Annotated Games

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I agree that this might result in a higher expected score than my approach would.

But I wanted to see how strong a player I might become, and I've believed that this would be fostered if I always tried to find and play the best move.

That aside, I don't think I could have deliberately introduced flaws into my games without feeling sick about it. I always strove to play as close to perfectly as possible.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I totally agree that demanding perfection (in contrast to striving for it) from oneself is nonconstructive. It took me a long time to accept that mistakes are part of (my) being human.

I probably should have mentioned earlier (even if it was understood) that the way I seek the best move is dependent on the time control. I much prefer the time controls that allow sufficient time for my "perfectionist" approach.

@fmdavidhlevin said
That aside, I don't think I could have deliberately introduced flaws into my games without feeling sick about it. I always strove to play as close to perfectly as possible.

But what is a flaw? Is a move really inferior because a computer would score it less, even when it takes you into positions you know your (human!) opponent is weak at? Even if the "perfect" move would have gone into territory you dislike?

At my club, I have won a game against a better player by playing a variation considered inferior. He had started playing the Bird, and I knew he loves kingside storms. I also knew he was somewhat, but not very well, booked up. So I decided to do my homework for once, and looked into From. There are better defences against the Bird, but I knew it would not suit his style. And it didn't.

Was that a flaw in my game? Objectively, yes. Against a computer, yes. But against this particular player? I don't think so.

@shallow-blue said
But what is a flaw? Is a move really inferior because a computer would score it less, even when it takes you into positions you know your (human!) opponent is weak at? Even if the "perfect" move would have gone into territory you dislike?

At my club, I have won a game against a better player by playing a variation considered inferior. He had started playing the ...[text shortened]... me? Objectively, yes. Against a computer, yes. But against this particular player? I don't think so.

You're right: my brush was too broad.

Depending on the opponent or the tournament standings, I sometimes played opening systems that aren't theoretically best, provided that I felt confident that I could at least draw if the opponent played accurately. Your game is a good illustration of this approach.

I also occasionally chose a double-edged move or plan to enliven what would have been a dull middlegame. The following game comes to mind.

Southern Congress, April 3, 2005 (30/90 followed by 60 for rest of game)
Round 4, Board 3
White: David Levin (2354)
Black: Chris Mabe (2104)



Readers are probably thinking that my statements about "finding the best move" should be taken with a grain of salt. 🙂

Hi Duchess,

'At the 1976 Interzonal in Manila, there was an incident when there was a change
to the schedule, with one round's games starting earlier than usual.
Miguel Quinteros was unaware of it and arrived slightly more than one hour late.
His opponent, Vitaly Tseshkovsky (if I recall correctly) ...'

Miguel Quinteros's opponent was v Zoltan Ribli.

The appeals could not agree and eventually asked Max Euwe, then president of
FIDE to make a decision. He ruled that the default should stand.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your observations seem spot on.

"After 16 g4, I prefer 16... Nd6, enabling 17... Be4 if White plays 17 Ba2."

16...Nd6 is a nice interpolation.

"If Black's worried about his c-pawn, he could try to get rid of it by 18 ... c5.
18 ...h5 seems odd to me because it does not seem in harmony with Black's pieces."

I've found that when an opponent makes a weakening move (such as 16. g4), a common reaction is to believe that there must be a way to exploit it immediately, irrespective of other considerations (such as mobility where the weakness is created). Perhaps this influenced Black's thinking.

"If 20 hxg4 Bxg4 21 d5, cannot Black afford to give up the queen through 21... Bxe2 22 Bxb6 axb6 23 Qb3 Bxf1 24 Rxf1 cxd5 when Black has compensation?"

That seems a good idea. In the resulting position, the effectiveness of Black's knight and opposite color bishop remind me of the corresponding pieces in your "scorpion sting" game.

"Consider 20 hxg4 Rb8 21 d5 Qb3 where Black seems more than OK."

That Black would be better here seems a just result of the provocative 16. g4.

"I did not notice any grand strategic plans (not every game has one) in this game."

That makes two of us. 🙂

The game of mine that best illustrates an enduring strategic theme might be the one against Della Sella (on my website). Starting in the early middle game, Black had split queenside pawns, and most of the play thereafter was driven by White's long-run objective of exploiting this.