Aggression tamed

My 6th round game was with Bob Bennett. We had an even score all-time at 1-1 going into this game. Bob is a fun guy to play. we both like to attack and mix things up early on and both of us enjoy aggressive attacks on the King. In this game Bob goes for a "kitchensink" attack on my King while I try to stay composed and prove the aggression to be tame.

No Mercy

Ernie and I had been chatting a bit beofre my game on Thursday and we somehow got on to the topic of crushing your opponent and not having pity. Ernie (knowing that I'm a fan of the old Karate Kid movies) mentioned John Kreese and the philosophy of the Cobra Kai dojo.

Here is a vocalization of the Cobra Kai philosophy "FEAR does not exist in this dojo, does it? NO SENSEI! PAIN does not exist in this dodo, does it? NO SENSEI! DEFEAT does not exist in this dodo, does it? NO SENSEI!"

This is my new creed! Although the methodology in which John Kreese impliments this ideology resembles the antithesis of competition I think there is more than meets the eye.

Ralph Waldo Emerson in his excellent work "Self-Reliance" touched on Individualism with a spiritual method that strikes to the very heart of the matter. He was much admired by Nietzche of whom I will discuss shortly.

Emerson said "Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession".

This applies to Chess. When we memorize openings for example. We aren't aborbing the wholesomeness of the position because we don't know why this or that move was settled upon. In fact we are only memorizing thought out responses. Without the accessory data which applies to sideline variations. This is why you may notice all players are most likely to make a mistake IMMEDIATELY when they get "out of book". Of course this is an oversimplification since some openings are tame and give more room for error. But I think what I'm saying should make sense. The endgame is in fact the best example because it is a more naturalistic example, meaning that we can repeat the experiment with conrecte results. The endgame tends to prove whether correct or not. Openings may score well but their is no intrinsic proof of their value, unlike the endgame. K vs. K + Q for example.

What I'm trying to say is that when you think for yourself you will fail quite often. But when we rely completly on research then we don't in fact exist. This is why Emerson reminded me of Chess. The individual soul is important and without it chess really isn't fun, deep down inside we want to FIND correct moves on our own. Not just play memorized traps.

Coming back to Cobra Kai



John Kreese was a Vietnam vet and we don't know the full implications of this background we can assume that this Sensei has had an experience which has branded him with a highly draconian evolutionary philosophy. Kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. The realities of life that many of us don't like to accept or to talk about. So the Dojo's premise is based on No Mercy. Emerson would agree to a certain extent but more so Nietzche whom felt that "helping" a person was one of the greatest injustices one could commit on another. This relates to an interaction at the Far west Open where the infamous "Chess Loser" was having a good tournament and in the final round got paired against an absolute novice. After a few moves he got up (I was already getting a drink at the cooler) and he asked me "I don't know what to do, this kid doesn't know what he's doing. I feel bad about playing him". I immediately responded "Punish him! Show no mercy, he wont learn if you don't punish him". The Chessloser walked off with a confident look on his face and proceeded to win his game. This is John Kreese's method and it is the best way to play chess, at least from what I have learned so far.

In this world of competing ideas sometimes its important to look at the obviously "flawed" ideas of which we dismiss as silly or wrong, maybe even immoral. But without the experience of deeply meditating on as many views (variations) as you can...you are just becoming an amalgomation of others, and I don't know if I'd be able to live like that....

"Sweep the leg"..."You got a problem with that Mr. Lawrence??" "No Mercy"

Another rollercoaster

I kept fighting even though my position was worse. Challenging White to find the breakthrough after he choose incorrectly I played well and had a winning advantage. Made some mistakes near the end and got a draw. All in all it was an interesting game.

The ups and downs of being a Patzer...

What is becoming ever so clear to me is that no matter who gains the advantage as lower-rated players we always give our opponents a chance to get back in the game. As you see this game is a perfect example of having a feel for the opening, getting a winning advantage and then getting cautious and slowly allowing an unclear game.

Hope this one was interesting!

I blew it...

Well I guess I shouldn't be too upset. I'm drawing and beating B-Class players pretty regularly now. I fell pretty confident in my chances on players under 1800. My goal is to hit A-Class myself one way or another in the next 12 months.

Hope you enjoyed the game!

A quick look at statistics

While I can't come to any concrete conclusions I have found interest and future knowledge to be gained from my game collection databases.

I seperated my games with Black and with White into seperate databases. As I accumulate games I can use the statistical data to find flaws in my repertoire. At this point I haven't enough games to make too much of a call but some of the numbers are interesting to consider. When I get closer to 100 games per database I can start to draw very distinct conclusions. but for now I have this data:

My Games with White: 39 games of which all have been 1.e4 so far...
I score slightly below average (50%)

wins:18 draws:3 loses:18

Dead even! my opponents are of slightly higher average rating then myself. Even so I need to be winning at least 60% of my games with White if I expect to keep moving up.

against 1...c5 (Sicilian Defense) White scores above average (58%)
wins:7 draws:1 loses:5

against 1...e5 (King's pawn) White scores slightly below average (50%)
wins:5 draws:0 loses:5

My Games with Black: 36 games
I score very well with Black (53.3%)

wins:16 draws:6 loses:14

Suprising that I score so much better with Black than White but again I don't have enough games to draw the conclusions I'm looking for.

against 1.e4 I score (80%)!

wins:8 draws:0 loses:2

against 1.d4 I score (43%) about average.

wins:6 draws:5 loses:8

I'm looking forward to an update at 100 games each to see how satistics have changed...

Open Sicilian Crush!

This is my third round game from the Far West Open. I had the White pieces and was looking for an attacking game and boy did I get to play one! This game was lots of fun to play and I learned quite a bit from the analysis.

Finally chess publishing!

I was holding off from posting any of my games from the Reno Far West Open until I was able to figure out chess publishing. I finally got some time so here we go. Hopefully it turns out well.

This is my fourth round game. A memorable game in which I won and was entering the final day of competition at 3.0 out of 4.0. Your comments are always appreciated.

Night of All Nations

Last night my roommate and I went to the Night of All Nations event at lawlor. It was pretty interesting. We got totally full off of worldy cuisine and got to see some odd if not eccentricly archaic performances. All in all an interesting experience. Had some fun conversations with people from all over the world. Fellow Reno Chess Club player Hadi Soltani was there as well checking out the festivities.

Not at all chess related but if you like an interesting cultural experience I recommend checking it out next year! There was even a guy at the Iranian booth that had a display with some ancient chess pieces I commented that I had heard chess in its original version was from Persia(Iran) and he agreed.

See everybody next week for Round Two!

Round One1: Harrington loses to Fischer

I lost my first round game in the Reno Club Championship Qualifier. I wasn't upset though. I played pretty well and had a pretty even position late into the middlegame. I was able to stop all his tactics and his ideas until I stoped keeping track of his knight which proceeded to win a pawn. But I showed myself I could play at a higher level...for almost a whole game!

It was funny that George made the first time control with only 4 seconds remaining. I've seen him down to under a minute left in almost every game he plays. I can only think he does it on purpose to try to psych people out. I also found it strange that he played the Pirc against me. Every week he plays the Najdorf(if given the opportunity). After the game he said he thought I would have alot of preparation so he played something else. He will play the Najdorf against Garingo, Gafni, Alsasua, Case but is scared of a 1600 player's preparation??

Oh well I just found that funny....and I did have some traps lined up for him : )