Coming to grips with the truth

This will be my final post to this blog. I've decided to pull the plug on my quest. I've taken a good hard look at the numbers, and as we all know, numbers don't lie :-) What the numbers have told me, for a good long time now, is that I'm a mediocre chess player. Not only that, they've told me that my dream of reaching 1451 is for all intents and purposes a fantasy. I have a hard enough time maintaining a rating of 1200; to reach 251 rating points above that would take a quantum leap in my ability. This is not to say that I don't enjoy playing blitz, and I'm sure I'll still play every now and then for fun. I certainly won't be blogging about it, however, nor will I be obsessing over my rating. I'll still be following monvieux's progress, and cheering him on from the sidelines; he has a realistic chance of reaching 1451. Thanks for reading!

The dreaded quatro's non-evil twin

Inherently good things can have evil twins. Looked at another way, inherently bad things can have non-evil twins. The dreaded quatro, inherently a bad thing, thankfully does have a non-evil twin. It's everything the dreaded quatro isn't, except for the number four. Let's call this non-evil twin the good quatro. Instead of being the last four games of a session, the good quatro is the first four. Instead of four losses, a good quatro is four non-losses. Last night, I had a good quatro; my results, in order, were win, draw, win, draw, and loss. Another resolution I've made is to make every good quatro session a PTYL session; this is my shorthand for Play Til You Lose.

neostreet: 1159 (229-232-26 (487))
monvieux: 1365 (409-342-18 (769))

The dreaded quatro

On Tuesday night, I set a personal worst. I lost the last four games of the session in a row. I call that the dreaded quatro. I should have quit sooner, but couldn't bring myself to. The imp of the perverse was at work yet again!

To prevent the dreaded quatro from making a return appearance, I resolve to quit any session immediately after my third loss in a row. I'm not sure the imp will allow that, but at least it's something to shoot for :-)

neostreet: 1152 (227-231-24 (482))
monvieux: 1328 (393-331-18 (742))

Dreadnoughts

Last night, for the second session in a row, I started off with a loss. I call that a dreadnought, because it adds nothing to your win total, which is clearly something to dread :-) I have a strong suspicion I have a miserable record in session openers. Let me check the archives ...

Suspicion confirmed. I'm 17-25-4 in openers. If I could only somehow skip that first game, I'd be doing pretty well :-)

neostreet: 1174 (223-224-24 (471))
monvieux: 1334 (379-317-17 (713))

One the hard way

In blitz, as in many areas of life, you can do things the easy way or you can do them the hard way. I try to embrace the easy way, but that's not always so easy :-) On Saturday night, I made things hard on myself by digging a hole; I lost the first three games I played. There was no excuse for how I lost the first game; I failed to recognize a trap I'd fallen into less than a week before, fell into it again, and lost in seven moves again. At least the game wasn't a carbon copy of the earlier one; actually, it was worse. In the earlier game, I'd gone down the exchange and was about to lose a knight with no compensation; in the later one, I faced mate on the next move. In both cases, the only sensible thing to do was resign.

I buckled down after the first three games, won the next three, and quit for the night. I gained a solitary rating point for my troubles. That's what I call one the hard way :-)

neostreet: 1174 (216-216-22 (454))
monvieux: 1334 (379-317-17 (713))

Seven to the good

In my many years of playing online poker, I discovered many different ways of looking at my results. The most valuable lesson I learned was never to compare apples to oranges. I tried out a variety of poker flavors, and quickly realized I was better at some and worse at others. It didn't take a lot of thought to conclude that it didn't make a lot of sense to amalgamate the results from different flavors; they should be kept separate. The same is true of blitz. Just as blitz is a completely different animal from classical chess, blitz played at one time control can be a completely different animal from blitz played at another time control.

With this in mind, I decided it would be a really good exercise to keep my results at the 10 | 0 time control separate from my results at the other time controls. I feel that 10 | 0 is my natural blitz time control; it's certainly my favorite, and the one with which I feel most at home. Drumroll, please ...

Here are my current results at the 10-0 time control: 196-189-20. I'm seven to the good!

neostreet: 1173 (213-213-22 (448))
monvieux: 1334 (379-317-17 (713))

The tyranny of expectations

I've been trying to figure out if it's a good or a bad thing that I'm almost breaking even after playing more than 400 games on chess.com. It might just be a thing :-) The software is essentially set up so that the vast majority of players will fall into this category. It's only the outliers who will be able to steadily improve their rating. I'm not an outlier yet, and there's a decent chance I'll never be. In order to achieve my goal of reaching 1451, however, I need to somehow morph into an outlier.

