ChessTalk Message Board

ChessTalk Message Board
[ ChessTalk Message Board ]

Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Bob Gillanders on August 6, 2008, 13:10:16
CFC Executive Director Miss ON

I am an idiot. I forgot to take flyers to the Kitchener Chess Festival this past weekend for the Hamilton Summer Open that is less than 2 weeks away. August 16-17th, see CFC website for details.

I guess the Chess Gods were punishing me with my poor score of 2 pts in 7 rounds.!!!

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Hugh Siddeley on August 6, 2008, 13:41:43, in reply to "Hamilton Summer Open"

Bob,

You've got to admit you were somewhat lucky you didn't end up getting 1 pt in the 7 rounds
To wit the ENDGAME with Q+5P v RBN+1P and then 5P v B+1P:

[Event "Chessfest 2008"]
[Site "Waterloo"]
[Date "2008.08.04"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Wilson-Grange, David"]
[Black "Gillanders, Robert"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B33"]
[WhiteElo "1942"]
[BlackElo "1873"]
[PlyCount "112"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8.
Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bxb5 axb5 12. Nxb5 Ra4 13. Nbc7+ Kd7 14. O-O
Qg5 15. exf5 Rd4 16. Qe2 Qxf5 17. c3 Rh4 18. Ne3 Qg6 19. Ncd5 Be7 20. f4 Qe4
21. fxe5 Qxe5 22. g3 Re4 23. Rae1 Rg8 24. Qf3 Nd8 25. Nc4 Rxe1 26. Nxe5+ Rxe5
27. Nb6+ Kc7 28. Nxc8 Kxc8 29. Qa8+ Kd7 30. Rxf7 Nxf7 31. Qxg8 Ng5 32. h4 Nf3+
33. Kf2 Nd2 34. Qxh7 Ne4+ 35. Kg2 Nf6 36. Qd3 Nd5 37. Qf3 Ne3+ 38. Kf2 Rf5 39.
Kxe3 Rxf3+ 40. Kxf3 Ke6 41. Ke4 d5+ 42. Kf4 Bd6+ 43. Kf3 Be5 44. g4 Bh2 45. h5
Kf6 46. h6 Kg6 47. a4 Kxh6 48. a5 Kg5 49. a6 Bg1 50. b4 Ba7 51. b5 Bb6 52. Ke2
Kxg4 53. Kd3 Kf4 54. Kc2 Ke3 55. Kb3 Kd3 56. Kb2 Kc4 0-1

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by ben daswani on August 6, 2008, 14:08:48, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"
Delta BC

There's no luck in chess.

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Hugh Siddeley on August 6, 2008, 15:24:21, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

I'm not referring to luck as in "chess is a game of luck" but rather referring to luck as in "something that seems to happen by chance rather than as a logical consequence" i.e. Bob was lucky not to have lost or drawn that endgame with B+1P v 5P's.

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by ben daswani on August 6, 2008, 15:59:30, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"
Delta BC

How was he lucky? Did he roll a die before each move to decide what to do? No, he assessed the positions and made decisions accordingly. His opponent did the same. Bob's decisions, clearly, were superior to his opponent's. That's not luck.

He was lucky you weren't there

Posted by Zeljko on August 6, 2008, 17:05:02, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"
Hamilton Ontario

With your diamond studed thingamajig. Your sartorial speldor might have distracted him into losing.

Re: He was lucky you weren't there

Posted by ben daswani on August 7, 2008, 14:12:41, in reply to "He was lucky you weren't there"
Delta BC

You know a lot about diamond studded thingamajigs, don't you?

Only from what I hear about you

Posted by Zeljko on August 7, 2008, 16:12:12, in reply to "Re: He was lucky you weren't there"

& what I can google on the internet.

Link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=diamond+studded+thingamajig&meta=

Sure he was lucky

Posted by Garland on August 6, 2008, 17:39:56, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"
Almonte ON R A Club Member

He was lucky that his opponent was not able to make better decisions than those in the game. The assumption of course is that the opponent should have sufficient chess knowledge to avoid making the errors made in the game, based on his rating.

If there was no luck in chess, we would never see players fall for a trap or swindle. We would also never play on in an objectively losing position, hoping that our opponent will make an error to get us back in the game.

Wrong.

Posted by ben daswani on August 7, 2008, 14:16:31, in reply to "Sure he was lucky"
Delta BC

"If there was no luck in chess, we would never see players fall for a trap or swindle."

Swindling is a matter of luck now? I just witnessed Bindi swindle four half-points in a nine-round tournament. That's not luck. Making the moves that give one the best practical chances isn't lucky, it's pragmatic and intelligent.

Re: Wrong.

