So, a couple of evenings back, after finishing work, I'm standing in line for dinner in the cafeteria. Lazagna, green beans, and various other things.
Let's face it, school cafeteris food, even the school cafeteria food which is served to the staff, is still school cafeteria food. That is no slam on those who fix it, it is simply how things are.
So, I'm standing in line, waiting, and wondering, what could be done, to make this food more appetizing, or at least make us more willing to settle for it.
And I though...
We need ninjas.
Imagine this--your standing in line, like I was, or you've just filled one section of your tray with lazagna and carrot salad, or even you've sat down and are settling in to eat your dinner.
When...
People dressed in black jump through doors and windows and come through the ceiling, screaming and yelling and waving their arms around and striking dramatic martial arts types of poses.
Suddenly, the mundane becomes the extraordinary. The tray that once held your lasagna becomes the tray with which you now smash the face of the nearest assailant. The rock-hard cornbread muffin becomes a projectile. The sloppy joe (which actually is pretty good) can be thrown in the eyes. Forks, spoons, knifes, even the banana pudding, all take on aspects that they did not have before.
It wouldn't need to be long. Not even five minutes. The ninjas come, get beat up, and leave, but look at the difference.
Now, people are happy. Teachers who had been complaining about unprepared and stubborn students now feel much better, because they've just dumped a bowl full of soup beans on a ninja's head, followed directly by a person sitting at the next table spilling some chocolate pudding on the floor, causing the ninja to slip, and causing the two-year old in the high chair to barf on his nunchuks.
See, everyone (except maybe the two-year-old) is now feeling good--congratulating each other, talking about good blows they gave out, recounting former encounters, even talking about the more mundane things.
And, of course, the exercise sharpens everyone's appetite, so the food now tastes better.
So, I think the school needs to hire ninjas. They could do other things during the day (we wouldn't know who they are, of course, because being ninjas they wouldn't show their faces, or maybe take off their glasses when in ninja-mode), so that they could more easily fit in and be more productive.
And, of course, they must be paid more then anyone else. That way, when they do get thwacked by a food tray, we could at least console ourselves in knowing that they are being well-paid for it.
Also, it would be a staff-only thing. No students are allowed to thwack the ninjas, only faculty and staff. After all, the students are partially at fault for us needing them, anyway.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Summertime Blues Remedy chess tournament--a small success
The tournament began an hour earlier then usual, so I wound up getting to it just a little before the first round began, as I hadn't noted the time change. Still, it was of no major consequence.
The first game started quiet, but suddenly caught fire in the middle game. The result was an unbalanced position, and with time running low, we agreed to a draw. My opponent was more highly rated then I was, and while I suppose pushing the game further may have resulted in a win, but it wasn't clear, so I was pretty happy with the draw.
The second is a game I need to look at again more close, as I think I had chances. I had lines to his king, and my pieces were bearing on him, but I couldn't find it, and in the end my opponent held me off and won.
The third was a hard game. I think I mishandled the opening, and in order to get any kind of counter-play, I had to sacrifice some material. It probably shouldn't have worked well, and I'm sure that my opponent was winning, but I was able to make things difficult, and he started getting short of time. In the end, it was his lack of time and a materially unbalance position that led to a him accepting my draw offer.
The fourth game was almost quiet compared to the first three. There was a bit of excitement in the middle game, but I entered the endgame a pawn up. Then my opponent sacrificed some material in hopes of getting to my king, but I was able to hold him off, and in the end I had a rook and and he no other pieces except his king, and our pawns were soon to be of equal number.
So, after the dust had cleared, I had 2 points out of 4 games--two draws, a win, and a lose. That was enough to put me in a tie for first place in my section. So, it wasn't a bad tournament. I was playing opponents who were stronger then I had played in the past few tournaments, and the games were difficult ones, and if I had pressed on in the games that were draws they might have been won, if for no other reason then because my opponents likely would have ran out of time.
