2021 Daily Chess Championship Round 1!
Hello all! This is my 2021 Chess.com Daily Chess Championship Blog. I will report on the progress of my section and analyze my games as they finish. 
For those of you who don't know about the event, Daily Chess Championship is a massive tournament held annually by Chess.com. The format is 1 day, and >16000 people are split into sections of 12, where they will play each player simultaneously with both black and white. Only the section winners advance to the next round.
I have the fourth highest rating in my section, but I'm currently underrated as I almost never play daily games (my daily rating is 1395, my rapid rating is 1574). Nonetheless, there's little hope for me to win the section, as the highest rated player is >2100, so I hope as I analyze my games I can improve a lot.
Tournament Strategy
To make the most out of this experience, I need to manage my time well. I plan to use less time against lower rated players, and really invest my time against higher rated ones. I also plan to try some openings I never played before like all of the d4 openings, and strengthen my c4 repertoire (which I don't play often).
Current Standings (Updated Daily)
It's official! The top seed and I tied for first place with 20 points. I will definitely not survive round 2, but I look forward to learning from other masters! (Conclusion at the bottom of blog)
Game 1 - Easy first win with d4
There's nothing much to say about this game, as my opponent simply did not play his best. Blundering a knight aside, I think my opponent shouldn't have played the dubious 2. Nf6?!, allowing me to take the full center after 3. cxd5 Nxd5 and 4. e5. Other than that, getting an easy win the first time I play the Queen's Gambit really boosted my confidence to keep playing d4.
Game 2 - A nice sacrificial attack
In game 2, I played the same person but with black. I started with the Petrov, my usual opening, but was surprised when my opponent played 4. Nxf7, the Cochrane Gambit. I didn't think that this was a good idea, as in daily chess, a person has a lot of time to think of their moves and keep their material advantage. I played the line I usually played 5. d5, 6. exd5 Qe8+, but after 7. Be2, I didn't take back the d-pawn, which I usually did in rapid/blitz, and instead developed my pieces. I figured that white's d-pawn can actually shield me from checks on the light square diagonal, and I can maneuver my pieces around it to coordinate an attack. I'm most proud of my bishop sacrifice 11. Bh3, as I saw that if white takes, black's attacking pieces would be too overwhelming. I didn't know if there was a mate, but I thought I should at least get my piece back in the end.
Game 3 - The legendary Vienna
This was another rather easy win. I played the Vienna Game, which I started playing thanks to the wonderful chess content creator GothamChess, and won many games with. I gambit-ed a pawn on move 3 like I almost always do with the Vienna, and instead of taking the pawn, my opponent played 3. Qh4+?, which was completely unnecessary, and allowed me to take the full center after 4. g3 Qf6, 5. fxe5 Qxe5 and 6. d4. Another interesting moment occurred on move 10, when my opponent played b5. He thought that if I take his bishop on b4, he'll take my bishop on c4. But he completely overlooked that axb4 comes with an attack on his queen, so I just won a free piece. The rest of the game was just about applying more pressure on his king, and it ended with a pretty beautiful checkmate 27. Bg7#
Game 4 - Winning an endgame
This game I played black against my opponent from game 3. I opened again with the Petrov, and he played the Urusov Gambit variation (which a surprising number of my opponents play against the Petrov. I think it's often because they're unfamiliar with the opening and are used to playing Bc4 on the third move). I took the pawn on e4 like always, and after Qe2 I pushed d5. But then my opponent took my pawn on e5, which is a move I had never seen before. I was pretty sure it's a bad move, but wasn't able to figure out why, so I just took on c4 and traded my knight for his bishop. It turns out that I had to play Bc5, which pressures f2. I probably didn't see this move at the time because I was too focused on the center. After some shuffling, we traded into a more or less equal endgame where I have a slight advantage because my pieces are more active. However, my opponent quickly blundered a fork on both of his rooks on c2, and the rest was just simplification and pawn-pushing.
