It's been only about 3 days since my last post. And already some people are getting worried of the "infrequent" postings here. That is the tragedy of active blogging—because once you start to lose your momentum, your loyal readers can immediately sense the change.
Today I received two emails and one text message from my fans, seeking to know what has happened to me. In one of those emails, I was asked if I had fallen ill; whereas in the other email, someone was jokingly complaining that I should start blogging again soon, as otherwise he would become "so bored with nothing else to read".
The text message was from another friend, and I find it more interesting than the emails. In it, the friend wonders if everything is OK with me. He said I sounded "agitated or frustrated lately." He was even planning to email me to cheer me up! I did not realise that I sounded "agitated or frustrated", but although my friend did not explain himself, I suspect it probably had something to do with my recent comments in Mike's blog and A Hunter's Tale. In the former, I was more or less told to stop commenting (smile). And in the latter, I commented against equating SHUT UP = TO CONFINE. I did so without consulting my dictionaries first, although I did say that I wouldn't be surprised if some dictionaries support that equation. Later, it turned out that it was indeed supported by the dictionaries, and I quickly added a comment in the same blog to admit that I was inaccurate. At first, I had said that we can only equate SHUT IN = TO CONFINE, but not SHUT UP = TO CONFINE.
I went on to comment against equating SHUT UP = PEN, because I thought it is more accurate for the PEN to be followed by UP too. I am still unsure about this up to now. It just doesn't sound right to me. I see it in the same light as equating STACK to PILE, and STACK UP to PILE UP, but not STACK UP to PILE (without UP). However, if I am wrong, I am willing to admit defeat. There is really no need to become agitated or frustrated about losing a debate. Life is just too short to become all stressed up about petty things like this. All I can say is, it takes a lot more to make me become agitated or frustrated.
But let me share with my readers what I've been up to over the last few days. Apart from my running at the gym and the jogging track, I've been busy sending text messages and emails to treasure hunters in the hope of attracting as many teams as possible for Alvin's (Kena Tembak) hunt in May.
The other reason which had kept me occupied was the amount of time I'd spent playing online chess. A treasure hunter friend of mine, Master Teck Koon, gave me the link to an online chess site some time ago. But I did not really look into it. Then last week, I suddenly thought that I'd just go check it out for a bit. And I ended up registering (for free), and soon started playing up to 5 games with 5 different players!
Needless to say, I also started playing chess with Teck Koon, and quickly realised that he is a very strong player! Within the first few moves, because I violated a basic opening principle, I was swiftly punished by Teck Koon with strong attack because I failed to castle when I had the opportunity to do so. Instead, I took the big risk by grabbing some pawns! But somehow I was lucky to have found a way out from an apparently hopeless position, forced some trade-offs and now arrived at a rook endgame. Material is equal again, but I like my pawn structure (I have 2 pawn islands, whereas he has 4, one of which is a doubled pawn). Still looks drawish to me though. I'll let you know what happens next as the game progresses.
In the mean time, I have also finished 2 other games, of which I was lucky enough to win. I can't believe how much I have forgotten about chess. The only other game which I find interesting is against another player of about 1300+ only, but he is really good! I opened with the Ruy Lopez (Spanish) as white, an opening which is very, very well analysed. It is interesting that we've made about 9 - 10 moves deep by now, and we're still within book opening of the Morphy's lines. But the trouble is that I'm not sure if I can remember very much more beyond this point, and I can sense that I will soon start to lose out to this guy!
So you see, folks, I've been very busy this lately. However, I have no intention to keep this going for too long. I will probably slow down to Teck Koon's rate of making only a few moves per week, and take months to finish a single game! I shall then be able to come back to my regular posting. So don't worry too much about me, OK? I am still very much alive, though probably not exactly kicking. Still need to deal with Alvin's hunt, and then I will start posting again soon.
