Journey to the National Master Title, Part 11

On July 18, 2024, my daughter Rachel and I played in the Cincinnati Chess Club's G/24 Swiss. This event only affected our USCF Quick ratings, and was a good warm up for the 4th Annual Joe Yun Memorial Tournament. I scored 2/4 and finished out of the money. Rachel lost all four of her games, but she enjoys playing chess regardless of the result, and she played casual games between rounds (in addition to checking on me and providing moral support during my games).

Rachel and I played in the 4th Annual Joe Yun Memorial Tournament, held from July 19-21, 2024. One of the weekend's highlights was introducing Rachel to International Master Calvin Blocker, who has won a record 15 Ohio Chess Championships. I first met Blocker at the 1989 Ohio Chess Congress. Blocker won the Ohio Chess Championship that year, and he was featured on the cover of the November-December 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin:

 Cover photo of November-December 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin

The magazine's photo caption is not hyperbole. I and the other spectators were in awe of Blocker's chess prowess. Rachel and I spoke to Blocker briefly right after we arrived at the tournament site, and we spent some quality time together prior to the second round:

Calvin Blocker and Rachel after the second round of the 2024 Joe Yun Memorial

Rachel and I played the two day schedule with a first round bye, so we each played two games on July 20, which was International Chess Day. My first game (second round) was a back and forth struggle versus Aaryn Rudrapati, the talented young player who beat me in the first round of the May 4, 2024 Columbus Plus Score tournament. After he blundered with 47...Kh7, I played 48.Re8:

Most tournament chess players know the value of placing a Rook on the seventh rank, but it should be noted that placing a Rook on the eighth rank can be powerful as well. Here, my opponent could have played 47...Kf8 to keep my Rook out, but once my Rook entered I had a winning attack. 

I won both of my International Chess Day games, while Rachel lost both of her games. I drew my third game (fourth round), and Rachel lost her third game. Rachel received a final round bye, while I needed a win in the final round to clinch a prize. Rachel enjoyed playing chess in the skittles room while I contested one of the last games to finish. When the dust cleared, I won, and I tied for first-third in the U2000 section. I gained 23 rating points to push my rating back up to 2004.

Unfortunately, I squandered the hard-earned gains from the Joe Yun Memorial Tournament by scoring just 2.5/4 in the August 3, 2024 Columbus Plus Score tournament. I lost 29 rating points to plummet to 1975; that is the most points I lost in one tournament since I lost 32 points in the January 2024 Cardinal Open. This is the sixth time I have played in a Columbus Plus Score event, and the third time that I have finished with 2.5 (I had 3 twice, and 2 once, which was the only time that I did not achieve a plus score). In round one, I lost to a player rated 1521, and in round three I drew with a different player rated 1521.

My rating slid down another 17 points to 1958 after I scored 3/5 in the U2100 section of the August 24-25, 2024 Indianapolis Open. This was a very frustrating tournament, because after winning my first game I obtained an equal position with Black on move four in the second round before playing sloppily and succumbing to a strong attack; then, in round three I obtained a decisive advantage by move eight only to let my opponent back in the game and then overlook a game-changing tactic. I recovered from those self-inflicted setbacks to win the last two games, but that only partially mitigated the damage to my rating. One bright spot is that after round three on Saturday August 24, I scored 6/8 in the Indianapolis Open Blitz to finish tied for first-seventh.

I scored 2.5/5 in the Open Section of the August 31-September 1, 2024 Ohio Chess Congress, losing five rating points to slip to 1953. I scored a draw and two losses versus higher rated players, and I won both games versus lower rated players. After round three on Saturday August 31, I scored 4/7 in the Ohio Chess Congress Blitz to finish tied for third-sixth.

On September 7, 2024, I scored 2.5/3 in the top section of the Columbus G/60 Swiss, tying for first-second, and gaining 25 rating points to lift my rating back to 1978. I scored 3/3 in the September 14, 2024 Columbus G/75 Swiss, earning clear first place, and gaining 23 rating points to push my to 2001, the third time this year that I broke the 2000 barrier after falling below that level. The next task is to not only maintain a 2000-plus rating--which I did in each USCF rating supplement issued from December 2009-May 2017--but to advance past the 2100 level and then eclipse 2200 for the first time. I am proud that I have had a 2000 rating at some point in every calendar year from 1995-2024, an accomplishment that I suspect is uncommon for a player who does not have a 2000 rating floor and has never been rated over 2200. While I tend to be very goal-oriented and forward-thinking, it is important to also acknowledge what I have already achieved in chess.