Game 5 - Vienna OP
Another Vienna win! The reason why the Vienna is such a great opening for beginner/intermediate players is because there are so many trappy lines in it. Your opponent could play something very natural like 4. Qf6 in this case and lose material early in the opening. Although GM Hikaru Nakamura once found Kf8 after 5. Nd5 Qxf2+ and 6. Kd1 in the game below, which saved the game for black, I didn't expect anyone below master level to find that move.
Besides my praise for the Vienna, there's really nothing much to say about this game, as my opponent soon blundered a queen.
Game 6 - Squeezed water from stone... then spilled it away
This game still makes me ache. I started with the Grünfeld defense, which I never played as black but had wanted to for a long time (I usually go for King's Indian). I thought for up to 20 minutes on every move, trying hard to find the best move. I gained advantage little by little, and just when I was finally completely winning, I blundered a draw.
In the opening, although my opponent occasionally played dubious moves, like 9. Bb2, there weren't any that I could immediately take advantage of. I learned some main line Grünfeld theory before this tournament, and with little pressure from white, I got a comfortable position from the opening. After we both castled, my position was better because my pieces are more active, and white has an isolated c-pawn.
I thought my opponent played near perfect in the middle game, but apparently I missed a couple of opportunities. The first inaccuracy my opponent made was 15. Qa4. To keep the advantage, I had to play b5, which I had considered, but never found a winning line from. First of all, white taking the pawn would be bad, as after trading a pair of rooks and playing Rb8 I skewer the queen and bishop on b2, winning a piece. With best play from white, I would've gained a positional advantage as after the queen moves, I would've played Na5 and Nc4, placing my knight on an excellent outpost, while blockading white's c-pawn, preventing white from ever activating his bishop. I had another chance to get aggressive on move 17 where I again could've pushed b4 and advanced with my knight. Not seeing these opportunities tells me that I really need to train my positional thinking.
It was weird, because even though the engine says my position was winning, I felt that white was the one constantly applying pressure, which was why I played so passively. from move 15 to 18 I was constantly monitoring the possibility of Ba3 from my opponent, which would at the very least be unpleasant for me. My opponent eventually played it on move 18, and that's when I decided to simplify to relieve my pressure.
In the transition to an endgame, my opponent made another strategical mistake by trading his active dark square bishop for my passive knight. I then saw that his knight and c-pawn are his two weakest points, so I decided to attack them by threatening checkmate with 22. Qd7, and then playing 23. b4 and 24. Qd3. After trading my bishop for his knight and winning a pawn, I thought I had finally gained an advantage (hence, squeezed water from stone), and my only tasks now are to keep my pawn advantage and not blunder a perpetual check, which can easily happen in queen and pawn endgames.
... And guess which task I failed to do?
On move 34, I played g4+, thinking that if he plays Kh4, I would play Kh6, and Qe7# would be unstoppable. I completely missed that his queen can come all the way from the top of the board to the bottom, preventing that checkmate, and forcing a draw (as a perpetual check from him is unstoppable unless I perpetual check him first). I got too excited seeing this checkmate, and the only move I hadn't thought twice about cost me half a point in this tournament. Disappointed in myself, I eventually just repeated moves with him.
Game 7 - Over the hill and valley
In the opening, I played the Alapin Sicilian, my main weapon against the Sicilian, mostly because many people don't know the theory for this variation (for example, many people play Nc6 or e6 like they usually play in the Sicilian, but that just allows me to push d4 and take control of the center). However, my opponent seemed to know the opening, as he played d4, and I realized that I've never actually studied this line, as no one ever played it against me. Luckily, I was able to find the moves that I should play in the Opening Explorer. I got an advantage right out of the opening, as my opponent made a mistake on move 7 by retreating his queen, allowing me to push d5 and be aggressive while I'm also ahead in development. Instead, he should've taken my knight with his bishop, and we would've traded queens and headed off into an equal endgame. I then castled and lined up my rook to the black king on the e-file, and in the resulting position from the opening, I was way ahead in development, and was already putting some pressure on my opponent's king.
