Annotated Game #225: A new beginning and defeating ratings anxiety

One of the avoidable curses of playing competitive chess is an obsession with ratings. Focusing on your opponent's rating when compared to your own can be quite unhelpful while at the chessboard, as covered in "Ratings Fear and Loathing". Similarly, caring too much about your own rating can - rather ironically - create anxiety and stress whether it is currently going down, up, or staying the same.

• A declining rating can obviously be depressing, especially if it is associated too closely with self-worth.
• A stagnant rating can become frustrating, leading to thoughts of "I'll never improve" and such.
• Achieving a particular ratings goal can lead to a crippling desire to maintain it at all costs, which in an extreme form can include deliberately not playing in order to protect it.

The below tournament game is the first one after my breakthrough to Class A, so it was the first time I faced the last situation above after achieving the new rating level. I felt it was important to consciously combat both the potential short-term and long-term effects of ratings obsession. Some observations that helped the process:

• Ratings are a statistical phenomenon and there is little meaningful difference in minor (30-40 point) fluctuations. This means that an arbitrary threshold like 1800 for Class A has no intrinsic value, so falling a short distance below it (if that happens) should not have an outsized psychological impact. People grapple with this psychological phenomenon all the time when nominal statistical data points like body weight, stock prices, etc. are involved. What really matters is the long-term trend line, not short-term ups and downs.
• You have to be willing to lose games in order to win them - nothing risked, nothing gained - and to improve your chess strength over time. This means accepting the statistically inevitable negative results when they occur in the short term, then clearing your mental slate for future games.
• Quality of play is more important for someone truly interested in chess. Focusing on playing well (the process) rather than gain/loss of rating points (the results) is a much better and healthier improvement strategy.
• Mental toughness is a phenomenon that ignores ratings.

In contrast to my usual rough start to a tournament, this game is a win and features only one significant slip, a hard-to-see tactic on move 21 which my opponent also misses. The idea - uncovering control of a key square that would disrupt my skewer tactic - was eye-opening and well worth the analysis.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class B"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B12"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Komodo 11.2"] [PlyCount "106"] {[%mdl 8192] B12: Caro-Kann: Advance Variation} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 {this is the point of playing this variation, that the bishop (unlike in the Advance French) is not locked in.} 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O Nge7 8. h3 Bxf3 {otherwise the bishop wastes time by retreating, so this capture is standard. Also, it removes a protector of d4/e5, which soon come under pressure.} 9. Bxf3 Nf5 {continuing with minor piece development to ideal squares.} 10. Be3 $2 {White underestimates Black's threats.} (10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Bf4 $15 {keeps the material balance, but Black still has the easier game.}) 10... Qb6 {a standard and good move in these types of positions. The queen adds her force to the a7-g1 diagonal and also hits b2, now vulnerable because of the bishop move.} 11. Qd2 $6 {this drops the d4 pawn with no compensation.} (11. Nd2 {at least gets another piece out for White.}) 11... cxd4 12. cxd4 Ncxd4 (12... Nfxd4 {I also considered, but judged it weaker and Komodo agrees. Black for the moment can dissolve the pin on the knight by ...Nxf3, but Bg4 then removes that possibility. The text move allows for ...Nxe3 if needed.}) 13. Bxd4 Nxd4 14. Be2 Rc8 {hard to argue with developing the rook on the open file. } (14... Bb4 {is slightly preferred by the engine.} 15. Bb5+ Qxb5 16. Qxd4 Rc8 {may be a slightly better version of the idea, as all Black's pieces are now developed and if} 17. Nc3 {then} Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qa5 {leaves White down material and stuck with the weak c-pawn.}) 15. Nc3 Bb4 (15... Nxe2+ {simplifying down may be easier, but at the time I did not want to exchange my very well-placed knight.} 16. Nxe2 Bb4 $17) 16. Rac1 O-O (16... Nxe2+ {now I do think that trading off the bishop is superior before castling. After this, White would not have sufficient material to pose any threats to Black's bare kingside.}) 17. Rfd1 Nc6 $19 {Black has no weaknesses and with the protected passed d-pawn has a decisive advantage in the endgame.} 18. Qf4 f6 {played in the hopes of an exchange on f6, which is only to my benefit, but White doesn't have to do this.} (18... Be7 19. Nb5 $19) 19. exf6 (19. Bg4 $5 f5 20. Bh5 $19) 19... Rxf6 {now I have the half-open f-file and can swiftly dominate it with my rooks. The e-pawn is sufficiently protected as well.} 20. Qg3 Rxf2 $2 {this appears to be an obvious tactic, due to the possibility of a follow-up skewer on the a7-g1 diagonal by Black's bishop if White takes on f2 with the queen. However.. .} (20... Rcf8) 21. Kh1 $2 {White fails to find the tactical refutation, which is very hard to spot.} (21. Nxd5 {busts the idea, as the knight sacrifice opens the c-file for White's rook to control c5. No bishop skewer now.} exd5 ( 21... Rf1+ 22. Kxf1 exd5 23. Qf2 $16)) (21. Na4 {also works for White.}) (21. Qxf2 Bc5 $19 {was the idea behind Black's previous move.}) 21... Bxc3 {this is a removal of the guard theme, targeting the Be2. White can actually save the piece, although again it's difficult to find.} 22. Rxc3 $2 (22. Bg4 { threatening to capture on e6 and fork Black's king and rook, thereby gaining the necessary tempo for recapturing on c3.} Rf6 23. Qxc3 $19) 22... Rxe2 { with a piece and two connected passed pawns up, the win is essentially trivial from here, even if it takes some more work.} 23. Rf1 Qc7 24. Qf3 Re4 (24... Rxb2 {is preferred by the engine, but I felt further pawn snatching was unnecessary and simply diverted the rook away from the main action.} 25. Qg4 Qe7 $19) 25. Rfc1 {although everything is losing at this stage, I think allowing my next move made it that much easier for me. I'm happy to dominate the kingside and center and let White make some demonstrations on the queenside.} Rf8 26. Qd3 Qf4 27. Qb5 Rb4 28. Qe2 e5 29. Rd1 Rd4 30. Rdc1 Rd2 31. Qb5 Qf2 32. Rg1 Rf7 {shutting down the threat to b7.} 33. Rd3 Rxd3 34. Qxd3 Qd4 {the plan is to get rid of distractions with the queen and just roll to victory with the pawns.} 35. Rd1 Qxd3 36. Rxd3 d4 37. Rd2 e4 38. Kg1 Kf8 { with White's king cut off from the action, I just march my king up to help the pawns. This is a no-brainer win, so why waste calcuating power on anything else? The engine shows quicker wins, but that's irrelevant.} 39. g4 Ke7 40. Kg2 Ke6 41. Kg3 Ke5 42. Re2 d3 43. Rd2 Kd4 44. Kg2 e3 45. Rd1 d2 46. Kg3 Kd3 47. Kh4 e2 48. Rg1 e1=Q+ 49. Rg3+ Qxg3+ 50. Kxg3 d1=Q 51. Kg2 Rf3 52. Kh2 Qe2+ 53. Kg1 Rf1# 0-1