Why do I say that the software is set up so that the vast majority of players will break even? Due to two essential selection criteria:

1. it always pairs you with a player of roughly equal strength; for example, I'll never get to play a 1400 player until I raise my rating well into the 1300s

2. among the players of roughly your strength that it pairs you with, it tries to ensure that roughly half the time, you're a favorite (i.e., you have a higher rating than your opponent)

Looking at expected outcomes, in the 440 games I've played so far, I was a favorite in 235 of them, but only managed to win 157 of those games. Thankfully, expectations can be thwarted in either direction; of the 198 games where I was an underdog, I won 49. In the remaining 7 games, there was no favorite; I won only 2 of those.

neostreet: 1161 (208-210-22 (440))
monvieux: 1334 (379-317-17 (713))

When a pet opening goes south

Lately, I've been faring miserably with my pet opening, the Queen's Gambit Accepted. I haven't won with it the last 8 times I've played it, losing 7 and drawing 1. Last night's fourth game marked my third straight loss with it, the first two having occurred on February 28th. What do you do when a pet opening goes south on you like that? The answer for me is pretty simple - don't play it nearly as often :-) The good news is that the QGA loss was my only loss last night.

neostreet: 1171 (205-206-21 (432))
monvieux: 1354 (373-309-16 (698))

Demolished by unorthodoxy

Chess is a great humbler. It's hard to sustain a belief in your greatness when you keep getting crushed :-) This is not to say that I was crushed last night, though, at least not at the chess session magnification level. At the single game level, however, I was absolutely demolished in game 6. It was especially humbling due to the extremely unorthodox play of my opponent, and my utter inability to deal with it. I resigned on move 9 when my opponent pinned my queen. My opponent's first two moves were h4 and g4. I ask you :-)

neostreet: 1140 (200-205-21 (426))
monvieux: 1354 (373-309-16 (698))

Pattern recognition

You may be getting fed up with my constant comparisons between poker and chess, but bear with me, because I'm about to make another one :-) Both poker and chess richly reward pattern recognition. When you can recognize a situation you've been in before, you'll know what to do; just as importantly, you'll know what not to do.

Come to think of it, many things richly reward pattern recognition. Software engineering is another example. Debugging a program is largely an exercise in remembering why things didn't work, and figuring out whether the same conditions could be occurring again. I feel quite lucky that I ended up as a software engineer; it certainly wasn't a career I was considering while in college.

Let's put all the cards on the table and just state plainly that life itself rewards pattern recognition! Life is a fractal, and rewards pattern recognition at every magnification level.

Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, I had another losing session last night. My rating is now the lowest it has ever been. However, I'm not discouraged in the least. I know what to do now. I predict my rating will begin a slow but inexorable increase soon.

neostreet: 1137 (196-202-21 (419))
monvieux: 1311 (368-309-16 (693))

Career worst two bagger

Last night, despite my switching to the shorter 5 | 0 time control, my losing ways continued. I had a marathon session, playing 31 games. I lost more rating points (85) in the last two sessions than I ever had in any two contiguous sessions before. Tonight I have two goals:

1. play no more than 10 games
2. play more slowly

We'll see how I well I keep to them.

neostreet: 1149 (192-197-21 (410))
monvieux: 1311 (368-309-16 (693))

Doppelsession

I coined the term doppelsession for poker sessions, but it applies equally well to blitz sessions. A doppelsession is the twin of an earlier session. Last night, I had a dopplesession of the "lower 48" session I suffered on February 2nd. I played the same number of games (16), had the same miserable record (5-11), and lost the same number of rating points (48).

For some time now, I've been trying to convince monvieux to try out the 10 | 0 time control. Meanwhile, he's been upset with me for playing much too quickly. He claims I play faster at the 10 | 0 time control than he does at the 5 | 0 one. I have no reason to doubt him. Accordingly, starting tonight, I'm going to give the 5 | 0 time control a try. If I can't slow myself down, at least I can play at a time control which forces my opponents to speed up :-)

neostreet: 1186 (179-180-20 (379))
monvieux: 1352 (360-296-16 (672))

Down is up

One of the benefits of having written 1,386 blog posts about poker is that there's a lot of material there to crib from :-) Whole passages can be taken verbatim, and reapplied to chess. To wit, on November 18th of last year I wrote a post with this self-same title. Here's how it began:

Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors. Captain Jack Sparrow is my favorite Johnny Depp character. "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" is my favorite Captain Jack Sparrow movie. Johnny delivers so many great lines in it, it's an embarrassment of riches! One of my favorites is "Send this pestilent, traitorous, cow-hearted, yeasty codpiece to the brig". What does "At World's End" have to do with poker? It's simple, really. There's a great scene where Jack figures out that the way to get to World's End is to capsize his ship, The Black Pearl. He figures this out because of a cryptic phrase on the map he has to guide him. It takes him a while to figure it out; here's another great line he delivers while doing so: "Up is down. That's just maddeningly unhelpful. Why are these things never clear?". In poker, up is down and down is up. The way to make money is to lose money first. And the way to lose money is to make it first.

