I play like this myself, creating 'opportunities' that are ultimately defendable with best moves. I'm a fan of John Bartholomew, and he genuinely reckons that is the point for busting out the opening theory books... When you're not blundering pieces, but can't make headway against whatever some people throw down. What you've mentioned yourself is the opponent's better piece coordination. I'm no expert, but check out what book openings illustrate positions where you go 'Yes! what am I meant to do here!?!' Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
Keep Losing Winning Positions
Sort:
1st game: I don't like the sacrifice. I think it's too optimistic. But after the move Bg5, you're up material and you are likely winning, although 2 pawns up is not the same as playing an already won game. I think you're starting to lose the thread at move 17 with ...c5 and 19. ... Qd2, 20. ... Qxc2. Look at Rb8 and Rh8, they're not doing anything. Why not just finish your development with 17. ... 0-0? Is being 3 pawns up so much better than being up 2 pawns? No. After castling you could go for a ...e5 break and get an open file for your rooks. With the way you played, you played 2 rooks down in stead of 2 pawns up. Not using all of your material is alike to not having the piece in the first place. Other than that I think it's a very instructive game on what can happen if you leave your king in the center.
In game 2 you are a full rook up. That is much more a won game than game 1. I actually like what you did between moves 17 and 23. You just defend the stuff that gets attacked and get your pieces into the game, even playing ...f5 to open up a file for your rook. Playing a won game is all about playing normal moves and not giving your opponent chances, there's nothing wimpy about this. I do think move 24. ... Rf7 is a mistake: don't put your pieces into pins when you don't have to be. Just 24. ... Kh8 is much more natural therefore.
After move 25 is where things start to go a little wrong for my taste. In all fairness, 25. ... e4 likely isn't a bad idea or a bad move, but I'd call it bad technique. In a won game you need to look for ideas of your opponent and to try and prevent them, whilst never playing too passively. In this position you're in a pin, so one idea might be for them to exploit the pin. Just play 25. ... Qe6 and stop the pin. They can't trade queens, you're a rook up, so it's a free move to make. That being said, in your game 25. ...e4 just crashed through. So much so that you missed 28. ... Qe3# and 29. ... Qe3#. I think that's because you weren't looking at forcing moves enough. Always check out the checks, captures and attacks. Another thing to notice is that after move 29. ... Qg5 Re8 is left unguarded. Good piece harmony means that you keep your pieces guarded. Loose pieces can drop off, something you don't want when you're a rook up. Here that happened, because you played 30. ... Rf6, pinning yourself again. So, pinning yourself and leaving your pieces unguarded would be bad technical choices for me and something you might look for to improve on in won positions.
That being said, I absolutely don't understand the resignation or the end of the game. 33. ... Rxe8, 34. Nxg5, gxf5 is still a much better endgame for black and after move 34 there seem to be a few different highly unpleasant moves for white to face, like gxf5 and Rd8+. Maybe you didn't count material correctly or your feelings took over? It can happen (that's how people lose drawn positions when they were winning before), but maybe something to note.
I think you can learn from both games, but I don't think I really see a pattern in just these 2 games. Up until you've lost the rook in game 2, your play was generally fine, even though you could have done a bit better with preventing counterplay. I don't think these 2 games should overly worry you.
MisterWindUpBird wrote:
I play like this myself, creating 'opportunities' that are ultimately defendable with best moves. I'm a fan of John Bartholomew, and he genuinely reckons that is the point for busting out the opening theory books... When you're not blundering pieces, but can't make headway against whatever some people throw down. What you've mentioned yourself is the opponent's better piece coordination. I'm no expert, but check out what book openings illustrate positions where you go 'Yes! what am I meant to do here!?!' Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
What would be the point to getting better in the openings if you already reach winning positions without studying them?
Feb 2, 2022
0
#6
I have felt very similarly. I would get tunnel vision when up material and start to look for the KO blow without much thought to my opponents counter play. A few months ago I started watching the Chessbrah Habits series and now just try to do two things when in this position if the mate isn't obvious and you have developed all pieces and castled:
Trade down and simplify: Take their attacking pieces of the board and remove their counter play.
Push a Passed Pawn: If you have one push it.
you know, i don't think watching some GM's speed runs are going to help you improve very much. those are more for entertainment purposes than for teaching anything.
There comes a point in a game if you have outplayed your opponent positionally, where a 'combination' appears...how do we define 'combination'?... in other words a sacrificial exchange which leads to material gain or perhaps the queening of a passed pawn or even mate itself....any number of winning outcomes...
This is an intrinsic part of positional play and if you reach 'critical mass' as I like to call it, the combination will always naturally appear...as the great Lasker said 'You just have to find it'
Look at any winning game of an elite master and they will 9/10 times end with a combination....
What beginners and weaker players fail to do is search for these combinations when they reach an overwhelming position...it can take creativity...and it can also take time...it can take many minutes to 'see' the combination, they are not always 'natural' tactics....they can be very unique and not in your pattern recognition repertoire...
If you are failing to improve I suggest reading a book on combinations and learning to be creative when you are dominating your opponent....
I was once rated expert level but that was many years ago...today I am just a casual player.
Hi,
I've been playing Chess for almost a year now and can't even stay above 1000 despite cracking it once in July last year.
My issue is that I've been spending plenty of time doing puzzles, watching videos (Naroditsky's speed runs/Gotham Chess), and reading books (Chess for Dummies and currently Logical Chess) but I can't seem to finish my games off from winning positions! I spend all this time trying to get an advantage only to go on and still lose.
Game 1:
This game I managed to crack open the kingside after baiting my opponent into playing 8. h3, .. and 10. g4,..., something I've learned to do in the first few games from Logical Chess. I felt confident from move 12 that I'd have a fairly winnable chance since it's hard to defend as White as a 900 ELO.
Game 2:
Lastly, for this game by move 12 I'd won a free piece and gone up the exchange trading my bishop for my opponents rook. After this point however, I just never was really able to take advantage of my material advantage and start any sort of attack. Everything I did was really limp and weak.
My overall query is really just some feedback on how I can improve. I really struggle to analyse my own games because I get to a point where I have no idea what to do and anything the engine suggests just leaves me even more clueless.
Thanks