"F"ing up

Hello all,

In an OTB teammatch I drew a position which I feel should have been won. But I am not sure how I messed up.

This seems to be the critical position.Black to move, what to do?

Here is the entire game with some annotation. In the analyses done, I keep blaming move # 27...Nxe5?  However it seems that I blew it earlier. Can't find/understand where though. 

Improvements, comments and any other kind of help would be much appreciated.

Thx.

If you say you should have won, you must be thinking you got a good advantage in the game. Positions seem to me drawish most of the game. You are a higher rated player than I am. Your understanding of the position may be more accurate than mine. Would you explain why you think you were outperforming him?

13...Ng4 14.h3? Nxf2! great
22...Bg5 I did consider this, but missed the follow up move Bf4.
In the post game analysis I even mentioned 22...Bg5 as an alternative.
But still both of us missed the move you mentionend. Silly thing.

About your Silman-quote. I've read it. I have his books.
Believe me I won't make this mistake again.
If I ever get a chanche to have some play with no counterplay.
I will take it no matter how small the edge is.

Thanks for your help.

Yes I had a good advantage.

Let's take the postion after white's move 17 as an example.
Don't calculate.

To judge the position we have to look at the differences.
- Material is even.
- pawn structure/space: white is an advanced e-pawn which gives him some space. But it might also be proven over-extended
- initiative. Black has the initiative. If this is not clear. Just ignore it for now
- Kingsafety. Seems fine for both
- Pieces/activity.
The best way to judge this in this position. Is to compare the relative pieces to eachother.
Black knights vs White knights: it is clear that the black steeds are better. (Nd5 is a great piece and Na4 has control over c3 in the enemy camp.
Black bisshops vs the White's: though oddly placed I prefer black's but perhaps these are even. Light squares bisshop. I prefer black. Dark squares,  white.
Black rooks vs white rooks: The black ones are better. Just count the squares they control.  The Queen's: I prefer black's. But since it is attacked (oops I calculated) you can call it even. Some might even prefer white's majesty a bit.

- lines and diagonals. black has the a8-h1 diagonal and the c-file for now.

So it is clear that black is much better here. Having said all that.
Black must convert these advantage to something more solid or else it will go away.

Now if you follow the game to move#26.
It is clear that most of the advantage went away because most of the pieces are traded off.
For now white's rook is better, my knight is better and the only conversion I managed to make is to mess up white's pawn structure a bit.
(following paulgottlieb's advice 22...Bg5 would have given me much more).

Still... I had to just take the small advantage through the line I gave (27..Nxb4 28. Rxb5 Nb3 29. Ke2 Nf4+ 30. Ke3 g5) and try to push for the win.
After 27...Nxe5? 28.Ke2 the position is evened out.
The rest off the game it stays equal.

To be honest at move 41...Kxc5 I thought there was no play left and offered a draw. My opponent thought he was a bit better.

Both of us were wrong.
There was some poison left and it stayed equal.
I like his try 59.Ng5 (can't take the knight)
my response 59...Ne6 might also be a bit tricky.
If the knights are traded black will win.

Thanks for your post Hermes

This reminds me of my own problems in otb games. How to convert an advantage, it can be really hard. You said you didn't wanted to trade in the critical position, whichi i agree the Knight is your most central/active piece. When you trade in the better position it mostly makes the defend more easy for your opponent, after Nxe3 the tention of the game is gone and things are more clear for your opponent what to do. So basiclly only simplify when you are sure you have an better advantage then before, but it is easy to say then to do it ofcourse =)

Maybe this is a better alternative ?  17... Qc7 18. Rac1 Ndc3 19. Ng3 Qb8
20. Rd2 Rfd8

You wrote in the game comment:

"Awfull. I know and that after a 15 minutes evaluation. My thoughts were very simple. In the variation which I calculated I judged it to be a draw with no real winning possibilities. So I played the move which gave white a (isolated) passer."

I think this is wrong because the isolated pawn isn't a weakness but a plus for him. Isolated paws are only weak in the opening/middle game, later in the end game your need resources to stop this pawn which gives him winning chances. Also after the exchanges WHite has the worse pawn structure, but it doesn't matter his Rook is more active and his king more to the centre and he has a passed pawn.

