Is it weird to play for a draw in a casual game against equally rated opponent
Sort:
Lacked counter play?
Youre a piece up and have a winning position.
There is nothing morally, or ethically wrong with what you did. You just didnt know how to win a won position. That will come with experience.
A) Thx
B) I was worried about Black's pawns, and my passive rooks on the back rank
heheheh chess id difficult
May 24, 2016
0
#6
It's not rude, but if you don't practice, you'll never get experience 
Keep playing!
(all of the following is looking at the position before you sac the knight)
You are right that white's pawns want to queen, and that your rooks (and knight) aren't doing much. So that is your short term plan -> improve your pieces.
By the way your c8 rook (and queen) by attacking the lead pawn, are holding the b pawn back (the b pawn needs to keep defending the c pawn). So that rook isn't so bad. Your f rook you can move to d8 to defend the pawn, or try to be active with f5-f4 trying to exchange the pawn to open the rook, or push the pawn to f3 with some dangerous attacking ideas (like Qg2 mate). A plan like putting both rooks on queenside files to attack the pawns may work too (but you'll probably get a chance to do that later, so I would be more focused on the kingside).
The first thing I see for the knight is Ne7-f5-d4 which can participate in an attack on the king as well as help hold the queenside pawns back. It also shields your d pawn on the d file from white's rook.
Like Diakonia said it comes with time, I wouldn't expect you to notice all that in a game, but now that you have some ideas about improving pieces (centralize them, move pawns out of their way, or move them to be out from behind pawns) try it out in your own games.
What kind of a question is this? You do your opponent a favor and then ask if you've wronged them? I haven't looked at the game but I trust Diakonia's ability to evaluate it, and based off of that I want to go one further than what's been said so far and say that you're better off losing the game trying to win and learning something than you are forcing a draw.
You define the game as casual, so surely you must agree that losing and learning is better than this?
Thx all for the advice. I will try to learn to play more aggresively and ambituously in the future :)
yo brozz
Taking the draw might be logical. At 25. Qxa7, you're up the piece but whites active pieces, passed pawns and your weak d pawn is pretty good compensation. If the d pawn falls without any plus for black, whites likely OK. Might even be better.
Probably had better winning chances earlier though. Idea for winning a won position is to shore up weaknesses, exchange pieces, invade with usually rook. A minor piece up is good but not necessarily winning. Much much better is a minor and pawn.
In your game at 21. Rcd1, you're a piece and pawn up so 21... Bxd2 seems principled, then do something about hanging b pawn. Other weakness is d pawn. Can defend and maybe get a decent push but might also consider trading your d for opponent a or b.
Regardless of the details, might want to investigate the idea of "consolidating a winning position" if interested.
I had a game recently in which I was a piece up, but lacked counterplay. Eventually i decided to sack the knight to get a threefold repetition. Is it (in chess etiquette) morally wrong to go for the draw in a materially imbalanced game instead of the win? I've done this several times, in which I take the drawish line instead of a more ambitious line.