Why did I not see the right move in these positions?

Playing in the Norweigan Championship, I had the chance to seize a likely winning initiative in all my three defeats. Why did I go wrong?

Tired of blogs that only present one's nice wins? Look no further. I think the question "why did I lose" is way more interesting than "why did I win". 

(I write this as a guide to myself, but publish in English in case other club players find the content interesting.)

I played in what is known as Klasse 2 (FIDE rating 1600-1799) in the Norwegian championship this week, a debut for me on the fourth of seven tiers in Norwegian chess (1: Elite, 2: Master, above 2000. 3: 1800-1999, in case you wondered). Entering my final weeks of my 40-ies, my aim is basically to play interesting and sound chess - and hold my own at this level.

You can find registered games from the championship here, including the impressive games of GM Hammer, who was in a league of his own at the top.

I did, with 5/9, 21st (ranked as no 48) and with lots of interesting positions. But, I lost three games and drew another where I had the chance to gain a major initiative. In all these games, I had a favourable position at some point, which I failed to convert to a win.

Why?

After starting off with two wins against attacking, but somewhat reckless opponents, I faced a much more talented and younger player than myself on board 3 in round 3. This turned into a very interesting fight in a French, where we after White's inaccurate 19. Nh3?! reach this position.

One thing I struggle with in chess games, is to adhere to Dan Heisman's principle of checking everything that the opponent's last move does. Also, I tend to do what I call a "Silman check" too rarely during a game - checking the imbalances of a position.

Looking back, what should be my analysis of this position?

1. The knight moved from g4 to h3. It gave up defence of/pressure on g2, e2, e6 (possibly important), g5 and h6. It increased defence of/pressure on g1 (not important), f2 (possibly important), f4 (not important) and g5 (possibly important). Also, it cleared f4, meaning the bishop may now go there, and also the bishop can now reach g5 and h6. So g5, that was attacked twice by Black and defended only by the queen, is now suddenly under White's control - making ...Rg5 impossible. 

2. Does White have any checks, captures or threats? There are no checks, there are captures on a7 (covered), c4 (covered), f5 (covered) and g6 (covered). A possible long term threat are the far advanced pawns on the queen side. 

What do I want to do? I want to attack the king side. The light bishop is passive, the knight on h3 is on a passive square, the queen have only three possible squares (g3, e2 and d1 - looking to switch to the queen side). 

So, what are my main options? 19...h5 is tempting, giving the g pawn. If White accepts, Stockfish reveals to me that it actually traps the queen: 20. Qxg5 Nxe5! 21. Qg3 h4! 22. Qg7 Bf6 and Black wins. Better would be 20. Qd1, when Black clearly should play g5. However, I did not see the trapping of the queen, and discarded ...h5 too readily. 

Another move here is one that White seemingly just prevented: 19...g5! Taking the pawn is of course taboo - Black will exchange on g5 and then play ...Rg8, winning a piece for the pawn. Better is 20. f4, but after 20...gxf4 21. Nxf4 Black has a half open g-file and White's e pawn is certainly falling at some point.

After a long thought, I played the poor 19...Nxe5, which is punished by 20. Qd4 (now accessible since the knight is no longer on c6). And I went down in flames pretty quickly after that. 

In round 4, I reached close to a winning position against one of the three best players in the field, after Black erred with 17. N7b6?

This is actually, in hindsight, pretty easy. What are all the things that Black's last move did to the position? It created a major problem: The back rank. The rook on a8 is now tied to the defence of the rook on e8, as this is already under attack. a5 is no longer defended twice, as the knight is blocking its queen. A very simple tactic wins a very important pawn: 18. Nxa5 (of course!). Taking on e1 will not help as 19. Rxe1 just renews the mate threat. I did not consider this at all at this moment, which just goes to show that I need to check all important aspects on every turn.

So, what changed with Black's knight move? When it stood on d7, there was no back rank mate, and a5 was covered twice and not just by the rook. Why did I not reflect on this during the game? It does not take a GM to figure this out.

After 18. Nxa5 the all important bishop on b7 will be traded if White so wishes (the bishop can not go to c8). Solving the back rank problem with 18...g6 seems logical. Then, it is not so hard to see that 19. Nxb7 Qxb7 20. Nd2 is close to winning for White, as the knights are about to be attacked with a combination of pieces: 20...Qd7 21. Nc4 Rxe1 22. Rxe1 Rb8 - all of Black's moves are defensive - 23. Nxb6 Nxb6 24. a4 - and White has two passed pawns on the king side that should decide matters.

My three consecutive defeats culminated with a loss in round 5, in a very interesting advanced French, where I played Black. In this game, I felt I had the upper hand for a long time, but in a decent, but not winning, position, I started to stray.

White has just played 29. b4 in a game where we are equal in material, but White has two isolated pawns. Opposite coloured bishops means a likely drawn end game if the major pieces are traded. So, what are all the things that b4 did? It gave Black the c4 and a4 squares, It put its own pawn on the same colour as its bishop, limiting the bishop's scope. It tied down the bishop, as there is now a pin along the third rank. b4 now controls a5, a pretty useless square. It also gave the black rook access to c4 and d4. Also, the pawn may now be a battering ram against the c6 pawn, if White plays b5 on the next move.

In this position, I played ...Re8? Not a losing move in itself, but it does seem quite inexplicable, and it started a process of going backwards instead of forwards. A move that doesn't really do anything for Black, except it prevents 30. Qb8+, which would be harmless anyway. (Note that 29...Rxd4 fails due to precisely 30. Qb8+.)

Instead, Stockfish enlightens me to a certain extent, pointing out that 29...b5 would be a strong move. This fixes the weak pawn on b4, and White now has to major weak squares on b4 and d4. A trade of queens should now be quite interesting, as White's bishop most likely would need to play a purely defensive role guarding the weaknesses, while Black could exploit all the weak squares. For instance: 30. Qb8+ Re8 31. Qf4 (this gets the queen out of the pin, and the bishop is free to move, hence logical for White) Qg6 (threatening mate on g2) 32. Qg4 Qxg4 33. hxg4 Re4 - and the g4 pawn is lost.

Here, my error was more of a positional than a tactical one. These are in some ways to me the most interesting mistakes. Had I listened to what the position on the board was telling me, 29...b5 was clearly a great choice.

The final position in this blog is from a drawn game where I felt I should have a good initiative, but I was unable to see it. White has just played 18. Qe1 and offered a draw, which I was not going to accept.

What are all the things that the move did? The queen changed diagonal, possibly aiming at h5. a4 is now undefended, which seems unimportant. But the still hanging queen also is on the same diagonal as the knight, which is defended twice and attacked once. One of its defenders is under attack on c1. An attack on the knight via a5 would pin it, threathening to take two light pieces for a rook. So, instead of ...g5, which looked very interesting (but I did not play), what if I concentrate the attack on the 7th rank. So, what if I play 18...Qa5 - which Stockfish recommends? It does require some calculation, but allowing Qh5 and then Qxh7+ is actually no problem for Black. 19. Qh5 Rxc1+! 20. Rxc1 Qd2! 21. Qxh7+ Kf7 22. Qh5 g6  23. Qh7 Bg7 and Black is fine, while White can not defend both the bishop and the rook, creating a clearly winning end game for black.

All chess players make mistakes. You would not be mortal if you did not. The interesting thing is to try to learn from my own mistakes, and try to understand why they occurred. To me, the most obvious answer is that I was not objective enough at critical moments, and that I did not listen to all the wonderful things the chess position was telling me.