A comedy of errors...
Mar. 6th, 2008 09:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpAfter downloading something called "jin" and lurking for a couple of days on the Free Chess Server, I finally screwed up the gumption to play a game last night. Frankly, although I was no stranger to such time controls as "2 12", I was a little intimidated by the combination of the time control and the new software, not to mention that very many of the offers to play a game specified that respondents were to be rated, which is something I yet do not have, not on this server.
Back in the days before all of the electronic sophistication that surrounds us, time controls for blitz games were pretty simple: you set the same amount of time on each side of a chess clock - typically five minutes - and started to play. If the game was still going when one of the players' flags dropped, that player was deemed to have lost the game.
A modern control such as "2 12" basically means each side starts with 2 minutes on the clock, with 12 seconds added to whatever time is left each time you make a move. Making your fifth move means you have three minutes to complete your game, less whatever time you've already spent thinking.
Anyway, I end up in this "2 12" game as Black, against someone called "Majikme," and won it in short order, with a very pretty finish, but when I went back to take a look at the game, I was appalled at how poorly I played.
I'm coming to a realization that a central aspect of chessplay that made it so attractive in the pre-computer era was the fact that sometimes, you could do the wrong thing and still achieve the desired result. Computers are, generally speaking, excellent chessplayers, but part of that excellence has to do with the fact that they are thorough in their analysis, unflappable in their psychology (they have none), and utterly consistent in their computation. Your first major misstep with a computer is going to be your last, and the idea of "as long as there is struggle, there is hope" is a pretty meager thing. This in large part is what makes play against a computer so unsatisfying.
I say this not in general support of the idea that poor performance ought to be rewarded, but in support of the idea that fortunes can and do change. Filtering out the random factor makes it bloody difficult to sustain a positive attitude toward life.
Having said that, it should be kept in mind that just because you manage to draw to an inside straight doesn't make it a good overall strategy. My post-game analysis underscores the importance of reviewing one's successes as well as failures, to see what might be hidden therein.
Cheers...
Back in the days before all of the electronic sophistication that surrounds us, time controls for blitz games were pretty simple: you set the same amount of time on each side of a chess clock - typically five minutes - and started to play. If the game was still going when one of the players' flags dropped, that player was deemed to have lost the game.
A modern control such as "2 12" basically means each side starts with 2 minutes on the clock, with 12 seconds added to whatever time is left each time you make a move. Making your fifth move means you have three minutes to complete your game, less whatever time you've already spent thinking.
Anyway, I end up in this "2 12" game as Black, against someone called "Majikme," and won it in short order, with a very pretty finish, but when I went back to take a look at the game, I was appalled at how poorly I played.
[White "Majikme"]Why do I think enough of this game to include it in my LJ? It's fairly complex, but I'll try to explain.
[Black "AlexPGP"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Bc5 {The classical Italian variation of the Four Knights Opening. I hadn't played this in years.} 5.Ng5 O-O 6.O-O d6 7.d3 Nd4 {This move sort of gives back whatever ephemeral advantage was gained by White's fifth move.} 8.f4?? {Allows the devastating 8...Bg4!} 8...c6?? {Which Black misses.} 9.fxe5?? {White, who could have saved himself with 9.Kh1, continues to be blind to the threat.} 9...dxe5?? {Missing 9...Bg4 again, which is not as strong as before, and leads to one heck of a free-for-all after 10.Nxf7} 10.Be3 {With this move, I recall thinking - oh, was that what I was doing? - that the pieces had a potential to create the final position that actually occurred in the game, so I make a move that helps push the game in that direction... which is generally a very bad way to play.} 10...Ng4?? {In my mind, this move put pressure on e3 Bishop. If the Bishop takes on d4, everything is set for a nice finale. Unfortunately, the Knight's abandonment of the f file makes 11.Nxf7! - which I did not see at all - an excellent move. If I had this position to play over again, I think I'd play 10...Qe7, helping to defend f7 and staying out of the way of the Bishop on c8.} 11. Bxd4?? {Criminy, I'm wearing out the '?' key! Less experienced players tend to respond directly to direct threats, without first examining other alternatives. Lucky for me, in this case.} 11...Qxd4+ 12.Kh1 {White cooperates in a nice finish.} 12...Qg1+ 13.Rxg1 Nf2x (0-1)
I'm coming to a realization that a central aspect of chessplay that made it so attractive in the pre-computer era was the fact that sometimes, you could do the wrong thing and still achieve the desired result. Computers are, generally speaking, excellent chessplayers, but part of that excellence has to do with the fact that they are thorough in their analysis, unflappable in their psychology (they have none), and utterly consistent in their computation. Your first major misstep with a computer is going to be your last, and the idea of "as long as there is struggle, there is hope" is a pretty meager thing. This in large part is what makes play against a computer so unsatisfying.
I say this not in general support of the idea that poor performance ought to be rewarded, but in support of the idea that fortunes can and do change. Filtering out the random factor makes it bloody difficult to sustain a positive attitude toward life.
Having said that, it should be kept in mind that just because you manage to draw to an inside straight doesn't make it a good overall strategy. My post-game analysis underscores the importance of reviewing one's successes as well as failures, to see what might be hidden therein.
Cheers...