The first game started quiet, but suddenly caught fire in the middle game. The result was an unbalanced position, and with time running low, we agreed to a draw. My opponent was more highly rated then I was, and while I suppose pushing the game further may have resulted in a win, but it wasn't clear, so I was pretty happy with the draw.
The second is a game I need to look at again more close, as I think I had chances. I had lines to his king, and my pieces were bearing on him, but I couldn't find it, and in the end my opponent held me off and won.
The third was a hard game. I think I mishandled the opening, and in order to get any kind of counter-play, I had to sacrifice some material. It probably shouldn't have worked well, and I'm sure that my opponent was winning, but I was able to make things difficult, and he started getting short of time. In the end, it was his lack of time and a materially unbalance position that led to a him accepting my draw offer.
The fourth game was almost quiet compared to the first three. There was a bit of excitement in the middle game, but I entered the endgame a pawn up. Then my opponent sacrificed some material in hopes of getting to my king, but I was able to hold him off, and in the end I had a rook and and he no other pieces except his king, and our pawns were soon to be of equal number.
So, after the dust had cleared, I had 2 points out of 4 games--two draws, a win, and a lose. That was enough to put me in a tie for first place in my section. So, it wasn't a bad tournament. I was playing opponents who were stronger then I had played in the past few tournaments, and the games were difficult ones, and if I had pressed on in the games that were draws they might have been won, if for no other reason then because my opponents likely would have ran out of time.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Roles
"When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation. ‘Authority’ is the place where we go to find out the correct answers to key questions such as these. This notion, however, runs into all kinds of problems when we apply it to the Bible. Is that really what the Bible is for? Is it there to control the church? Is it there simply to look up the correct answers to questions that we, for some reason, already know?"
N.T. Wright, in a lecture called "How Can the Bible be Authoritative?"
This seems to be a common supposition in some circles now, and I've encountered something like it online a few times--that there are people out there who see the Bible primarily as a book of answers and directions, and that such a view does not do the Bible justice as a book of stories. Whether they would necessarily go so far as to say that the Bible has no rules or directions or instructions in it, I don't know (I doubt it, to be fair), but there is the hint that looking to it for those things is somehow not right.
There have been times I had thought this to be incorrect, both in representing certain people's way of thinking about the Bible (it has usually been stated that way by people who do not approve, like Wright, of that way of thinking) and of the Bible itself, I haven't until recently been able to think why it is wrong. But I think that I have put my finger on it.
To illustrate my thoughts, let us look at a child, a young boy, and his parent's relationship to him. The roles the parents must play for the child will be numerous--nurturers, providers, playmates, teachers, rule-makers, story-tellers, rules enforcers, and probably more that I can't think of at this moment.
Parents are not just rules-makers, though it would be as wrong to say that they never make rules that they expect the child to follow. Parents are not just teachers or instructors, thought that is one part of their duty as parents.
By that same token, the Bible is obviously not just a book of rules and instructions, but just as obviously the Bible does have rules and instructions. I can't help but think that to deny that aspect of the Bible, or to downplay it in favor of something like that storytelling aspect, is not to do it justice.
To get back to the parents and child illustration, let us imagine the child is with some adults, and they are asking him to do something. The child refuses to do it, because he has been told by his parents to not do such things. The adults hear this, and conclude that the child sees his parents only as rule-makers and instructors.
Of course, give that half a thought, and such a conclusion falls aparts. If the adults were to see the parents having dinner with the child, or pushing him on a swing in the park, or reading books to him, they would easily see that the parents are much more then just rule-makers, and that the child does not always sees his parents only a rule-makers.
In that same way, I think very few if any Christians see the Bible as only a book of rules and instructions. They know that it is filled with stories and historical events, poetry, parables, and wise sayings, as well as rules and instructions. The fact that they find in the Bible rules and instructions, and that in today's culture much debate is about various rules in the Bible and whether they are applicable today or not, is not to say that they see it only as an instruction book, or a rules book.
N.T. Wright, in a lecture called "How Can the Bible be Authoritative?"
