How Carlsen makes us feel better about chess II

As with the previous post on Carlsen's attitude, I'd like to briefly comment on what Carlsen's approach offers the Class player.  In this case, the reference is the GM Daniel King commentary from round 6 of the 2013 Tata Steel (Wijk aan Zee) tournament presenting Magnus Carlsen's win over Ivan Sokolov.

The basic strategy Carlsen followed was simply to get a playable position in his game as White, in this case a relatively quiet line of the Ruy Lopez (aka Spanish Game).  The most striking aspect to me was Carlsen's understanding of the position and what possibilities it gave him on the board, along with the necessary patience to wait for his opponent to go wrong.  This was the secret to his success in this game, rather than Kasparov-style cutting edge opening preparation intended to overpower his opponent.  The full commentary is well worth reviewing, as Daniel King explains the key ideas at every turn, which I found understandable.  Carlsen's own post on the game makes a good counterpoint to it, with an objective and critical (including self-critical) summary of key points.

I am a fan of opening study and this game by Carlsen demonstrates the powerful idea that one should have a deep understanding of one's opening repertoire and the core ideas and requirements of the middlegame positions that result, rather than being "booked up" on memorized lines or having to play sharp, tactical openings to obtain winning chances.  In this case, even a Class player can follow the thread of the game and see how key positional goals were identified and executed, with a final tactical flourish.

While this is an example of top-level chess, I feel that Carlsen's basic approach is well worth emulating by the improving player.

Annotated Game #79: Happy just to finish the tournament

This was the last round of the tournament and was a fitting end to a rather poor series of games.  At least this time I secured a draw, rather than losing, although in the final position I accepted a draw after a poor move by my opponent.  Psychological factors often come into play in the timing of draw offers and acceptances; in this case, I had been forced to defend an inferior position for a significant amount of time and was happy to take the draw.

Some key points from analysis:

• White's attempt to get Black out of book on move 3 was ill-advised; an inferior move like that offers no practical benefit in exchange for its weaknesses.
• Black could have played the more challenging 6...Bg4 (and I probably will the next time I'm in a similar position).
• Houdini validates the active 12...e5 for Black, striking in the center with White's king still there.
• Unfortunately the bishop retreat soon after on move 15 invalidates this strategy and puts Black in a hole for the rest of the game.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class B"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D04"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "63"] [EventDate "2006.??.??"] {D02:1 d4 d5 2 Nf sidelines, including 2...Nf6 3 g3 and 2...Nf6 3 Bf4} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nbd2 $6 {apparently done to avoid any book knowledge by Black, more than anything. It blocks in the Bc1 and contributes little in compensation to White's development.} Bf5 {Black scores over 60 percent with this move.} 4. e3 e6 5. a3 Bd6 6. Nh4 {now out of the database, although it's a logical enough move, seeking to exchange the Bf5 and develop the other knight more usefully.} Be4 (6... Bg4 {is a little more challenging.}) 7. Nxe4 Nxe4 {the idea behind the previous move, to establish a strong central knight or force White to make concessions in his own position to remove it.} 8. Nf3 ( 8. Qg4 {would be an aggressive way to protect the knight, but White doesn't have enough going on the kingside to make it a real threat.} Qf6 {would be a simple way to defuse the situation.} (8... g5 {would also work tactically:} 9. Nf3 $2 h5 {and the queen is trapped.})) 8... Nd7 9. Nd2 Ndf6 10. Bd3 O-O 11. Qf3 Nxd2 12. Bxd2 e5 {the correct decision, according to Houdini. Black strikes in the center while White still needs to take time to castle.} 13. dxe5 Bxe5 14. O-O-O c6 {deciding to stay solid in the center, supporting d5.} 15. Qf5 (15. Kb1 {would be more prudent, vacating the square and allowing the defensive move Bc1.}) 15... Bd6 $6 {this one move hands White the initiative and puts Black in a positional hole, by abandoning the a1-h8 diagonal.} (15... Re8 {would develop the rook and maintain the bishop on the diagonal.}) 16. Bc3 $14 Qd7 $6 (16... Re8 $5 17. Bxf6 Qxf6 18. Qxh7+ Kf8 $14 {would leave Black with at least some counterchances for the pawn.}) 17. Bxf6 $16 Qxf5 18. Bxf5 gxf6 {Black has material equality, but the shattered king position affords White long-term benefits and the initiative. Houdini assesses the position as the equivalent of Black being a pawn down.} 19. Rd4 (19. c4 $5) 19... h6 20. Kb1 (20. c4 Be5 21. Rg4+ Kh8 22. cxd5 cxd5 $16) 20... Be5 (20... Rfe8 {would at least get the rook into play, instead of leaving it dead on f8.}) 21. Rh4 Kg7 22. Rg4+ Kh8 23. f4 $6 {this cuts the Rg4 off from the queenside, limiting its usefulness and helping reduce the threats to Black.} Bd6 24. Rd1 Bc5 { pointing out the other weakness of f4, leaving behind a weak e-pawn.} 25. Rd3 Rg8 26. Rh4 Bf8 $6 {a poor decision, limiting Black's piece activity. In a rook ending, activity is key.} (26... Kg7 {would be a better defensive move.}) (26... Rxg2 {is the most active alternative.} 27. Rxh6+ Kg7 28. Rh7+ Kf8) 27. g4 (27. e4 dxe4 28. Bxe4 Re8 29. Bf3 Re7 {would leave Black in a more difficult position.}) 27... Re8 {preventing further thoughts of e4.} 28. Rb3 Kg7 $2 (28... Re7 29. Bc8 b6 30. Bf5 $14) 29. Rh3 $6 (29. Bd7 $1 {and a combination of interference and pinning themes would allow White to win a pawn. } Re7 (29... Rb8 30. Bxc6) (29... Re4 30. Rxb7 Rxe3 31. Rxa7) 30. Rxb7) 29... Bc5 $6 30. Kc1 {missing the tactical continuation.} (30. Rxb7 Bxe3 31. Bd7 Re7 32. Bxc6 $14) 30... Re7 $11 {now Black protects against all of White's threats. } 31. Kd2 Rge8 {The pressure on the backward pawn e3 grows, notes Fritz.} 32. g5 $4 {among the various equal moves available, White picks a poor one and then offers a draw, which I unfortunately accepted. Capturing with the f-pawn would simply leave Black a pawn up after the exchange, with no real threats from White, which however I didn't see at the time.} 1/2-1/2

Auto-analytics for Chess

I recently had some time on a plane to catch up on my journal reading and ran across an article on auto-analytics from the Harvard Business Review.  Auto-analytics is defined as the practice of voluntarily collecting and analyzing data about oneself in order to improve.  As the article notes, "athletes have long used visual and advanced statistical analysis to ratchet up their performance" and then goes on to discuss its applications to the workplace.  Here, of course, I'm more interested in its usefulness for the chess player.

Chess is a natural fit for the discipline, especially in the modern era of database software, as each player can easily store their own games in a personal database for subsequent review and analysis.  Analyzing your own games, which I believe should be a central practice of the improving player, should probably be considered as part of the analytics process, since it reveals in-depth your strengths, weaknesses, and specific patterns of errors.  (One recent example of the last category was the repeated miscalculation of the ...Ne4 move that I uncovered, first seen in a Colle System structure from Annotated Game #78.)

Auto-analytics is more generally applicable to examining patterns of personal data to see what they reveal about your performance and behavior.  Simply arranging and presenting the data can often be useful, as they will almost always highlight areas of particular importance that you were not aware of.

Let's look at a simple set of categories, using my own (200+) games database as an example, accompanied by my best explanations and observations regarding the results.  A couple of minor surprises appear, along with some clear indications for where I should best concentrate my study and improvement efforts to have the most impact on my overall performance.  Any player using computer chess resources should similarly be able to generate their own set of results.

