After residing in beautiful Chico for about seven months, I am returning to Orange County to live, where I lived the vast majority of the time from 1978 through January of this year.
I have enjoyed my stay in Chico and have met many wonderful people. There is a lot of casual chess activity in Chicoville (mostly at a busy coffeehouse called The Naked Lounge), but (gasp!) no tournaments within 125 miles. I want to play in tournaments at The Chess Palace in Orange County (Garden Grove, to be precise). They have some tournaments with the relatively speedy time-controls that I like (e.g. G/45). Very few players in Chicoville will play five-minute blitz with me. Most of the players like G/10 or slower. My cheapos don't work very well in G/10!
I hope to keep in touch many of the nice folks that I met in Chico.
I look forward to returning "home" and enjoying the many friends that I have made over the years who still live in the O.C.
Warning: I'll keep my readers abreast of my (mis)adventures in the tournament arena!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Pawn Droppings
A man (I wish it had been me) once said, "I want to live forever - so far so good!"
I'm not an optimist in general, but I certainly am when it comes to chess! In speed chess I'll play almost every game to the bitter end, even if my position has been diagnosed as terminal. As long as I still have a pulse I'm still alive, right?
When I blunder away a pawn (which happens often), I don't think of myself as being a pawn down. Not at all! Rather, I think of myself as having an open or half-open file that I didn't have the move before!
Whenever your're losing, console yourself by remembering that your opponent is just like you, and brighten your outlook by bringing to mind Tartakower's dictum, "The mistakes are all there, just waiting to be made!"
I'm not an optimist in general, but I certainly am when it comes to chess! In speed chess I'll play almost every game to the bitter end, even if my position has been diagnosed as terminal. As long as I still have a pulse I'm still alive, right?
When I blunder away a pawn (which happens often), I don't think of myself as being a pawn down. Not at all! Rather, I think of myself as having an open or half-open file that I didn't have the move before!
Whenever your're losing, console yourself by remembering that your opponent is just like you, and brighten your outlook by bringing to mind Tartakower's dictum, "The mistakes are all there, just waiting to be made!"
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Good Ideas and Better Ideas
Good idea: Know all of the basic pawn endings.
Better idea: Win your games before the ending is reached.
Good idea: Sacrifice your pawns to launch a devastating attack.
Better idea: Sacrifice your opponents pawns to launch a devestating attack.
Good idea: Be a gracious loser.
Better idea: Never put yourself in a position of having to be a gracious loser.
Good idea: Play chess for fun.
Better idea: (Sorry, but there is no better idea.)
Better idea: Win your games before the ending is reached.
Good idea: Sacrifice your pawns to launch a devastating attack.
Better idea: Sacrifice your opponents pawns to launch a devestating attack.
Good idea: Be a gracious loser.
Better idea: Never put yourself in a position of having to be a gracious loser.
Good idea: Play chess for fun.
Better idea: (Sorry, but there is no better idea.)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Am I Winning? If so, Who Cares?
Several years ago IM Larry Evans (not to be confused with the GM Larry Evans) wrote a column in Chess Life that included the observation that unless you're annotating a game for publication or considering a draw offer, the question "Am I winning?" is irrelevant. Whether you're better or worse, your task as a chess player is to make the best possible move. It's easy to "slack off" when you think you have a big edge in the position and you let your advantage slip away. And if you're worse it is easy to become discouraged and thereby don't put forth the necessary mental energy to find a way out of your predicament.
In one of his columns on the jeremysilman.com website, IM Rashid Ziatdinov observed that there are only four possible evaluations of a chess position: You're winning, you're losing, you're drawing or the position is unclear to you. The idea of being "better" or "worse" in a position really doesn't mean anything if there's no clear win or draw.
At my level (Class A), if Fritz9 and Vladimir Kramnik determine that I have a slight advantage (whatever that means) I usually lack the skill to turn the small advantage into a bigger advantage.
Opening books may say that Black equalizes against the King's Indian Attack (1 Nf3 2 g3 3 Bg2 against almost everything), but if I am playing White and frequently play the KIA I may have a "practical" advantage in the sense that I am playing a position that I like and am familiar with. The opening tomes seldom take that into consideration.
Anyway, I have to get back to my game. I think I'm slightly better!
In one of his columns on the jeremysilman.com website, IM Rashid Ziatdinov observed that there are only four possible evaluations of a chess position: You're winning, you're losing, you're drawing or the position is unclear to you. The idea of being "better" or "worse" in a position really doesn't mean anything if there's no clear win or draw.
At my level (Class A), if Fritz9 and Vladimir Kramnik determine that I have a slight advantage (whatever that means) I usually lack the skill to turn the small advantage into a bigger advantage.