Evaluating statically at move 17 is dangerous. You have a queen en-prise, so this threat has to be met before you can evaluate the position. In the actual game you gave up what you list as your best positional asset to meet this threat.

I wouldn't say black's rooks are so much better. White can play Rac1 and contest both open files.

In this position, black is responding to white's threats, so we might say white has the initiative. I tend to think of the initiative as forcing the opponent to defend his weaknesses. I don't see black doing this to white. But white can play Ng5 and black has to push pawns in front of the king or give up the bishop pair.

The f1 knight is only two moves from being on e4, which is potentially a very good square for a white knight.

The black position has a lot going for it, as you list, but I don't see what weaknesses you are going to attack and white will quickly improve the placement of his pieces. I think the position is closer to equal rather than black standing much better.

Evaluating these positions and the resulting positions after some of the threats are dealt with may be one of the hardest things to do in chess. I doubt that I do it very accurately, so I'd like to hear more thoughts on evaluating the position.

I forgot to ask. Does "F"ing up mean playing like a class F player? I didn't understand your title.

Thank you for taking your time to writing a lengthly response to me.

Hello fellow Dutchman,

Thanks for your line. It certainly makes sense. Perhaps I disgarded 17...Qc7 18.Rac1 too soon.  You are correct about your endgame remarks. I knew it before making the decision, experienced it and won't do it again.

I disagree with most you are stating. Your comments are in grey.

Evaluating statically at move 17 is dangerous. No it isn't. It is very usefull to understand the postion. After the evaluation start calculating. The position will be better to understand.

You have a queen en-prise, so this threat has to be met before you can evaluate the position. Nope. It is fine to evaluate first. If you then spot your Queen beeing attacked you understand why it is attacked. Otherwise you just base your moves on single threats. "eg my Queen is attacked I have to move it somewhere" Understanding why it is attacked may give you the answer to your oppenent's plan and/or your own plan. This will help you in finding a better move.

I wouldn't say black's rooks are so much better. But they are.

White can play Rac1 and contest both open files. Ooops I caught you calculating. You shouldn't do that when evaluating, it should be the next step you know. :) But still. Yes you are correct white can contest the open files. And he should do so because if he doesn't my rooks are much better. (My rook allready is on the open line. So for now black rooks are better).  

In this position, black is responding to white's threats,so we might say white has the initiative. I tend to think of the initiative as forcing the opponent to defend his weaknesses. I agree that the one which is "forced" responding (which is white) does not have the initiative. Single move attacks are irrelevant and don't have anything to do with the initiative. (ok for a single move then).

I don't see black doing this to white. I can't say anything else then "look once again". Even according to your given definition. Black has the initiative the next sequance of moves.

But white can play Ng5 and black has to push pawns in front of the king or give up the bishop pair. And again we are calculating. Firstly White can't play Ng5 it is black to move.  Secondly: pushing a pawn ain't a big deal, neither is giving up the B-pair in this position. There are even many ways to prevent Ng5. But why should black?

The f1 knight is only two moves from being on e4, which is potentially a very good square for a white knight. Again calculating. The problem is white can't solve everything you listed. You just have one move. So improving the rooks, improving the knight, attacking my king. All sound good, but the fact is. This is not the reality of the current position. Besides that. Your statement that the knight is fine on e4 is true. But it takes two moves and I can get it away quite simple. (chase it with a pawn, trade it, etc).

The black position has a lot going for it, as you list, but I don't see what weaknesses you are going to attack and white will quickly improve the placement of his pieces. I think the position is closer to equal rather than black standing much better.I did not see it in the game either so don't be ashamed. But again I disagree. Black is standing much better. Just look at the listed improvements of the responders so far and try to refute them.

Evaluating these positions and the resulting positions after some of the threats are dealt with may be one of the hardest things to do in chess. I doubt that I do it very accurately, so I'd like to hear more thoughts on evaluating the position.

True, and don't let our "clash" of how to evaluate the position fool you. Your time and response is much appreciated.

I saw this humorous quote in another forum post: 

"Chess has three phases: The first when one hopes one has an advantage;The second when one believes one has an advantage; And the third when one knows one is going to lose." Savielly Tartakower