As I've discovered, the best way to win games in blitz is to lose a lot of games first. By the way, I never do this on purpose! However, whenever you do lose a lot of games, your rating goes down, and chess.com then matches you up with weaker opponents. That enables you to win more games than you lose, until such time as your rating goes up enough to force you to play against opponents who are your equal or your superior. Then the whole damn cycle repeats :-) This causes you to alternate between euphoria and depression; in the euphoria phase, you feel you can do no wrong and don't see why your rating can't just keep going up without interruption. In the depression phase, you feel you can do no right and don't see why your rating can't just keep going down without interruption. Of course, the truth is somewhere in between; it's just really hard to decide where :-)

neostreet: 1234 (174-169-20 (363))
monvieux: 1344 (358-295-16 (669))

The fractal nature of the imp

I had another chess debacle last night, shedding 36 points off my rating and returning to midnight on my chess VCR (the same number of wins as losses). The imp of the perverse went fractal on me, or I should say, revealed its fractal nature, which it had actually possessed all along. What do I mean by this? To explain, I'll first need to describe what fractals are. One caveat - I have only a layman's understanding of them. Essentially, fractals are mathematical entities with the bizarre but very beautiful characteristic that they resembles themselves at every magnification. One analogy I read somewhere is that fractals are like very special coastlines. When you zoom in on any section of such a coastline, what you see in your microscope is the same thing you started with. The fractal is basically telling you, "Your microscope is no good here" :-)

Why do I say the imp of the perverse has a fractal nature? Simple, really. When you're under the spell of the imp, you make bad decisions at every conceivable magnification. At the level of magnification of a single game, you make a series of bad decisions in that game. At the level of magnification of a chess session, you make a series of bad decisions in that session. The worst thing you can do at the chess session magnification level is to keep starting a new game, loss after loss after loss; that's what the imp will make you do. I know, because I did it last night, losing 6 of my final 7 games.

neostreet: 1200 (165-165-19 (349))
monvieux: 1367 (357-291-16 (664))

Bad Day at Black Rock

I don't think I ever saw the 1955 movie "Bad Day at Black Rock", starring Spencer Tracy, in its entirety, but its title really impressed me and has stayed with me all these years. It's stark, bleak, and a huge understatement. I remember enough of the plot to know that it was nearly the worst of all possible days for the character Tracy played; most of the people in the town, if not all of them, were trying to kill him.

Last night, I had a bad day as Black. The chess.com software tries to ensure that it gives you as many White games as Black ones, and does well at this over the long run; however, sometimes one color predominates in the short term. Such was the case last night. In five games, chess.com assigned the Black pieces to me four times. I won just one of those games, and it was the only game I won. I felt like my penance for losing was to get the Black pieces again :-)

neostreet: 1236 (161-157-17 (335))
monvieux: 1358 (356-291-16 (663))

The imp of the perverse

Edgar Allan Poe coined a great phrase to describe self-destructive behavior - he called it "the imp of the perverse". You know you shouldn't do something, yet you go ahead and do it anyway. In some fundamental way, you're unable to stop yourself. I succumbed to the imp of the perverse in a landmark game last night. It was a landmark game because it was the first time I'd ever lost on time at the 10 | 0 time control. I'm hoping it'll be the last :-) A player like me should never lose on time at this time control. That's not braggadocio, it's simply an acknowledgment of how fast I like to play. In general, if I'm going to lose a game, I'll either resign or get checkmated long before my flag is in any danger of falling.

In my "imp of the perverse" game last night, I promoted a pawn to a queen on move 60. My opponent had just a king and a pawn. I was behind on time. All I needed to do to secure a draw was to take his pawn with my queen. My first opportunity to do so came on move 64; I declined to take it. My next opportunity came on move 66; again I declined. Again, on move 67; again I declined. I finally lost the game on time when it was my turn to move on move 75. What was I doing all this time? Trying to checkmate my opponent, of course. What a stooge I am :-)

neostreet: 1261 (160-153-17 (330)
monvieux: 1358 (356-291-16 (663))

Dos Equis

In my young blitz career, I've already discovered a favorite way to end a session - winning two games in a row. I hereby dub that occurrence a "Dos Equis" session :-) Aiming for this is a modest enough goal to be achievable, yet over time can really help grow your rating. The assumption here is that you've managed to battle to an even score (at least) before those final two games. As it turns out, my last three sessions have all been Dos Equis ones.

neostreet: 1268 (153-145-16 (314))
monvieux: 1364 (349-284-16 (649))

Warts and all

It's a given that it's instructive to play over one's losses; by pinpointing where you went astray, you can try to avoid such mistakes in the future. It's not well established how instructive it is to play over one's wins, however. Often, it isn't; when your opponent blunders, the only thing you can learn is the most efficient way to win from that point on. You can't learn how to cause your opponent to blunder, because there's no such technique. Playing over one of my wins from Saturday night, I discovered that the instruction lay in what my opponent should have done, and failed to do, when I blundered. It's never very gratifying to discover that the main reason you won was due to deficiencies on the part of your opponent, and not to any particular brilliance on your part :-)

neostreet: 1255 (148-142-16 (306))
monvieux: 1364 (349-284-16 (649))

