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))