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))