Equal positions are so hard to play!

urk wrote:

White's play revolves around the tactic Bxa6 (if the queen leaves c6 unguarded) and Ne5 with pressure on c6 and a6. Sometimes white can also sac on c6 to try and queen.

So I like the idea of trying to get the bishop to h6 to annoy the rook on c1. It might be too slow though 1...g6 2.Rc2 (to unpin the f3 knight) and white intends to play Ne5 already.

On 1...Qf5 there's 2.Bxa6 as already mentioned, but starting with your 2nd move Re6 instead is a good multi purpose move. Defends c6 and has ideas of going to the g file like you said.

My idea was kingside pressure though, pretty much the way you described it with 1...g5 and eventually h5 and g4. Starting the same thing with 1...Re6 I like too, so good job!

Hope that was somewhat the sort of position you were talking about. Even after these moves are played the engine hovers around 0.00 the whole time, so maybe it's not the initial idea, but playing out the rest of this game you'd find difficult? Or maybe you meant positions where there truly is nothing to do and both sides are making waiting moves?

In any case, the "cure" (IMO) is just having seen a lot of games. No matter how good you are you'll get confused sometimes, but having seen a lot of games will help you hang tough in a greater variety of equal positions.

Silman is fine. I think of urk as rated almost too high for that, but I did have a 2100 friend who loved it (and silman says the book is for players up to 2000 or something) so I don't know. I like his idea of imbalances, and I think it's a good way of talking about positions and highlighting plans. I don't so much like it as part of a structured thinking process during a real game. That's just me though.

My personal nemesis is "winning a won game", opponents at the club I used to go to noticed I play better down a piece. Is this common? I've also noticed that some players a lot better than me (like urk) will make what I call a "safe waiting move"....like just a inconsequential pawn move or something....like they are just waiting for me to make a mistake or miss something.

Winning a won game can be really hard, sure. Depends on what kind of compensation or complications your opponent comes up with. If  you're up a lot of material for nothing, then it shouldn't be hard. That would be something to work on if you're e.g. relaxing as if it will win itself and blundering into a desperate opponent's last trick or something.

---

As for "safe waiting moves" I think at all levels, playing someone better than we are, they often give the impression of being more patient. They understand the position (at least better than we do) so they're not in a hurry, and they take time to fix some small defect in their position before continuing with the direct play. Yeah, that can be intimidating or confusing in some positions.

Thanks

If  you ever meet him, Ask him about Johnny Cash.

He and I have a lot of friends in Orlando, Fl.

I actually sacrificed a pawn to reach this position thinking that blacks backward c pawn would be a good target, but my opponent kept the position balanced and played brilliantly.

Here is how the game went because I was unable to keep it balanced. 

This partial analysis has to do with Telestu's post #18

I think that the best defense is a good offense.  I see 3 weaknesses in White' s position.  He has an undefended R at c1, An undefended Q at b3, and  undefended pawn at a5. Also a masked backward pawn at b2 on a closed file. White has a playable tactical shot  at Bxa6.  But it is not his turn.  It is Black to move.  The center is half blocked by  the white d pawn t d4 and the Black d pawn at d5.

The blocked  center indicates to black to start a flank attack against the White K castled position.

White has  control of e5.  He is attacking the square 2 times with the pawn at d4 , and  the  B at h2. The N at f3 is pinned because of the double attack on the f2 pawn by the Black Q at f6 and the  N at e4.  By playing 1...Bd6 Black is defending the square 3 times.  The Q at f6, the  R at e8 and the B at d6.  But simultaneously Black is threatening Bxh2+ Kxh2, Qf4+( pg3, Kh1, or  Kg1) QxR(c1).  If 2.Bxd6 Nxd6.   Omitted Bxh2+ Nxh2+ Qxf2+ Kh1 Ng3+ Qxg3 Qxg3  but then remembered under 1500 players.

The best defense is a good offense by means of indirect attack.

This  is just a partial analysis.  I will continue but am feeling lazy.

Another alternative move for  Black is 1...Qf5.

I will  continue tomorrow.

#38 I agree with your position study. I follow your idea too, take the heat out of e5 which is a step to c6. 
... Bd6 ; BxBd6 (say) QxBd6 ; Qb6 (say) Qf4 ; Rc2 ... ?

I do agree with the 1. ... Re6 - as in first protect the c6,b7,a6 triangle
Then follow up with ... Qd8 trying to force white in Ra1 and then look for a way to turn Bc6 into an active piece rather than a big pawn.

I think Telestu is being cute, [you] are black to play, form a [winning] plan.
Where as I see how can black set about improving his position that is impaired by Bc6.

I'm always to eager to break the balance, so I blow it most of the time.

Kinda easy to see where my game could improve tremendously. I don't really put any effort into it.

Take de dwaaaaw. 

Well, not a winning plan in that it's a forced win. You can play for a win from an equal position if you're putting pressure on your opponent, forcing them to be precise. Carlsen is good at this.

"Equal" doesn't mean "drawish". Try and improve the positions of your pieces, and look for weaknesses in your opponents position. This will help you to formulate a plan. Keep an eye on what you think your opponent's plan is too, and make sure that you don't miss a tactic (either for you or your opponent). Tactics are common in high level chess.

Carrying out your plan while simultaneously stopping your opponent from executing theirs is a crucial chess skill to work on.

That's not necessarily a bad idea. If you don't see a promising attack, increasing the protection and safety of your pieces is the next best thing.

I was recently struck by the beginning of the intro to Dan Heisman's The World's Most Instructive Amateur Game Book, as I think I quoted in another thread:

"Well, Dan," Howard Stern's familiar bass voice intoned, "now that I am up to 1000, that's about it. I can't seem to beat those 1100's.

"But Howard," I protested, "you're just giving them free pieces and they are taking some of them. They are giving you free pieces and you aren't taking as many of them. If you just stop giving them free pieces and take all of theirs, you will beat them every game...basically, it's as easy as that.

Four years later Howard was rated 1700 ICC (Internet)."

The point is that the main thing is to not give away pieces.  Of course, if we do not make threatening moves, occupy space, maintain the tempo, etc. our opponent is sure to find N-outposts, double and discovered attacks, pins, etc. and find "free pieces."

Additionally, in Blitz or faster games, you have to play a form of chess where you exchange pieces fairly rapidly.

But in, say, Regular and even Rapid Chess, there is a balance between attack and safety and more games, at least below 2000, are lost due to a lack of safety than are lost to an attack conjured out of an apparently even position.