This game falls into the category of a cringeworthy win. In the last round of the tournament, I faced someone of comparable strength, after having performed well in the previous three rounds. The course of the game I believe is explained more by psychological and "visual" factors than anything else. The one concrete takeaway from the analysis was the reason behind my error on move 11, which is a valuable teaching point in this variation of the Classical Caro-Kann.
In any event, after this White quickly assumes a dominant-looking position on the kingside, which I compound by an unwillingness to violate standard principles and give up the right to castle, which would have yielded an acceptable game. White makes an "obvious move" (the perils of which I've posted about before) on move 16 and I should have been able to effectively respond and turn the tables on him. However, I find only the second-best move and then fail to identify the right strategy, which would be to sacrifice the f- and g-pawns in return for real counterplay for my rooks and against White's airy king position. Instead, I unnecessarily sacrifice a bishop in return for some temporary, if awkward-looking, threats. My opponent, instead of pressing his advantage immediately, starts focusing on my psuedo-threats, however. This mistake leads to the opportunity for a backwards bishop move that forks king and queen and immediately wins. These types of backwards moves have a higher chance of being overlooked in calculation, since they appear to be considered less natural to the brain's board vision, unless you enforce a disciplined thinking process about considering candidate moves.
Although it wasn't really skill that decided this game, I will give some credit at least to the positive value of not giving up and the idea of seeking to pose problems for your opponent, who is thereby given the chance to go astray.
In any event, after this White quickly assumes a dominant-looking position on the kingside, which I compound by an unwillingness to violate standard principles and give up the right to castle, which would have yielded an acceptable game. White makes an "obvious move" (the perils of which I've posted about before) on move 16 and I should have been able to effectively respond and turn the tables on him. However, I find only the second-best move and then fail to identify the right strategy, which would be to sacrifice the f- and g-pawns in return for real counterplay for my rooks and against White's airy king position. Instead, I unnecessarily sacrifice a bishop in return for some temporary, if awkward-looking, threats. My opponent, instead of pressing his advantage immediately, starts focusing on my psuedo-threats, however. This mistake leads to the opportunity for a backwards bishop move that forks king and queen and immediately wins. These types of backwards moves have a higher chance of being overlooked in calculation, since they appear to be considered less natural to the brain's board vision, unless you enforce a disciplined thinking process about considering candidate moves.
Although it wasn't really skill that decided this game, I will give some credit at least to the positive value of not giving up and the idea of seeking to pose problems for your opponent, who is thereby given the chance to go astray.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments and ideas on chess training and this site are welcomed.
Please note that moderation is turned on as an anti-spam measure; your comment will be published as soon as possible, if it is not spam.