This seems to be a common supposition in some circles now, and I've encountered something like it online a few times--that there are people out there who see the Bible primarily as a book of answers and directions, and that such a view does not do the Bible justice as a book of stories. Whether they would necessarily go so far as to say that the Bible has no rules or directions or instructions in it, I don't know (I doubt it, to be fair), but there is the hint that looking to it for those things is somehow not right.
There have been times I had thought this to be incorrect, both in representing certain people's way of thinking about the Bible (it has usually been stated that way by people who do not approve, like Wright, of that way of thinking) and of the Bible itself, I haven't until recently been able to think why it is wrong. But I think that I have put my finger on it.
To illustrate my thoughts, let us look at a child, a young boy, and his parent's relationship to him. The roles the parents must play for the child will be numerous--nurturers, providers, playmates, teachers, rule-makers, story-tellers, rules enforcers, and probably more that I can't think of at this moment.
Parents are not just rules-makers, though it would be as wrong to say that they never make rules that they expect the child to follow. Parents are not just teachers or instructors, thought that is one part of their duty as parents.
By that same token, the Bible is obviously not just a book of rules and instructions, but just as obviously the Bible does have rules and instructions. I can't help but think that to deny that aspect of the Bible, or to downplay it in favor of something like that storytelling aspect, is not to do it justice.
To get back to the parents and child illustration, let us imagine the child is with some adults, and they are asking him to do something. The child refuses to do it, because he has been told by his parents to not do such things. The adults hear this, and conclude that the child sees his parents only as rule-makers and instructors.
Of course, give that half a thought, and such a conclusion falls aparts. If the adults were to see the parents having dinner with the child, or pushing him on a swing in the park, or reading books to him, they would easily see that the parents are much more then just rule-makers, and that the child does not always sees his parents only a rule-makers.
In that same way, I think very few if any Christians see the Bible as only a book of rules and instructions. They know that it is filled with stories and historical events, poetry, parables, and wise sayings, as well as rules and instructions. The fact that they find in the Bible rules and instructions, and that in today's culture much debate is about various rules in the Bible and whether they are applicable today or not, is not to say that they see it only as an instruction book, or a rules book.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Boring
I didn't get to watch any of the NBA championship which ended a few days ago. I would have liked to see some of it, but I was not able. I have been able to hear a bit about it on the radio, and read some about it on the internet.
Much of what I have heard and read has been, well, kind of conflicted--on one hand, there has been a lot of respect shown to the winning team, the Spurs, as being a team which has been consistently good for several years, and for being a real team, and for not having the kinds of behavioral issues which seems to plague many other teams, while on the other hand, I don't recall ever hearing so much lamenting about how boring a team is, and how dull their play is, and how bad the series was played overall. Their star player was refered to as a "charismatic black hole" on one radio show.
There may be some cause for thinking the series was dull. The Spurs swept the final series, and did it seemingly easily. Their opponents, the Cavs, were clearly unable to hold their own against the Spurs.
Nor is it something that is only seen in sports. In chess, the most popular players have usually been the attackers and risk-takers--Tal, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer, and Kasparov. There has usually been much less enthusiasm, though maybe not respect, for the more cautious and defensive players, such as Petrosian, Capablance, and Karpov. I have a recent version of the Chessmaster series of programs, and it has a collection of classic games. I remember looking through it, and finding very few games by Petrosian, and only one win. Petrosian was the world chess champion for six years, and was among the top chess players for many more years. To so disregard his play seems a little odd to me.
But I digress...
This isn't to say that being good must of necessity mean being boring. The Bulls of the 90s were among the best teams of all times, and they were not boring. In chess, Kasparov is easily one of the all-time best players, and his style of very dynamic and aggressive.
But these are matters of style, not of good or bad play. In fact, there does at times seem to be a burder, and an unnecessary one in my opinion, is placed on people--the need to be dynamic and charismatic, someone who will draw to his performances who would normally not watch such activities.
One show I listened to made reference to the sale of NBA merchandise, and whose player's stuff sells most. The Spur's star player wasn't among the top ten, and if I remember correctly he was down around 15. He has been around a while, has proven for many years that he is one of the best players of all time, but players who haven't done half of what he has are more popular then him.
