this is my curse as well - get into a superior position, squander it all away. rinse. repeat.
Why must I throw away excellent positions?
Sort:
Well, it wasn't for nothing that Lasker said that the hardest position to win is a won one.
Plus, you will be seeing no more annoying ads. Are you ready, Erik ?
It seems that once you think you are winning you stop seeing the position with opponent's eyes. Have more compassion towards anyone who is losing and your eyes will stay open.
throwing away excellent positions makes me cry "whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?"
I wonder whyyyyyyyyyy whyyyyyyyyy whyyyyyyyyyy whyyyyyyyy I threw it away, and I wonder why I continue to play, my excellent position keeps running away run run run running away.
:D dee dee dee
In that second game, you might consider Qb5 -> Qd3 or any way to get your queen to d3. If white takes with Rxd3 or Qxd3 then you will have connected passed pawns that are impossible to stop.
i guess chess mentor should help you very well. It's a good tool from what i've seen. The only recomendation about using it, is to do from the basics you don't have assured, till you've assured it, without changing the topic you are working on every time. Also some tactics at chesstempo.com or here, since you have a premium account already, since it's very important for the chess. Lot's of strong players said things like, "chess is 90% tactics". I think it's a bit extreme, but i guess i'm not able to compete people who said this, like Capablanca. For last, just for these two games, especially the first one, was a good example of the fight N against B. Since you played Ne4, if you were able to exchange rooks, and put your pawns in white squares, i bet you'd be able to win. I'm learning this things from "Tratado general de ajedrez" from Roberto Grau. It's very instructive, but i don't know how you handle the spanish. The most important from these are the 3rd one and the 4th one. Maybe you could read also the 2nd one, but it's a bit more basic.
Hope it helped =)
The first rule when you have the edge in these types of semi-simplified postions is to stop counterplay before doing anything active. You ignored that rule in both games.
In the first game you should have been trading at least one pair of rooks with Rd7. The rook on d6 was useless, he has a weakness at a7 - go after it.
Also you should have played h3 and swapped on g4 to give him a weak pawn and eliminate your pobackward h-pawn.
The idea of winning the e5 pawn is not a good one. That pawn makes his bishop bad. He WANTS to get rid of it -if you take it he gains both a file and a diagonal to work with. You should be targeting other pawns first and only try to pick off the e5 pawn if it is absolutely necessary.
In the second game the advantage of a passed pawn is it ties down enemy pieces to blockade duty. You never win by a brute-force push-the-pawn approach. You win by creating a second weak spot to concentrate forces on. Pushing the pawn to c3 only weakened it.
Instead of the c6-c5 pawn break after you reached the knight vs bishop position I like the idea of b6-b5 followed by posting your knight on c4, blocking the c-file. With the c-file closed to his rooks your rooks are free to get active. For example you can double rooks on the a-file then blast it open with a6-a5xb4 leaving him with a weakness on b4.
Hope this helps.
wow splane - awesome advice! i often neglect the potential of my opponents' counterplay.
Splane wrote:
The first rule when you have the edge in these types of semi-simplified postions is to stop counterplay before doing anything active. You ignored that rule in both games.
In the first game you should have been trading at least one pair of rooks with Rd7. The rook on d6 was useless, he has a weakness at a7 - go after it.
Also you should have played h3 and swapped on g4 to give him a weak pawn and eliminate your pobackward h-pawn.
The idea of winning the e5 pawn is not a good one. That pawn makes his bishop bad. He WANTS to get rid of it -if you take it he gains both a file and a diagonal to work with. You should be targeting other pawns first and only try to pick off the e5 pawn if it is absolutely necessary.
In the second game the advantage of a passed pawn is it ties down enemy pieces to blockade duty. You never win by a brute-force push-the-pawn approach. You win by creating a second weak spot to concentrate forces on. Pushing the pawn to c3 only weakened it.
Instead of the c6-c5 pawn break after you reached the knight vs bishop position I like the idea of b6-b5 followed by posting your knight on c4, blocking the c-file. With the c-file closed to his rooks your rooks are free to get active. For example you can double rooks on the a-file then blast it open with a6-a5xb4 leaving him with a weakness on b4.
Hope this helps.
Nice post!
hey dont feel too bad about it i have been absolutely smashing (pieces and position up) the people end up being up the top of the tournament. and then i fall in a hole and lose
Splane: That's exactly the sort of advice I was looking for. In the first game I only briefly considered swapping on d7 and going after a7 but dismissed it because I was afraid of potential counterplay. Looking back over the game armed with your advice, I see why it's a much superior plan to targeting e5, which is going nowhere and will eventually fall anyway. The funny thing is I originally wanted e5 blocked to limit his bishop, but then forgot about that strategic plan for the sake of winning a pawn that was weak anyway. Definitely a flaw in my thinking. I became fixated on that e5 plan when I should have been targetting his other weakness and eliminating his K-side pawn push.
Your comments on the second game have also given me much food for thought. I think the problem up until now is I've been winning by getting an edge, putting my opponent under pressure and then seeing them blunder under that pressure.
The problem now is, when I step up to play opponents that never make blunders, I need to start working even harder once I have the edge, as the game won't win itself. The ease with which players of your strength see a variety of good plans shows me I have a long way to go to improve to the level I some day want to be at. Thanks for taking the time to look at the games.
Einstein: I thought for a long time about how to create that situation as I know connected passers on the sixth are usually unstoppable. Thanks for suggesting the Qd3 idea that didn't really occur to me in the game.
To LisaV and the rest, I think Chess Mentor will continue to help me. I spend most of my study time on tactics at the moment, but I think I'm starting to reach a level where I don't miss obvious tactical opportunities or make obvious blunders - hopefully more time on the Silman-type strategy courses will improve my game.
Thanks again and more comments welcome.
NM Splane: The first rule when you have the edge in these types of semi-simplified postions is to stop counterplay before doing anything active. You ignored that rule in both games.
I cannot remember reading this rule anywhere. It may have been stated differently, but no matter, reading it this time just hit me. Perhaps it is because I need it now, or I am ready for it now.
I never intended to read forums when I joined chess.com, but I am learning many things in these forums. It is wonderful to have a master, such as you Splane, share his expertise with everyone. I had a false opinion that masters only gave such knowledge for a price. Now if only I could remember what I learn and use such information when I play chess.
So I've recently returned to serious competitive club chess after a break of over 15 years... and I'm glad that thanks to a lot of play and work on chess.com I'm not out of place in the 1800-2000 bracket.
But... my first two games left me with serious mixed feelings. I managed to carefully construct what look to me like positionally won games against (from my point of view) very strong players. And yet I lost one game and drew the other. So I'm chuffed that as an ungraded player I had the upper hand against high-rated opponents, but sickened that I don't have the two victories to show for it.
I'd love advice on where I could have improved, and have included annotations so maybe experienced players can point out flaws in my thinking. Any thoughts very much appreciated.
In this first game I'm White against a player rated about 1950...