The Mid Suburban League acquitted itself well at the IHSA State Tournament this weekend led by a resurgent Barrington team. After a disappointing 3-5, regular season, Barrington went 5-2 to finish 14th in the state led by 3rd Board Vyas Alwar who went 5.5-1.5 to earn the 10th place medal for that board. Also finishing with five points were Prospect at 16th, Buffalo Grove at 18th, and Fremd at 23rd. Close behind was Rolling Meadows at 29th with 4.5-2.5. Hoffman Estates finished 45th with 4-3. Conant and Palatine went 4-3 to finish 83rd and 85th and Schaumburg scored 2.5-4.5.
Placing five teams in the top thirty was the best that the MSL has ever achieved, but the real highlight was Prospect's Robert Moskwa and Buffalo Grove's Matt Wilber taking the 1st and 2nd medals on 1st Board with perfect 7-0 scores. Robert got the nod on tie-breaks because his opponents scored a combined 27-22 in the tournament while Matt's went 24-25. Robert also learned that he has been invited to the Denker Qualifying Tournament at the end of March where he will play in a round robin against Sam Schmakel, Adarsh Jayakumar, Aakash Meduri, and Kent Cen.
Showing posts with label Palatine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palatine. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Prospect v. Palatine: Pieces Before Pawns
Prospect beat Palatine 57-11 in its second match of the season. Although normally one of the toughest teams in the conference, Palatine lost many of its upper boards from last year to graduation.
It's always nice when a principle I write about in one post is perfectly illustrated in a game from the next match. In my last post, I stressed the need to improve the position of pieces before pushing pawns in the endgame. That principle arose again on third board where Palatine's Karan Patel had White against Prospect's Ekrem Genc. At first glance, it appears that the Black rook can pick off the White pawns at its leisure, however, White can still draw the game with 46.Kf4! After 46...Rg8 47.Ke5 Rxg7 48.Kd5 Rb7 49.Kc5, the White king has just enough time to protect the b-pawn. Since the Black king is to far away to help, the game will be drawn after Black is forced to give up his rook to stop the pawn from queening.
In the game, however, White pushed with 46.b6? which leaves the White king with insufficient time to come to the aid of either of the pawns. White lost after 46...Rg8 47.b7 Rxg7+ 48.Kf4 Rxb7.
It's always nice when a principle I write about in one post is perfectly illustrated in a game from the next match. In my last post, I stressed the need to improve the position of pieces before pushing pawns in the endgame. That principle arose again on third board where Palatine's Karan Patel had White against Prospect's Ekrem Genc. At first glance, it appears that the Black rook can pick off the White pawns at its leisure, however, White can still draw the game with 46.Kf4! After 46...Rg8 47.Ke5 Rxg7 48.Kd5 Rb7 49.Kc5, the White king has just enough time to protect the b-pawn. Since the Black king is to far away to help, the game will be drawn after Black is forced to give up his rook to stop the pawn from queening.
In the game, however, White pushed with 46.b6? which leaves the White king with insufficient time to come to the aid of either of the pawns. White lost after 46...Rg8 47.b7 Rxg7+ 48.Kf4 Rxb7.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Season Opener (2)
Monson v. Morgan 5th Board
Freshman Mike Monson’s game against Palatine’s Adam Morgan is perhaps the best played game on 5th Board that I have ever seen. Mike outplayed Adam in the opening to win a pawn, but Adam didn’t panic. Rather than take risky chances to turn the game around, he simply found strong moves that made Mike’s job as difficult as possible. Eventually, Mike’s inability to find a way forward led him to make his fatal mistake.
As often as not, when the advantage shifts from one player to the other on 5th Board, it is because one of them has blundered away material through some gross tactical oversight. What made this game so interesting is how the momentum changed as the result of subtle strategic points.
Diagram 1.