Posted by Bindi on August 7, 2008, 18:08:04, in reply to "Wrong."
CDN Master - Burnaby BC

It's 2.5 Ben. The first round swindle turned into a win. This is probably more swindles than all my other international tournaments combined.

Re: Wrong.

Posted by Garland on August 7, 2008, 21:08:50, in reply to "Re: Wrong."
Almonte ON R A Club Member

And do you consider yourself lucky?

Re: Wrong.

Posted by Kerry Liles on August 7, 2008, 21:13:55, in reply to "Re: Wrong."
Mississauga Ontario

and... if you make your own luck, is it luck?

Re: Wrong.

Posted by Lawrence Day on August 8, 2008, 0:37:58, in reply to "Re: Wrong."

I'm curious if you were ever clearly lost against Moiseenko. Unless he had something better than ..h5 it looked pretty messy to me.

Re: Wrong.

Posted by Bindi on August 8, 2008, 1:05:27, in reply to "Re: Wrong."
CDN Master - Burnaby BC

It was pretty bad, I sort of tricked him into saccing the exchange.. but he sacced for the wrong piece, shoulda gotten my bishop =)
H5 is terrible, I was clearly better for a long time until I sorta blundered my pawn away.
After that game, the fide points that I gained were slowly whittled away inch by inch =(

Re: Wrong.

Posted by Lawrence Day on August 8, 2008, 18:51:06, in reply to "Re: Wrong."

On luck in chess:

"...If we conceive of chess as a contest between two unaided human beings then it is inevitable that errors will occur. It follows that some errors will be more serious than others, and that it is the player whose cumulative inaccuracies are punished less severely who will ultimately have an advantage. This human element of chess - as in Cabinet government - renders it a game of luck. But we can take comfort in the fact that unlike, say, life, chess is a game in which it is possible to make one�s own luck: if mistakes are all there, waiting to be made, then skill can be defined as the ability to create the psychological and strategic conditions in which your opponent is more likely than yourself to blunder. �Given that chess is an intellectual game� wondered the legal philosopher Carlos Nino in his 1992 work Rights, �is it like poker, intellectual in some sense that includes ability at psychological intimidation?�..."
---Morgan Daniels (from the intro to his "Chess on the Edge" review at:

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2008/06/book-review-chess-on-edge-volume-1-100_25.html

interesting quote, but re poker ...

Posted by Aris Marghetis on August 8, 2008, 20:18:02, in reply to "Re: Wrong."

Hi Lawrence, thanks for the interesting quote. I believe I largely agree with the points within it, except the questioning comparison to poker.

IMHO, there are two significant differences between poker and chess that separate them:

1) There is an element of sheer luck in poker that is not present in chess (except maybe that the player has no influence that he can exercise over the choice of colors assigned for a game). Of course the better the poker player, the better he is at mitigating the impact of luck.

2) Compared to chess, poker is far more an exercise in incomplete information. In chess, you can see everything in front of you, but in poker, you're always rounding probabilities, situations, latest tendencies (gears), etc.

For at least these reasons, I am hesitant to liken chess and poker. There are many people who can play both decently, but there seem to be many more people who are quite mediocre at one or the other, despite being very good at one.

Just my 2c worth, please no one reply with some poker website that you think I should join

Re: interesting quote, but re poker ...

Posted by Lawrence Day on August 8, 2008, 21:48:56, in reply to "interesting quote, but re poker ..."

In poker, planning on being lucky is probably not a very successful strategy, especially compared to just calculating the odds. Yet one sees "psychological intimidation" frequently. In chess I recall opponents who were very intimidating. Bent Larsen in the late 60s for example just oozed self-confidence. It was contagious. Even when he blundered (or took a ridiculous risk) against me in the 1970 Canadian Open I just presumed I'd erred and he was refuting it. The longer one looks for something that isn't there, the more likely one just loses on time. Not looking for Larsen's trap was more psychologically predictable; similar in a way to a poker bluff. Lev Polugaevsky psyched me too in 1978. He played the opening so eagerly and confidently that I thought I was in some deep preparation. As Evgeny Ermenkov convinced me, it was all bluff; but it scored an easy point. I suspect Tal's successes in the late 50s were often due to psychological intimidation. People kept expecting some magic move they hadn't foreseen. Who can think optimally under such circumstances?
One trick Larsen recommended for increasing one's chances in "lost" positions: play on, but play very quickly. It contributes to the "now-it-is-easy" relaxation that precedes blunders. Plus randomization always favours the losing side as in some chance versus no chance.
Further on at the link Daniels quotes Suttles: the point of chess is "to trick the other guy". In truth neither side could figure out many of Suttles' weirder positions, but opponents could be duped into thinking that they were the only confused party.

Re: interesting quote, but re poker ...

Posted by Aris Marghetis on August 8, 2008, 21:56:03, in reply to "Re: interesting quote, but re poker ..."

