Martin0 vs. adumbrate match

And what, no annotations? :-)

I am bad at annotations, and was waiting for Martin, or someone else to make some, so that I could make mine out of them

You need to get started. The more you do it, the better you will become. 

As I'm not at all familiar with this kind of play, I would simply appreciate anything that has to do with your knowledge of the opening, the ideas that guided you, your thoughts, evaluations and plans during the game, surprises, how you evaluated your opponent's play and ideas, what scared you, what you narrowly avoided, where you got lucky, you get the idea. 

I will give it a shot.

Oh - Skotheim and Skoth are the same user! Only now I notice...

You better delete one of these accounts - you're not allowed to have both of them here. 

And a nice first effort at annotation!

Sorry for the late annotations. I'll read Skotheim's analysis soon.

<Martin0> your analysis made more sense to me than the other one. I could identify with many of your thoughts here - re. Skotheim's king sortie for example, or Nb1 in the opening...

Getting to play this endgame on increment since move 27 already, is definitely far from ideal. If I were playing either of you, I would certainly have at least several minutes at this point - and that fact alone should have easily been enough to win, as the positions were complex and calculation was necessary for many more moves.

Time planning is an important element of competitive chess. 

But you got started! Interesting how this is going to develop...

When it comes to the opening, the d5 move is a line I play sometimes to avoid some lines that I am not comfortable with when playing the modern defence. As a black player I like to play openings where my opponent is not familiar with the position and this idea with d5 fit that purpose well. I have never faced a player that is prepared against it and I have a positive score otb with it against higher rated players.

I think this line shows blacks idea with the opening quite well and it is this line that made me start getting an interest in the opening:

To be honest I have time management issues in 90|30 games as well and it don't get better at lower time controls... I think it is somewhat related to getting into positions in the opening when you need to think from move 6 (or sometimes even earlier). For some reason I tend to think I can afford to use time when I am ahead on the clock instead of thinking about how much time I need for the rest of the game.

But seriusly, at move 25 with 5 minutes left at the clock (or something like that) I felt like there must be something good for black. I was not in a state of mind when I could just make a move within a minute there. One wrong move could be the choice between a win and a loss.

I rarely get into time trouble. Not even in one game out of twenty. You always need to weigh, how critical that move is, vs. how much time you would realistically need for the rest of the game. 

There's no use investing everything in one move - it's like shooting your own foot as the game goes on and on. 

It feels like torture to play a long and elaborate game when your opponent has time and you don't. 

So the risk of getting into this situation is way too high - and makes falling too far behind on the clock an unwise investment. 

The only real exception is if you're either sure that you have a winning continuation and you know that you won't need much time after that - or conversely, that you're trying to find a way to save yourself from a certain loss, where any time investment is justified as otherwise you're just simply losing. 

Maybe I should clarify that I usually only have time management issues when my opponent has lower time than me and I get false security that I can afford to use my time. It is not too common, but when I get into time trouble it is quite often a few moves after my opponent gets into time trouble.

Other than that my main concern with time management is when a move feels rushed in order to avoid time trouble, not the time trouble itself.

Also it could be worth mentioning that I am not too familiar with this time control (I think it is first time I played with it). In this game I blame my time management to not being familiar with the time control and that my opponents time gave me false security.

I agree. My main error in game 2 against CP (after he played Kh7 on that game) came when I still had some time on my clock - 6:30 minutes - but I made a "time trouble avoidance assessment" and decided not to dedicate any more time to that move. 

I estimated that the move had a certain reason and decided to save time and just play. 

It turned out, that right after playing my move I realized the true purpose of his move - and I'm sure that 15 seconds of extra thinking would have revealed that purpose to me - and in that case I probably wouldn't lose the game. 

It's a case of "damned if you do, damned it you don't" - as obviously, playing faster so as to AVOID time trouble has its price too. 

But what can you do? 

It's impossible to play ALWAYS perfect moves...

However, I believe that I'm actually taking the lesser risk, with my own time management policy. 

By the way - what time control do you guys actually play?

Our match has a 25 10 time control - which is pretty convenient overall, I find. You get enough time to think and plan, and the increment is generous and doesn't get you "hysterical". Pretty decent for rapid play. 

We also have 25|10

I am a bit disappointed by the analysis of the game. Both of you just went over the moves giving your thougths, but without giving alternatives, working out the critical points or e.g. a drawing plan in the rook endgame after move 61.

e.g. 12... Qb4 gives black solid advantage.

Martin at least says that after 25 Bxg6 he had the feeling there was something and indeed 25 ... Be3 is winning.

Also 27 ... Rf2 is interesting, even though white is slightly better after 28 d5.

I fail to see why 12.. Qb4 gives black a sold advantage, after Rd1, what's your follow up?

25.. Be3, show me the line please, I don't quite understand.

Also I am not very good at annotating, I prefer to look for strategical errors in the games I play and remove them for the next one. Then play another game. I find it to take a lot of time to give proper analysis.

I wanted to get the analysis out there before the next game and therefor I got satisfied with just giving my thoughts on the game without doing an in depth analysis. It takes a lot of time to analyse, especially since I prefer to do it without an engine and I thought that most people are mostly interested in my thoughts anyway without bothering to look through variations. But overall, I agree that some parts of the analysis are lasy, like just saying I had a feeling that there should be a win without looking with an engine if there is a win; or declaring that the endgame should be a draw without explaining why. 

I did see the moves 12...Qb4 and 25...Be3, but I don't understand what is so great with them. Also, what is your thoughts on the move 27...Rxd4 that I played. I was optimistic about my winning chances and thought I had a better position since my pawns was more advanced. What do you think?

How? I don't understand how it does that? I like your variation better Fkey..

12...Qb4 looks good, white is indeed a bit tied up. Some analysis (which probably includes errors)