one win, one loss

C - CL
October G30 Owen Sound (3), 18.10.2006
D45 - Semi-Slav

This was just at the end of the Kramnik-Topalov match so I wanted to try the move order that they did 1.c4 c6 2.d4 [I did think about turning it into a Panov, but next time maybe 2.e4 ] 2...d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 a la Kramnik-Topalov 4...e6 5.Nc3 Bb4?! This is just a bad Nimzo I would think (...c5 in two moves instead of one). Grob, Szabo, Ratmir Kholmov and Hubner have all played it. 6.Qc2 [Apparently 6.Bd3 is the closest to a "book" move but I was playing my nimzo line. I guess I would get e4 in two moves instead of one here though)] 6...dxc4 [6...Nbd7 is the "book" move as well] 7.Bxc4 0-0 8.0-0 Bxc3 I'm very happy here. Not only did he let me develop my light squared bishop. He voluntarily gave up the bishop pair as well 9.Qxc3 b6 10.Rd1 c5 11.Bd3 Nc6 12.dxc5 Ne4 13.Qc2 Nb4 14.Bxe4 [14.Qc4! is stronger 14...Nxd3 (14...bxc5 15.Qxe4 Nxd3 16.Rxd3) 15.Rxd3] 14...Nxc2 15.Rxd8 Rxd8 16.Bxc2 Bb7 17.cxb6 axb6 18.e4? Not the greatest, but it just drops a pawn [18.Kf1 was better ;
18.Ne1 Rac8 19.f3 Rd6 20.Kf2] 18...Bxe4 [18...Bxe4 and I resign ??? 19.Bb3 was not great, but I still have two pieces for the rook. Not fabulous by me] 0-1

second game of the night...

CL - C
October G30 Owen Sound (4), 18.10.2006
A07 - King's Indian Attack

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 [I half expected 2.b3 after advising him on ways to stop 1. ...e5 last week. We played this line up to move 7 in our "match"] 2...g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 c6 5.d3 d5 6.Nbd2 0-0 7.e4 Bg4 [In the previous game I played 7...dxe4 and this was good enough] 8.Qe1 Nbd7 9.e5 Bxf3?? [9...Ne8 was better] 10.Nxf3?? [10.exf6 Bxg2 11.fxg7 Bxf1 doesn't work be because 12.gxf8Q+ is check so he's up a piece] 10...Ng4 11.d4 e6 Now I'm just playing a funky Caro-Kann Advanced 12.h3 Nh6 13.Nh2 Qb6 [I wanted to stop him from developing quite so easily but maybe reentering my knight into the game with 13...Nf5 was better] 14.c3 c5 15.Be3 Nf5 16.dxc5? [16.Nf3] 16...Nxc5 [16...Qxb2 and lots is gonna fall 17.Ng4 Nxe3] 17.b4? [This was weak, making the c-pawn a backwards pawn and a big target for me 17.f4 protecting the hanging e-pawn may have been better 17...Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Rac8] 17...Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Na4 19.Qxb6 Nxb6 20.f4 Rac8 21.Rac1 Na4?! [21...f6 to try and activate the bishop;
or 21...Rc4 to try and double up on the c-pawn and then eventually win it] 22.c4! dxc4 [22...Rxc4 23.Rxc4 dxc4 24.Bxb7 f6 (24...Rb8!? 25.Bc6 Rxb4 26.a3 Rb3 27.Bxa4 Rxg3+ 28.Kf2 Rxa3) ] 23.Bxb7 Rc7 [23...Rb8 24.Bc6 Rxb4 25.a3 Rb3 26.Bxa4 Rxg3+ 27.Kf2 Rxa3 28.Rxc4 Rxh3 is similar to the line above] 24.Ba6 Nb2 [The simple 24...c3 as White can't easily get at my knight. If he tries something like 25.Bb5 Nb6 26.Nf3 Rfc8 27.a3 Nd5 and I'm set] 25.Ng4 Nd3 [25...Rb8 26.b5 h5 27.Ne3 c3 28.Nd1 Nxd1 29.Rfxd1 f6 and my dark square bishop is better than his terrible light squared bishop, which does nothing except keep a rook out of c3] 26.Rxc4 Rxc4 27.Bxc4 Nxb4 It's pretty equal here without my c-pawn 28.a4 Rc8 29.Ne3 a5 [I could've tried my 29...Bf8 move here.] 30.g4 [30.Kf2] 30...Bf8 31.Rc1 Bc5 32.Kf2 Nd3+

Aagaard says you should record three things you learn from each game...instead of each game I'm going to do for each session

1) Aagard has said in his books to focus on improving your worst piece. For the longest time, my worst piece was my dark squared bishop and (funnilly enough) once I got it activated I won the game. So I need to consciously involved improving my worst piece versus forcing play like what I was doing with my knight in the second game

2) I need to work harder over the board and calculate. In the first game I just kinda closed my eyes, instead of sitting there for 5 minutes. Also I resigned when it wasn't even lost. I need to make myself calculate. General principles can only do so much for you

3) If I'm going to do this, I need to take it more seriously. Yes I have a lot of stress at work but neither one of us took more than 15 minutes per and I even wanted to skip the whole session and play blitz. These games are the only serious games i get per week, so I should take them seriously. 0-1