Chess.com 2024, 2nd round, E15 - Retrospective

This final installment in the series will summarize my overall journey in round 2.

First, I have to thank my opponents. There was no cheating, unlike most other years, and some of them (especially Tautzies) gave a real fight that made for some interesting games.

Second, we all like stories with happy endings, and this story has one. It also had the usual Hollywood twist, as I was quite sure for a couple of days that I'm not making it. I doubt the same happy ending will reoccur in the next round, but I'll take it for now.

Before I switch to more specific action points, you can reasonably ask the question: "Why should I, the reader, care?". All of the learnings below would apply to the writer (i.e. me) and would not make as much sense to another player. My answer is that it's more about the method of retrospecting and continuously improving. The conclusions you and I might have after each tournament are going to be different, but the brutal self-honesty and time invested in going through the games could be the same. This is also the reason I have way more criticism than self-congratulations despite winning the group.

Positives:

• I was at the risk of losing only in one game – the Fabio black one.( I also was at risk of losing for just one move in the Tautzies white game, but that’s a special case.)
• Got to the next round despite having a strong 2000-level player in my group.
• Decent plan execution and conversion in the Tautzies black game and the oioki white game.
• Managed to stay afloat in the complications in the Fabio and Tautzies white games.

Improvement points:

1. Poor time allocation. I spent too many cycles on the Tautzies white game and left little time to calculate the other two games, which almost costed me 1.5 points.
2. Very narrow view of opponent’s options. My calculations went too deep and ignored several options for my opponent (especially Tautzies), which means that I was surprised more often than I should have.
3. Bias for forcing moves. This again came through in calculations, where I neglected moves that gradually built up towards a particular plan. e4 in the Tautzies white game is a perfect example of that.
4. Assuming automatic re-takes. I often automatically assumed that the opponent will re-take material while missing interesting zwischenzugs. Nxb4 in the black Tautzies game is one example.
5. Rigid opening selection. I went for the French McCutcheon in the black Fabio game, which is a good idea to force a draw against a stronger opposition, but not ideal to go for a win against a 1700 player. Tarrasch in the black oioki game was another example of a faulty choice.
6. Overreliance on opening book. There were cases where I followed a single game without applying much thought. Both Fabio games are good examples of opening books leading me astray.
7. Underestimated compensation when evaluating. While I had extra pawns in both Tautzies games, in neither of them was the eval much above 0.00 (at least earlier on). This also went the other way, where I should have given up a pawn, and did not even consider the option.
8. Aimless calculations. Rather than start moving pieces aimlessly when calculating complex positions, I should look for ideal setups to aim for, and then gradually improve my lines in those directions – of course, after checking for immediate tactics.

While understanding strategic points and coming up with plans is all fine and well, at the end of the day, the difference between 2000 and 2200 level of play is all about how much we see on the board, and points 1)-4), 7) and 8) point out the gap. As I’m unlikely to revolutionize my calculation skills in the several weeks between stages 2 and 3, I don’t rate my chances too high, but at least this analysis gives a few leads.

Here is the final table of my group:

Looking forward to round 3!