When my opponent pushed a6 and b5 to push back my bishop, I decided to sacrifice it for the two pawns, because I was so far ahead in development, and wanted to keep the pressure on my opponent's king. I was also threatening a smothered mate on d6 with my knight. He prevented it with Ra6, but I simply played Bf4, threatening Nc7+ and forcing him to give up his queen. My opponent pushed e5 to prevent that, and I took a while to decide whether to take the pawn en passant or take with the bishop. Both options were so good that I can't really tell the difference, so I eventually just decided to take with the bishop.
My opponent played Be7, and here I made a terrible blunder. I could've just played Nc7+ and won the rook, but decided to be fancy, and instead played Nd6+, thinking if Bxd6, then Bxd6+, and black would have to give up his queen as his king would have no where to go, and if Rxd6, then Bxd6 winning an exchange, and soon also winning a piece as the bishop on e7 is pinned. I completely missed Kf8 from my opponent, which just solved all of his problems. I was left with a worse position according to the engine, probably because two of my extra pawns haven't been pushed, and the isolated pawn on d5 is weak. My king was also vulnerable on the a7-g1 diagonal.
However, my opponent was unable to keep his advantage, as he never committed to pressuring a single weakness of mine. On move 26, he attacked my rook, which wasn't really a problem, as I could just trade. After trading the rooks, I'm glad I found a critical move Qc3, preventing black from playing Qe3+, which would win my rook after Kh1 and Nf2+. My opponent then attacked my d-pawn, which I knew I wouldn't be able to protect, so I just gave it up and pushed my pawns. Apparently, instead of Qd8, there was a better move for my opponent which is Qe2 to pressure both my king and rook. If I moved my rook away then there would've been Ne3 threatening checkmate. To my surprise, though, my opponent didn't take my pawn and instead played Qb6+. However, a check from that diagonal is no longer threatening to me, as I can simply block with my queen. My opponent didn't want to trade queens and went back to re-pressure my d-pawn.
The next move, though, my opponent played Qe7, which had no point at all, and looked like it blunders a fork on his king and knight with Qc8+. However, after Qc8+, the engine still says it's okay for black after Kg7, because after Qxg4, there's Rxd5. I can't take the rook on d5 because the queen would back rank mate me, and I can't protect my b5 pawn because my queen has to keep an eye on my rook. A pretty incredible line. But after Qc8+, my opponent instead blocked with his queen, which just allowed me to take his knight with no compensation.
I was now completely winning, and after trading the rooks, I did a queen maneuver with Qc8+ and Qc3 to prevent me from any checks on the dark square diagonal. Winning was just a matter of time at this point, and after hiding my king from checks and pushing my pawns, my opponent eventually resigned.
Game 8 - Keeping up with the master
I feel really proud to have drawn this game. The game started with the Vienna, but on move 4 it transposed into the Lion variation of the Philidor. Usually in such positions (often seen when I play the Petrov) I would take on d4, but being a little bit intimidated by my opponents rating, I chose to be solid (or so I think). This decision quickly backfired, as my position from the opening ended up way too passive.
A funny thing happened on moves 14 and 15 where I moved my knight away from e5 but then moved it back on the next move. During the game, I hadn't even realized that I was repeating moves. I realized after the game that when I moved the knight away, I had meant to reroute it to f6, but the next day I forgot that plan and decided that moving the knight to e5 was a better move. I'm glad that I had forgotten my original plan, as Nf6 would've been a mistake as evaluated by the engine; it allows my opponent to play 15. Re1 Qd8 and then c4, suffocating my already passive position even further.