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 7, I recapped the 2023 Ohio Senior Open and described why this is such a special event for me. The 2024 Ohio Senior Open again featured a contest for the most interesting or unusual chess set, with the winners determined by anonymous polling of the tournament's participants.

  

Joe Bello's 1923 Margate replica set won in the Staunton set category

 Joe Bello's Sherlock Holmes set won in the Figurine set category

Richard Hayes' Chaturanga set won in the Other set category

After gaining 48 points with two first place finishes in my two previous tournaments to increase my rating to 2001, I looked forward to posting a strong Ohio Senior Open performance--but I lost in the first round to 1700 rated Dave Rutherford, the same kind of setback that I suffered in my very first game after my excellent result in the Joe Yun Memorial Tournament lifted my rating above 2000. In my previous five rated games versus Rutherford I scored four wins and one draw; this loss is also the first time this year that I lost to a player rated below 1800 who is not a kid. During most of this game the position was equal, but I could play for practical winning chances without risk. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time trying to find a win that was not there, and by the critical point in the game I barely had two minutes remaining while my opponent had nearly 20 minutes remaining (G/75 time control with 10 second delay). My winning attempt failed, and I ended up with a pawn down position that is drawn with best play:

Unfortunately, I erred by playing 69. Kxa4?? instead of 69. Bc2, which holds the balance. Here is one possible line: Bxg6 70. Bxa4 Ke5 71. Kb4 Kd4 72. Bd1 Be4 73. Bg4 g5 74. Bh3 Kd3 75. Bg4 Bd5 76. Bf5+ Ke3 77. Kc3 Be4 78. Be6 Kf4 79. Kd2 Bf5 80. Bc4 g4 81.Ke1 Kg3 82. Be2=

However, my opponent gave me one more opportunity to hold the draw by not pushing his pawn quickly enough, and a few moves later we reached this position when I barely had one minute remaining:

Trading Bs obviously leads to a lost K+P ending, but I had to decide quickly where to put my B. I played Bf1?? to cover one of the squares in the P's path, but the correct method is to place my B behind the P on a longer diagonal: 76. Bb5 Ke3 77. Be8 Be6 78. Bh5 Kf4 79. Kd2 Bg4 80. Bf7 Kf3 81. Ke1 Bh3 82. Be8. The P cannot advance without giving me an opportunity to seize the long diagonal and sacrifice my B. Instead, after the game continuation my opponent played 76...Ke3. With my K shut out, it only took him a few more moves to use his K and B to force me to give up control of the key diagonal. I have thought a lot about this loss, and I believe that two factors proved to be critical. The first factor is that I did not know the two diagram positions "by hand." I had studied similar positions and I know enough to figure them out step by step given sufficient time, but I am not familiar enough with them to play them fluidly in contrast to, for example, a position of K+Q versus K, from which I could produce a checkmate very quickly. The second factor is that by getting into such severe time pressure I left myself vulnerable to not having enough time left to accurately calculate variations in positions that I don't know "by hand." More practice could increase the number of positions that I know "by hand," but it is also important to give myself a sufficient margin for error by not getting so low on time, particularly in a game that did not feature many critical decisions (until the end, of course!).

I bounced back to win my next three games, and then I obtained a winning position by move 14 in the fifth round versus 2029 rated Mike Sheaf before squandering my advantage and then blundering into a loss. Jordan Henderson secured first place with 4.5/5 after Mike Joelson--who started out 4/4--walked into a helpmate in their last round game. I was the fifth seeded player out of 20 participants, and I finished tied for fifth-seventh place (fifth on tiebreaks). Sheaf, a co-champion last year, finished tied with Joelson for second-third, with Joelson receiving second place honors on tiebreaks. This is the first time that I lost two games in one Ohio Senior Open, and the first time in three appearances that I did not win a trophy (I tied for the best score in the age 50-59 category, but this year the tiebreak procedure resulted in that trophy going to the oldest of the tied players--even though the player who received the trophy played in a separate U1800 side event against lower rated opposition than I faced in the Open section). My 3/5 score added up to 23 lost rating points, pushing my rating back down to 1978.

