annotated games, tactics, endings, etc. The online chess is not what made you strong recently, it’s simply displaying mostly what you already know. 😉
Also, I didn’t mean to be like Botvinnik and study everything about the game afterward necessarily, mostly because that would take a lot of time and we don’t do this for a living. If you just want to shoot through it quick with an engine that is fine by me; the game is over and there many different games inside of that game that could be played.
The point I was trying to allude to is what matters most is the correctness of your thinking during the game, regardless of whether the position is winning/losing/even. I think the Stoyko analysis of a GM game is great, but even when I go over a Keres game I am trying to guess his move even though it usually is around 10, posssibly 20 seconds I am guessing and then looking at his move, sometimes not that long, it still corrects my sense of possibilities of how a position could be handled. Then I try to work out tactically the finish that the book doesn’t give, or sometimes moves not played or explained have a tactical flaw, that I will look for.
After the game my opponent mentioned to Paul that he was trying to play the Saemish Nimzo-Indian but played f3 too early, to which I replied something like “Yeah, that is a sharp line, you have to know what you are doing.” as if I knew jack-shot about this opening. I don’t know this opening either, simply knew that an early f3 didn’t look so hot.
It was really the opening that was working against him. If you look at other continuations, it looks like Black had copious amounts of ways to keep an advantage against White. Lesson to students of openings – beware! One thing I learned from Roman’s video recently, and I sort of already knew it, is that opening study will “lull” you. You reach position that is “known theory”, but in reality is a hare’s breath away from being completely lost in a practical game.