4 comments:
Some people have asked me before: Why do I have to go through such a long-winded micro-detailed explanation whenever I write about things. Well, I have very good reasons for doing so, apart from long-time habit since the time when I was working as a teacher years ago. But I will go into that later.
Some people are lack of patience - they want me to go straight to the point - no need for side stories, examples etc!
However, sometimes I might also jump the gun when it matters most for me to be thorough. Such is the case in this particular post.
I have been spending yesterday and today in a seminar. After I posted this article last night, I had no access to the internet until just shortly ago (after the seminar). When I checked my emailbox, among them I found one from Mike. His email made me read my post again, and I now want to explain a bit.
In the above post, I said, "In the former (meaning Mike's blog), I was more or less told to stop commenting (smile)."
If ever I needed to be long-winded, now must be it. Actually, I meant to say that I was more or less told to stop commenting (on grounds of not wanting to bore the readers) on that particular subject for that particular post. I didn't mean to say that Mike has banned me from commenting in his blog forever. And I will certainly want to keep on commenting in his blog. I know Mike to be very professional in his conduct.
I should like to apologize to Mike if what I posted above has resulted in the wrong interpretation.
An amusing but strange development in the other "interesting game" I spoke of.
As white, I opened with the Ruy Lopez (Spanish) and quickly proceeded into what is known as the Morphy's Defense (Centre Attack). I'm fairly sure that we were still within book opening up to 10 moves deep at least, though I will need to look up from one of my chess books to confirm it. Beyond that point, I was more or less playing based on basic chess opening principles.
However, after the 14th move, I was practically lost for a bit. I arrived at a stage where I was rather lost on how to proceed with the game. This were the moves up to that point:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 O-O 8. e5 Ne8 9. c3 dxc3 10. Nxc3 d6 11. exd6 Nxd6 12. Nd5 Be6 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Nxe7+ Qxe7
I had quite a number of appealing choices for my 15th move, but for a while I couldn't decide which line to take.
I considered playing 15. Bg5 to provoke f6, thus weakening the black bishop on e6 (it is pinned). After retreating my bishop, I could pile up on his e6 bishop and maybe possible to gain an advantage that way. Not so clear though, because his Q can move out of the way and then the bishop is free to move.
But 15. Qc2 looked appealing too, because I would be attacking his c6 pawn, developing my queen and also connecting the rooks at the same time. The a rook would then be read to take the central file.
On the other hand, I had expected black to bring his rook to the half-opened b file and put pressure on my b pawn. Not really a big problem yet, as I can quite easily answer with b3.
But in spite of all those analysis, in the end:
15. Bf4
attacking the knight instead. I had no intention to take it immediately, because I kinda like to maintain his doubled pawn as they were. But later on when my rooks get to the central squares, it's good to have my pieces bearing down on all of his.
My opponent replied:
15. ...Rfd8
and then immediately resigned after that move! I thought it was still a decent move by him, although I would have prefered him to take the b file with one of his rooks, but I just can't understand why the resignation. I can't see a forced mate or even a material gain for white.
Can anyone of you chess geniuses suggest a good reason for the resignation?
Oops! to the friend who texted me, sorry about the confusion. Now I see why you're confused. That should've been 16. Qc2.
I meant to say instead of piling up on the e6 bishop, 16. Qc2 looked appealing too...
Of course without my bishop leaving the c1 square, I won't be able to connect the rook with Qc2 alone.
And even after 15. Bg5, it all depended on my opponent's reply. If, for example, he replied with f6, then I would have lost another move to retreat my bishop before I could do the Qc2 move. In fact, it was mainly because of this possibility that I decided against 15. Bg5 in the end.
To those who are interested to know what's happened to the game between Teck Koon and I, we've just concluded it yesterday - it was drawn after 51 moves.
I had foreseen it was gonna be a draw since move 30. However, I was hoping that Teck Koon would fall for a final trap. But that was wishful thinking.
I'll try to find the time one of these days to analyse and annotate on the game.
Post a Comment