Video completed: "How to Trust Your Chess Intuition" by Tatev Abrahamyan

"How to Trust Your Chess Intuition" is the sixth video in the new Chess.com series by Tatev Abrahamyan. It's worth noting that for the series page, she re-did the original video titles to fit the "Why You Should [Always/Never]..." format. Most of these title changes are trivial in terms of meaning, but in this case I prefer the original title, as the idea of "always" trusting your intuition is overstating things (especially for non-masters) and can lead to a misinterpretation of the concept.

The main thrust is the benefit of building your intuitive understanding of positions' requirements via pattern recognition, so good candidate moves "suggest themselves" and then you can move on to calculating their results. Abrahamyan also makes the point that sometimes we may not be able to fully calculate the consequences of a move to the end, but intuition allows us (most times) to evaluate it nonetheless. This topic has been previously mentioned here, for example in "How Carlsen makes us feel better about chess" and "How do you know you are becoming a stronger chess player?"

The first example game presented is a classic game, Maroczy-Tartakower, where Black sacrifices a rook for a pawn on h2 with no forced mate afterwards. The main factor involved in making this decision is White's uncoordinated and blocked pieces. Black is technically behind in development, but can in fact mobilize his pieces more effectively than his opponent. The sacrifice was made on move 17 and White resigned on move 36, so as Abrahamyan points out, this was not an example of brilliant calculation to the end, but rather a deep understanding of the long-term advantages and attacking chances involved.

The second game is Aronian-Grischuk from the last round of the 2018 Sinquefield Cup, which features a rook sacrifice for White's pawn on f7. This was effectively an exchange sacrifice in the main analysis line, with White's queen (if it recaptures) being diverted from protecting a knight on e4. White then gets good compensation for the exchange. However, Grischuk re-took with his king on f7 and it became a full rook sac. White plays Rf1 - Abrahamyan in the video immediately and confusingly then says  "bishop f5" although she doesn't say "Black" or put the move on the board - leading to mate if Black retreats his king to g8 and similar problems if ...Kg6. After demonstrating these, she puts the actual move played (...Bf5) on the board. Abrahamyan makes the point that the sac was a practical decision rather than necessarily the most strong objectively in after-the-fact analysis, in order to give White the initiative and put pressure on Black in a stressful final round tournament situation. The rest of the game is given, which is a pleasure to watch. Abrahamyan commits two of her periodic "think about why" presentation fouls, with the questions about the position followed immediately by the move on the board before you can pause the video.

