Talekhine93 wrote:
The only thing I fear more than not controlling e5 is a Knight on e4 supported by the f5-pawn.
Doubt and vengeful thoughts.
Sort:
I'm guessing this is supposed to help somehow, blueemu? My problem is that I really love controlling certain squares, and I hate when my opponents take precisely those squares away from me by playing certain moves which I fear. Only savant mongrels like Capa and the likes can brag about being styleless and understanding of all positions, being able to play them all virtually impartially and correctly (and only ever faltering in the face of immense complications, as always), while I'm stuck being devoid of their universal love for all the aspects of chess, instead having to operate within narrow comfort zones like "let's attack and/or control the dark-squared long diagonal, possibly play the Gurgenidze and stifle them to death if possible (even though it goes wrong more often than not), and also DO NOT let them take e4 OR e5, and don't let them advance their f-pawn if you can't take the a-g diagonal (or vice versa) using your Bishop". That's apparently all I can do, anything else is unclear, uncomfortable and strategically unfathomable.
This tunnel vision of sorts has been my companion for a long time now, and while I wish I had this AMAZING insight that would help me beat off the Marshall Attack as White without any memorisation, the fact of the matter is - I don't have that insight, I don't know how to obtain it, and I'm extremely jealous of chess geniuses (which shouldn't be a secret by any stretch of the imagination, really). I'm sure that many are or could be as jealous of my musical talent, for example, but that kind of talent is insurmountably more about the freedom of expression which isn't bound by winning or losing (unless we're talking about competitions, but F that, because those results are ultimately debatable, whereas the chess results aren't - either you win, you lose, or you draw), and thus music doesn't allow me to express my Satsui no Hado fully, so to speak.
Violence is pointless if it doesn't make a difference, if it doesn't communicate anything... and I don't feel like I'm making proper impact of MANLY MANLINESS on this world OR myself, as hilarious as that may sound.
How can chess seriosuly bring out fear? I imagine you've never felt anxious about a move you noticed your opponent could play, especially if you just missed it? You never had an opening in which you started thinking "don'tplayBf5don'tplayBf5don'tplayBf5, that ruins my setup", only for your opponent to play Bf5 exactly and plunge you into despair because you suddenly didn't know how to play the ensuing position? Well, that's exactly what one can feel during a game.
I remember a particularly devastating loss as White in an opening that was supposed to give me a closed-centered KID-like position with colours reversed. It went something like 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e5, and I think I played Nf3 next, but my opponent replied with f6, and suddenly I was left without even a single shred of the typical KID counterplay I was hoping for. He might've played moves like Bg4 and even g5 afterwards, but that's only a vague memory now... all I know is, I was denied the f4-break so hard that I spent the rest of that game feeling all the life getting sucked out of me by the resulting position. That's like introducing yourself to a girl you like and patiently setting up a signature line for some style points, only for her to somehow immediately see through your attempt and crush your intentions to dust with a dose of humiliation added into the mix.
Chess is another one of those games which don't let a player be who they are if they're not good, but I can't manage to be a Cuban Casanova who can gaze straight into the female nature and shapeshift until the woman in question realises that resisting him would be an act against both logic and nature itself. All I can do is count on my opponent not to play well in the key moments when I see a possible path to victory.
My apologies if I offended you, Talekhine93. That was not my intention. I only noticed that your phrasing on the original post indicated something different than what most people would have posted if they were frustrated. I meant it for your own good, not as a way to jab at you. There's also nothing wrong whatsoever with needing or wanting help and it's a good thing you're in sessions as you described.
Regarding the other content in my post, my top rating online here was 2122, so take that for what it's worth. I am probably awfully close to Master strength right now. I love chess and I feel certain emotions about it. I'm also very competitive. However, when I'm at the board, I ignore all emotions these days (it wasn't always like that). I just try to think in the most logical way possible because the board doesn't care how I feel. Neither does my opponent. All that matters is the ability to execute the best moves. Most of us (myself included) still make many, many mistakes. When that happens, I of course am upset with myself, but again I always push back to logic to see where my mistakes were.
I'm sure you meant only the best, so I apologise for sounding so borderline rude on my behalf. Admittedly, sometimes I do get curious about the kinds of reactions my comment could provoke if it were somewhat strongly worded, but in retrospect it's a poor choice more often than not.
Speaking of hindsight, it's far easier to calm down and point out logical flaws in the postmortem, but what good is that if you can't be as logical during the game itself? Whatever you do learn through analysis should be at your disposal as a conclusion ready to use in your decision-making process, but emotions tend to throw that out of the window.
I might be making it sound like I'm unable to implement anything new I've learned through analysis - and I might be doing it out of anger, too! - but it wouldn't exactly be true. Usually I can spot my opening mistakes, at least conceptually speaking, but I've noticed something in my recent games: at certain points I lose too much time trying to calculate a forced win when objectively there's none to be found, which means that I'm failing to clearly identify critical moments, and possibly that I'm too eager to attack (?).
As a GM once said, the trouble is not winning the positions that Fischer obtains, the trouble is obtaining said positions yourself. How does one recognise that a position is superior enough for favourable tactics to flow from it? It's easy when such positions get served by tactics trainers and you're privy to the guarantee that it MUST be the right time to search for a knockout blow.