A lifelong rivalry

I don't remember if I mentioned it before, but monvieux and I have been playing chess against each other on and off for the better part of forty years. Today I serendipitously came across a photograph of us squaring off against each other across a chessboard when we were about 28, roughly half our lives ago. Strangely enough, though I've been writing blogs of one description or another for over 5 years, I've never included an image in a blog post. After seeing the squaring off picture today, however, I feel compelled to include one at long last. Bear with me! Let's see if I can get the pixels to do my bidding :-)

That's me on the left, and monvieux on the right. We're both trying not to laugh, and I think I'm succeeding slightly better. Apparently we're about to play a game with 15 minutes on each of our clocks, which is a monstrous length. As I recall, our typical blitz game was 5 minutes a side. This photograph brings back many happy memories, and makes me very glad that monvieux and I are still great friends after all these years.

neostreet: 1240 (142-138-15 (295))
monvieux: 1334 (342-281-15 (638))

Chess calisthenics

Playing blitz well requires a limber and nimble mind. It's tough to be limber and nimble straight out of the gate, though. Some form of chess calisthenics is called for. If you can help it, you don't want to be wasting rating points while you're warming up your brain :-)

I'm not sure what the answer is; perhaps it's as simple as watching others play until you start to notice weaknesses in their games. I should try this, but predict I won't have the patience for it. Last night, I stumbled out of the gate, losing two horrid games as Black. When I won the third game after four forcing moves in a row, I decided to call it a night. It's always a good idea to end with a win!

neostreet: 1228 (136-134-15 (285))
monvieux: 1328 (340-280-15 (635))

monvieux and neostreet: compare and contrast

Since I'm a software engineer by trade, I've written a lot of utilities to help me analyze my poker and chess data. Since there's so much analytical power inherent in relational databases, some of my tools help me import poker and chess data into MySQL databases. I'd been badgering monvieux for a while to supply me with the PGN files of his blitz games, and he finally complied today. I imported his game data into its own database, and ran some queries on it. The results show that monvieux and I have vastly different approaches to blitz. The starkest differences are in our choices of time control and opening move.

here's the crosstab of his games by time control:

count(*)    time_control
  562            5|0
   52            3|2
    5            3|0
    1            10|0

here's the crosstab of my games by time control:

count(*)    time_control
  272            10|0
    9            5|0
    1            3|0

here's the crosstab of his White games by opening move:

count(*)    left(first_move,4)
  309            1.e4
    1            1.e3

here's the crosstab of my White games by opening move:

count(*)    left(first_move,4)
   94            1.d4
   46            1.e4

It's almost unfathomable to me that in over 600 blitz games, he's never played 1. d4 as White. I can't help but feel he's missing out on some great games.

neostreet: 1237 (135-132-15 (282))
monvieux: 1303 (336-279-15 (630))

A fly in the ointment

I realize now it was pure hubris to believe I was becoming an expert in the White side of the Queen's Gambit. Last night, I played three Queen's Gambit Accepted games, and lost two of them. One of them showed me that I have absolutely no idea what to do when Black plays 3. ... b5. That's a real fly in the ointment! Thankfully, not many of my opponents have played that move, but I need to come up with a plan for it. I'm probably overly concerned with winning back the pawn which took my gambit pawn; the whole point of the gambit is to seize control of the center. Getting obsessed with that c4 pawn is a big mistake. I'll learn, someday :-)

neostreet: 1225 (131-129-15 (275))
monvieux: 1289 (330-275-15 (620))

Hoist with my own petard

My favorite opening to play as White is the Queen's Gambit. I'm beginning to think of myself as sort of an expert on it. Therefore, it really hurts to lose with it. Priding yourself on your knowledge of an opening, playing it in the full confidence of winning, but then losing, is like being hoist with your own petard.

Last night, of the nine games I played as White, six were Queen's Gambits. Even though I won four and lost two, I felt like I'd failed my favorite opening. monvieux asked me in an email why I'd resigned so early in one of the losses; as it turned out, I was so demoralized by the rupture of my position that I didn't notice all the defensive resources at my disposal.

neostreet: 1203 (125-126-14 (265))
monvieux: 1296 (325-269-15 (609))

My first niner

On Friday night, I achieved the first niner of my blitz career. That is to say, my first nine game non-loss streak. It started the session before, when I won the last four games I played on Thursday night. Friday night's session started with a win, a draw, and three more wins. When you're on a roll like that, you begin to feel like you're never going to lose again. It's a great feeling, even though you know it can't last :-)

neostreet: 1226 (118-116-14 (248))
monvieux: 1304 (321-264-15 (600))

Implosiageddon

I loved coining poker terms when I played online poker, and I'm enjoying coining chess terms now that I'm playing online chess. My latest is the title of this post. Implosiageddon is the ultimate implosion move, since it gives your opponent the opportunity to checkmate you. You can't achieve a Lazarus game without having played an implosiageddon move.