Here White saw the chance to win a second pawn and played 18.e5. Black cannot play 18…dxe5?? due to 19. Qxd8. The strategic error here is being too eager to convert a positional advantage into a material one (or in this case a bigger material one). At present, Black's pieces are all tangled up defending the weak pawn on d6. His knight is stuck on e8 which traps the rook on f8. White could activate his other rook with 18.Rhe1 or expand on the kingside with 18.h4 and Black would be hard pressed to respond. Unfortunately, 18.e5 was also a tactical mistake due to 18...Qg5+ 19. Kb1 Qxe5. After 20.Qxe5 dxe5 21.Bxb7, Mike is still up a pawn, but Black's pieces are no longer tied down to defending the glaring weakness on d6.
I cannot be too hard on Mike here. Even masters have a hard time deciding when to convert a positional advantage into a material advantage. Too early and the weaker side’s position is unnecessarily eased. Too late and the opportunity may slip away.
Diagram 2.
Here White played 26.a3 in order to create a sheltered spot for his king. The strategic problem here is the failure to make a transition from middle game to end game. In the endgame, the danger of a sudden checkmate is much less and the king becomes a powerful piece. White should be trying to activate and centralize his king, rather than protect it. Just as important, White's a, b, and c-pawns are only opposed by Black's a-pawn. They are much more valuable advancing as offensive units than they are as defensive units shielding the king. 26.c4 would get White's passed pawn moving as well as providing the White king a route towards the center.
Diagram 3.
Here White missed a chance to take firm control of the position with 29.Bd5. After 29...Re7 30.c4, Black has to figure out both how he is going to stop White's pawn as well as how he is going to extricate his knight. Instead, White played 29.Re2, but after 29…Rd7, the Black knight is more firmly established. I think White’s problem here is that the Black knight on d2 looks much more dangerous than it really is. White becomes fixated on ejecting it when he would be better off ignoring and advancing his own pawns. I have to admit though, that the knight looked pretty dangerous to me as I watched from the sidelines (although 29.Bd5 looked good).
I think this is a point that White might have recognized with a few minutes thought, but in a sixty minute game, a player has to allocate such long “thinks”. Sometimes it is obvious that a game has reached a crucial point where extra time is warranted, but it is hard to identify any particular feature in this position that might have suggested to White that an extra investment of time might pay dividends.
Diagram 4.
Here White played 31.c3, which really isn’t a bad move if his plan is to bring the bishop to c2 where it can target the Black pawns. However, since Mike’s plan was to bring his king over to oust the knight, 31.b3 would have been better.
Diagram 5.
Adam has given a very good demonstration of how to play when behind. Too often the player who is down tries to turn the game around quickly. Playing solid defense is preferable. Every move in which you can prevent your opponent from making progress is a victory in itself, especially if you can improve your own position. The cumulative effect of such moves is to cause your opponent to question whether his position is as good as he thought it was and whether he can actually figure out how to win it. This can create a feeling of panic that leads to mistakes.
Compare this position to the second Diagram. In seven moves, Black has created two very dangerous looking central pawns and White seems to have made no progress at all. Interestingly, White is still in good shape. If he simply brings his king over with 34.Kb2, he will have sufficient defensive capacity to stop the Black pawns and he can start advancing his own. However, feeling the game slipping away, White lashed out with 34.f3?? whereupon his position quickly fell apart.
When the advantage switches from one player to another on 5th Board, it is usually because one of the players has lost material through some unprovoked tactical oversight. This game is fascinating in the way the momentum shifted as the result of subtle strategic points. When the tactical oversight occurred, it was the result of Black's patient play over many moves.
Freshman Mike Monson’s game against Palatine’s Adam Morgan is perhaps the best played game on 5th Board that I have ever seen. Mike outplayed Adam in the opening to win a pawn, but Adam didn’t panic. Rather than take risky chances to turn the game around, he simply found strong moves that made Mike’s job as difficult as possible. Eventually, Mike’s inability to find a way forward led him to make his fatal mistake.
