It has been a while since I wrote my last blog post. In the meantime I did play two tournaments, one at the end of May and one in June. Things went pretty well and although my play was at times a bit uneven, the performances gave me confidence for the upcoming chess summer. In Ghent I won the Flemish Championships and in Hilversum I became second in the HSG Open, raising my rating to 2442. …
The Roquetas tournament is over. My intention was to write more reports during the tournament than I did, but the tournament schedule was tougher than I anticipated and besides playing chess I decided to enjoy Spanish weather which was beautiful compared to the grey and rainy weather back home. I thoroughly enjoyed playing and I thoroughly enjoyed the sunny atmosphere – in addition to the fact that I played quite well, it was a very good experience.
At the end of my previous report my score was 2.5 out of 3. I managed to add 3.5 point to my score, ending with 6 out of 9 winning some rating points in the end. …
The final day of a tournament is always a bit tense, but in Leuven the last round was really unpredictable and the outcome was quite surprising.
My goal was to end the tournament with two good games and in the end I think I succeeded. I won in round 6 against tournament surprise Bratuszewski and I drew in round 7 against tournament favourite Dgebuadze to finish on a score of 5.5 out of 7. The results of the other boards were such, that in the end 12 players finished on shared first place with 5.5 out of 7. I have never experienced before that a tournament was won by such a large group. Let’s take a short look at my game in round 6. …
I was looking forward to take a couple of longer walks through the city of Leuven, but the weather is not cooperating yet. The tournament is being held for the 32nd time. The list of winners consists of a mix of International Grandmasters and International Masters. The biggest names on the list of winners are probably the IGM’s Azmaiparashvili, Baklan, Glek, Torre, Chuchelov, Miroshnichenko and Epishin.
In chess circles Leuven got famous for staging two editions of the Grand Chess Tour, in 2017 and 2018. In 2017 Magnus Carlsen was present alongside all the other top players, whereas in 2018 most of the top players competed, but this time without Carlsen.
In this tournament the field is, of course, a lot less impressive. I am seeded 3rd, with 1 Grandmaster participating (Alexandre Dgebuadze), 1 other IM (Steven Geirnaert) and a lot of up and coming 2300s. After 3 rounds I am still on a perfect score. …
First rounds are always a bit tough. There usually is a big difference in rating and still the lower rated players often manage to put up a lot of resistance. I arrived in Leuven a few hours before the game after a long ride with a lot of traffic on the road. My hotel is located in the beautiful centre of Leuven and the playing hall is only 700 metres away. Unfortunately, the weather is far from great with lots of rain, which makes strolling through the city a lot less attractive.
I won my first game rather convincingly when my opponent blundered an important pawn away in a position which was already pleasant for me. Today, there are two rounds, so let’s see whether I can keep the pace going. …
From tonight onwards I will play in the open tournament of Leuven. Seven rounds will be played from Friday evening until Monday evening and I will try to give some updates. The tournament can be followed via this link and I guess there will be live games.
One of the most important parts of chess training is analyzing your own games, but as a chess trainer I notice that many players find it difficult to commit to this. They can easily spend several hours preparing for a game, but spending one hour analyzing a game is often too much to ask. That’s a pity and a missed opportunity. After all, there is no clearer way to work on your own game, than to see your mistakes and learn from them.
As game analysis is apparently difficult, I will give you in this article four simple steps to do so. Then there should no longer be an obstacle to analyzing your games. …
Een van de belangrijkste onderdelen van je schaaktraining is om eigen partijen te analyseren, maar toch merk ik als schaaktrainer dat veel spelers zich hier maar moeilijk toe kunnen zetten. Aan het voorbereiden op een partij besteden ze met gemak enkele uren, maar een uur besteden aan de analyse van de partij is vaak te veel gevraagd. Zonde en een gemiste kans. Er is immers geen duidelijkere manier om te werken aan je eigen spel, om je fouten te zien en hiervan te leren.
In dit artikeltje bespreek ik in vier simpele stappen hoe je je partijen moet analyseren. Aan de slag! …
In my first report I showed a photo of the convivial, full squares on the first evening. Before the last round, on Sunday morning, I took the photo above and to me it seemed symbolic for the end of the tournament: it’s over.
