that is just a really, truely, amazingly tough, embarassing loss.
Games like this make me cry and suspect I have no brain.
Sort:
It's a good lesson for you, Afaf!
You had many chances to swap off material when you were up to simplify your position - on move 30. ... Qc1 would've given you a great advantage of a rook and two pawns to a knight! If he played Ne1 to block then ... Qd1 followed by ... Rc1 just wins.
Unlucky about the loss, it's very unfortunate - but when you're winning so clearly, simplify at the first chance you can get!
Feb 1, 2010
0
#5
Lizard...yes, I knew that. I was being lazy and wanting to avoid an extended endgame...thought I had the luxury. 
your king was improtected, and you choosed the wrong pawn to flee from ! even if it wasn't a checkmate there was a brutal fork the king and queen.. you was so brilliant at first moves you even won the exchange but in the end game you lost control !! don't forget your openent was a good one ! so you don't have to be sad :)
I feel deeply sorry for you. You played the game quite ok, unlucky finish...
Feb 3, 2010
0
#8
Hey, was 18...0-0 a mistake? Should I have captured the pawn with the bishop first?
thank you dumbix and contrapunctus.
Yes, that would have netted you another pawn.
20.Qb5? by him is an obvious mistake that allows you to trade off the queens. Similarly 24...Qxe2 25.Bxe2 Bxa2 trades queens and wins another pawn...
Gotta agree with Flyinglizard: you had plenty of opportunities to trade down and you should have taken them. To be honest, you said you didn't want to play an extended endgame, and I'm not quite sure that I see your appraisal. Your advantage would have been crushing, with two pawns and an exchange, take the queens off and white might as well resign. Yes, you might still need to play on, but the game plays itself.
The problem, in my mind, is that, when you look at these key positions, you're trying to force an attack when the attack does not exist. White's king is defended by its pieces, and its pawn cover remains undisturbed. Quite honestly, in such positions, you should not even be thinking about checkmate because, quite simply, the checkmate does not exist. Ironically, in many ways, trying to avoid the endgame might well have extended the game in and of itself.
As said before though, losses aren't all bad, as they often can be learned from. In the future, with these kinds of crushing positions, keep this game in mind and play for simplicity. In case you haven't played such positions before, you might be surprised how easy they will usually be.
Disclaimer: I am referring to clearly won, crushing endgames, not the endgame in general.
it only hurts for a while...
You should have just exchanged the Queens (plenty of opportunities), simplifying to a won endgame.
I probably would have done something similar playing a CC game. When you win in the opening it's just not interesting.
This happens to everyone, and that's the sad truth. There's no point beating yourself up about it. All it took was a couple missed opportunities and only one major mistake. Look at Anand vs. Kasparov at the CSM Tournament 1996, where Kasparov made one questionable move allowing Anand Qxg4! winning his Queen and the game a few moments later. Everyone makes mistakes.
You didn't play badly. You should have simplified as everyone said, but aside from that you only missed the fork after f5. Maybe a lack of intensity because you were winning.
Feb 3, 2010
0
#16
Gambitknight wrote:
Gotta agree with Flyinglizard: you had plenty of opportunities to trade down and you should have taken them. To be honest, you said you didn't want to play an extended endgame, and I'm not quite sure that I see your appraisal. Your advantage would have been crushing, with two pawns and an exchange, take the queens off and white might as well resign. Yes, you might still need to play on, but the game plays itself.
The problem, in my mind, is that, when you look at these key positions, you're trying to force an attack when the attack does not exist. White's king is defended by its pieces, and its pawn cover remains undisturbed. Quite honestly, in such positions, you should not even be thinking about checkmate because, quite simply, the checkmate does not exist. Ironically, in many ways, trying to avoid the endgame might well have extended the game in and of itself.
As said before though, losses aren't all bad, as they often can be learned from. In the future, with these kinds of crushing positions, keep this game in mind and play for simplicity. In case you haven't played such positions before, you might be surprised how easy they will usually be.
Disclaimer: I am referring to clearly won, crushing endgames, not the endgame in general.
Actually you've hit on some great points. I recall wondering during the game...whether I was attempting to force something that wasn't possible. My experience or instincts aren't honed in.
Another thing is...I'm really really awful at endgames and I lose plenty of won games in the endgame, so I suppose I was averse to the idea of trading down, ironically.
Feb 3, 2010
0
#17
LisaV wrote:
That rotting aching hole in your tummy needs to be soothed with chocolate mousse.
Brilliant!
haha. One thing I can't do is eat sweets when I feel bad. Maybe some chicken corn soup?
Feb 3, 2010
0
#18
tonydal wrote:
One simplifying idea is 20... Rd1+ 21 Rxd1 Qxd1+ 22 Bf1 Rd8. The threat ... Bd3 looms (not only is White material down, but his pieces are in awful positions as well).
Oh, that's beautiful. I remember thinking about this line...I think I even went as far as seeing 22...Rd8 but couldn't comprehend the advantage if my queen were to attack the bishop on f1... wow, you're talking about visualizing a lot of pieces in new positions. Exciting.
u did a great job. i wont criticize cause what u did was amazing.u just got unlucky
"Another thing is...I'm really really awful at endgames and I lose plenty of won games in the endgame, so I suppose I was averse to the idea of trading down, ironically. "
That's totally wrong and makes you play artificial games. When you have a mateiral advantage, you trade down into a won endgame. On the other hand, at your rating (<1600 ELO) the endgames are basic. I would think of:
- basic mates
- bishop or knight versus queen (but NOT rook versus queen)
- queen versus pawn on the 7th rank with the king of the weaker side close to the pawn
- king and pawn endings, opposition, triangulation
- rook versus pawn, Lucena, Philidor
- bishop versus pawn, knight versus pawn.
Did I miss anything important?
Not that either of us played ideal moves but...dear god, how can such things leave me with anything but a rotting aching hole in my tummy?