Who wins is basically chance...

I sometimes think I might as well flip a coin. Here are my last two games. So this one, I won because my opponent missed a really obvious mate in 2 which they'd actually carefully set up themselves...

And in this one, I resigned in a completely won position because I thought I saw an obvious mate for them that didn't exist....

Net result is the same, but it would be more logical if I won won games and lost lost games...

when youre rated the same it basically is

Let's sum up what was happening in these two games. Game 1. I'll write the key moments. 1. First five moves are ok, your opening had no troubles. 2. Move 7 is good, move 8 you missed a tactic. You could capture their d5 knight revealing an attack on their g4 knight. 3. Move 9 is a blunder, you saw that as well. Better was h6, kicking their knight. 4. Move 10 you played h6, then a few trades happened, and your opponent's position fell apart. Game 2. Again you played with black pieces. 1. Already on move 2 you gave up a pawn. It's not a critical mistake, but Nc6 would have been better. 2. Move 7, I would say, d5 would have been better than what you played. Defending the knight and attacking the bishop, if en-passant happens, you recapture the pawn with a knight. 3. Until move 24 nothing special was happening, a relatively equal game. On move 24 your opponent blunders and you spot a tactic. Great job. 4. On move 27 you didn't capture their hanging rook. You would win a full rook, because if the opponent captures the bishop you capture their bishop with check

And then unfortunately you resigned in a winning position. It's natural for people at your rating to forget the knights can move backwards 🙂

Chess is never a coin flip. The best player in that game wins, or it ends in a draw.

Game 1: you need better board vision and better tactical skills. To improve those, solve puzzles.

Although I would say that noticing a free piece is still well within your grasp. On move 9, instead of taking a piece you allowed mate, which your opponent missed.

Game 2: never resign. Seriously.

Thank you both for your commentaries. Spot on too. I noticed the mate (too late), but played on because it was a good one, and I was convinced my opponent had set it up and deserved to see it played out. But they didn't.

I get on quite well with puzzles; the problem I have with real games is (1) the positions aren't marked "Oops, I blundered, with the right moves you can win my Knight!" so I don't go into each move with the thought-pattern "There is a tactic here, I can find it!"; I'm not good at guessing when there's a tactic available; and (2) real games are against real people - if people seem to want to win, part of me feels bad about not letting them. So at the very least, I offer a draw. I'm a very polite pacifist, which is a terrible basis for competitive games.

Hripfria202, I nearly always give up that pawn when someone plays the wayward queen against me. Usually I win, but I don't know if that's because it's a decent gambit, or whether it's just that people who play the wayward queen are either not very good, or like to take exciting but dangerous risks? I'll have to look for something safer.

It's not a mistake at all.

It's called the Kiddie Countergambit. It's a good gambit which gives full compensation: a big lead in development, king safety and initiative for just one pawn.

But you should.

There aren't tactical opportunities on literally every move, but they are extremely common. As Tartakower said, "Chess is 99% tactics".

As for puzzles, you should do more of them. If you see a tactical pattern in a puzzle and then weeks later you encounter it in a game, you certainly won't find it. But if you see a tactical pattern in 100 puzzles and then you encounter it in a game, you have a good chance.

The name...