Failing to Stick to a Principled Thinking Regime

Apr 17, 2016, 4:03 AM |

In my second loss in a row, I failed both strategically and tactically. On the former front, I thought my position was very easy to play and I wouldn't have too many problems executing a very simple plan (relocating pieces to the kingside), evaluating the position as much better for white. That judgement turned out to be completely wrong in post-mortem analysis. And on the latter front, I might have made my simplest tactical oversight in live slow games in the last couple of years, missing not even a basic combination, but simply a one-move skewer.

Here's the game with annotations:

I take this loss to be a result of a weaknesses in my "thinking regime." Apparently I am yet to make a habit of applying some very basic principles of thinking in chess. Exceptions simply mean losses. As it is the case with almost any other activity in life, it's the consistent application of a few basic principles that counts the most, rather than having excellent and articulate knowledge of them.

Lessons to remember:

Do not limit your evaluations to abstract assumptions (my knight will go there, my bishop will maneuver to build a battery etc.) but try to back them up with concrete analysis via calculation.
Do not move until you work out potential replies from your opponent and take your time.

With this game I fell below the 1500 mark and that is particularly disappointing since my goal for the end of the year was to establish myself in the 1600s (which means fluctuating around 1650). But let's take it game by game. I'll try to do better next time, and to put an end to what might turn into a losing streak.

Failing to Stick to a Principled Thinking Regime

Philidor's Struggle for Mastery