The final game example is Caruana-Carlsen, World Championship 2018, round 8. Abrahamyan examines the analysis of where White, down a pawn, could have played Qh5 with compensation and the initiative, rather than continuing with a quiet move and ending in a draw with opposite-colored bishops.

The video makes a very good point, but for improving players I think the main takeaway is to value and study all types of chess positions that you encounter - especially the ones that more frequently appear in your games - so you can start getting a feel for what should work, then try it out yourself. If it doesn't in fact work, then figure out why and do better the next time around. Decisions can and should be informed by our intuition about positions, but it's a skill to be developed over time, not a magic chess bullet.

Video completed: Studies in the Stonewall, Volume 2

This ChessLecture.com DVD, the companion to Volume 1, has five presentations on it, from IM (at the time FM) Valeri Lilov, IM David Vigorito and IM Mark Diesen. 

Content:

"Excelling with Modern Stonewall": Lilov presents Van Wely - Vaisser, from early in Van Wely's career. This segment addresses an audience new to the Dutch, explaining some of the basic ideas behind the Bd6 development and Stonewall pawn structure while enthusiastically talking up Black's prospects. The game itself is a 7. Nbd2 sideline, met by ...b6, with a typical plan of continuing ...Bb7, Nbd7 and ...c5. Black ends up playing ...Ba6 early as White goes back and forth with his knights. This is a good example of how strong the Stonewall can be when White does not follow an active plan.

"The Stonewall Attack":  This is an introduction to the Stonewall Attack for White. Lilov pitches it as a way to avoid having to know a lot of theory. He presents standard setups and attacking plans against Black's responses with ...e6 and ...c5, as well as ...Bf5 and ...g6/Bg7. There are useful explanations of some key concepts, including White's problems (such as the dark-square bishop), avoiding initiating an exchange on f5 that will open the e-file for Black, and the need to keep watch over e4. 

"How to Exploit a Good Center": the classic 19th century game Pillsbury - Henem is presented by Lilov. Pillsbury plays the Stonewall Attack, which makes it fit into the Stonewall theme, although the primary topic of the lecture is central control. It's not Lilov's smoothest presentation, and it's rather wordy in relation to the amount of content presented, but the ideas still come through.

"Ideas in the Dutch Stonewall:" IM Vigorito's presentation is a relatively in-depth intro to the Modern Stonewall, looking at primarily at 7. b3 (essentially the main line). It offers a cogent summary of White's main plans (exchanging the dark square bishop on a3 vs. developing on Bb2 vs. alternatively developing 7. Bf4), Black's old vs. modern light square bishop development options, the factors involved in playing ...b6 and tactical tricks after a White Ne5 are all covered. Excellent, systematic treatment of the ideas involved in the main lines of the Stonewall.

"Winning with the Stonewall Attack": Santasiere - Welch is presented by IM Diesen, who also goes into typical ideas and some of the opening alternatives early on. Although the game is one-sided (in White's favor), the general concepts (including some better options for Black) are touched on and well-explained.

Comment: the DVD doesn't attempt to present a coherent picture of the Stonewall, as it's a compilation of different video lectures over time. However, for a player starting to get familiar with the Stonewall, it's helpful in providing a reasonably thorough sketch of the main ideas, and I like the fact that it looks at the Stonewall Attack for White as well.

Video completed: Studies in The Stonewall, Volume 1

I recently completed this ChessLecture.com DVD featuring GM Leonid Kritz presenting of four of his own games in the Dutch Defense. So it is not really about explaining the Stonewall, although there is useful discussion of some typical concepts and common tactical threats/sequences.

Contents:

"Playing the Dutch Stonewall for a Win, Part 1": the title of this segment is a misnomer, since the game is not actually a Stonewall (being a Nimzo-Dutch hybrid instead). So it was nice to see in general, as are all master-annotated games, but also disappointing, since it wasn't a Stonewall as advertised. This part would therefore be more applicable if you are a Dutch player looking to better understand early alternative options in White sidelines.

"Playing the Dutch Stonewall for a Win, Part 2": this features an offbeat White line with 7. Nbd2, starting from the standard Modern Stonewall position reached on move 6. Some thematic ideas are presented for Black: b6/Bb7 development with ideas of continuing with ...c5, ...Ba6; the ...Ne4 jump; watching out for the e6 pawn weakness.

