Last week ChessLecture announced my new series, “Learn from Your Fellow Amateurs,” in which I will pick one listener-submitted game each month and lecture about it. So far I’ve gotten twelve submissions, which I think is a pretty good number — not too many, not too few. Last night I played over two of them, and all I can say is WOW! Two great, hard-fought games. I can’t wait to go over the other ten, if these are any indication of how good they’re going to be. It’s going to be awfully hard for me to pick just one.
Both of the games I played over last night illustrate themes that are near and dear to my heart. One of them is a game by a 1500-level player in the Fritz Variation of the Two Knights’ Defense. Of course, I play the Fighting Fritz myself and gave a lecture on it. In this game White plays a little bit of a side line, and Black handles it impeccably. Very impressive. The only drawback of this game, from the lecture point of view, is that 90 percent of Black’s moves are forced or obvious, and there is next to no strategy involved — it’s all tactics. But you know, that’s part of the point of the Fritz Variation. If White plays slightly inferior moves, all the tactics work for Black. You just have to have faith.
The second game, submitted by a 1600 player, features an unintentional queen sacrifice. Black got his queen trapped, and to make the best of it he gave up the queen for two pieces and a pawn. Sound familiar? Check out my game with David Pruess, which Ernest Hong flatteringly calls my “Immortal Game.” Or check out Ernest Hong’s own recent game, where he didn’t quite get enough compensation but nevertheless hung on for 35 moves and missed a fantastic chance to swindle his opponent.
Anyway, in the listener-submitted game Black probably does not get enough compensation for his queen, but his opponent relaxes and say, “Oh this is going to be easy,” and fails to press for an initiative. Sooner than you can say, “Sarah Connor Chronicles,” (*)Â Black has worked up a huge attack and buries the White king under an avalanche of rooks and bishops and knights and stuff.
These first two submissions demonstrate a point that I think most masters would agree with. When it comes to positions with purely tactical solutions, players with a 1500 or 1600 rating can play every bit as well as a master. So what’s the difference between C players and masters? First, the C players don’t have the strategic understanding to reach a position with a winning combo against a master. Second, they aren’t as good at “closing the deal.” There have been many, many times in chess club when I’ve been outplayed by a lower-rated player but wormed out of trouble with hocus-pocus, swindles, and better endgame play. And third, a C player is probably more inconsistent tactically than a master. The C player might play the tactics perfectly in some games, but miss them the next time.
Anyway, I can’t wait to see what the next ten games have in store!
(*) “The Sarah Connor Chronicles” is a new TV show that started this week, based on the “Terminator” movies. It looks pretty bad to me, but what my wife and I find most amusing is that the name of the show is almost impossible to say correctly! It keeps coming out as “Sarah Cronnor Conicals” or something like that.