My opponent played 16. c4 anyways, rendering my light square bishop useless. I traded my knight for his light square bishop, as I thought his bishop was more active than my knight and is potentially dangerous. Then I played f5 to attempt to gain more space. If given enough tempo, I'm considering slowly squeezing my bishop out of that pawn barrier. But then my opponent started to attack my weaknesses with 18. Rae1 and 19. Re6, and I begin fumbling my pieces to defend. My opponent doubled up his rooks, and I played Bc8 to try to get his rook out of my territory, not seeing that he could just push his rook deeper with Re7. I thought I had made a horrible mistake. If I moved my queen there'd be a windmill tactic with Rxg7+, winning at least all my pawns on the 7th rank and probably even more material. I thought for more than half an hour on this one move. For most of the time I was too focused on my kingside region, and it was only when I looked at the whole board did I realize that he has a weak back rank, and I can play Re8, pinning the rook to the back rank rook, forcing some kind of trade. This was probably one of my proudest moves in this tournament, as it was the only move that saved the game for me.
My opponent decided to trade both of the rooks, and suddenly all of the pressure on me was gone. My bishop was still trash, but that barely mattered in this endgame. We shuffled and traded, but on move 40 my opponent made a huge mistake that I didn't see. After Bd4 I could've played Qe4, threatening checkmate while also attacking the bishop. It was a pretty simple tactic that I should've seen, if not for the fact that I was already in a drawn mindset, and was tempted to play Bxg2+ and Qe4+ to draw the game by a perpetual. Nonetheless, it felt good to have drawn with the top seed, and this game greatly boosted my hope to advance in this tournament.
Game 9 - Aggressiveness pays off
This game I again played the Grünfeld defense. I was unfamiliar with the three knights variation, so for some of the opening I used the Openings Explorer. But on move 6, the only move I found in the explorer was c6, which I thought was unnecessarily passive. The first move that came into my mind was c5, and after calculating some lines if white takes the gambit (e.g. the line that was played in the game), I thought there was a good chance that my opponent would fall into a trappy line, so I played it. Indeed, my opponent fell for one bait over another, taking a second pawn on d5 and going Nc7 to attack the trapped rook, not realizing that his king was actually very vulnerable, and in the end, I was up a piece for a pawn. But apparently on move 11, instead of taking the knight, I should have kept the pin and just taken the knight on c7, which now that I see it looks obvious, but at the time I just wanted to trade as many pieces as possible, since I knew I was gonna be up in material.
The rest of the game was a smooth ride, as there was simply no counterplay for white. I've never had a safer king in my life, as it's protected by all light square pawns, and my opponent has no dark square bishop or knights. Slowly but surely, I was on my way to promotion, and my opponent resigned.
Game 10 - Back from the dead
As explained in my strategy, I spend less time thinking when playing against lower rated players in order to save more time for higher rated ones. This is a good example of that strategy not working so well.
I underestimated my opponent when I saw their 800 daily rating, when in fact they're rated 1650 in blitz. They even encouraged more underestimation from me by playing the Wayward Queen Attack and going for the Scholar's Mate. I played my usual 2. d6 and 3. Nh6 against it, as if my opponent's not careful, I could trap their queen with Bf4. However, my opponent saw through my trap, and I'm just left with an undesirable position.
My opponent made a mistake on move 11 which I failed to take advantage of. Them not moving their knight on f6 back allow me to retreat my bishop to g7 with tempo and then push d5, gaining a great center. But instead I played Nd7 seeking to trade knights, and after a few moves, my position was just a little better, with a safer king and having more potential to attack.
On move 15 there was an interesting engine line. Instead of taking back the pawn with my rook, I should've pushed e4 attacking the queen (the queen can't take because of gxf5 forking the knight and queen), and then played gxf5, expanding my space with tempo, also opening up the g file for my rook in the future. I could've seen e4 if I thought for longer, but I definitely wouldn't have even considered gxf4 after that, as at first glance the move seems to weaken my king too much.
