As improving players, sometimes our best games against strong opposition still end in losses. As with any serious game, I believe it's what you get out of it, in terms of a better understanding of both the chess and yourself, that are important in the long run to gaining strength. The result still stings a bit when you know you should have won, though.
One pattern that has become very obvious in my games is that when I fully understand the early middlegame plans, I do very well. Otherwise, I am sometimes prone to crash and burn by around move 25, not really knowing what to do with my pieces and getting in trouble as a result. The below first-round tournament game shows the former case. I know how to put the pieces on their best squares, identify targets in the enemy camp, and capitalize on inaccurate moves to achieve first a substantial and then winning advantage.
The final result illustrates, however, how and why many master-level players are able to avoid losing, and in fact win, against lower-rated opposition. My opponent keeps taking active, practical chances for counterplay, even when completely lost. The length of the game starts taking its toll on my calculating ability and when the situation becomes increasingly pressured and sharp, I go off the winning path and in fact lose. My opponent well deserved the result, since he never gave up and did what was necessary to find pressuring moves that gave him the best chances. And although it was a loss, I can take away from it a number of positive reinforcements as well, to emulate in future games.
One pattern that has become very obvious in my games is that when I fully understand the early middlegame plans, I do very well. Otherwise, I am sometimes prone to crash and burn by around move 25, not really knowing what to do with my pieces and getting in trouble as a result. The below first-round tournament game shows the former case. I know how to put the pieces on their best squares, identify targets in the enemy camp, and capitalize on inaccurate moves to achieve first a substantial and then winning advantage.
The final result illustrates, however, how and why many master-level players are able to avoid losing, and in fact win, against lower-rated opposition. My opponent keeps taking active, practical chances for counterplay, even when completely lost. The length of the game starts taking its toll on my calculating ability and when the situation becomes increasingly pressured and sharp, I go off the winning path and in fact lose. My opponent well deserved the result, since he never gave up and did what was necessary to find pressuring moves that gave him the best chances. And although it was a loss, I can take away from it a number of positive reinforcements as well, to emulate in future games.
Hi ChessAdmin,
ReplyDeleteI found this game really interesting. I am a professional chess coach, and from time to time I see my students lose won games in a similar fashion.
I wrote a blog post about simplifications and used your game as an example. I hope you don't mind it.
https://www.chess.com/blog/GaborHorvath/game-analysis-10-the-right-way-to-simplify-in-chess
Cheers,
Gabor
Glad to be of service!
DeleteOne of the things that struck me about the analysis was the move 38 variation, which I think is an elegant simplification into a won position, also demonstrating how giving back material can lead to other benefits.