Cumulative Score 
Wins: 37.1%
Draws: 28.2%
Losses: 34.7%
Average rating of opponents: +22 Elo higher than me

It's nice to have a small overall plus for my career, but the most revealing statistic for me is the 28% draw rate.  This is in fact below my original impression - I might have guessed at least 35% - and I would consider it as reasonable, not worryingly high.  (A high draw rate at the Class level can be a problem for the improving player, often a sign of over-emphasizing safety over winning chances.)  I usually prefer to play in higher-rated sections or in open tournaments, which is reflected in the fact that my opponents have on average been rated slightly higher.

As White

Wins: 38.4%
Draws: 29.3%
Losses: 32.3%

A significant plus that is greater than the average expected plus for White.  Reflects well on my choice of the English Opening (although see below).

As Black

Wins: 35.9%
Draws: 27.2%
Losses: 36.9%

A small overall minus, indicating that I should pay greater attention to my openings and overall play as Black, if I want to have a more significant improvement of my winning percentage and therefore my overall performance.

Game length
Mode: 29 moves (White: 36 and 39, Black: 29)
Mean: 39 moves (White: 40, Black: 38)
Range: 11-76 moves

I am almost never "busted" in the opening phase of the game, so unless my opponent makes an early mistake, the game is likely to be around 40 moves.  (The mode shows that a shorter game will occur with some frequency, however.)  In any case, I should not expect quick results and should have the patience to settle in for a long middlegame and possibly endgame struggle.

Openings highlights (and lowlights) by ECO code
As White
A16: 50% (7 games) - notable for its frequency, if not its result.
A17: 62% (4 games) - closely allied to A16, with Nimzo-English or Queen's Indian type setups. Overall, a strong score.
A28: 38% (9 games) - the opening (English Four Knights) is normally played well, but I have often stumbled in the subsequent middlegame.

As Black
A00: 100% (2 games) - I do well when faced with irregular openings; they do not throw me simply because they are out of my personal book.
B18: 41% (12 games) - a disappointing result in the Caro-Kann Classical, although this is mostly due to middlegame problems rather than weak opening play.
C02: 0% (2 games) - my particularly bad losses in the Advance Caro-Kann are classified officially as an Advance French opening, which is what they transposed into (a tempo down).
D10: 58% (6 games) - the basic Slav Defense is a real winner for me.

Double My Egg Nog - halfway done

Although it now has a New Year's holiday theme rather than Christmas, the Double My Egg Nog tourney is now half over, with the first set of games against Rocky Rook and Robert Pearson completed.  By the end of the month, the second set (with colors reversed) should be finished.  I intend to post back-to-back game analysis for each player (double the fun!) once the games are complete.  (Unfortunately, our third player Tim dropped out incommunicado.)

In the meantime, Rocky Rook has our first game posted, which was a see-saw battle where I missed a tactical win and went on to lose.  I look forward to the rematch, let's just say.

Annotated Game #78: Chess is 99% Calculation

This fourth-round tournament game continued my woes and ended rather quickly due to a calculation mistake.  Eerily I made a very similar mistake in yesterday's game against Rocky Rook during our first game of the Double My Egg Nog tourney, involving a miscalculation that dropped a pawn after ...Ne4 (see move 17 in this game).  Had I fully analyzed this game beforehand, I probably could have avoided that mistake.  Losing twice in that manner should be incentive enough to avoid doing so again, however.

The opening is similar to the Colle that made an appearance in Annotated Game #75 (and in the Rocky Rook game).  White, rather than going for the b-pawn on move 6, instead transposes into a Stonewall Attack formation.  White's early unusual move order choices (2. c3 and 3. e3) indicated that was a strong possibility from the start.  Black has no troubles in the opening, despite helping White's cause by prematurely exchanging pawns on d4 and then trading off White's bad dark-square bishop.  It's pretty obvious from these moves that I had no idea at the time how to play a Stonewall formation.  Nevertheless, Black was equal coming out of the opening.