Then on move 16 I made a big mistake. I played Nf6, trying to trade knights, but blocked my rook's way back. When my opponent attacked my rook I moved it to g5, which was another mistake, and I only saw Rf4 after I had submitted the move. What I played on move 17 allows my opponent to trade knights and go Ne4, winning my pawn on d6. Luckily, my opponent didn't find Ne4 and instead played f4, which allowed me to regather myself a bit.
Then on move 25 things took a huge turn. The move before I played Qb6+. At this point I was already pretty desperate, and there wasn't much point in playing that check. However, in an attempt to both block the check and protect the pawn on b2 (which I wasn't going to take anyways given the pressure on my kingside), my opponent played Qd4, completely blundering that after a queen trade I can play Bc5 pinning their rook to their king! I was now completely winning, and some moves later I sacrificed my rook for a knight and a pawn (as I thought there might've been a checkmate or a forced repetition otherwise) and started pushing my pawns. A few moves later my opponent resigned, as my a-pawn was unstoppable.
Game 11 - Aggressive at the wrong moment
This game started with the Petrov but somehow transposed into a variation of the Philidor, which is known to be a dubious opening for black. However, my opponent wasn't able to keep his positional advantage for long, as he played 9. Nf3, retreating with his knight. Instead, he should've been aggressive here and moved forward with his knight to f5, and my position would've simply been disgusting. After we both castled, the position was equal.
On move 12 I missed a chance to win a pawn with Nxe4. I didn't think this would work because of Bxe7, but I didn't see that after Qxe7, the queen also guards the knight. So that goes into my tactics database. After a few moves my opponent starts being too aggressive, going Nd5, blundering a pawn, and then a couple moves later going deep into my territory with Nc7, not realizing that after Rd8 his knight is just trapped.
I eventually won the piece, but then my opponent started putting some good pressure on me with 21. Nf5 and then a rook lift. I thought for quite a while around here, but eventually found all the best moves. On move 25 I resolved my pressure by playing Rd6, either sacrificing an exchange, or sacrificing my queen for a rook and a knight (which is what was played in the game). However, a better move would've been Kg7, which gets out of the pin of the queen and protects h6. I didn't even consider a king move during the game, as I thought I was just walking into another pin. Nonetheless, I relieved the pressure on my king and soon traded into a winning endgame with a rook and two knights against a queen. My opponent couldn't pressure anything with just a queen, and I just slowly improved my pieces. On move 40 I threatened Rg1#, so my opponent desperately tried to perpetual check me, but my king was just getting away, and a few moves later, he resigned the game.
Game 12 - The art of not castling
I prefer not to castle in one of two situations: 1. the queens are traded early, and 2. The center is closed, and there is no immediate pressure towards my king. The latter case happened in this game. My opponent opened with a weird variation of the French, which allowed me to take full center control, and right from the opening moves, my position already looked beautiful. There was no pressure gathering on the center at all, so when my opponent played 14. Bb4+, I simply moved my king up a square. I figured this allowed my rooks to move freely between the kingside and queenside, making it easier to coordinate an attack on either side.
I eventually decided to storm my pawns on the kingside, as my opponent also never castled. I think this was also a smart decision by him, as again, the center was closed, and his king was safer there than on either side of the board. As I pressured on the kingside, my opponent pressured on the queenside, but to me, his pressure was never that concerning. His critical pawn break was b5, which he did a little bit too late. Instead of playing Qb8 directly on move 19, he played Qc8 and then Qb8, giving me an important tempo to bring my other rook to the kingside, allowing me to be the first to pawn break with 21. f5. We traded a bit on that square, but then I made a mistake by playing Bf4, preparing to open an attack on my opponent's rook. Apparently after 25. e6 Nxf5 and 26. gxf5, Rc4 was what my opponent should've played. It allowed him to reverse the initiative and start pressuring me. However, he did not find that move and instead played Qxd4??, which just gave me a free rook. After getting out of checks, I soon checkmated my opponent.
