Okay, at the bottom of this comment is my game (pgn) alluded to in my earlier comment, where I thought I had missed or not seen a checkmate sequence starting with 19...Nxe3 (a (higher rated than me) friend pointed it out analyzing it without using an engine). Only today had a chance to request analysis of this game from Lichess (Stockfish 16 NNUE). I am playing with the black pieces. It turns out there is no checkmate if white takes 20.fxe3 Qxe3+ due to 21.Kd1! Ba4+ 22.Bc2 and white is +2.9) Okay, there was not checkmate but, my claim/point is that sometimes we make mistakes [in positions] we should not have made (for our level) in positions that aren't that complex to avoid those, or we don't see/consider ideas(sequences) that we should have seen/considered for our level in some positions. In this game, I should have looked/spotted/considered/calculated the capture 19...Nxe3, end of story! (and seen where it would have taken me) Yet, even though there was no checkmate sequence, it is a sequence/move I should have looked at/considered but didn't (19....Nxe3 20.fxe3 Qxe3+), moreover it is a sequence I should have played/taken in the game, since the white king is still in the center, instead of going after material gain (with 19...Rc8) and having to fight white's strong initiative (although black could have hold/stopped pawn promotion according to the engine) that could lead me to errors/mistakes later on in the game, as it occurred with black's blunder 24...Kf8?? Eval went from -1.4 to +4.0. Unbelievable! And after a few more blunders and 'returns of the favor', we agreed to a draw when the evaluation was around -7.0. I did see/consider 24...Nf6 (here or after repetition) but did not play it because I thought it would not hold it for black. Unbelievable again! What was I thinking? I can't remember if my opponent saw that taking 19.Qxc7 would lose his rook on h1. I think he said he thought he would have the time/opportunity to promote his a pawn if black went for the material, which means he saw/spotted the skewer tactic 19...Rc8 , which is a good/great thing, regardless of the calculation to promotion was faulty (this would be separate topic/issue for improvement). Now what? Well, here's my take/view about the reasons I think cause those mistakes/misses (or why it happens, mostly to us mere mortals/non-GMs) Disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist: Worrying/"unstable"/disgusted mind. If one is upset or worrying about something, for whatever reason, when we are playing serious games, then those 'mistakes/misses we should not have made' will [easily] show up in our game. Stress. If one is stressed out for whatever reason, we will find difficulty focusing or paying attention, and we will tend to make mistakes we would not make otherwise. Unable to concentrate. When one is tired, or in a bad mood, unwilling to think, or unmotivated, or otherwise if we lack energy, we will be unable to concentrate properly to think/play/calculate/notice good moves in our game, and we'll tend to make unforced/unnecessary mistakes. What I have found/noticed about my game is that, when I am worry free and relaxed (really relaxed) I tend to play better than when I'm not. Also, I noticed I started playing better (and blundered lot less) when I stoped worrying/fearing about the outcome/result of the game. It has also helped me a lot being patient (not as demanding/hard) with myself, patient with my skill, and patient with my