My Classical Streak Continues!

Yeah… not that kind of streak. The other kind. I’ve now managed to go ten ECF classical games in a row without a win.

Granted, there are some draws, including against strong players like inventor of duck chess Dr Tim Paulden, but the winless streak is getting concerning.

This latest attempt at steadying the ship had some positive moments, but after choosing the wrong sacrifice based on a simple miscalculation (I essentially knew that I would be able to secure a draw with one rook sacrifice, and I’ll show the line (turns out engine says that the position is close to winning for black, but the non-forcing knight development means that it’s pretty hard to calculate concretely), but my choice I thought was winning simply because I missed that once the bishop blocked the queen would be free to retreat to the square the bishop had occupied. In my head, the only way to defend mate would’ve been to counter sacrifice the rook on d3, therefore meaning I was to be up one (and briefly 2) pawns).

I ended up miserably trying to defend an endgame with knight and pawn for a rook, and my experienced opponent got the job done.

I struggle with classical chess, and I’ve posted about this before, but my inability to calculate consistently in longer time formats is of genuine concern. Otb isn’t the issue - I do well in otb blitz etc - it’s classical chess.

I know you're an interesting openings guy but I do think you would do better otb with a more "boring" repertoire

Crazy stuff works in blitz but not so much in 90+30

That’s maybe a fair point, though while in the above game the queen move is a little speculative, it certainly wasn’t my losing mistake. It’s very rare I lose a classical game in / because of the opening, I almost always blunder something stupid!

You are still a great player! I believe in you.

I don't believe the "crazy stuff" is the issue actually.

It is natural to feel the need to change things which are easy to change. But, as you may have learnt from kasparov's book (How Life Imitates Chess), changing too quickly, or changing the wrong things, can be even worse. It's hard to pinpoint what is the real reason a game is lost, but it's imperative to ask what is the root cause for mistakes in a game were.

It may feel rough right now, but this is the time to hone in on areas you would've neglected previously. Even if the game does have obvious mistakes, ask yourself why these mistakes happened in the first place? What is the underlying issue that allowed them to happen?

For me, I found that in order to get stronger with classical chess, I had to develop my ability to calculate properly, even though you'd think it would be better to focus more on opening theory, endgame theory or positional chess. For you, I think it's actually positional chess, and here's why:

Not so long ago, I told you that the underlying aim of positional chess was to obtain a position you enjoyed. There are things you learn, theoretical things such as pawn structures, which can guide you towards more enjoyable positions, but there is almost never a pure strength or a pure weakness (as also mentioned in kasparov's book). From what I can see, it didn't feel like you understood your position very well so I don't believe you actually enjoyed it very much.

It also felt like you were losing concentration, especially once down material, which may come from psychological and mental difficulties during the game. I'd say treat it like a challenge if you get into a bad position, treating it like odds to see if you can recover.

I could be wrong and again you have to really ask yourself what is the real reason for these mistakes, the root cause. But that's what I got from the game.

That said, one thing you must always remember to remind yourself is how strong of a player you are. The grass may look greener on the other side, but you need to appreciate how "green" your current "grass" already is

Oh I highly disagree this was a positional loss

This loss was all down to miscalculation, if Rxb3 doesnt work then it's just ggs

Yes, there was a miscalculation, but what caused him to miscalculate?

Well he didn't miscalculate because of his bad position if that's what you're implying, he was actually winning (against a 1900 fide player as black which is good!)

The reason I'm saying for him to get a more solid repertoire is because I actually think the opposite of you. I think he's good positionally and not great tactically. I think a slow positional game suits his playstyle more

Blitz/bullet rating is a pretty good indicator of how good someone is tactically imo. Blitz is just all about tactics

ok that's interesting. It may be that then which he needs to do

Why am I the only U2000 here?

I mean I’m good tactically intuitively, in shorter time controls. And I don’t play bullet on chesscom so please ignore that rating haha. But you’re right my recent classical losses have been broadly tactical.

Thank you for your input - I am trying to improve positional, I’ve started reading a book on pawn structures but it’s heavy going and dry stuff!

Is it Rios book on pawn structures? I couldn't get into that book much either

No, Soltis’

Ah well maybe all pawn structure books are just boring then lol

Probably! It’s hardly flashy sacrifices and fun chess, is it…