As often as not, when the advantage shifts from one player to the other on 5th Board, it is because one of them has blundered away material through some gross tactical oversight. What made this game so interesting is how the momentum changed as the result of subtle strategic points.
Diagram 1.Here White saw the chance to win a second pawn and played 18.e5. Black cannot play 18…dxe5?? due to 19. Qxd8. The strategic error here is being too eager to convert a positional advantage into a material one (or in this case a bigger material one). At present, Black's pieces are all tangled up defending the weak pawn on d6. His knight is stuck on e8 which traps the rook on f8. White could activate his other rook with 18.Rhe1 or expand on the kingside with 18.h4 and Black would be hard pressed to respond. Unfortunately, 18.e5 was also a tactical mistake due to 18...Qg5+ 19. Kb1 Qxe5. After 20.Qxe5 dxe5 21.Bxb7, Mike is still up a pawn, but Black's pieces are no longer tied down to defending the glaring weakness on d6.
I cannot be too hard on Mike here. Even masters have a hard time deciding when to convert a positional advantage into a material advantage. Too early and the weaker side’s position is unnecessarily eased. Too late and the opportunity may slip away.
Diagram 2.Here White played 26.a3 in order to create a sheltered spot for his king. The strategic problem here is the failure to make a transition from middle game to end game. In the endgame, the danger of a sudden checkmate is much less and the king becomes a powerful piece. White should be trying to activate and centralize his king, rather than protect it. Just as important, White's a, b, and c-pawns are only opposed by Black's a-pawn. They are much more valuable advancing as offensive units than they are as defensive units shielding the king. 26.c4 would get White's passed pawn moving as well as providing the White king a route towards the center.
Diagram 3.Here White missed a chance to take firm control of the position with 29.Bd5. After 29...Re7 30.c4, Black has to figure out both how he is going to stop White's pawn as well as how he is going to extricate his knight. Instead, White played 29.Re2, but after 29…Rd7, the Black knight is more firmly established. I think White’s problem here is that the Black knight on d2 looks much more dangerous than it really is. White becomes fixated on ejecting it when he would be better off ignoring and advancing his own pawns. I have to admit though, that the knight looked pretty dangerous to me as I watched from the sidelines (although 29.Bd5 looked good).
I think this is a point that White might have recognized with a few minutes thought, but in a sixty minute game, a player has to allocate such long “thinks”. Sometimes it is obvious that a game has reached a crucial point where extra time is warranted, but it is hard to identify any particular feature in this position that might have suggested to White that an extra investment of time might pay dividends.
Diagram 4.Here White played 31.c3, which really isn’t a bad move if his plan is to bring the bishop to c2 where it can target the Black pawns. However, since Mike’s plan was to bring his king over to oust the knight, 31.b3 would have been better.
Diagram 5.Adam has given a very good demonstration of how to play when behind. Too often the player who is down tries to turn the game around quickly. Playing solid defense is preferable. Every move in which you can prevent your opponent from making progress is a victory in itself, especially if you can improve your own position. The cumulative effect of such moves is to cause your opponent to question whether his position is as good as he thought it was and whether he can actually figure out how to win it. This can create a feeling of panic that leads to mistakes.
Compare this position to the second Diagram. In seven moves, Black has created two very dangerous looking central pawns and White seems to have made no progress at all. Interestingly, White is still in good shape. If he simply brings his king over with 34.Kb2, he will have sufficient defensive capacity to stop the Black pawns and he can start advancing his own. However, feeling the game slipping away, White lashed out with 34.f3?? whereupon his position quickly fell apart.
When the advantage switches from one player to another on 5th Board, it is usually because one of the players has lost material through some unprovoked tactical oversight. This game is fascinating in the way the momentum shifted as the result of subtle strategic points. When the tactical oversight occurred, it was the result of Black's patient play over many moves.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Prospect Wins Season Opener
Prospect won their first match of the year against Palatine, 42-26. Prospect swept the top four boards and Palatine swept the bottom four. As I have in the past, I will try to analyze games from the matches that illustrate tactical and strategic points that I have seen arise regularly in high school games.
