Psychological notes on won positions

In this game, after white happy and cool two knights jumps (f2! and g3!?) and the queen trade they obtain the exchange advantage with no sufficient compensation.

When I get this postion I know I'm won. Players feeling about won postions is real, it being correct or no, players feel it.

Howrever, when some players feel he have a won game, the beha

the psychological behavior since then aims to remain won, aims to ensure that it will definitely win not a future position, but exactly THAT position. Try to keep all pawns untouchable. Fear any progress of the opponent. Basically the player is afraid of losing more than when he started the game, where he plays unpretentiously as if losing was more natural.

My moves Rh4 avoiding Ng5 or my move RxB trying dry the position are not really wrong in concrete, but are psychologically wrong.

I think this is something like 'the right thing for the wrong reasons' or whatever ...

Suddenly in this match I got what I feared most: defeat. But not only that, I seemed to invite my opponent to try exactly what I wanted to avoid. In chess this phenomenon is very intriguing, it consists of a player dictating what perhaps the opponent should do. If the 'dominant' player decides to defend, then he invites the opponent to attack. Somehow this seems to be unattended to the concrete situation and linked only in HOW the dominant player perceives the position.

As a result of this and other experiences, I think it is important not to force your opponent to play exactly as you fear he will play. It seems to work because among mere mortals the position analysis is often wrong about the concept of 'draw / won / lost position' or 'I must attack, defend, wait'

Black should have played 54. ...Kxg2

This is a joke, right?

No. After 54. ...Kh4?? he is lost.

I should not have created the post. I can not talk to people without being rude But it's inevitable, so please do not be dumb, read the post and try to make a comment in the appropriate context and use your neurons to understand that any unfortunate son of a bitch KNOW what you are about me saying.

I think 24 ... Qe2 keeps up the pressure and probably wins quickly. Next move is ... Be6.

It's a very good post but it's inevitable that people will maybe miss your point. My impression was that you played a brilliant attack that might be book .... because I don't play e4 as white so I wouldn't know .... and you were too content with that and simply didn't convert it into a win, because your thinking got lazy.

@tjtang2018 I was joking!

@Optimissed, yes. The post is not about 'which move I would to play' but 'which idea I should maintain in my mnd to convert my advantage in a win after tough thinking and...' When a player finish a forced and hard to see sequence of moves, the feeling is: uhhh, finally that pression is finish, I won now. But in that psychological thinking the player try at any cost maintain the position forgot chess is a 'generalized exchange' or in simple terms: chess is dynamic. If chess is dynamic someone cannot consider won in static terms. Won postions are real, but it is won because all changes in postion tends to maintain the advantage. In generic terms, A decisive advantage in move 18 is something like Pawn + King vs. King on move 67! The postion SHOULD change, dont try fix your advantage (material, space, initiative, etc..). 
I think we are like a kid  who dont like change your old toy by a better one dont matter how the adult explain is 'the same thing'

Yes well, the position you got was that you had better pawns and an exchange but you were a tempo behind in development. Only one tempo because you could attack the N that attacked your queen. And apart from vague threats on the white diagonals with his queen, your opponent didn't have much. You can give him your g-pawn due to the further threats you can make. Your B will be very well placed on e6 and your pair of rooks and aggressive Q e2 should seal the quick win. The more I look at it, the more I think that Qe2 is an immediate win, unless I missed something. No point swapping off. Your B is better than his N, your pawns are better and your pair of rooks should be decisive. You can always give the exchange back for a pawn or two but not in the way you tried to do it!

It always pays, after you achieve a won game, to continue to calculate just as hard for at least a couple of moves.

We dont have forgot my decisions allow white to continue won until when I give the exchange back... white was draw almost in the end...
But your options was in sense to maintain the pression. When I trade queens I know I'm won too, but my idea was based in fear.
I think try to dry the postion is related with fear and that fear is related to time pression which is related to lack of mental stamina etc...
People like me would preffer symetry and calm or static postions... The personality is relvealed in chess!

After ... Qe2, Nc4 doesn't work and nor does Qf5+ followed by Ne4, since black simply plays Be7 followed by Rf8, attacking the Q. So white has to play Nf3. after which ... Bd6. White plays Re1 and white has Qb5. No need to take the b pawn because white already has a bad weakness on g3. Black has now developed and should have all the chances. The rooks will be strong against the Q on an uncluttered board.

At least, that's my take on how to proceed. Someone else might like to swap the queens off!

I do not quite understand what it means to analyze.

The moves we find, since we are beginners, are quickly found.

The most important thing for us is not the correctness of the moves, but why are not we opting for those moves.

Our mindset, what are our aspirations, what do we really want to get with each move?

I think knowing yourself and understanding what makes you want to move 'A' rather than move 'B' is more important than analyzing a position. Analyzing yourself seems more important.

At our level we can usually identify almost immediately why we lose. They are strategic or tactical blunders that jump to the eye.

But that is another story ... But I would like to do everything I know during a game of chess. Probably I could only play everything I know in long games. It is frustrating in a sense to know that you could have done better. It would be much cooler to finish each game knowing that you have used everything you know, so losing is really learning. Who can learn anything when the reason for defeat is a strategic or tactical oversight that we already know? Thus, beginner chess players probably have more to learn about the psychological posture than chess itself.

So did you play the brilliant combination from memory?

Excuse me?