Thanks for the interesting stories Lawrence!

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Hugh Siddeley on August 6, 2008, 19:15:13, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

"Bob's decisions, clearly, were superior to his opponent's"

I agree with you. Bob's decisions were clearly superior to his opponent's in the latter part of the game and as a result Bob was able to "turn the tables" after being in a worse position. We are simply not using the same definition of luck.

As I stated in my previous post I am not using luck as in chess is a game of luck but rather that Bob was fortunate, lucky, to be able to pull out a win considering the position he was in earlier in the game.

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by ben daswani on August 7, 2008, 14:22:24, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"
Delta BC

I know what you meant by "luck". I still disagree. Being able to turn draws to wins and losses to draws isn't an issue of luck. It takes a certain type of skill to do it. Bruce Pandolfini has a chapter on it in one of his books.

Bob made the moves that gave his opponent room to go wrong. I would venture to say that not all players stronger than Bob would have been able to achieve the same result. In poor positions, the objectively best moves are often not the most successful.

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Hugh Siddeley on August 7, 2008, 16:43:19, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

"Being able to turn draws to wins and losses to draws isn't an issue of luck. It takes a certain type of skill to do it."

It takes a certain type of skill to do it, yes, but there is the other side of the equation where the opponent has got to grab enough rope from this skilled person in order to be able to put it round his neck. i.e. you can lay the trap, but the opponent must walk thru it. As you pointed out "Bob made the moves that gave his opponent room to go wrong." Yes! And luck is involved if the opponent DOES go wrong. As they say: "it's better to be lucky than good."

I disagree with your "I would venture to say that not all players stronger than Bob would have been able to achieve the same result." For example take the great Emanuel Lasker, and I quote from wikipedia "It is often said that Lasker used a 'psychological' approach to the game, and even that he sometimes deliberately played inferior moves to confuse opponents." It is correct that "In poor positions, the objectively best moves are often not the most successful." But have no doubt that stronger players possess this ability to lead their opponents astray, as Lasker did.

Uhh...

Posted by Lucas Davies on August 7, 2008, 0:51:24, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

Well?

Posted by ben daswani on August 7, 2008, 14:30:25, in reply to "Uhh..."
Delta BC

Would you?

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Jim Foster on August 8, 2008, 2:43:54, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

You are lucky if things that are beyond your control turn out much better than expected, no matter how much skill you need to take advantage. In chess, what is beyond your control is the quality of your opponent's play. If your opponent is a grandmaster and blunders his queen in a winning position, wouldn't you consider yourself lucky?

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Bob Gillanders on August 6, 2008, 17:30:47, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"
CFC Executive Director Miss ON

Ouch, cat's out of the bag !!

Did I say 2 pts, to be precise,

1 bye, 1 draw, and 1 swindle = 2 pts.

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Hugh Siddeley on August 6, 2008, 20:50:46, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

Actually the round 6 pairings listed on the chessfest website Sunday night had you playing White against Dave but there was obviously a last-minute change. That night he showed me his game against you from last year in the
9. 0-0-0 Dragon. I was trying to convince him to play 9..d5 but he refused to deviate from his pet 9..Nxd4. So playing blitz over beers (as we did every night over the long weekend) I tested him on the White side of it to give him some practice. Anyway Dave had a rough weekend as he didn't win a single game in the tournament or in any of the blitz games either!

I can just picture what happened at the end of your game in the last round:
Dave - Okay Bob, I'll accept that draw offer now.
Bob - No, it's no longer a draw.
Dave - (after a pause) Ah, I've had enough, it's just been a shitty tournament, I'm just sick of this.
Bob - Dave, I feel for you, even after winning this game I feel just the same.

LOL

Re: Hamilton Summer Open

Posted by Joey K. on August 7, 2008, 12:40:36, in reply to "Re: Hamilton Summer Open"

Hey Bob,

Like I told you before, it's because you slave for the Canadian chess players that you only scored 2 points. Put in to account the many hours upon hours, days upon days, you've spent updating chess ratings every week.

Start updating ratings every two weeks and spend more time on actual chess. Your rating will fly through the roof! You're a GM in waiting...

J.K

« Back to index

[ ChessTalk Message Board ]

Your source for chess books & equipment with shops in:

Toronto (416) 486-3395

Ottawa (613) 565-3662

Montreal (514) 845-8352

TORONTO: Chess'n Math, 701 Mt Pleasant Rd., Toronto (416) 486-3395. Monday - Friday 11 a.m. - 6 p.m., Saturday from 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. and Sunday Noon - 5 p.m.

OTTAWA: 250 Bank Street (near Somerset). Monday-Friday 10:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. and Sunday from noon - 5 p.m.