This result is very disappointing for me, but while ruminating about that disappointment I recalled an article that I wrote 11 years ago. In Only Thoughts and Actions Can be Controlled, Not Outcomes, I discussed how I processed the aftermath of a chess game during which I blundered but still won because my opponent blundered:

In a recent chess tournament, I won a game because my opponent responded to my blunder ...Nxe5 with the blunder Nxf7 instead of playing Nb5, which would have given him a winning position. Winning chess games used to make me feel very happy, while losing chess games used to make me feel very upset but those reactions are too extreme. A better, more balanced path is to prepare properly before the event, concentrate fully during the event, enjoy the entire process and not overreact to the result. All that a person can control is his own actions; outcomes and results are influenced by factors that a person cannot control: the results of other games affect who I get paired against--which means that I could face someone whose style is a good matchup or someone whose style is a difficult matchup--and my opponent's training, discipline and outlook affect the quality of his moves, so unless I play perfect moves 100% of the time I cannot control the outcome of the game. Of course, the better that I play the more influence I can exert over that outcome and that is one of the most seductive qualities of chess: the illusion that with only a little more knowledge and discipline a person can completely control his destiny (echoes of that illusion can be heard in the famous concluding words of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby). The difference between winning a game and losing a game and the difference between winning a tournament and finishing in the middle of the pack is sometimes just one move, one flickering of a neuron in someone's mind.

If I had been more well-rested and/or if I had studied more before the tournament then perhaps I would have played a different move but I have many interests and I enjoy the time/energy that I devote to those interests; I am not making excuses about that blunder or any other chess blunder, just stating the truth. At that moment under those conditions, ...Nxe5 was the best move I could find; I did not play impatiently and I thought that I had considered all of the relevant tactics. A minute or two after I played ...Nxe5, I saw the Nb5 idea; while I waited to see which move my opponent would play, I pondered the folly of basing one's emotional state on what happened next: I knew that the outcome of the game would likely be determined by his move and that if I was not careful then I could permit that outcome to affect my mood for the next several days. I vowed that, whatever happened, I would not overreact. I tried my best and ...Nxe5 is the move that I played, so there is nothing to be elated about and nothing to be upset about; winning the game after my opponent blundered did not "prove" anything about me (or about my opponent).

My opponent also did not rush and I assume that he did the best that he could under his individual circumstances. I have deliberately not given the complete move list or provided a diagram of the game position, because this particular game and these particular moves are just vibrations of a much larger cosmic string. If my opponent or I had vibrated the string a bit differently then we would have played a different melody but--regardless of the melody we created--there is nothing to cry about here. I should celebrate that I have been playing tournament chess for more than 25 years and that I am capable of playing chess at a higher level than 97% of all rated players; my young opponent should celebrate that he is already a strong player and that if he stays on his current path then he likely will become a chess master. No, it is even simpler than that: regardless of years spent or rating points obtained, the enjoyment of playing the game in the moment is the height of ecstasy; the game result is logically determined by the combined mental and psychological states of both players and there is no reason to become emotional about that logically determined outcome: if you have a succession of outcomes that you deem to be unsatisfactory then it is necessary to adjust your life pattern (sleep habits, study habits, etc.) to maximize the chance that you will enjoy better outcomes in the future.

Easy to say, hard to do but very necessary. My opponent looked distraught when he realized that he had blundered and I understand that feeling all too well. Chess is a very violent game; it may not be possible to completely eradicate the suffering one feels after a loss but I think that determined, focused concentration can result in a modified perspective.

More than a decade later, it is still difficult but necessary to embrace that modified perspective. As I noted when I began this series of articles, there are no guarantees on the Journey to the National Master Title, but I will not give up trying to achieve my goal and I will not give up chronicling my journey. I have a full slate of tournaments for the fourth quarter of 2024, so check back in January 2025 when I review my progress in the next installment in this series (Spoiler alert: I did not do well in my first two October 2024 tournaments, but I will persevere and expect to have good news to report at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024).

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 8, I listed four chess goals for 2024. Here are those goals, with notes about my progress toward each one through the first nine months of the year:

1) Gain 60 rating points per quarter. I gained three rating points in the first quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1968 to 1971; I gained 10 rating points in the second quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1971 to 1981; I lost three rating points in the third quarter of 2024, dropping my rating from 1981 to 1978.

2) Do not lose any games to players rated below 1800. I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the first quarter of 2024, I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the second quarter of 2024, and I lost three games to players rated below 1800 in the third quarter of 2024.

3) Accumulate more draws than losses. I had 15 draws and eight losses in the first quarter of 2024; I had seven draws and nine losses in the second quarter of 2024; I had four draws and seven losses in the third quarter of 2024.

4) Maintain a winning percentage of at least .750, to break my personal record of .740 set in 2014. My winning percentage through the first three quarters of 2024 is .694.

In 2024, I have scored 71 wins, 26 draws, and 24 losses in regular rated tournament games with 10 first place finishes in 30 events. I have lost seven games to players rated below 1800. My net rating gain for 2024 is seven so I need to gain 222 points to reach my goal.