Opening books may say that Black equalizes against the King's Indian Attack (1 Nf3 2 g3 3 Bg2 against almost everything), but if I am playing White and frequently play the KIA I may have a "practical" advantage in the sense that I am playing a position that I like and am familiar with. The opening tomes seldom take that into consideration.
Anyway, I have to get back to my game. I think I'm slightly better!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Joy of Playing Gambits
One of the joys of being a player who likes to attack as early as possible, is the option of playing gambits. Now, I'm aware that some genuis once said that "a gambit is when you sacrifice a pawn for the sake of getting a lost game." If you're just a lucky D-player like I am, then you're probably going to lose anyway - unless, of course, you're lucky! And doesn't luck reward the bold?
A good way to get into the spirit of gambiteering is to buy a repertoire book that advocates playing gambits. I bought, and have immensely enjoyed, "A Gambit Opening Repertoire for White" by Eric Schiller (Cardoza Publishing).
Against 1 e4, Schiller recommends the Goring Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 ed 4 c3 dc 4 Nc3). White sacs a pawn for a nice lead in development with tremendous flexibility as to where to deploy the bishops. Unfortunately, Schiller doesn't tell the reader what to do if Black plays the popular Petroff Defense (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6). You'll have to fill that gap on your own.
Against the dynamic Sicilian, Schiller recommends the extremely rare Halasz Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 f4). White combines the Smith-Morra Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 c3) with the Closed Variation (1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 d6 3 f4). This configuration should confuse most Sicilian fans, so it's at least good for a few seconds on the clock.
Against the stolid Caro-Kann, Schiller has the reader playing the Ulysses' Gambit ( 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nf3 de 4 Ng5). If Black plays the natural 4...Nf6 (knights before bishops, you know!), White takes a whole nanosecond to play 5 Bc4, forcing Black to hem in his bishop with 5...e6.
Against the solid French, the reader is urged to play the Alapin Gambit (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Be3 de 4 Nd2). Basically, White is playing a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ( 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 f3). The Alapin seems to be an improvement on the usual move-order because Black has hemmed in his bishop with his first move!
The book leaves a lot of Black's options to the research skills of the reader, but all-in-all it is a wonderul book.
Happy gambiteering, readers!
A good way to get into the spirit of gambiteering is to buy a repertoire book that advocates playing gambits. I bought, and have immensely enjoyed, "A Gambit Opening Repertoire for White" by Eric Schiller (Cardoza Publishing).
Against 1 e4, Schiller recommends the Goring Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 ed 4 c3 dc 4 Nc3). White sacs a pawn for a nice lead in development with tremendous flexibility as to where to deploy the bishops. Unfortunately, Schiller doesn't tell the reader what to do if Black plays the popular Petroff Defense (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6). You'll have to fill that gap on your own.
Against the dynamic Sicilian, Schiller recommends the extremely rare Halasz Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 f4). White combines the Smith-Morra Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 c3) with the Closed Variation (1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 d6 3 f4). This configuration should confuse most Sicilian fans, so it's at least good for a few seconds on the clock.
Against the stolid Caro-Kann, Schiller has the reader playing the Ulysses' Gambit ( 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nf3 de 4 Ng5). If Black plays the natural 4...Nf6 (knights before bishops, you know!), White takes a whole nanosecond to play 5 Bc4, forcing Black to hem in his bishop with 5...e6.
Against the solid French, the reader is urged to play the Alapin Gambit (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Be3 de 4 Nd2). Basically, White is playing a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit ( 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 f3). The Alapin seems to be an improvement on the usual move-order because Black has hemmed in his bishop with his first move!
The book leaves a lot of Black's options to the research skills of the reader, but all-in-all it is a wonderul book.
Happy gambiteering, readers!
Saturday, March 3, 2007
The Wonderful World of Attacking Chess
My chess playing used to be very dull. I achieved a 2000+ plus by pretty much not hanging pieces. I didn't even play dynamically with White. (A friend once suggested I publish an opening book called "A Complete Defense for White.")
An old Inside Chess article featured the long chess career of Jacques Mieses(1865-1954). The Grandmaster once quipped, "I can be accused of playing bad chess, but I can never be accused of playing boring chess!" That has become my motto!
I'm a 49-year-old chess hack, and there's not much I can do about the fact that soon I'll be a 50-year-old chess hack, etc. But just maybe I will play ONE tournament game in my life to be worthy of showing off to my chess friends!
Michael de la Maza wrote an award-winning series of articles for Chess Horizons Magazine called "400 Points in 400 Days." Basically, all de la Maza did was study nothing but tactics and his rating skyrocketed and he eventually won the "Class-A" prize at the World Open. He more fully expounds on his method of study in his book, "Rapid Chess Improvement."