Game 13 - Beating the master
Here's a video analysis for this game. Enjoy!
Game 14 - Oh no, my rook!
This game was completely lost due to an elementary blunder, but was miraculously saved by a blunder from my opponent way later in the game. I started with the English, and went into the Carls-Bremen System, which I always like to play. My opponent made an inaccuracy early on move 6 with Be6, allowing me to play Bxb7 and win an exchange. I thought I was completely winning at that point and started playing carelessly, but it was actually not that bad for my opponent, as in King's Fianchetto positions, the fianchettoed bishop is often worth just as much as an inactive rook (I should've remembered that from all the King's Indian games I played). I blitzed out my 8th move Nb5, threatening a fork on the king and queen, completely missing that my rook was just hanging on h1. It was a wake up call, and from then on I started thinking way more carefully on my moves.
I desperately offered a queen trade on move 13, thinking I might still have some drawing chances being down a piece. For the next like 25 moves I was trying to alleviate my kingside pressure and make something happen with my queenside pawn majority. Luckily there were a few chances my opponent missed during that time which could've settled the game. For example, on move 33 I played Kf2, putting myself in a pin by my opponent's rook, and my opponent could've simply won another piece with g5.
However, on move 38 my opponent blundered a fork by playing Kd6, allowing me to equalize the material and draw! I was ecstatic to see the blunder, as a loss in this game would've made it way less likely for me to advance.
Game 15 - Falling to temptations
The game opened with the Slav Gambit from my opponent, which I knew had to be dubious. And indeed it was so, as I seemed completely winning from the opening. By move 19, I was up a piece and a pawn.
However, from that point, I was stuck up on a certain mate --- with my queen on d7, and in trying to get that mate I played 21. e5, trying to get their knight away from the protection of the d7 square, not realizing that my bishop was simply hanging. Then I thought it was alright, as I could just take the knight, but I missed that my knight was hanging too after the queen took my bishop. I really shouldn't have focused too much on that mate (and shouldn't have spent so little time thinking on those moves), as by move 24 the position was equalized.
The rest of the game I just played normal moves, getting my rook out, while watching out for any checks on the dark square diagonal. For some reason, the computer labeled my move 31. Kg2 as brilliant, even though it was obvious that it was the only move that protects my f3 pawn, and I didn't have to protect the knight, as there would've been a back rank mate if it were taken. I took my opponent's hanging bishop on move 32, knowing that there would be a forced draw by repetition (otherwise my opponent would just be down a piece). I could've gone for more in that position, but I only needed a draw to advance at that point.
Game 16 - Goodbye to the Petrov
I was already ready to give up on the Petrov, and this game just all the more welcomes that decision (I won in the end, but the opening was horrible for me). My opponent played the Nimzowitsch Attack, which I found to be a particularly challenging line, as my opponent used the knight trade to open up his bishop and develop quickly. Having a tendency to delay castling as much as possible, I played c5, and my opponent immediately started pressuring with Qd5, and then Bb5. Not wanting to lose a pawn, I played Bd7, but in a few moves I lost a pawn anyways, and it turned out even worse, as I lost my more important d-pawn instead of my b-pawn.
After the queen trade, my plan was to recover my position actively. Instead of just retreating the bishop on move 13, I played a6, as a bishop trade this way would open up my rook and threaten his a-pawn. Then I played b4 to blast open the pawns protecting my opponent's king. Then I played Na5, threatening the rook, and also hoping the knight will later help promote my passed a-pawn. I then sacrificed my knight with 19. Nc4+, because I saw the line that happened in the game where I won back a rook. By move 23 I had completely turned the tables, as although my opponent has 2 pawn for an exchange, those pawns are tripled on the c-file and barely counts as a pawn advantage.
