x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW
Wrestling against yourself, who you are vs. what you want to be.

Wrestling against yourself, who you are vs. what you want to be.

vjekpleh
Jun 16, 2017, 6:16 AM 0

 

Who I am naturally: although I don't want to admit it, probably a positional player who prefers quiet and risk-free positions.

Who I want to be: tactical calculating machine and combinational genius. 

 

Can someone possibly be dissatisfied with who they naturally are?

Sure. 

People who are naturally weak can say enough is enough and make a conscious effort to work out and be strong, or people who are fat can decide to make a conscious effort to exercise and become a fitness guru.

However, going against your own natural tendency or personality is a very hard thing to do.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily dissatisfied with my natural "style". 

After all, whether you win in an endgame in move 90 or win in a checkmating attack in move 19, it's all the same: a win = 1 point.

There is no style point in chess... not anything tangible anyways.

However, I want to be a tactician and an attacker, and this automatically puts me at the disadvantage of having to fight against your own self as well as your opponent.

So far, I have embraced it, and I think it is worth the fight, but nevertheless, I lose against myself sometimes and let my natural personality get the better of me during the game.

 

Ever since I wrote my last blog, I played only 7 games. (wow, right? that's not a lot I know.)

But I have enjoyed going over them in detail and annotating them.

I honestly think I learned more about myself by going over those 7 games than I did the past several months playing hundreds of blitz games, none of which I reviewed.

I learned about my tendencies, my thinking process, and my struggles as a player, where/when I play actively and where/when I chicken out.

 

This game was a good lesson for me, that sometimes, risk-free isn't always so risk-free.
I started off well, instead of following general principles blindly, I buckled down, calculated, and figured out that I am justified in breaking them in that particular positions.
In this, I am proud, because I have a history of missing good chances in the opening, because I dogmatically stick to "develop first" and play auto-pilot.
Even in middlegame, I fought to keep the initiative, answering his threats with stronger counter-threats, navigating the tactical jungle with sheer calculation.
However, what's more important than starting well is finishing well, and in that part, I failed, because I decided to chicken out and take the easy route.
 
If you have good technique, then risk-free way is the best.
But if you don't, well, you will sometimes throw away absolutely crushing positions.
I let my natural self get the better of me in time pressure, and that almost costed me.
My natural tendency is, when in doubt, liquidate into endgame.
I have to be comfortable in playing with many pieces on the board.

 

I will constantly refine my attacking skills and tactics, and I will continually challenge myself to resist the inner urge to play it safe.

I cannot be afraid of losing the nothing that I have.

Online Now