This second-round tournament game features a hard fight in the early middlegame, as my opponent does a good job of seizing the initiative by passing up "obvious" moves (such as automatic recaptures). Instead, she creatively seeks out ones that increase the number of threats on the board. The main clash is from moves 15-22 and I am only able to stay equal by using the same idea, meeting a threat with a threat.
After move 23, I am a pawn up but Black has both positional (the bishop pair) and dynamic compensation, including pressure against my king position. It's instructive to see how calmer defense (for example on move 25) could have better neutralized Black's threats; later on, more dynamic defense by creating counterthreats on the a-file would also have been an improvement.
In the late game, as often occurs, I started getting tired, and blundered on move 39. What happens is that I start cutting mental corners and do not look hard enough at my opponent's possible responses to candidate moves, which is a thinking process violation. Fortunately, my opponent was not in much better shape, however, and let me back in the game; I was able to save the draw in R+B ending with opposite-colored bishops. From a technical standpoint, the endgame analysis pointed out the importance of getting the rook mobile and active; instead, I did too much moving around with the bishop. From a psychological perspective, the game showed how continuing to fight after a blunder can be rewarded, if you are able to keep looking for ways to wrong-foot your opponent.
My opponent (a junior) showed good sportsmanship, but was clearly disappointed with the outcome, for which I can't blame her. It may have been a little frustrating for her playing me again as well. This was our third tournament encounter in two years, with the previous game being a 77-move draw that I should have won in the endgame. We were both Class A at this point, but she had started out as a low Class B and had gained much more than I had over time (a common pattern with juniors). However, it seems that we were well matched, in all three games drawing after a hard struggle.
After move 23, I am a pawn up but Black has both positional (the bishop pair) and dynamic compensation, including pressure against my king position. It's instructive to see how calmer defense (for example on move 25) could have better neutralized Black's threats; later on, more dynamic defense by creating counterthreats on the a-file would also have been an improvement.
In the late game, as often occurs, I started getting tired, and blundered on move 39. What happens is that I start cutting mental corners and do not look hard enough at my opponent's possible responses to candidate moves, which is a thinking process violation. Fortunately, my opponent was not in much better shape, however, and let me back in the game; I was able to save the draw in R+B ending with opposite-colored bishops. From a technical standpoint, the endgame analysis pointed out the importance of getting the rook mobile and active; instead, I did too much moving around with the bishop. From a psychological perspective, the game showed how continuing to fight after a blunder can be rewarded, if you are able to keep looking for ways to wrong-foot your opponent.
My opponent (a junior) showed good sportsmanship, but was clearly disappointed with the outcome, for which I can't blame her. It may have been a little frustrating for her playing me again as well. This was our third tournament encounter in two years, with the previous game being a 77-move draw that I should have won in the endgame. We were both Class A at this point, but she had started out as a low Class B and had gained much more than I had over time (a common pattern with juniors). However, it seems that we were well matched, in all three games drawing after a hard struggle.