Medrano v. Gunawan 8th Board.
Games on the lowest boards are frequently decided by unprovoked blunders. One of the players overlooks the fact that his queen is under attack or fails to see that he is vulnerable to a back rank mate. Just as frequently, however, the blunder does not simply materialize out of this air. Often one of the players has achieved an advantage in space or development that that leaves his opponent without any good choices. When a player says "I lost because I missed a tactic on the 20th move," the truth is often that they lost because they failed to develop their pieces and fight for the center on the 5th to 15th moves.
Palatine junior Cyntia Madrano's win over Prospect freshman Adrian Gunawan is a good illustration of this principle. Cyntia took control of the center and developed her pieces actively. Playing in his first match, Adrian played somewhat passively and found himself in a cramped position with his pieces undeveloped. When Cyntia's attack came, Adrian overlooked some tactics, but none of his choices were very attractive.
Piotrowski v. Jian, 7th Board.
Nick Piotrowski's game against Harry Jian was decided by unprovoked blunders. Neither player had an advantage in either space or development, however, they overlooked tactics that should have been within their skill set. In such cases, the player to make the last mistake will be the loser and in this game it was Nick.
My best guess is that the blunders were mostly the result of the players playing to quickly. A player should not make his move on the board until he has taken the time to figure out his opponent's strongest response to the move he intends to play. If he is unsure of his opponent's best move, he should probably think some more. Sometimes of course, his opponent will come up with a tactic that he hadn't anticipated, but if he has taken the time to think about the position, that tactic is much more likely to become part of his own skill set in the future.
I hope that no one will take offense when I point out mistakes. Mistakes are part of the game and everyone makes them. I can assure every player in the conference that I can give examples of blunders in my own games that are just as bad as anything I have seen in the Mid-Suburban Conference. The primary difference is that I don't make them quite as frequently.
Medrano v. Gunawan 8th Board.
Games on the lowest boards are frequently decided by unprovoked blunders. One of the players overlooks the fact that his queen is under attack or fails to see that he is vulnerable to a back rank mate. Just as frequently, however, the blunder does not simply materialize out of this air. Often one of the players has achieved an advantage in space or development that that leaves his opponent without any good choices. When a player says "I lost because I missed a tactic on the 20th move," the truth is often that they lost because they failed to develop their pieces and fight for the center on the 5th to 15th moves.
Palatine junior Cyntia Madrano's win over Prospect freshman Adrian Gunawan is a good illustration of this principle. Cyntia took control of the center and developed her pieces actively. Playing in his first match, Adrian played somewhat passively and found himself in a cramped position with his pieces undeveloped. When Cyntia's attack came, Adrian overlooked some tactics, but none of his choices were very attractive.
Piotrowski v. Jian, 7th Board.
Nick Piotrowski's game against Harry Jian was decided by unprovoked blunders. Neither player had an advantage in either space or development, however, they overlooked tactics that should have been within their skill set. In such cases, the player to make the last mistake will be the loser and in this game it was Nick.
My best guess is that the blunders were mostly the result of the players playing to quickly. A player should not make his move on the board until he has taken the time to figure out his opponent's strongest response to the move he intends to play. If he is unsure of his opponent's best move, he should probably think some more. Sometimes of course, his opponent will come up with a tactic that he hadn't anticipated, but if he has taken the time to think about the position, that tactic is much more likely to become part of his own skill set in the future.
I hope that no one will take offense when I point out mistakes. Mistakes are part of the game and everyone makes them. I can assure every player in the conference that I can give examples of blunders in my own games that are just as bad as anything I have seen in the Mid-Suburban Conference. The primary difference is that I don't make them quite as frequently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
