I picked up my c5 rook to play Rxd5. As I reached for black's d5 rook I suddenly noticed I had this problem with Qh2 that could not be resolved with a rook move. I think he might have said something if I put the rook down, said "J'adoube" and tried to play g3 instead. I played Rxd5. Hey maybe he'd make the recapture and miss the mate. Maybe I'll go 6-0 in the Open Section this weekend. Maybe pigs will fly......31 rating points forward, 29 backwards. C'est la vie!
David Harris
I made the mistake of playing 44...f4? with the idea of playing Rgxe5. Bad plan because he played 45. Be4! After 45...Rgg7 White has a very easy win. No crushing attacks needed, just simple endgame technique. The game continued 46. Rxh7+ Rxh7, 47. Rxh7+ Rxh7 48. Bxh7 Kxh7 49. c6! Black resigns. No stopping the c pawn from its' destiny as a queen.
This week I managed to redeem myself with a tough win against Dan. A typical game for us goes down to the wire with one or both of us in severe time trouble. This game was no different though for a change I wasn't the one having a time pressure meltdown.
Polly - Dan 082708.pgn
Weddings have become a major production these days. Gone are the days where one goes to the ceremony, followed by a simple reception and perhaps an after party at some body's house afterwards. Now there are all sorts of functions tied in with the big day, and one is usually pretty wiped out by the end of the weekend. All I can say is I'm glad I didn't have to pay for all of this. The hotel, hubby's tux, my dresses, shower present, and wedding present was enough. Thank goodness for end of summer sales! I could have played in the World Open instead.
I'm feeling really good about my position. I almost felt as though he thought he could get away with leaving his king in the center against me. I was ready to show him that he couldn't take me so lightly and was prepared to punish him for not castling. Sometimes I have this bad habit of thinking about what post mortem "words of wisdom" I'm going to share with the opponent afterwards, while the game is still going on. I'm thinking to myself "He can't play Ke2 because I have the fork on g3 after Bxe4. I need to tell him he should have castled on move 15."
He plays 21. Ke2. I immediately play 21...Bxe4. He plays 22. Bxe4. Without even looking at how the capture has changed the position I instantly play 22...Ng3. Not only do I play the move right away, I slap the piece down with a little more emphasis then normal. I admit it, I was being a hot dog. I was acting like one of the kids. Needless to say I was mortified when he took my knight with his queen. It wasn't quite as bad as when "Mr. White" announced mate with a queen that was hanging. However it was another example of an adult acting like a child playing against a child.
It was tempting to resign on the spot and curse myself for being so unfocused and overconfident, but I was too embarrassed at that point since a number of people had witnessed my faux pas. Even though my body language gave away my feelings about what had just happened, I decided I would try to keep my cool. I wasn't ready for my losing streak to go to seven. I figured with his king still sitting in the center I might get some counter play. Here is the actual game.
joshua-polly082508.pgn
I was rather stunned when he put his rook on on d7. I hesitated before taking it. I did not slam the queen down when I made the capture. I had been given a chance to get back into the game. I didn't want to blow it by acting like a knucklehead again. He was down an exchange for a pawn. That's not an automatic win, especially when playing a kid who has a lot of tricks up his sleeve. Hopefully both of us learned something about staying focused and not getting overconfident when the opponent hands you a gift. It was an ugly win, but I'll take the gift along with the $35 first prize and 31 rating points.
I did find an ally in my beef with the prize structure. During one of my third round opponent’s deep thinks I was wandering around near the wall charts. Howard Goldowsky was standing there looking at the sign with the prizes. Howard was one of the under 1900s who had also entered the Open Section. I asked him what he thought of this prize structure. He didn't like it either. He probably had a bigger beef then me since he already had gotten paired way down and had one point. He had come to play up against higher rated players. Like me, he was disappointed that the sections got combined.
When the round was over the two of us made our case to the tournament director and organizer. Now it wasn't just about me. I was able to speak for both us, and even for the third under 1900 “Open” player who was not around at the time. I’m afraid when I first spoke to them I didn't exactly choose my words well. I’m afraid I may have come across as condescending or arrogant. What I first said came out totally wrong. I won’t repeat that part. It was not meant as a slight to anyone, I just was just trying to make my point regarding what I wanted out of the weekend. The gist of my comments were something to the effect of “I came to play strong competition knowing that I’d possibly lose most of my games, and possibly get a bye. I wasn't there for the money. I understand why they merged the sections. I don’t have a problem with it. Now I’m may going get paired way down, and you’re telling me I can’t win money even if I win that game. Howard has already been paired way down, he can’t win money either with this set up. It’s just not fair.”
The organizer and tournament director said they would consider our complaint and let us know what they would do. At that point there was nothing else that we could say or do.
Doing lunch in between rounds with Jeffrey and Howard.
Grandmaster Keith Arkell 3.5 - 0.5
IM Justin Sarkar and GM Timur Geerav
The picture is not of the best quality, but lacking Photo Shop and the skills to improve it I guess I will have to explain. That is a fire engine from the Pawtucket FD at the front door of our hotel. That begs two questions.
1. Why is it there?
2. Why is it so dark?
Answer: Because the damn fire alarm went off at the ungodly hour of 5:00 am. At this time of year it's dark at that time.
