Help Alison With Her Terrible Moves

When he says things like how it's ok to make a positional concession as long as you exchange queens, I don't think that's good advice, or at least could be very misleading. Giving away advantages is precisely what can allow the opponent back in the game. If you give your opponent any sort of compensation, (e.g., doubled isolated pawns to attack) even if they are a piece down, it can make the game harder to play. And if you keep making those mistakes they can add up, and you might suddenly end up with a tricky position to win. You don't have to be a freak about every positional feature, but no need to be lazy either -- even if you can get away with laziness, it's not a smart habit.

In any case there is a fine line between playing safe moves and playing cowardly. If you insist on avoiding calculating anything, you will find yourself making many concessions and being too scared to find winning sequences to put your opponent away. You shouldn't invite complications of course, but don't use this as an excuse for outright paranoia; that can really affect you psychologically. Just turning your brain off and deciding you're not going to look for forks anymore is not something you should expect to get away with regardless of the material situation.

I say this because I was once on the "too cowardly" side, expecting to win all my won games without calculating more than a move ahead. The idea of "avoiding unnecessary complications" is an excellent one, but it can be taken too far; I have.

I think you yourself said it. You like going for these pretty configurations - where all the pieces are "neatly" placed and give you familiar movement and open spaces.

But then you are entirely thinking about your space and very little about what the opponent can do.

I know this because I blunder just like you. I am usually caught up spring cleaning my own house and the other guy finds some nasty tactics.

People at our level make this mistake all the time.

It's not about organizing your pens and staplers on your office desk. Is it? I'd know cause I do it too.

There's so much good stuff here.....I feel much more confident about what I need to be studying here in the batcave. 

First things first - the Dan Heisman article was great.....some of it I knew, some I did not, and it never hurts to repeat a good lesson. From this article, I realized that I had a key strategic idea absolutely backwards: I wanted to play attacking chess from a better position and positional chess from an equal one because it seemed logical, but I now see the flaw in that logic:

The 'better' player has nothing to prove unless their position will only be *temporarily* better. In a material-up situation (*permanently* better), my opponent has to prove to me that they have something - I have nothing to prove...my proof is that I took their stuff, and if they have no reply, they will eventually run out of moves and collapse. If one is 'better' in an even material situation (and the king is safe etc.), attacking is the right idea rather than maneuvering because a better position can transform into a worse one in the blink of an eye.

Epiphany!

"The 'better' player has nothing to prove unless their position will only be *temporarily* better. In a material-up situation (*permanently* better), my opponent has to prove to me that they have something - I have nothing to prove...my proof is that I took their stuff, and if they have no reply, they will eventually run out of moves and collapse. If one is 'better' in an even material situation (and the king is safe etc.), attacking is the right idea rather than maneuvering because a better position can transform into a worse one in the blink of an eye."

This is correct. However, one should not just become afraid of every little complication. For example, if there is some two move sequence that is normally easy for you to see, don't insist you avoid it if avoiding it gives your opponent something useful like an open file or outpost. In other words don't become a doormat.

But yeah, it's not like a position with even material and a lead in development, and you have to look for every tactical opportunity imaginable to use it or else it will go away. You certainly don't have to go out of your way to "create some action" like you would in an even game.

Anyway, epiphanies are always nice; good for you.

OK - now that we've looked at a game with a weaker player, let's see what we can do about this game with a stronger one - here I made only one severe blunder that I took note of. This is a rapid game played with a friend from the forums: 

Obviously the last 10 moves or so can't be analyzed too deeply because of time, but the rest of the game is definitely something I want to look at.

I think it questionable that near the end you tried to go for a draw. It would (in my opinion) ruin a well-played game (except for the Rxd7 move). Unless you are in severe time trouble (<20 sec, no increment) keep playing! I cannot see how you can lose this game. If you simply take the Knight on d7, your opponent will be the one begging you for the draw!

16 Be3 seems a bit better -- simple but strong. Just defend d4, and note that d4-d5 can be a threat because of the discovered attack on the rook on a7.

And of course 29 Rc8 is just winning. Again missing tactics makes life so much harder! Still, most of your play was fine, just keep working at it.

