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)