I gobbled up two of my opponent's c-pawns, and as long as I can stop the third c-pawn from promoting, I was sure to win the game. But now I was the one being slow, while my opponent was playing more actively. In not taking that c-pawn early enough (I could've done it on move 32), I found myself still having to worry about the promotion, while also having to worry about my king's safety. On move 35, I got myself into a mating net, where I could only escape by sacrificing an exchange (after Rd8, there should've been 36. Nd5+, and I would've had to take the knight with my rook, otherwise 37. Nb6+ wins a full rook). However, very fortunately, my opponent didn't see the idea and instead just traded rooks with me, and I'm back to having an advantage. But this time I wasn't going to throw the advantage away. I thought carefully for the best moves (I blundered on move 44 but whatever), and in the end I was able to sacrifice my rook for the knight and the passed pawn, with my king also closer to the other pawns. I won the game easily from there.
Conclusion - What I've learned
And that concludes my first round of the 2021 Daily Chess Championship! It was a very educational experience, especially the games I played with the higher rated players. I will list what I've learned in this section.
1. The Petrov is very much not my style. I consider myself a tricky and aggressive player (at least I like to look for tricks and have the initiative to attack), and Petrov's Defense, with its symmetry, really doesn't give any imbalance or room for tricks in the opening. In the bland positions that usually come out of the Petrov, I'm more likely to make mistakes than my opponents. I've started to study the Sicilian to counter 1.e4, I hope it'll do me good in the future.
2. Positional thinking is more important in longer games. I've only played rapid (10 min), blitz and bullet before, so I have a nice arsenal of tactics and tricks in my brain. However, against players who actually take the time to think in daily games, these tactics and tricks almost never came of use. For example, in blitz or bullet, most people would've fallen for my queen trap in game 10, but unsurprisingly my opponent didn't fall for it. Most games I won against higher rated players were won by choosing the correct pawn breaks, the correct trades, the right time to castle (or not castle at all), the right side to attack, etc. So these are the things I need to work on if I wanna play in an over-the-board tournament in the future.
3. New openings in my arsenal. Although I didn't do my c4 repertoire any justice by only playing it once and completely failing at it, I did gain a lot of experience with d4 (and against d4). In the games where I played the Queen's Gambit, I had meant to go into the Catalan, but because of my opponents' responses I was never able to get my Catalan setup. I still find the Queen's Gambit a really solid opening, though, and this tournament so far has given me great confidence to keep using it in the future. Against d4, I have found great success in the Grünfeld. It's an aggressive response to d4 by black, which is perfectly my style. I used to always play the King's Indian against d4, and although I'm good with it, I feel like I have to grind too much for an attack.
4. More time = better moves. Though this seems obvious, I thought the quality of moves would pretty much plateau beyond classical time controls. But I certainly haven't reached that plateau with daily chess. In my analyses, I found that I played way worse against lower rated players, where I averaged less than a minute per move, and way better against the top seed, where I averaged maybe 30 minutes per move (which is clearly more time than given in a classical game). At critical moments I even had to put 8 hours of sleep between my thinking, just to get a clearer mind and look at the position in a new angle. I think this is what mostly contributed to my high accuracy scores for my higher rated games. This tells me that if there is a limit to my quality of moves, it's not gonna be reached with a 1 day time control. This is useful info because now I have a better grasp of the relationship between time and quality, which can really improve my time management in all my future games.
I'm extremely proud of my performance in this round. True that there were many lucky moments without which I will definitely not be able to advance, but this experience made me realize just how accurate I can play when given a generous amount of time to think. I also believe my strategy worked really well. I did make some elementary blunders against lower rated players due to this strategy, but as the results have shown, I'd much rather blunder against lower rated players, who wouldn't be able to take full advantage of my blunders, than blunder against higher rated ones, who can almost guarantee to win the game once I make a blunder. I look forward to round 2, for which I will probably start a new blog. If you're not tired of me nerding around with my games, stay tuned for that!