Regarding playing for a draw -- I can't tell you how to live your chess life, but I suspect you are a bit attached to the result of the game in a limiting way. Even if you were to lose your position a few pawns up, what of it? The world does not end :) Chess is all about proving things to your opponent -- wouldn't a fitting end to the game be you shoving those pawns down your opponent's throat? It's like reading a beautiful novel that no one bothered to write a conclusion for.

Instead of just speculating "maybe I would win, maybe not," you can answer all of those questions by just playing and seeing what happens. It's a bit anticlimactic to take an advantage you have been pushing for the whole time, then just abandoning it because of some rating points. In closer situations it may just be the wise thing to do, but I feel like at a certain point, if you don't try to win those kinds of lopsided positions it's like you don't have the will to win against a stronger player. They're human too; they can be outsmarted; they're still going to wait for you to prove the win, but that would motivate me to beat them even more.

I hope you don't take offense because I totally respect your approach, as I respect anyone's. I'm just giving my opinion, and it might make the game more enjoyable for you. And hey, I get intimidated by a higher rating too -- we all do. Really though, it was quite a good game, you could move up in rating a huge amount; sharpening your tactics just a little more will really help.

Funny that the opponent rejected a draw though -- haha. I would have taken it if you were playing me. But some people really factor in the psychology of the situation.

Also, time trouble is not a huge excuse, only because, time trouble is usually the result of poor time management -- taking more time on moves when that time would be better spent in a trickier, sharper situation where you need to play precisely. I'm quite bad at time management myself, though -- I need to follow my own advice!

Thanks for the comments! 

Funny story....sort of....I dragged the bishop over to e3 (so I could advance my center with a tempo on the rook - as suggested), kept mouse button down for about 25 seconds to examine the move, and then looked at the b4 square, said "keep the monster out, Ali" and dropped the bishop on d2 at the last moment..... *facepalm*

And you're right, playing for a draw was just cowardly after getting what any player would describe as a healthy advantage and a great chance for checkmates or a won ending. It was a moment where I looked at the clock ticking away, didn't see a mate in 2 anywhere, saw that my opponent might find a perpetual check anyway, and said "OK - we did well, let's get some points and go home" - but why not finish? The end result was not very impressive - by Qb1+ I saw that I would win on time, so I just made legal moves, and limped over the finish line with 7 seconds on my clock....I could have done way better in 1m 30. 

The problem sounds like confidence. Whenever I sit down at the board I am 100% convinced I am stronger than the schmuck across from me. Even if it's Carlsen or Kasparov. This motivates me to play boldly. Problem is, sometimes it becomes OVERCONFIDENCE, which leads to my squandering decent positions.

Confidence is good. But only so much.

Important thing to realize it isn't really the opponent beating you. Its you.

Master yourself first. Then, you will master your opponents.

I felt like you opened a little suspiciously....you didn't move that poor little b8 knight until after my blunder! He was just stuck at home chomping grass. 

I am in a club....which is much stronger than I am....I have won exactly one game at this club in about a month and a half of membership.....it is not going well, but we are trying :)

Alison, if you have only won 1 game, then it´s going well.

I was in a club when I only could win games against the newcomers or visitors.

It´s better to have strong opposition at hand than not being able to play against strong players.

You got forked long and hard!

Dump the idea that you demonstrate stronger chess ability it is getting in your way. Keep eying nice squares but give equal, or rather a lot more, time and effort to avoiding simple oversights.  It may feed the ego a bit less but it is good if you like winning. Happily as you gain experience the number of simple oversights will drop a bit but grandmasters, beginners and everyone between the two have to check over (and double check) their calculations. So do you, chess ability or no.

Post a bit less and play a bit more might also help.

Study endgames and simplify.

You had an easy win, but lack of endgame knowledge made a mess of things.

Your endgame moves looked like a fish out of water.  Fix them and you'll be fine.

Unless you are in serious time trouble these are mistakes you should never be making.

If you have time on your clock just take 20 seconds before you make the impulse move and think to yourself "What is my opponents next move?". You will no longer be making obvious blunders.

man, the game was probably a draw at the end, why the resignation?