black to move
This position is a draw, the plan is simple, get the king to g5 and then push the pawn, the rook cannot stop the pawn without freeing the king who arrives just in time to force the draw. The only nuance in the position is the move order, Kg5 and h5 may look like equally good first moves but h5 ? looses to Ra5 cutting the king off , after the h pawn will be caught, I missed the move Ra5 and thought they were equal, I guess I can learn that when defending a worse ending even if it should be a draw precision is everythingone small mistake can throw away the win.
The first tactic was a rook ending. Black to move.
The second puzzle of the day demanded a lot more thought and imagination than the second, when I found the solution it was easy but in the beginning position it was obvious.
The third puzzle was absed on the ''remove the defender'' theme.
I was now at three out of three, I've already acheived what I did yesterday, surely I can reach at least 4.
I failed a complex tactic in were I was blind to a blatant move.
The final tactic was key and it could not have been a worse choice as a tactic, the first move seemed obvious but surely it wasn't right ? After thorough calulation I went for it and then I saw the reason.
Success in tactics trainer was reassuring because it means my aim isn't too high. The game I'm going to analyse was another win (I may be slightly biased towards analysing my wins but I only lost one game today and it wasn't very interesting).
Again in the game I was underfire for most of it ad won mainly thanks to time pressure, this does seem to be a patern (playing fast and quite badly but not badly enough to lose a lot).
Without further ado here is the game :
My position was clearly worse, after 0-0 that was just suicidal. He missed a few moves in the attack and I blundered, particularly with Nf3. His decision to go into the pawn ending was a big mistake. I also think he should have taken the draw by repetition with the bishop and the rook because I had 3 : 46 against 0 : 55. He went for a win and payed the price, I need to work on my opening theory for that line.
John Nunn put ahead an important point in the middle game, the interconnectedness of the middlegame. You cannot look at each part of the board seperatly. A decision on the queenside can have repercussion on the kingside. The most striking example was of Botvinnik vs Capablanca, Rotterdam 1938 (yes that game http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957
). Nunn didn't miss the beauty that a sack on both edges helped the queening in the center.