Last night, in my seventh game, pushing my opponent's king all around the board, I gave check with an implosiageddon move. That guaranteed that I wouldn't be having a Lazarus game, since the only way my opponent could get out of check was by checkmating me. Of course, he did :-)

neostreet: 1197 (110-111-13 (234))
monvieux: 1278 (307-253-15 (575)

A Lazarus game

When I played online poker, one of the terms I coined was "the Lazarus line"; I defined it as the number of chips below which you could not allow your stack to fall if you wanted to avoid losing your whole starting stake. If your stack ever fell below that line but you somehow managed to recover and make a profit, that meant you'd made an escape worthy of Lazarus :-)

I'll now coin a similar term for online chess. A "Lazarus game" is one in which at one point your opponent has mate on the move, doesn't see it, the game continues, and you end up winning. Between experienced players, Lazarus games almost never happen at classical time controls; however, I have a hunch they happen fairly frequently in blitz. I had one last night.

At some point, I'll write a program to identify all the Lazarus games I've won (and lost). I'll provide it to monvieux, so he can run it on his games. He just informed me that he lost what I'll call a modified Lazarus game last night. It wasn't strictly a Lazarus game since he didn't have mate on the move, but he did miss a forced mate in three.

neostreet: 1199 (104-105-13 (222))
monvieux: 1269 (306-253-15 (574))

Implosion moves

One of the fascinating features of chess is that in many situations, no matter how far ahead you are in material or position, you can be just a single bad move away from defeat. It's not just any old bad move, either; it's actually the worst move you can make at that moment in time. I call moves like this implosion moves. It's instructive how the time pressure of blitz can cause these moves to bubble up to the surface. Last night, in my fourth game, I made an implosion move in the middle game. I was up a rook and three pawns, and could have safely made nearly any move other than the one I chose. I advanced a pawn, allowing my opponent's bishop on the long diagonal to capture a knight for free. Worse, my opponent now had a double attack on the pawn directly in front of my king; in trying to defend it, I got my queen into a "capture net". She fell several moves later, and I was forced to resign. The night did hold some good news, however; I won one more game than I lost :-)

neostreet: 1211 (101-100-12 (213))
monvieux: 1265 (297-245-15 (557))

Dancing on the lip of a precipice

To play poker well, you can't be thinking about money. Similarly, to play chess well, you can't be thinking about your rating. Though you may care, very much, about the money or the rating, you absolutely must not care while you're playing. This is a tall order, but it can be pulled off. I liken it to dancing on the lip of a precipice. If you think about the danger, you're bound to fall. If you can manage not to think about the danger, and can manage to get into an artistic flow, you may just find yourself dancing to victory :-)

neostreet: 1207 (95-95-12 (202))
monvieux: 1265 (297-245-15 (557))

Chess midnight

On Friday night, I managed to set the clock on my chess VCR to midnight. That is to say, I finally got back to zero; I've now won as many games as I've lost. I'm hoping I can get over to the plus side of the ledger, like monvieux has, and never look back.

Now that I've played nearly 200 games, I decided to do some analysis of how I've fared playing various openings. My best opening by far is the Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA), which I've only played as White; I'm currently 8-3-2. My worst opening by far is the first two moves of the Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6). Note that these are also the first two moves of the Giuoco Piano. I've played this opening 41 times, 7 times as White and 34 times as Black, and am a miserable 16-25 with it. Is it any wonder I prefer 1. d4? :-)

neostreet: 1205 (91-91-10 (192))
monvieux: 1308 (293-235-15 (543))

In the sweetness

Last night, I was in the sweetness. I started off with a win, and won the next five games as well. That streak of six straight wins was a new personal best. Winning seems to beget more winning, since it boosts your confidence. If you can start off a session with a win, so much the better!

Of the nine games I played, four were with the White pieces. In all of those games, I opened with 1. d4 and followed up with 2. c4, regardless of the move played by my opponent. I'm trying to become an expert at the White side of the Queen's Gambit. At some point I'll collate all the games and see how well I'm doing. I started out getting my head handed to me on a platter, but have really improved lately.

neostreet: 1185 (83-86-10 (179))
monvieux: 1274 (279-226-15 (520))

I may be who they thought I was

Surfing the internet as much as I do, I've become a connoisseur of sorts of internet memes. Most of them are truly silly, but a few of them have a strong foundation in basic human reality, which enhances their fascination for me. One such is the meme based on NFL coach Dennis Green's "They are who we thought they were" rant, which occurred in a postgame press conference on October 16, 2006. His Cardinals team had just lost to the Chicago Bears, and he was really steamed about it, believing that the Bears were an inferior team and had done nothing in the game to prove that they weren't, even though the Bears had won.