Maybe we should expect a certain level of sophistication in spectators. While no doubt wanting new people to discover and like something we like, perhaps it is time to accept that sometimes newcomers will not always like what they see, and may even conclude that it is boring and not worth the effort. I admit such an attitude could be borderline snobbish, but maybe it's also necessary. We do not expect fans of pop music to also be able to appreciate opera. The two music forms are not necessarily exclusive, but they are very different. Someone whose music listening has been primarily the bubble gum of pop would probably find opera much more difficult, if not outright dull.
The NBA is not opera, and nor should it be. But at the same time, it should not apologize when its best players do not draw people like they want them to. Perhaps the problem is as much or more the spectators as it is the players.
Much of what I have heard and read has been, well, kind of conflicted--on one hand, there has been a lot of respect shown to the winning team, the Spurs, as being a team which has been consistently good for several years, and for being a real team, and for not having the kinds of behavioral issues which seems to plague many other teams, while on the other hand, I don't recall ever hearing so much lamenting about how boring a team is, and how dull their play is, and how bad the series was played overall. Their star player was refered to as a "charismatic black hole" on one radio show.
There may be some cause for thinking the series was dull. The Spurs swept the final series, and did it seemingly easily. Their opponents, the Cavs, were clearly unable to hold their own against the Spurs.
Nor is it something that is only seen in sports. In chess, the most popular players have usually been the attackers and risk-takers--Tal, Alekhine, Morphy, Fischer, and Kasparov. There has usually been much less enthusiasm, though maybe not respect, for the more cautious and defensive players, such as Petrosian, Capablance, and Karpov. I have a recent version of the Chessmaster series of programs, and it has a collection of classic games. I remember looking through it, and finding very few games by Petrosian, and only one win. Petrosian was the world chess champion for six years, and was among the top chess players for many more years. To so disregard his play seems a little odd to me.
But I digress...
This isn't to say that being good must of necessity mean being boring. The Bulls of the 90s were among the best teams of all times, and they were not boring. In chess, Kasparov is easily one of the all-time best players, and his style of very dynamic and aggressive.
But these are matters of style, not of good or bad play. In fact, there does at times seem to be a burder, and an unnecessary one in my opinion, is placed on people--the need to be dynamic and charismatic, someone who will draw to his performances who would normally not watch such activities.
One show I listened to made reference to the sale of NBA merchandise, and whose player's stuff sells most. The Spur's star player wasn't among the top ten, and if I remember correctly he was down around 15. He has been around a while, has proven for many years that he is one of the best players of all time, but players who haven't done half of what he has are more popular then him.
Maybe we should expect a certain level of sophistication in spectators. While no doubt wanting new people to discover and like something we like, perhaps it is time to accept that sometimes newcomers will not always like what they see, and may even conclude that it is boring and not worth the effort. I admit such an attitude could be borderline snobbish, but maybe it's also necessary. We do not expect fans of pop music to also be able to appreciate opera. The two music forms are not necessarily exclusive, but they are very different. Someone whose music listening has been primarily the bubble gum of pop would probably find opera much more difficult, if not outright dull.
The NBA is not opera, and nor should it be. But at the same time, it should not apologize when its best players do not draw people like they want them to. Perhaps the problem is as much or more the spectators as it is the players.
Friday, June 15, 2007
95%?
"...They took a poll here in my area of Seattle and found that 95 percent of the nonchurched have a favorable view of Jesus, so Jesus is not the problem. It is the church they dislike, because they do not readily see the church living out his teachings." Karen Ward, taken from a quote in the book "Emerging Churches" by Gibbs and Bolger, p. 48.
This reminds me of the oft-used quote by Gandhi, or that is at least often attributed to him, which was something like "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so little like your Christ". An interesting statement, to be sure. I simply point out the parallel for the moment, I do not say whether Gandhi had just cause or not for such thinking.