The previous report ended with the message that I had to play against top seed Karen Grigoryan in round 7 and that two more matches would follow in the next 16 hours, which was a brutal schedule. This is also the reason that the last report is a bit late and my trip home was not as smooth as I had hoped, so that did not help either. Out of the last three matches I only scored 1 out of 3 and therefore the the finish of the tournament was not very nice. Let’s see what went wrong:
Karen Grigoryan (2658) – Koen Leenhouts (2414)
The opening is over and the position is about level. I thought I was at an important crossroads here. After 15…Re8 I thought it was about even, but White’s position seemed a little easier to play. As a second option, I thought I could complicate the position with 15…Qxd4, after which I thought I would get very nice compensation for the exchange. So I chose the second option, which was based on a miscalculation. 16. Nxc6! Qxc4
Here I was already a little less happy and I counted on 17. Rac1 Rxc6 18. Rxc4 Rxc4 19. b3 Rd4 with a complicated position. In fact, White is also better here, because the black pieces do not work well together. Grigoryan, however, opted for a more convincing solution: 17. Ne7+! Kh8 18. Nxf5 exf5 19. b3! and here White is also an exchange up, but in addition Black’s pawn structure is ruined. Of course I didn’t get any chance in the remainder of the game.
Although I had hoped to put up more resistance, my defeat with the black pieces was no surprise. In the evening I played with White against a young Spanish player with a slightly lower rating and here I hoped to be able to recover. However, I mistreated the opening and quickly found myself with my back against the wall. However, the defense in bad position went quite well in the past two tournaments and here again I found a nice defensive idea:
Koen Leenhouts (2414) – Alejandro Domingo Nunez (2345)
Black is a healthy pawn up and this pawn is a passed a-pawn. White would prefer to start a king’s attack, but there are actually no such possibilities. Another white trump is that he controls the b-file with his rook and the black bishop doesn’t have very nice squares. After a long thought I came up with a good idea, 27. Qc4! If Black now takes on c4, I take back with the knight and then black’s pawn on d6 will fall. The position is still complicated, but at least White has counterplay. My opponent opted for the logical 27…Rc8, but after 28. Qxc7 Rxc7 29. c4 I was confident I could keep things together, partly because my opponent was running out of time. In the rest of the game, I thought I got a few chances to play for an advantage, but that was more optimistic than realistic. A draw was the result and I could only be happy to escape with this result.
At the start of the last round I had 5.5 out of 8 and I had to play the German Jonah Krause with Black. After an interesting opening I decided to sacrifice a pawn for active pieces, but my opponent defended accurately. In the next position Krause played a strong counter move that I did not see coming.
Jonah Krause (2348) – Koen Leenhouts (2414)
I could have played better already, but after White’s next move I realized things had really gone wrong: 27. h4! White not only keeps his own position closed, but now he also threatens Ng5 with an attack on the rook and a possible mate threat on h7. I saw nothing better than 27…Rg4 28. Ng5 Qg7, but after 29. Qf5! my position was extremely difficult. Just like in previous games, I turned out to be at my best in a bad position and I still managed to reach a drawn endgame which I did hold in a fairly easy manner.
So I ended up at 6 out of 9, which was slightly less than expected. Thibaut missed a win in the last game, reaching 6 out of 9 as well, Tom won to reach the same score and Glen unfortunately lost his last game to finish on 5.5 points. Nevertheless, we looked back with satisfaction. We had a great week, played well at times and at least now clearly know what to work on to improve. We concluded our trip with a nice dinner at the excellent restaurant in our hotel. On the square in front of our hotel we could enjoy daily musical performances. I liked the fado singer myself, but his performances were a bit too long. The photo below shows an artist who performed a rock repertoire, from decades ago
The tournament was impressively won by Max Warmerdam. Max clearly showed that he has worked very hard on his game even during the pandemic and played a fantastic tournament. In the last round he defeated Grigoryan with Black to arrive at a nice score of 8 out of 9. The 2600 is in sight for Max.
The return trip the next day was problematic. We flew back to Brussels with a stopover in Zurich. In Porto I was initially denied access to the flight. A PCR test was demanded because I was traveling to Belgium as a Dutchman, although the rules of the Belgian government clearly stated that this was not necessary for people with a full vaccination. Only after much insistence did I get access to the flight to Zurich where my situation would be reconsidered by the people there. Fortunately, they saw no problem at all. So all’s well that ends well.
In a later blog, I will look back at this summer’s two tournaments and I will share the lessons I learned about my own play and my plan to improve on my weaker point. To be continued!
Voor ronde 2 maakte ik op straat een foto van deze kat en dat bracht duidelijk ongeluk. Nadat mijn tegenstander een fout maakte in de opening, stond ik al rap gewonnen. Er kwam echter veel zand in de machine en het ging geleidelijk bergafwaarts tot verlies onvermijdelijk was. Teleurstellend. In ronde 3 kon ik herstellen met een snelle winst. De opdracht voor de komende ronden is duidelijk: veel winnen en aansluiting vinden. …