Category: Analysis

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Chess is war. However, there are some unwritten rules which are based on politeness. For instance, one should never offer a draw in a completely lost position. (As a side note, I don’t generally fault newer players or those with three-digit ratings, as they legitimately may not know that the position is lost.)

However, what about offering a higher-rated player a draw? Well, generally, the unwritten rule is that the higher-rated player should be the one to offer the draw. That’s a rule that I only believe in if the rating difference is extreme. For instance, I wouldn’t offer a draw against a GM since they’ll let me know when they think the position is drawn.

When it comes to offering draws against players who are within a few hundred points I have been known to use them as a strategy. Here’s an example from last Thursday.

Here I am Black, and I have been defending a worse position for some time. Here, however, I decide it’s level enough that I will offer a draw. I should point out that while Edgar and I are only about 70 points apart currently, historically he has outrated me by 200-300 points in most of our games.

My thought process is as follows:

1. Edgar generally doesn’t like draws.
2. Regardless of current rating, overall Edgar is the stronger player.
3. Sometimes stronger players will overpress trying to prove that the position is not a draw.

Let’s go back a few moves.

As you can see, I was worse a bit earlier in the game.

After I play 19…Nxa5, Edgar recaptures with the pawn. Had he played 20.Rxa5 I think he has the better part of the game in perpetuity and I have to fight to hold essentially for the rest of the game.

However, after 20.bxa5 I can see a tiny ray of light ahead. This is what allows me to essentially equalize and offer the draw. Edgar had spent a lot of time to this point and continued to spend more. Eventually the overuse of time led him to blunder. The game continues for 15-20 moves past when we stop recording, but ends in a win on time for me in a completely winning position.

Here is the game. I still need to analyze it, but the idea of the strategic draw offer is a lesson in itself.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

On Thursday, I  played my best game in the past several years. There was nothing flashy or explosive about this game; it was just a nice, technical win.

However, since I am currently very much in the mindset of being an adult improver rather than an adult enjoyer (see my article here for an explanation of this concept), it is through games like this, where I show a better understanding than I have previously, which gives me hope that I am verging on a breakthrough.

Here is the game.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Last night I sat down to play seven-time Wisconsin State Champion Bill Wiliams. Though he is well past his prime, Bill remains a strong player who will capitalize on any opportunity.

I managed to outplay Bill for most of the game, but then I made an unforgivable blunder and was simply crushed. While devastating, this is a great learning opportunity.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

A piece of advice that we hear over and over again is to analyze your games, especially draws and losses.

On the surface, that seems like sound advice, and here is a game I played on Thursday which I not only won, but was quickly up material. So why would anyone waste their time analyzing such a trivial win?

So what would be the point of looking at this at all? Well, in spite of the fact that the win was pretty straightforward there is one extremely teachable moment for Black here.

Recently I learned WHY White plays 4.Bd3 in the Exchange Caro. The idea is to prevent an easy …Bf5 by Black.

So now I can work on what to do in a position like this one, reached in the game:

I have been saying for years that I need to work on openings, but it’s only for the past few months or so that I truly have been doing so.

Now I have a position to analze which will help me understand why 4.Nc3 is inaccurate, and knowing why the book line is played will help with that. Whereas if I simply took the position that this game isn’t worth looking at since I won then I would miss something.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Here is my game from last night with some light notes. A total blunder fest, but part of my prep for the Senior Open was to play until nothing was left. I feel like I did that part well, at least.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

Something I have talked about over the years is my desire to one day use the method that Vladimir Zak allegedly taught in the Leningrad Pioneer’s Palace of taking between 13-17 hours to annotate a single game.

The formula essentially works out thusly:

1. Play the game over quickly in 15 or 20 minutes to “awaken your thoughts.”
2. Play it over the course of an hour to synopsize the key moments.
3. Analyze key moments in detail over three to four hours.
4. Analyze the opening for three to four hours.
5. Play the game over one more and write analysis for four to five hours.

I am fairly certain I can not analyze every one of my games in this fashion as I don’t have that much time. However, I have always wanted to do one.

Here is the game I have selected. I will show my work over some upcoming blog entries.

Feel free to critique me on this journey. I think it will be interesting.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.

If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.

I didn’t post yesterday, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t training. I didn’t get to do any Sherlock’s Method, but that’s mostly because I work from the office on Tuesdays. So my “free” hour between 7:00-8:00 am that I use for training on Mon/Wed/Fri is spent dropping my dog off at doggy daycare (shout out to Dogtopia in Pewaukee, WI – they are awesome!)

However, I knew this going in. I will also have the same issue on some Thursdays since I work from the office on that day too. I also go to the chess club on Thursday night. I don’t think I will have a game tomorrow, so I might still get my positions in. Time will tell. The plan is to do at least eight today to get in yesterday’s and today’s four positions.

Here’s a position that exposes an interesting blind spot in my calculation. I used to have an issue where any time there was a pawn exchange in an endgame, I would “forget” that you can just push past and that you’re not forced to recapture just because you can. This issue is not the same, but in my mind it is probably related.

Here is the position. It is from a correspondence game in 2011.

I’ll try to replicate my thoughts as I had them.

“White is down two pawns, but the d5 pawn is hanging. So really, they can be down only one pawn if they desire.

So what about 1.Nxd5. If 1…Qxd2+ 2.Kxd2 I’m threatening a fork on c7 along with 3.Bxg7, winning material. Wait, no, there is no fork on c7 since the d6 bishop guards against it.

Oh, OK. I play 1.Nb5, and now I am threatening both the d6 bishop as well as taking on g7. If Black puts the bishop on f8, now the fork works! Except 1…Qxd2+ 2.Kxd2 Bf4+ and now c7 is still guarded and  after I move my king, Black can guard against the capture on g7.

Wait, maybe this is a positional puzzle since it’s a correspondence game. What if I play 1.Qxd5, and then after 1…Qxd5 2.Nxd5 Black has to either play 2…Nf6 and give back the pawn, or play 2…f6, which looks not great. Plus, in this line there is no …Bf4+ since the d5 knight guards against it.”

At this point, I’m essentially through most of the time I had allotted myself to solve this one. So I decide my solution has to be 1.Qxd5. After all, that looks to be pretty level, and an engine will tell you it’s slightly better for Black if Black gives up the second pawn with 2…Nf6 3.Nxf6+ gxf6 4.Bxg6 0-0. Of course, I’d rather be playing Black since I think the queenside majority would be a factor in the endgame.

Of course, there is a huge hole in my calculation. Do you see it? Do you see why I say that it’s related to my old inability to realize there were two ways to do something with a pawn?

The solution and my explanation are below.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

.

.

.

.

.

What I am missing is that after 1.Nb5 Qxd2+

White is not forced to recapture with the King, allowing …Bf4+. Instead, just recapture with the knight and the dual threats against the bishop on d6 and the pawn on g7 remain, along with the potential for the fork on c7 if the bishop moves to f8.