Ward's statistic, however, I do wonder about. I trust neither the stat nor her conclusion that "Jesus is not the problem".
For one thing, the stat is isolated. We have only that one bit of data, with little context. Outside of having been taken in a part of Seattle, the book gives no further information about this poll,--what questions were asked, how many people, what their own beliefs were, what did they like about Jesus, what does the church do that they do not like, and so forth.
In other words, simply from the one stat that 95 percent of the people polled in one area said that they have a favorable view of Jesus, there is not enough support for the contention that "Jesus is not the problem", and it is certainly not right to go further and say that the church is not living out Christ's teachings simplp because some people do not readily see it.
I can have fun with that statistic, too. I can consider that, first off, the poll was taken in Seattle, a place that is about as left as the left coast gets. I can further consider that if the people polled are to the left socially and politically, then why not theologically also?
Considering that, what would they think Jesus taught? Let me give some more of Ward's quote, "The cultural view 'gets' that Jesus was for the marginalized and the oppressed". I could take that part of the quote, and come to the conclusion that when 95% of the people polled say they view Jesus favorably, they are thinking of a Jesus who in essence agrees with their own agendas.
So, considering that, why would they not see the church as doing Christ work? Would these people be the sorts who would see churches and Christians trying to save the lives of the unborn by standing against abortion, and think that these are backwards people who hate women and women's right? Would they see Christians sharing their faith trying to convert people as example of religious intolerance? Would they think of preachers who stands for biblical morality as spewers of hate and bigotry? Would they see Christians in uniform and those who support the military as warmongers who go against some kind of biblical teaching of pacifism?
See, funfunfunfunfun!! Of course my conclusions are speculations, but no more then Ward's, which is the point.
I can remember when I was young listening to a preacher say that if we wanted to know how a Christian should live, we should ask a lost person. The really funny thing is that this was in a very conservative, fundamentalist, independent, KJV-only church. It actually does make some sense, but only up to a point. Especially now, it seems that if nonchristian people were asked such a question, the asking Christian would be surely torn between the nonchristian's statements and what is stated in the Bible.
Another memory is from my time in missions, and listening to a speaker tell of how missionaries in India discovered that teaching the Gospel to the people there would be difficult, because when they learned about Jesus, they would simply add Him to their already numerous pantheon of gods, instead of naming Him as the one true God. I suppose it could be said that those people had no problems with Jesus either, at least until they fully understood His claim to exclusive faith and worship to Himself only.
Let me attempt to give a balance--there are people who have had bad experiences with churches, so I'm not completely discounting that some of those people polled may really love Christ even as their experiences color their views against the church.
But when a stat like Ward's comes up, I start to smell a rat. I think that only a few days before HIs death, He entered Jerusalem to a celebration, and if that city could have been polled, His approval rating would probably have been about the same as Ward's stat. I remember His words to His disciples, to beware when all men speak well of you, that as they hate Me they will also hate you, that you will be hated by all peoples for My name's sake.
And I think that if 95 percent of the people polled think so highly of Jesus, then perhaps they have been taught a wrong view of Jesus, or they simply don't understand Him truly. I can't help but think that if they understood the real Jesus, that rating would be much less.
This reminds me of the oft-used quote by Gandhi, or that is at least often attributed to him, which was something like "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so little like your Christ". An interesting statement, to be sure. I simply point out the parallel for the moment, I do not say whether Gandhi had just cause or not for such thinking.
Ward's statistic, however, I do wonder about. I trust neither the stat nor her conclusion that "Jesus is not the problem".
For one thing, the stat is isolated. We have only that one bit of data, with little context. Outside of having been taken in a part of Seattle, the book gives no further information about this poll,--what questions were asked, how many people, what their own beliefs were, what did they like about Jesus, what does the church do that they do not like, and so forth.
In other words, simply from the one stat that 95 percent of the people polled in one area said that they have a favorable view of Jesus, there is not enough support for the contention that "Jesus is not the problem", and it is certainly not right to go further and say that the church is not living out Christ's teachings simplp because some people do not readily see it.
