On 29 Nov 2006 12:17:45 -0800, wrote:

An interesting thing mentioned here is that Yasser Seirawan, who was
commenting on the match, did not notice the blunder either.

Perhaps thinking too much about the endgame.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

"Jimmy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeremy Silman advises against making threatening moves hoping your
opponent will miss the threat, but the World Champion missed a one move
mate. So I'm rethinking this advice. If the WC can miss a one move
mate, who knows what my opponent might miss?

Silman is correctly advising against going for cheapos when better moves
are
available. It's very good advice. I have lost a hundred games by not
following it.

My thinking goes something like this. "Hmmm, there's a 2-move swindle
that
wins a piece. No, it's too rudimentary, even for my 1535-rated opponent.
On
the other hand, I have fallen for tactics of similar depth and I'm rated
1900. Besides, if I don't try it now the opportunity will be lost. Hmmmm.
What the hell, I'll do it."


You should be flogged by going for a cheapo against someone rated 400
points lower than yourself. I always wait for them to do something
stupid. Why beat them to the punch? Seriously, I usually try to steer
toward a favorable endgame. They usually have no clue in the endgame.
However, invariably along the way.....

On a side note a friend of mine was fond of saying, "If you opponent
does something stupid, then don't try to immediately punish him. It is
probably just a prelude to something even more stupid."

I know, I know, but like most chess players I make the same mistakes over
and over. I can't help it. I know it's wrong as I'm doing it, but I believe
"this time will be different."

I almost did it the other night on my way toward beating an over-the-hill
expert at our club. I was up 2 pawns and an exchange and his K was exposed.
The win was just a matter of not doing anything stupid for 10 or 15 moves at
most. Then I saw it: the gold-plated cheapo. It was a rook sac that "had" to
win. After I'd wasted half an hour calculating it I was down to 10 minutes
for 11 moves, when I came to my senses. I realized that all I had to do was
take care of one little threat and play in a straightforward manner to win.

And that's what I did. Afterward my computer told me that Rxa7+ was a !!
move that would have mated him in 6 moves, all forced. Well, he resigned 8
moves later anyway, down a boatload of material at that point.

Some day I'm going to put together a file of positions from my games, which
I can carry around with me to tournaments and preview before my weekly game.
Maybe I'll put them on index cards and sell them to other patzers.

adp