It's very human to be upset when events run counter to one's deeply held beliefs. I can surely empathize with Dennis Green. I have a deeply held belief that I'm an excellent chess player, but recent events are sorely testing that belief :-) I'm reluctantly having to acknowledge that it's just possible I may be who they thought I was - they being my opponents, and what they thought being that I'm not all that good.

neostreet: 1143 (76-85-9 (170))
monvieux: 1274 (279-226-15 (520))

New personal best

When I played online poker, I kept fastidious track of personal bests and worsts, finding the statistics fascinating. Very often they were the focal point of my blog posts. I predict the same will be true for my online chess career :-)

Last night, the night after I set a new personal worst for losses in a session (11), I set a new personal best for wins in a session (9).  As I mentioned before, I expected to do better last night than the night before since I knew I'd be playing weaker players as a result of my fallen rating. This brings up an interesting question: if you lose to the people you're supposed to lose to, and beat the people you're supposed to beat, how do you ever raise your rating? There can be only one answer. You have to beat the people you're supposed to lose to; it's as simple as that :-)

neostreet: 1166 (70-76-8 (154))
monvieux: 1274 (279-226-15 (520))

The lower 48

Last night was a debacle. I was nearly in chess free fall, managing to win only 5 of 16 games. My blitz rating lost a whopping 48 points, hence the title of this post. The good news is, if I believe I'm better than my current rating indicates (which I do), I should expect to enjoy a nice stretch of playing weaker players until my rating comes back up to its former level. Playing weaker players doesn't make you a stronger player, but it sure helps your rating :-)

Of course, only playing stronger players can make you a stronger player. Losing to stronger players enables you to identify your weaknesses. One glaring weakness I've identified in my game is that I'm way too cavalier when an opponent marches a pawn up the board at me. I tend not to pay it any mind until it's much too late. I'll keep that in mind tonight.

neostreet: 1150 (61-70-8 (139))
monvieux: 1274 (279-226-15 (520))

My first railbird

In all my years of playing online poker, I never had a single railbird. That is to say, no one was ever watching me play from the sidelines. It's pretty ironic that I've gotten my first "railbird" playing a game without a rail :-) Of course, the identity of that person is not a big surprise; it's monvieux, of course. I have to say, he's a cantankerous bird! Here's what he had to say in his first email on my play on Saturday night:

title: I'd hang up the Cs for the night
body: I’d hang ‘em up for the session, Lloyd. It doesn’t look like this is your night to score.

By the way, "Cs" are shorthand for "cleats". monvieux likes his sports metaphors. Needless to say, I ignored his advice. Here's what he had to say in his second email:

title: For F***'s Sake!
body: For F***’s Sake, Lloyd, I told you to hang em up.  You were crushing Filippo and then you fell for that hoary mate.  I’m disgusted!

Railbirds sometimes get over-invested like that :-) I'll still take a cranky railbird over none at all, though.

neostreet: 1198 (56-59-8 (123))
monvieux: 1274 (279-226-15 (520))

Towards zero

After only 13 posts, I already know that this is a successful blog. The reason I know this it that I've already written a successful blog, and see all the telltale signs recurring. Neither blog is successful from an external standpoint; my first successful blog had only two devoted readers, and this one has at most one at the moment. However, external success is definitely not the object for true bloggers. The object is for the blog to be internally consistent, and interesting to the author (of all people :-)).

My first successful blog was called "My first play million" (http://myfirstplaymillion.blogspot.com/), and was about poker. In five years plus, I penned 1,386 posts. I've found that the key to writing a post lies in selecting an appropriate title; once I settle on a title, the post just seems to write itself. Being frugal by nature, I tend to reuse truly apposite titles.

When you've written hundreds upon hundreds of posts, your ability to come up with imaginative titles understandably starts to run a little dry. The solution for this is to plagiarize (as Tom Lehrer remarked, that's why God made your eyes :-)). Many times, I reuse the title of a book or a song I like. This post's title is no exception. "Towards Zero" is the title of a mystery by Agatha Christie.

What do I mean by towards zero? Simply that the difference between my wins and my losses, so long in the negative numbers, is inching its way back to zero. If I can manage to win one more game than I lose tonight, I'll be all the way back.

neostreet: 1212 (53-54-8 (115))
monvieux: 1274 (279-226-15 (520))

Patience, grasshopper

I continue to find so much common ground between poker and blitz. The surest way to lose money in a hurry in poker is to be impatient. The surest way to cause your position to go south in a hurry in blitz is to be impatient. It's definitely hard to be patient, but it really does pay off if you can manage it.

You're probably thinking I'm about to tell you how I was really patient in one of my games last night, and how that enabled me to win. Actually, I'm about to tell you the opposite :-) As many have observed before me, you never learn as much from a victory as you do from a defeat. It's so instructive to play over one's defeats, seeing where one went wrong.

That one game where I wasn't patient is the game I remember best from last night. It all hinged on a completely awkward knight move I made in the opening; this horrible move gave my opponent a free pawn and put a permanent cramp on my position. Move in haste, repent at leisure!