I can have fun with that statistic, too. I can consider that, first off, the poll was taken in Seattle, a place that is about as left as the left coast gets. I can further consider that if the people polled are to the left socially and politically, then why not theologically also?
Considering that, what would they think Jesus taught? Let me give some more of Ward's quote, "The cultural view 'gets' that Jesus was for the marginalized and the oppressed". I could take that part of the quote, and come to the conclusion that when 95% of the people polled say they view Jesus favorably, they are thinking of a Jesus who in essence agrees with their own agendas.
So, considering that, why would they not see the church as doing Christ work? Would these people be the sorts who would see churches and Christians trying to save the lives of the unborn by standing against abortion, and think that these are backwards people who hate women and women's right? Would they see Christians sharing their faith trying to convert people as example of religious intolerance? Would they think of preachers who stands for biblical morality as spewers of hate and bigotry? Would they see Christians in uniform and those who support the military as warmongers who go against some kind of biblical teaching of pacifism?
See, funfunfunfunfun!! Of course my conclusions are speculations, but no more then Ward's, which is the point.
I can remember when I was young listening to a preacher say that if we wanted to know how a Christian should live, we should ask a lost person. The really funny thing is that this was in a very conservative, fundamentalist, independent, KJV-only church. It actually does make some sense, but only up to a point. Especially now, it seems that if nonchristian people were asked such a question, the asking Christian would be surely torn between the nonchristian's statements and what is stated in the Bible.
Another memory is from my time in missions, and listening to a speaker tell of how missionaries in India discovered that teaching the Gospel to the people there would be difficult, because when they learned about Jesus, they would simply add Him to their already numerous pantheon of gods, instead of naming Him as the one true God. I suppose it could be said that those people had no problems with Jesus either, at least until they fully understood His claim to exclusive faith and worship to Himself only.
Let me attempt to give a balance--there are people who have had bad experiences with churches, so I'm not completely discounting that some of those people polled may really love Christ even as their experiences color their views against the church.
But when a stat like Ward's comes up, I start to smell a rat. I think that only a few days before HIs death, He entered Jerusalem to a celebration, and if that city could have been polled, His approval rating would probably have been about the same as Ward's stat. I remember His words to His disciples, to beware when all men speak well of you, that as they hate Me they will also hate you, that you will be hated by all peoples for My name's sake.
And I think that if 95 percent of the people polled think so highly of Jesus, then perhaps they have been taught a wrong view of Jesus, or they simply don't understand Him truly. I can't help but think that if they understood the real Jesus, that rating would be much less.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Ocean's Thirteen--a small review
I don't often watch comedic movies. So many of them have no appeal to me. The humor seems to be too often based on stupidity and crassness.
It's not that stupidity isn't a worthy fodder for comedy (crassness is something else). I enjoy the "Jeeves and Wooster" TV comedy series, and one can't get much more vacant-headed then the characters of Bertram Wooster and his friends in the show. But it's stupidity done smartly (if that makes any sense), as opposed to stupidity done stupidly.
One of the last movies I had watched in a cinema which had me laughing for much of the viewing was "Ocean's Twelve". It was a smart comedy done smartly. The dialogue (banter) had a good mix of wit and randomness, the situation was of course impossible but still not insanely so, there were some interesting twists which added a lot of humor, and the little Chinese guy got lost in another group's luggage.
"...Thirteen" was maybe not a strong as "...Twelve", but still quite enjoyable. Adding Pacino to the cast, even as the main baddie, was good. It had much the same kind of dialogue as the previous, and some clever twists.
I don't think it was quite a funny as "..Twelve", but again it wasn't bad. Not near as much of a letdown as "Shrek 3" was.
It's not that stupidity isn't a worthy fodder for comedy (crassness is something else). I enjoy the "Jeeves and Wooster" TV comedy series, and one can't get much more vacant-headed then the characters of Bertram Wooster and his friends in the show. But it's stupidity done smartly (if that makes any sense), as opposed to stupidity done stupidly.
