Wanton Destruction!

You mistake me: my frustration stemmed exactly from that I don't like spending any time on the position at all. As for allowing seeing farther somehow in more competitive positions, I beg to differ or would at least qualify that. What am I supposed to learn from the last game? Wait, he was trying to teach me a lesson? I don't get what the argument is at all there, but not because we agree that time. We could probably leave it at that.

I thought too that I should avoid spending too much time on moves when I can easily win.

But practice has shown me that, when I feel that a fast way to win is in the air (such intuition comes with experience), I should spend a few more seconds (or minutes OTB) and try to find it instead of grabbing or exchanging material thoughtlessly. It would save more time in the long run than the time I spend on seeking a forced win.

E.g. in the above game, I could have finished the opponent off at move 26 instead of 37. As played, I spent time and energy on 11 more moves instead of taking merely twice-thrice more time than usual on move 24.

Good blitz players are good because they know which positions deserve a longer thought and which are no-brainers. (Tbh, the 24... Rg1+ from my game should be a no-brainer for a truly competent blitz player.)

I should let it go (and did last night) but looking at this thread today, one more way of putting this dead horse comes to mind. Re: "The queen is a powerful mating piece that's helpful in time trouble, you shouldn't give it up that easily."

Sure it is! Why do I need one at 27 if it takes out the last rook and I'll get her back in 48, hands down? In an easy pre-moved stroll down the left lane? And what time trouble, when he's bungled his queen at 15? There's something ridiculous to the point of insulting on his part that he's playing for the stalemate, or the claim (see move 32 at least). It's just not believable. At 40... Bxa5 there is no way to describe the game other than an easy Ma10. And particularly at 43... it's Ma07, period: again, with a clearly safe promotion and with the opponent trapped to two squares with no stalemate given the superlatively natural 50... Qc3# (or Qc5#, but notice I didn't even want to spend the effort to go two squares farther). Why should I spend time crafting some artsy response on this board?

Note that "Simplification" is such a major tactic in endgame scenarios that it merits its own category in "Tactics Trainer" here (as it should). (Likewise, "Remove the Defender.") In many calculations, simplification is what drives a game to its proper conclusion, and not simplifying can actually build risk or actually be the cause of bungling the endgame - especially in blitz! So, contrary to his baiting accusation that I don't know how to close, I clearly in fact do know how to close, chose one safe way to do it that he was clearly willing to play to (being unwilling to resign or play to anything else) and simplification (and the acknowledgement of it and what it does) is in fact a major common and often in practice optimum way to do it. Why screw around? How is this board not a waste of time? Why have the resign button at all then?

It did not escape me that he's played Tactics Trainer 6 times and failed 4 of them.

OK. Gah! Enough! (Clearly this gets my goat, so here's to untethering it.)

Ever see a fumble on a kick return at the 99 yard line? (lol!)

http://www.chess.com/tactics/?id=32137

Nice! For sure! Add em on. Thanks!

Wontons are great,Why would you want to detruct them?

EDIT: nvm

Very nice double sac in the last tactics post, alexm! I like how Wantons of Mass Destruction can be of the self-born kind, esp. there, e.g. Nice!!

"Suicide-samurai squad, attack!" -Life of Brian

I wish to be gracious in doing this: here is an example of what can go wrong, re: the opening discussed above.

And maybe this is what you play when you're just sick and tired of all the b.s. (what's Latin for "in a manner of speaking"? colloquio?)

The endgame here uses the mating net to allow the saunterly pawn press on e5.

Taking the center with a rook sac paired with a fork-followup.

Let's promote baby so I can kill your queen again! (Updated analysis again. I think I've covered every which way to mate from 25.)

[deleted and moved to small bait]

This Tactics problem came up, and I wanted to give it some air. I think it's off, or off-colored. Somewhat relevant to topic based on the Jedi-Escher-mind-trick paralysis that black puts all his pieces into himself, immolation. I just don't feel that the analysis is correct. This was categorized as a Defense puzzle. Feel free to check my Ma06 analysis at the end of the solution line that was originally posted with this problem.

http://www.chess.com/tactics/?id=174967

Here is the board:

[PS: Added remark re: 22... Qd2. Talk about a return to sender, like being in a blender... Any time we see a position literally circling a drain, it's time to break out a sacrifice. So, looking at it this way, I found that 22... should be Rxh2+, instead! The analysis line is wrong in at least this much.]

Oh the humanity!