On the plus side, I won as many games as I lost.

neostreet: 1200 (48-50-8 (106))
monvieux: 1264 (278-226-15 (519))

The zen of blitz

One of the things I liked most about playing poker was that it was actually relaxing. When you've achieved a certain level of proficiency, nothing that happens at a poker table can faze you. Already, I'm finding the same is true of blitz chess. That may sound very odd, so I'll try to explain. To play poker well, you must be able to recognize patterns, and react to them in ways which have served you well before. Once you've seen the patterns enough times, they become like old friends, and they don't surprise you. You look forward to their reappearance, and to reacting to them in the ways that you know so well. As it turns out, that's also an excellent description of proficiency in blitz. Played in this fashion, blitz is very akin to meditation. You're trying to become a seeing eye, and to lose your ego. It almost becomes a case not of you recognizing a pattern, but of you observing a pattern recognizing itself :-)

neostreet: 1200 (44-46-7 (97))
monvieux: 1264 (278-226-15 (519))

Stalemate stupidity

Last night, I drew my first game due to stalemate stupidity. My opponent only had his king left; I had a queen and a bishop in addition to my king. Like an idiot, I played too quickly and placed my queen on an injudicious square, ending the game abruptly. To add insult to injury, I lost a rating point.

Here are my current short term goals:

1. get my blitz rating over 1200
2. get my winning percentage over 50%

neostreet: 1170 (39-45-7 (91))
monvieux: 1283 (273-219-14 (506))

An absurd law

I'm crushed - it turns out there's no such thing as a perfect escape velocity win. I complained to monvieux about getting robbed, and asked him if he'd complain on my behalf to chess.com, since he's a paid subscriber and I'm not. They got back to him promptly, citing the following:

Law 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states that: "If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay."

I find this law utterly absurd. What it means is that I can win on time if I have a king and a pawn against a king and two queens, but I can't win on time if I have only a king against a king and two queens. In the first case, I theoretically have enough material to checkmate my opponent, provided he gifts me with both queens and allows me to promote my pawn to a queen. In the second case, even if my opponent gifts me with both queens, I still can't checkmate him, so the time victory doesn't count.

I'd never heard of this law in my nearly forty years of playing blitz. I'm willing to wager that over 95% of blitz players have never heard of this law. The biggest problem I have with it is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. If you tell me it's preposterous to claim a win on time when I have only a king, I tell you it's equally preposterous to assume that the mere existence of preposterous moves an opponent would never play, which make a checkmate possible, makes a win on time possible. What poppycock!

neostreet: 1173 (37-43-6 (86))
monvieux: 1270 (265-213-12 (490))

Daylight robbery

99.9% of the time, I played online poker at night. The prospect of playing poker in the daylight felt unseemly, or even a little bit sordid. I would never feel that way about chess, at any hour of the day. Yesterday, I played some games in the afternoon. Indeed, that was how it was possible for me to be robbed in the daylight :-) What do I mean by that? Simply, that I was robbed of half a point, since I wasn't credited the full point for a game I won on time. The chess.com software informed me that the game had been drawn due to insufficient material, which was patently untrue. It was a perfect escape velocity game, since at the end I had only my king, whereas my opponent had two queens and a king. I lost three games in a row following the robbery.

neostreet: 1169 (31-38-6 (75))
monvieux: 1302 (259-203-11 (473))

In the sweetness

I've played online poker for play money for over six years. I've only played online chess for a week. Even in such a short time, however, I've noticed parallels between the two activities. The way you keep score in online poker is via the size of your play money bankroll. The way you keep score in online chess is via the size of your chess rating. I set myself the goal of winning a million play dollars playing online poker, and was able to achieve it in two years. In the four years since then, I've been able to amass an additional nine million play dollars. So it's pretty safe to say I have little left to prove to myself poker-wise. I no longer have the fire in the belly passion for poker that I used to have. I'll still play occasionally, for the sheer fun of it, but my new fire in the belly passion is for online chess.

If you play poker enough, there will be times when you feel invincible. I call such times being "in the sweetness". When you're in the sweetness, you can do no wrong. Here are the two most extreme examples of my being in the sweetness playing poker:

- on August 22nd, 2012, I won 580,200 play dollars playing sit and go no limit hold'em; in six tournaments, I came in first 4 times and second once (note that in sit and gos, only the top two places get paid)
- on July 2nd, 2014, I won 262,204 play dollars playing cash game no limit hold'em

Already, in just 9 sessions of online chess, I've managed to get into the sweetness. Last night, I was undefeated, drawing 2 games and winning 4.

neostreet: 1189 (30-34-4 (68))
monvieux: 1302 (259-203-11 (473))

Escape velocity

One of the wonderful features of blitz is that it allows you to subvert the traditional purpose of a chess game, which is to checkmate your opponent. Blitz allows you to aim solely for a time win. If you think you can think just faster enough than your opponent to make enough "good enough" moves to cause him to lose on time, no matter how far ahead he is materially and positionally, I say go for it! The ultimate artistic triumph of this form of subverted chess is to have only your king remaining at the end. I almost achieved that rare distinction in the second game I played last night. I had only my king and one pawn, while my opponent had a king, a queen, and a pawn. My king did a little soft shoe routine between two squares near the middle of the board while my opponent's time ran out.