One of the last movies I had watched in a cinema which had me laughing for much of the viewing was "Ocean's Twelve". It was a smart comedy done smartly. The dialogue (banter) had a good mix of wit and randomness, the situation was of course impossible but still not insanely so, there were some interesting twists which added a lot of humor, and the little Chinese guy got lost in another group's luggage.
"...Thirteen" was maybe not a strong as "...Twelve", but still quite enjoyable. Adding Pacino to the cast, even as the main baddie, was good. It had much the same kind of dialogue as the previous, and some clever twists.
I don't think it was quite a funny as "..Twelve", but again it wasn't bad. Not near as much of a letdown as "Shrek 3" was.
Monday, June 11, 2007
07 Kentucky Open--a near miss
For me, the Kentucky Open chess tournament did not begin on the most positive of notes--having to stand in a long line to register, having to pay a bit more then I thought because I also needed a Kentucky Chess Association membership, and to usual late start to the first round. Nothing major, mind you, but a bit of a bother.
Oh, well, once the rounds began, things got more interesting. We had three rounds on Saturday, and two on Sunday.
The first game was a good one for me. My opponent played pretty well, but allowed a pawn fork early on. I returned the material to mess up his pawn structure and leave him on the defensive, and after that it was mostly a case of grinding him down for the win.
Game 2 started out interesting, as the opponent played a gambit, but I think didn't play it as well as he could have. He let me nullify his initiative while keeping the sacrificed pawn, and that pawn he sacrifced was eventually what lost it for him, as I was able to promote my extra pawn in the endgame.
The third was tight for a while. I was able to put some pressure on some open lines, but I couldn't find a breakthrough until the very end.
The fourth round was on Sunday morning, and that was my downfall. My opponent played in much the same style I had been playing, only she did it better. It was a hard-fought game, and we both may have had chances, but in the end she made the better moves and won.
The last game was, then, a bit of an anti-climax. There was still the chance that I could tie for second place in the tournament, but the two who were tied for first (one of them being the young lady who beat me round 4) drew and put themselves both out of reach of the rest of us. So, it was mostly a case of pride and rating points, which is quite enough. It was another tense game, with both of our kings under attack. I found some tactical shots towards the end which allowed me to queen a pawn and that was that.
So, it was a good tournament, only mildly disappointing. I like the level at which I was playing, perhaps the best I had every played, while still seeing ways I could improve. In the game I lost, I made some incorrect decisions in the middle of the game, which put me in some difficulties, which were well-exploited by my opponent.
Oh, well, once the rounds began, things got more interesting. We had three rounds on Saturday, and two on Sunday.
The first game was a good one for me. My opponent played pretty well, but allowed a pawn fork early on. I returned the material to mess up his pawn structure and leave him on the defensive, and after that it was mostly a case of grinding him down for the win.
Game 2 started out interesting, as the opponent played a gambit, but I think didn't play it as well as he could have. He let me nullify his initiative while keeping the sacrificed pawn, and that pawn he sacrifced was eventually what lost it for him, as I was able to promote my extra pawn in the endgame.
The third was tight for a while. I was able to put some pressure on some open lines, but I couldn't find a breakthrough until the very end.
The fourth round was on Sunday morning, and that was my downfall. My opponent played in much the same style I had been playing, only she did it better. It was a hard-fought game, and we both may have had chances, but in the end she made the better moves and won.
The last game was, then, a bit of an anti-climax. There was still the chance that I could tie for second place in the tournament, but the two who were tied for first (one of them being the young lady who beat me round 4) drew and put themselves both out of reach of the rest of us. So, it was mostly a case of pride and rating points, which is quite enough. It was another tense game, with both of our kings under attack. I found some tactical shots towards the end which allowed me to queen a pawn and that was that.
So, it was a good tournament, only mildly disappointing. I like the level at which I was playing, perhaps the best I had every played, while still seeing ways I could improve. In the game I lost, I made some incorrect decisions in the middle of the game, which put me in some difficulties, which were well-exploited by my opponent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)