Difficult nights sleep. Wake up late and scramble to get ready. Manage to catch my pairing on Ozchess and see that I have to play Zachary Loh. I have mixed feelings about the game. Chris arrives and we head off to MCC.

In the car Chris and I talk a little bit of chess. My pairing is interesting. I know Zach is relatively inexperienced at tournament chess. But I also know parts of his chess game better then most since I was his first chess teacher in school and I still get to see him play at the Mt View master class. This game is not going to be a pushover, despite the rating difference. Zac didn't get 7/7 in the Victorian Interschool Primary final for nothing. I know he can play very solid chess and that he has been doing a fair bit of opening work with his new coach. He is a keen and improving player, so I have to be careful.

Luckily, my previous days defeats have brought me back to earth and I am back to focusing on the tournament basics. The key to this game for me is to fight for the initiative early. As fate would decide, my opponent chooses a structure that I am very experienced in playing and I am able to gain an early initiative which converts into a full point as Black.

Despite the result I am really impressed with Zachs progress. Two really important points stand out. 1-He does not hesitate to conduct a post mortem of the game. As I said before, I cannot stress how important this is to young players. 2- His scoresheet notation is perfect, almost of a better standard then IM Guy Wests. People may scoff when I say this, but the ability to record notation correctly under pressure is a sign of a very level headed player. Seasoned Chess warriors know that when they make mistakes on the scoresheet often they are making mistakes on the board. The ability to cooly detach yourself from the emotions of the game and record notation is a sign of objective focus and internal strength.

I also manage to catch up with Trevor and the Sandman during this game. Trevor enquires into my loss to Elliot and the subsequent glee it caused on Chesschat. I don't really need to convince him about the result, but I try to make a point, which he appears to understand, about life not being that bad if the only thing I have to worry about is losing a chess game. Trevor points out that most Chess Warriors over their careers run at about 50% becuase they end up playing at a level where they are equally matched with the opposition. I agree with this astute observation, and if you observe your own blitz games at a site like ICC, it pretty much shows that the best most players get is between a 50-60% winrate against their equals.

So the moral to the story is that all Chesss Warriors ought to be prepared to deal with defeat if they are going to play a competitive game like chess. Its how you deal with those defeats that separates the wheat from the chaff. Personally, I try to run through scenarios before I even enter a tournament. That is, I am normally fully prepared to play, because I have accepted what will happen before I even enter the event. If I feel an early loss will sap my playing strength I simply don't play the tournament. I never ever ever withdraw from a tournament. I prepare for them psychologically before I enter them. I encourage you to never quit a campaign because of one battle or even a series of defeats.

Trevor and I also trade banter about another pet topic. STATUS and its blatant demise in the current Australian chess scene. To put it more correctly, the discussion revolves around how Australian chess is lacking an ability to retain players between 1800-2200 because of a lack of emphasis on STATUS. Its an interesting topic, which really needs to be further investigated by all people involved in Australian chess. How do we get those players to play in events! How do we retain our cultural heritage to nurture the next generation with a dynamic competitive playing pool?

Anyways, my next game for the day is against another promising junior, Michael Tanner. I am familiar with Michaels game a little bit having seen him play in numerous MCC junior allegro events aswell as playing him over the board in MCC allegro and lightning tournaments. Again I am not paying any attention to his rating because I know he is capable of beating Michael Baron.

So my game plan is to play solid positional chess and try to keep the position clear. Well it doesn't exactly go to plan because Mike decides to sacrifice a Rook and go for an all out attack. A most noteworty and highly commendable approach. To be honest, I respect any junior who has the guts to launch a full scale assault on a higher rated opponents king. I think it is certainly the right way to play chess when you are a youth. In my opinion, you should never be afraid of putting your opponent to a test. And quite frankly, it puts a lot of pressure on older players who are often more then capable of panicking. Nevertheless, Mike failed this time to conduct the attack with enough vigour, but I am sure he is a better player for the attempt.

After the game we conduct a post mortem and unfortunately the kibbitzers go a bit mad and decide to take things into their own hands. I put up with it for a while, but pretty soon find myself getting annoyed. I attempt to make my position pretty clear about what I expect correct etiquette to be in such a situation. A few minutes later it starts again and I find myself exchanging some rather harsh words with Bobby Cheng. I guess looking back on it I may have been a little harsh, and I certainly don't bear any personal grudges towards Bobby. So apologies if I did offend him.

However, I really don't tolerate anybody moving the pieces on the board, except my direct opponent, during analysis. And I reckon its a really bad habit to get into because very few players want to examine lines that have not been properly articulated. The point of analysis is not to play another game of chess with kibitzers. I most certainly believe that players are best served, verbalising their ideas and kibitzing lines. And I most certainly believe that its up to the players themselves to decide which ideas they want to look at in their own analysis. I think kibitzing is a fine art, and that to be done properly the idea should be articulated with a respectful question!

Anyway, I then play Richard in some more blitz games and reach a score of +5. Tony Dowden, Chris and I leave around midnight. I am thankful that the next day I have taken two half point byes because of work commitments. This will allow me to freshen up for the final day. On the way home we witness the start of a fantastic lightning storm, which is really an amazing sight over the Melbourne skyline.

cheers,