I call this type of win an "escape velocity" win. Escape velocity is the speed a rocket must reach in order to escape earth's gravity. In order to achieve this, a lot of fuel must be burned, and at some point the section of the rocket which contained the now-spent fuel must be jettisoned. The part of the rocket which reaches outer space is necessarily much smaller than the original rocket. In an "escape velocity" blitz win, when the time advantage one has over one's opponent is big enough, pieces can be jettisoned with impunity, in order to get one's king into "outer space" - alone but untouchable, since one's opponent simply has no more time :-)

neostreet: 1159 (26-34-2 (62))
monvieux: 1302 (259-203-11 (473))

The gift of the tempi

monvieux has been calling me out for playing too fast, and he's right. I've settled on the 10 minute time control, so it's a crime to be playing at a 3 minute time control pace. I'll have to work on slowing myself down.

Last night I had another losing session - 3 wins, 6 losses, and one draw. My long term goal must now take a back seat to a shorter term goal, namely, to win more games than I lose. If I can't achieve that, I'll never improve my blitz rating.

In one of my losses, my opponent gave me the gift of two tempi at the beginning of the game; he moved a knight to c6 on move two, and moved it back to its original square of b8 the very next move. This strange behavior nonplussed me. I assumed he wasn't very good, played too aggressively, and paid the price.

neostreet: 1159 (21-29-2 (52))
monvieux: 1293 (256-201-11 (468))

All my pawns are belong to me

Last night, I had an up and down night. The results of my first five games were as follows: W, L, W, W, W. This marked the first time I've won three games in a row in my young blitz career. The results of my second five games were exactly the reverse: L, W, L, L, L. I decided to quit after that, roughly three games too late :-)

My third game had one of the most unusual final positions I've ever seen. My opponent, who I checkmated, had two rooks, one pawn, and his king. I had a queen, two rooks, eight pawns, and my king. It's remarkable that none of my pawns was taken in the whole game, which lasted 50 moves. All my pawns are belong to me :-)

neostreet: 1187 (18 23 1 (42))
monvieux: 1293 (256-201-11 (468))

The burden of attack

It's much easier to critique than to create. In chess, it's easier to defend than to attack. Attacking and defending both require creativity, but attacking requires more. Attacking requires you to be able to see things which aren't there; defending requires you to see things which are there, and respond to them accordingly. For these reasons, being White, while an advantage, is also a burden. I think I've always been better at defending than attacking. monvieux even came up with a sobriquet for me: "the answer grape" :-)

Last night, in the final game I played, I had the immense satisfaction of winning on time in a hopelessly lost position. Since I'd already lost twice, however, my blitz rating dropped again; this makes three sessions in a row.

neostreet: 1172 (13-18-1 (32))
monvieux: 1293 (256-201-11 (468))

The opening conundrum

Chess openings pose a problem at all time controls, not least in blitz. You need to know them well enough not to fall into any hoary traps, but you can't be too dependent on them, for your opponent may well go out of book in a hurry. I've rediscovered, to my dismay, that I really don't know how to play the QGA (Queen's Gambit Accepted) as White. I don't need to know how to play it as Black, since I would never accept the gambit :-) The problem I have with the QGA as White is that in my blitz games so far, Black is keeping a death grip on the pawn with which he took my gambit pawn. I thought the correct reply was 3. e4, but when 3. ... e5 comes, I draw a blank. I have no clue what to do. I'll have to crack a book :-)

neostreet: 1188 (12-16-1 (29))
monvieux: 1293 (256-201-11 (468))

The battling mentality

One of the features of blitz I'm rapidly becoming reacquainted with is its see-saw nature. If you get ahead, you shouldn't assume you'll stay there. By the same token, if you fall behind, you shouldn't think you're doomed. Blitz definitely favors the battling mentality. Yesterday, in the third game I played, I blundered on move five, and went down a piece. I made the best of a bad situation, applying pressure where I could, and avoiding trade-downs. Finally, I was rewarded by a series of blunders from my opponent, and he resigned on move 65 when he had just his king left and I had a king and a pawn with an unimpeded path to promotion.

neostreet: 1244 (21)
monvieux: 1336 (461)

hello world

This blog will be devoted to my quest to surpass a blitz chess rating of 1450 on chess.com. As I was introduced to the game at about age 8, have loved it ever since, and turn 56 next month, I'm approaching 50 years of playing this wonderful game. My oldest friend in the world, with whom I've played thousands of games, recently suggested I join chess.com so we can play live chess against each other. I've challenged him to a race to a blitz chess rating of 1450. To maintain his privacy, I'll simply refer to him as monvieux in this blog. I'll go by neostreet. May the best man win!

The numbers I'll use to end each blog post will be our current blitz ratings, followed by the number of games played in parentheses.

neostreet: 1264 (16)
monvieux: 1355 (448)