The Long Climb to National Master - Part 2

This blog post part two of a four-part series of my journey to the National Master title. If you haven't read part one yet, then I suggest starting here.

The gap between a 2190 and a 2200 is greater than the gap between a 2150 and a 2190.

A friend of mine, who also holds the National Master title, recently brought up this statement. By the end of this blog, we will revisit this claim after looking through my tournament games. Looking at this claim from purely a quantitative lens, the math simply doesn't add up: a 40-point gap should be far greater in comparison to a 10-point gap. 

However, simply looking at rating points does not factor in the major psychological aspect. The true challenge is to hold your nerve when you're just one game away from the National Master title. This blog post will share the psychological hurdles I faced and the frustrating games that slipped through my fingers when I was within arm’s reach of 2200.

Introduction

The United States Chess Federation (USCF) awards the title of National Master once a player has achieved a rating of 2200. The National Master title cannot be lost, even if a player goes under a rating of 2200. Unlike FIDE, there is no such thing as a "live rating" and a player must finish the tournament with a rating above 2200 to achieve the title. 

Capping off part one of this series, I had just had one of my best tournament performances and boosted my rating from 2148 to 2186. Once I reached 2186, I believed that I had already done the hard work. Being so close, I just needed two games or a lucky win to finish the job. This turned out to be easier said and done, and this blog post will cover all the chokes at the finish line. 

Gambito #1064

Prior to this four-round tournament, I truly believed that this day would be the day. I simply needed to win the first two rounds, something I have done quite a few times. The field of players ranged from ratings of 2000 to 2450, with myself being one of the middle to upper seeds. The tournament kicked off with a solid pairing, against a 2042 rated player.

Despite the shaky technique, I was at last able to convert. This brought my live rating to about 2193 or so, meaning I simply needed to win one more game to reach the National Master title. If I won the next round, I would simply drop out and finish above the 2200 rating threshold. Everything on the table, I was paired against a young 2153 rated player. 

This game especially sucked as I was really never better at any point. I was given an opportunity to equalize, but I was too nervous and started overthinking. I definitely should've spotted 24. Bxf5, and should not have played 13. a3 in the opening to begin with. I was back to where I began, and had to fight my way back to another opportunity at 2200. 

In round three, I was paired against a 2076 rated player. Still tilted from the previous loss, I played completely uncharacteristically, and my position quickly fell apart. From what went from being one win away from National Master, suddenly became three wins away. Thankfully, in the last round I was able to conserve my nerves and earned a smooth win against a 2114 rated player.

In the end, my rating slipped from 2186 to 2178. The one silver lining was that I now knew firsthand what it felt like to be just a game away from 2200. The issue was that I played much poorly with all this pressure, and the loss translated into the next game through tilt. If I truly wanted to reach achieve the National Master title, I was need to stay composed and not let one result affect the rest of my games.

Southern California Open

Sitting at a rating of 2178, I certainly was not close but I also was not far from reaching 2200. If I were to have a good tournament, I could easily push myself across the finish line. With a field of players ranging up to 2500 and six rounds, there was certainly opportunity for me to succeed. The first two rounds were routine, I was able to comfortably pickup wins against an 1815 and 2001. In the first round against the 2001 rated player, I was able to find a neat sequence of moves to pickup the win.

After the two relatively easy pairings, I had to finally face a strong opponent in the third round. I was paired against a 2351 rated IM, someone who I had previously lost to in the past. If I won, I would be extremely close to 2200 if not over 2200. The opening was quite standard and certainly provided opportunity for at least a draw. 

Although I was able to stay in the game up until 24. Nc5, I definitely should've been able to at least get a draw. I most definitely should have played 20. Nxb3, which could've completely changed the game. A major issue was that throughout the game I played too slow, trying to make each move perfect. Now sitting on 2/3 points, I needed to move on and compose myself for the next three games.

In round four, I was up against a 2076 rated player. The opening and middlegame were certainly shaky, but I was eventually able to capitalize on my opponents blunder and win the game. Then in round five, I yet again faced an IM with black. My opponent was rated 2521, and a win would surely secure me the National Master title. 

Similar to the previous game against the other International Master, I played way too slowly. Additionally, I played way too passive and should've tried to push for activity after losing the pawn on a7. Instead, I barely put up a fight and quickly lost with little chances. Luckily I was able to recover, and pick up a nice win versus a 2150 rated player in the final round. 

I finished the Southern California Open with a score of decent score of 4/6. The key takeaways from this tournament was the importance of time management and prioritizing piece activity. If I were able to instill those two concepts, I certainly would've been able to put up a better fight against the two IMs. Fortunately, on top of a $200 prize, my rating increased from 2178 to 2193. This puts me just one win away from the National Master title, and the pressure was certainly on.

Gambito #1065

Throughout the week leading up Gambito #1065, all I could think about was that very first round. My entire mind was consumed and focused on winning a single chess game and finally achieving the National Master title. Just one win in the first round would allow me to drop out of the tournament, and guarantee the title. 

The stage was set, and I was paired against a 2051 rated player. This player was the exact same player that I beat in round one of Gambito #1064, this time I had the black pieces. I knew that I was capable of beating this player, and everything was on the line for this one game. One win would complete the journey and fulfill a childhood goal.

Looking back, I again played extremely uncharacteristically and lacked a plan throughout the game. I was so scared of losing, that I never really created any ideas or a plan. While, I merely moved my pieces around as safe as possible, my opponent did a great job in staying patient and slightly improving his position until I made a mistake. 

This loss hurt a lot and left me extremely defeated and unmotivated for the following round. Even though I tried to not let it get to me, it definitely affected me in the second round which I also lost, to a 2072 rated player. In that game, I had a nice position at first but my opponent did a good job in creating counterplay which I simply did not defend correctly. See if you can find sequence of moves that my opponent used to finish the game. 

After these two losses, I realized that I was probably not in the best psychological state to play, and dropped out of the tournament. What could've been the tournament where I achieved the National Master title, ended up a disaster. My rating dropped from 2193 to 2168. I was back at square one, and had to long climb back up. 

The lights were brighter than expected.

- Jarrett Allen, NBA player of the Cleveland Cavaliers

Reflection

Looking back at my past four tournaments, a clear pattern emerged. In the San Diego County Championships and the Southern California open, I gained a total of 53 rating points. In contrast, I lost 33 points across the two Gambito events. The main difference was time control: the Gambito used a 45/d5 time control, while the longer events used a 90+30 time control. It was clear that I played better with longer time controls, where my poor time management would be less harmful. 

Another key takeaway was how differently I played when just one win away from the National Master title. Instead of staying true to my style, I froze under pressure, not playing with a plan and lacking piece activity. On top of that, I allowed psychological factors from losing affect me, something that occurred in round three of Gambito #1064 and round two of Gambito #1065.

Conclusion

After reviewing these painful losses, we can revisit the statement provided at the beginning of this blog: "The gap between a 2190 and a 2200 is greater than the gap between a 2150 and a 2190." If I were to describe how the psychological pressure, I would describe it as taking a penalty in practice versus in game. You know that you're capable of winning/scoring, but the heat of the moments second guess yourself and overthink the scenario.

Now at 2168, I had to regain my focus and put the two painful losses away. It was time to move on and get back on the grind to 2200. I knew that I was capable of reaching 2200, it was just about actually getting the results to reflect that. In part three of this four part series, I will cover the tournaments that allowed me to slowly build back my confidence.

All in all, I hope that you were able to take something away from this blog or at least looking forward to part three. Similar to the last blog, I will be answering questions in the comments below. Thank you for reading, and as always, see you next time.