That was not my idea of a wake up call. I can drag my sorry butt out of bed for a 10:30 am round without outside assistance. Besides I thought outside assistance was not allowed at a chess tournament. I suppose the amusing part of the whole incident was seeing several of the grandmasters clutch their laptops as they waited to return to their rooms. We can't let our precious databases go up in smoke. I didn't have such presence of mind to take my computer with me. In fact the only reason I have the fire engine picture is because after they let us go back in I went to the room grabbed the camera and took a picture before they left.
After such a rude awaking why do I look so perky before the start of round three? Perhaps the free breakfast with the two cups of tea had something to do with it. Maybe the loud shirt awoke me from from my sleep deprived state. Too bad the shirt didn't distract my opponent from the goings on over the board. But I'm getting ahead of myself here. There was another battle to be fought besides the one over the chessboard.
When they posted the round three pairings they had put up signs with the prize fund listed. For the since merged under 1900 they stated that only the six players who had initially entered that section would be eligible for those prizes. Whoa! Time out! Let me get this straight. Since I opted to play up, I'm not eligible for the Under 1900 prizes even though the sections have been combined and I'm rated under 1900? Is this the add insult to injury clause for the three of us rated under 1900 who had wanted to play stronger competition, but instead ended out in a larger section with the possibility of playing lower rated competition?
Even before I got into my game I expressed my displeasure with this decision. The rationale though good intentioned was flawed. The TD and organizer seemed to think that these six players entered the Under 1900 Section in good faith expecting these prizes to be rewarded to the players in that section. The tournament director explained that to me. I wasn't happy with it, but for the time being I wasn't going to argue the point.
Sometimes tournament directors/organizers playing in other people events can be a pain in the ass. I try not to butt into how a tournament is being run. I know I don't like it when others tell me how to run my tournament. The last time I had butted in at someone else's tournament the TD yelled at me, even though I was right and he reversed his decision regarding prizes. That prior incident didn't even have anything to do with me, but I felt it needed to be addressed. This time it had a lot to do with me so before round 4 I was going to make my point.
It wasn't like they were changing the prizes to include 2000 players or changing the Under 1700 prize to an under 1800 prize. They were the same prizes albeit reduced since there was only a partial guarantee. The would still be 1st through 4th under 1900, 1st under 1700, 1st under 1500 and first youth under 16 years old. The only difference was there were three more players to contend for the top 4 place prizes. So there were 9 players contending for 7 prizes. In theory all 9 could have picked up a piece of the pie. A draw in my last round would have caused this unlikely scenario, but more about that later.
I got paired against a 1735 who was one of the players who had signed up for the ill fated Under 1900 section. He had lost both his games on the first day. He might have been 2-0 if there had been an Under 1900 section. Instead he was getting pounded on by Experts and A players. He was also on the list of players that would be eligible for the Under 1900 prizes. I'm sure he was happy with the announced prizes since he could go 0-4 and still win something under that prize structure. However I don't think 0-4 was what he had mind when he signed up for the Under 1900 section. Leave it to me to take care of that problem for him. Sigh.
On the comments from my last post somebody asked me what I thought of the time control and the 15 second delay. It would have been okay if they didn't deduct 10 minutes off the first time control. 40/90 is deceptive enough. That's 2:15 per move. It seems like plenty of time, but often moves 25-40 are during a complex part of the game, and the time sneaks away. 80 minutes is even worse. That's two minutes a move. The delay makes it 2:15 per move but it doesn't seem the same as 40/90 with no delay. The 15 second delay doesn't compensate for the 10 minutes. Even though in theory it's the same amount of time, I feel as though having 10 minutes chopped off my time from the get go is like wasting 10 minutes in an opening I know. For the first 5 to 10 moves a 5 second delay is plenty. There have a number of games where I've made the first 10 moves without my time moving.
I'm sure this sounds very strange coming from someone who plays "cracktion" chess almost weekly. "The queen of cracktion is worrying about the difference between 80 and 90 minutes when she normally has 25 to 30 minutes for a whole game?" I think there is a different mind set when one is playing a single sudden death time control versus x moves in x time followed by sudden death. In a single sudden death time control if there is time pressure it comes and then it's over. Either one survives it and wins, or implodes and loses. With two time controls one can go through time pressure twice. How the first time control is handled can play a big part in what happens during the second time control. Often when I'm playing a control longer then game/30 I have to remind myself that I have more time and make use of it. However sometimes I lose track of the time and have to hustle to make the 40 moves in time.
The organizer was the one who came up with this particular time limit, but it was ironic that his TD is against subtracting time from players using delay clocks. Ken had put up a motion before the delegates at the US Open regarding the subtracting of time. He feels it penalizes players who are using the prefered clock with time delay. His motion would have abolished that practice. I always would like to have the extra time, but I realize in tournaments with a tight schedule one has to take the time off of delay clocks to compensate for the extra delay time.
End of the time control rant. I guess the answer is "No I didn't like the 15 second delay." I can't blame the clock for all of my problems in this game. However bad decision making in time pressure did bring the game to a sudden end.
In the past week I've had three games as black that have opened d4 and transposed into the French. I don't even like the French. Note to self: Stop playing 2...e6 after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3. The first one last Thursday I walked into a book trap from 5. Qg4 and got my queen trapped on move 9. This time I was better prepared for Qg4 and did not walk into that line again.
Richard-Polly 081708.pgn
It would have been a struggle even if I had played the right move. The problem was getting into that mess in the first place. The trade off was I didn't have to deal with two bouts of time pressure, and it gave me time to line up an ally in my battle over the prize fund.