Another rallying cry for me was Richard Teichmann's(1868-1925) famous quote that, "chess is 99% tactics!"
IM Rashid Ziatdinov writes a monthly column on Jeremy Silman's website. A recent article titled "Tactics vs. Strategy" included the following:
"I teach practical tournament chess. When it comes to tactics, I believe only in clear 1-2 move combinations. These combinations occur in every game...but most people cannot wait for simple combinations...
"A chess game is a gamble (when you play a strong opponent.) Pure gambling is based on tactics...
"If you do not apply effective tactics on every move, you will not survive long...The outcome of most games boils down to which person sees better tactically in the present situation...
"Strategy should not be a subject of inquiry for the non-master. No strategy! Absolutely none! Only amusing paradoxical tactical tricks should be investigated. Chess is a funny tactical game of two-move combinations and unexpected endgames..."
So, my plan now is to study tactics and play dynamic openings, such as the King's Gambit, where tactical acumen really counts.
Who knows, maybe someday I'll even play a brilliancy!
Oh well, probably not. But no longer will I attempt to win by boring my opponents into submission.
An old Inside Chess article featured the long chess career of Jacques Mieses(1865-1954). The Grandmaster once quipped, "I can be accused of playing bad chess, but I can never be accused of playing boring chess!" That has become my motto!
I'm a 49-year-old chess hack, and there's not much I can do about the fact that soon I'll be a 50-year-old chess hack, etc. But just maybe I will play ONE tournament game in my life to be worthy of showing off to my chess friends!
Michael de la Maza wrote an award-winning series of articles for Chess Horizons Magazine called "400 Points in 400 Days." Basically, all de la Maza did was study nothing but tactics and his rating skyrocketed and he eventually won the "Class-A" prize at the World Open. He more fully expounds on his method of study in his book, "Rapid Chess Improvement."
Another rallying cry for me was Richard Teichmann's(1868-1925) famous quote that, "chess is 99% tactics!"
IM Rashid Ziatdinov writes a monthly column on Jeremy Silman's website. A recent article titled "Tactics vs. Strategy" included the following:
"I teach practical tournament chess. When it comes to tactics, I believe only in clear 1-2 move combinations. These combinations occur in every game...but most people cannot wait for simple combinations...
"A chess game is a gamble (when you play a strong opponent.) Pure gambling is based on tactics...
"If you do not apply effective tactics on every move, you will not survive long...The outcome of most games boils down to which person sees better tactically in the present situation...
"Strategy should not be a subject of inquiry for the non-master. No strategy! Absolutely none! Only amusing paradoxical tactical tricks should be investigated. Chess is a funny tactical game of two-move combinations and unexpected endgames..."
So, my plan now is to study tactics and play dynamic openings, such as the King's Gambit, where tactical acumen really counts.
Who knows, maybe someday I'll even play a brilliancy!
Oh well, probably not. But no longer will I attempt to win by boring my opponents into submission.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Welcome to ChuckyChess!
Welcome to Chuck Kinzie's blogspot. My USCF rating is currently 1804, but I'm really just a lucky "D" player. (Twenty years ago I was rated 2002; a so-called "Expert." I don't now and never have considered myself an "expert" at chess. I'm just an over-rated amateur.)
I used to play really stodgy chess, and as a result had a very stodgy opening repertoire, viz.: London System (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4) or King's Indian Attack with White, and the Slav and Caro-Kann with Black.
These days I play very aggressively and have a fairly extensive sharp opening repertoire, including the Sicilian Dragon, the King's Indian Defense, Scandinavian Defense (gambit variations) and weird flank stuff (e.g. 1...a6 2...h6, followed by aggessive moves like ...b5 and/or ...g5.)
I enjoy tactical melees, and I think draws are evil!
In my next post, I'll talk about some of the books and articles that have inspired me to play more aggessively and inventively.
Thank you for reading!
I used to play really stodgy chess, and as a result had a very stodgy opening repertoire, viz.: London System (1 d4 2 Nf3 3 Bf4) or King's Indian Attack with White, and the Slav and Caro-Kann with Black.
These days I play very aggressively and have a fairly extensive sharp opening repertoire, including the Sicilian Dragon, the King's Indian Defense, Scandinavian Defense (gambit variations) and weird flank stuff (e.g. 1...a6 2...h6, followed by aggessive moves like ...b5 and/or ...g5.)
I enjoy tactical melees, and I think draws are evil!
In my next post, I'll talk about some of the books and articles that have inspired me to play more aggessively and inventively.
Thank you for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)