"Suffer the Right Way Through the Stonewall, Part 1": this game has a non-standard opening sequence where White refrains from playing c4 and Black gets in an early ...b5, which again isn't really a Stonewall. Black then commits some inaccuracies and gets a worse position. Some general tactical ideas and considerations are touched on, including sacrifice ideas for White on d5/e6 and the vulnerability of c6/c7 after a c-pawn exchange by Black. Black has to suffer through the middlegame and endgame, hence the segment's title, although Kritz obtains a won endgame after some mistakes by White in time trouble.

"Suffer the Right Way Through the Stonewall, Part 2": this game reaches the move 6 Modern Stonewall position (so that makes 2 games out of 4 on the DVD). At this point Kritz quickly runs through some of the standard plans for White involving 7. b3 and exchanging the dark-squared bishops, with Black playing ...Qe7, exchanging on a3 if needed, and following up with the ...b6 and ...Bb7 bishop development. 7. Bf4 is also mentioned in a cursory fashion, with Kritz saying that after exchanging on f4 and playing b6/Bb7, Black is fine. This may be true, but this is in fact a major White system and no real plans are presented for either side in it. The game itself features 7. Qc2, another White sideline. Black commits an opening inaccuracy against White's follow-up with Bg5, by letting his opponent play e3 before he can exchange on f4, so then has to fight a while for equality. The general problem of the b5 square being available for a White knight after a pawn exchange on d5 using the Black c-pawn is highlighted, explaining why Kritz played an early ...a6. Black eventually reaches an advantageous major piece endgame, but an inaccuracy leads to a draw by repetition of moves.

I feel that the time spent on the DVD wasn't wasted, since it's always good to learn from master presentations of their own games. It was still rather disappointing to see only half of the content was directly applicable to study of the Stonewall, as was advertised. It's also worth noting that the content summary displayed on the cover (2 hours an 48 minutes, 9 lectures) applies to the full two-DVD set. I'll take a look at the second DVD in the near future.

Reflections on breakthrough tournaments

Part of the process of analyzing your own games is not just to see what goes wrong (and right) in each one, but to draw broader lessons for yourself as a player. What patterns emerge? What do you do well consistently? What kinds of mistakes do you often repeat, perhaps unknowingly at the time? Eliminating or reducing those mistakes and building on the strengths are what (eventually) cause a gain in chess strength and an increased rating. It may be useful to do a personal performance inventory as a baseline, which can help highlight different areas that most need work. (Although remember Training quote of the day #9).

For improvement purposes, this process of self-diagnosis is naturally helpful to do if you have a lousy tournament. Can you articulate the main factor behind that poor performance? Major mental distractions? Poor physical condition (sickness, lack of sleep, etc.)? Overconfidence? Fear? Repeated errors of a similar type in the opening/middlegame/endgame? Many times a bad tournament can just be a one-off occurrence, although it's important not to make excuses and to concretely address whichever issues that you identify.

I think it's equally important to examine your positive results and draw similar kinds of lessons from major inflection points in your chess career, which include having breakthrough tournaments. This means analyzing what went into the tournament results that marked a long-term change in your rating. At the most basic level, it should involve identifying what factors led to success and reinforcing that positive behavior. At the same time, it's not just a self-congratulatory exercise, and a candid assessment of your weaknesses is still necessary for further progress.

The last two tournaments presented here (Annotated Games #216-224) marked my own breakthrough into the Class A rating (1800), after spending most of my chess career around the 1700 level; this is covered in The Long Journey to Class A. I was wary of being too happy about these results, since I'd previously had a significant, positive tournament result after starting this blog, only to fall back to my long-term average. However, I've played in a number of tournaments since the breakthrough and have been able to maintain the new 1800 plateau. While I naturally would have preferred to make continuous progress, at least the results have validated the (not-insignificant) 100-point increase in strength over time.

Focusing on what went right with the two tournaments - what went wrong in each game you can see in detail in the annotations - here's what I came up with, in no particular order.

• Refusal to give up the fight, when down or even objectively lost according to the engine, while there was still the possibility my opponent could go wrong. (This is also called the art of the swindle.)
• Ability to better identify and calculate tactical counterblows, including naked sacrifices (Annotated Game #216) and exchange sacrifices.
• Isolating individual game results mentally, so a previous loss would not have a depressing effect on the next game.
• Willingness to try new openings (Dutch Stonewall) and start building the practical experience needed to play them well.
• The stamina, patience and willingness to go into and legitimately play out endgames. I've previously treated them as unwelcome guests, and the usual pattern for me was to play with resolve until around move 35-40, then drop precipitously in performance due to exhaustion and lack of focus/motivation.

I'm in a period now where I have fewer opportunities to play in OTB tournaments, but hopefully after a certain amount of time devoted to additional training and building more skills, I'll be able to make another post like this one. We shall see.