It's the early middlegame where Black's lack of understanding becomes even more obvious and hurtful.  Pieces are moved incoherently and there is no real plan.  Had White been more quick to exploit this, he could have had an excellent game, for example with 17. Rc7.  However, it wasn't good play by White, but rather a miscalculation by Black that ends the game, in the sequence starting with 17...Ne4.

This game is an excellent example of where it's not enough to see a tactical theme, one must calculate and visualize its consequences.  The saying that Chess is 99% tactics isn't quite true; it's 99% calculation.  Black in this case wasn't forced into the sequence; rather, it was chosen based on faulty calculation and judgment (why do it at all?)  A good lesson for the future, both for this particular middlegame structure and in general.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class B"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D00"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "2006.??.??"] {D00:1 d4 d5: Unusual lines} 1. d4 d5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e3 {one way to get to a Stonewall Attack type formation.} Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. Qxd3 e6 $146 {as pointed out in Annotated Game 75 in a similar position, this involves a pawn sacrifice if White follows with Qb5+. Black scores well with the other two main moves, for example:} (5... Nbd7 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 c5 8. O-O cxd4 9. exd4 Bd6 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ne5 Qb8 12. f4 b5 13. Re3 Rc8 14. Rh3 Nf8 15. g4 Bxe5 16. fxe5 Nxg4 17. Nf3 f6 18. Bf4 Ng6 19. Bg3 Qb6 20. exf6 {Prymula,R-Jirovsky,M/CSR 1990/EXT 2002/0-1 (40)}) (5... c6 6. Nd2 Nbd7 7. f4 e6 8. Ngf3 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Kh1 Rc8 11. g3 c5 12. h3 c4 13. Qc2 b5 14. a3 a5 15. g4 b4 16. Rg1 b3 17. Qb1 g6 18. Rg2 Qc7 19. g5 Nh5 20. Nf1 {Nykanen,O-Hodokainen,J/Mikkeli 1998/EXT 2000/ 0-1 (59)}) 6. f4 (6. Qb5+ $5 {is noteworthy, says Fritz.} Nbd7 7. Qxb7 $11 { Nonetheless Black's better development and piece activity will compensate for the pawn.}) 6... c5 7. Nf3 {Now the Stonewall Attack formation has appeared.} cxd4 {typical amateur move, Black is in a rush to release the tension. Further development with Bd6 or Nc6 would be better.} 8. cxd4 Bb4+ {Black helps White here by exchanging off White's bad bishop.} 9. Bd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nbxd2 O-O 11. O-O Re8 {poor developing move, as what exactly is the rook going to do on the e-file?} 12. Rac1 Nbd7 {this isn't bad, but putting the knight on c6 would have been a little more active placement.} 13. Rc2 (13. Ne5 {if White is going to play the Stonewall Attack, he really should go for this move, which thematically uses the e5 outpost.}) 13... Rc8 14. Rfc1 Rxc2 15. Rxc2 Qa5 { this starts an unsupported, unproductive demonstration against White's position by the queen. The better plan would be to clear the c-file immediately, for example with Qb8 followed by Rc8.} 16. a3 Qa4 17. h3 (17. Rc7 {would punish Black for his inattention to the c-file.}) 17... Ne4 $2 {this simply loses a pawn, due to miscalculation of the following sequence.} (17... Nb6 $142 $5 $14 {is a viable option, notes Fritz.}) 18. Nxe4 $16 dxe4 19. Qxe4 Nf6 20. Qd3 Nd5 {I had seen things to this point and thought that Black would be able to recover the pawn by force.} 21. Ng5 h6 22. Ne4 Nxe3 $2 {the key miscalculation. The deflection theme was there, of course, but I simply overlooked the blocking move with threat to the queen.} 23. b3 $18 1-0