learning pace; that has boosted my self-confidence. In summary, I would say that we should/must strive playing AT A MINIMUM 'our current chess level (or ELO)', all other factors like health and mood being in good standing. Ideally (and naturally) better than that (improve), specially if we are following a study/training program (I'm not at the moment). Hope that helps other players/people figure out/explain some of the mistakes they make that they should not have made, so they can take a step forward in their chess improvement journey. For reference, I am 1650, my opponent 825. Time control was G/45;+10. Likely, Discourse or other platforms were preferable for this kind of comment/discussion, but I don't have a Discourse account. 1. d4 { [%eval 0.17] } 1... Nf6 { [%eval 0.17] } 2. Bf4 { [%eval 0.0] } 2... d6 { [%eval 0.25] } 3. e3 { [%eval 0.04] } 3... Nbd7 { [%eval 0.12] } 4. Nf3 { [%eval -0.14] } 4... Nh5 { [%eval -0.06] } 5. Bg3 { [%eval -0.27] } 5... Nxg3 { [%eval -0.29] } 6. hxg3 { [%eval -0.27] } 6... Nf6 { [%eval -0.18] } 7. Bd3 { [%eval -0.25] } 7... g6 { [%eval -0.39] } 8. c3 { [%eval -0.44] } 8... Bg7 { [%eval -0.41] } 9. Nbd2 { [%eval -0.4] } 9... Bg4 { [%eval -0.25] } 10. Qa4+ { [%eval -0.45] } 10... Bd7 { [%eval -0.33] } 11. Qb3 { [%eval -0.31] } 11... O-O?! { [%eval 0.35] } { Inaccuracy. Rb8 was best. } (11... Rb8 12. a4 O-O 13. a5 c6 14. O-O Ng4 15. Nh2 e5 16. Nxg4 Bxg4 17. dxe5) 12. Qxb7 { [%eval 0.3] } 12... Rb8 { [%eval 0.36] } 13. Qxa7 { [%eval 0.13] } 13... Rxb2 { [%eval 0.15] } 14. Rb1 { [%eval -0.06] } 14... Rxb1+ { [%eval -0.03] } 15. Bxb1 { [%eval -0.05] } 15... e5 { [%eval 0.39] } 16. a4 { [%eval -0.02] } 16... exd4 { [%eval -0.04] } 17. cxd4 { [%eval -0.04] } 17... Ng4? { [%eval 1.11] } { Mistake. Qa8 was best. } (17... Qa8 18. Qxa8) 18. a5? { [%eval -0.48] } { Mistake. O-O was best. } (18. O-O Qb8 19. Qxb8 Rxb8 20. Bc2 Ra8 21. Ra1 Ra5 22. Nc4 Ra7 23. a5 Nf6) 18... Qe7?? { [%eval 1.95] } { Blunder. Bb5 was best. } (18... Bb5 19. Ne4) 19. Qxc7?? { [%eval -1.95] } { Blunder. O-O was best. } (19. O-O Bc6 20. Qa6 Qd7 21. Rc1 Bd5 22. Qf1 c5 23. dxc5 dxc5 24. Rxc5 Rd8) 19... Rc8 { [%eval -1.94] } 20. Qb7 { [%eval -1.99] } 20... Rc1+ { [%eval -1.76] } 21. Ke2 { [%eval -1.8] } 21... Rxh1 { [%eval -1.88] } 22. a6 { [%eval -1.82] } 22... Qe8 { [%eval -1.63] } 23. a7 { [%eval -1.19] } 23... Bc6 { [%eval -1.33] } 24. Qb8 { [%eval -1.03] } 24... Kf8?? { [%eval 1.86] } { Blunder. Nf6 was best. } (24... Nf6) 25. Be4?? { [%eval 0.0] } { Blunder. Nc4 was best. } (25. Nc4 Rxb1 26. Qxb1 Qe6 27. Na5 Bd5 28. Qb8+ Ke7 29. a8=Q Bxa8 30. Qxa8 Bf8) 25... d5 { [%eval 0.0] } 26. Bxd5?? { [%eval -3.59] } { Blunder. Nc4 was best. } (26. Nc4 Bf6 27. Nfe5 Nxe5 28. dxe5 Be7 29. Bxd5 Bxd5 30. Nb6 Bc5 31. Nxd5 Bxa7) 26... Bxd5 { [%eval -3.39] } 27. Qd6+?! { [%eval -4.45] } { Inaccuracy. Nb3 was best. } (27. Nb3 Bf6) 27... Kg8 { [%eval -4.44] } 28. Qb8 { [%eval -4.91] } 28... Kf8?! { [%eval -3.44] } { Inaccuracy. Nf6 was best. } (28... Nf6 29. Ne1 Bf8 30. e4 Qe6 31. a8=Q Bxa8 32. Qxa8 Qg4+ 33. Nef3 Qd7 34. Qa6) 29. e4?! { [%eval -4.37] } { Inaccuracy. Ng5 was best. } (29. Ng5 Bf6) 29... Ra1 { [%eval -4.08] } 30. Qd6+ { [%eval -4.79] } 30... Kg8 { [%eval -4.87] } 31. Qb8 { [%eval -5.48] } 31... Kf8?! { [%eval -4.19] } { Inaccuracy. Bc6 was best. } (31... Bc6 32. Kd3 Rxa7 33. Qxa7 Nxf2+ 34. Kc2 Nxe4 35. Nc4 Ba4+ 36. Kd3 Bb5 37. Qc7) 32. Qd6+ { [%eval -4.86] } 32... Kg8 { [%eval -4.58] } 0.5-0.5
Man, there is a lot to say, chess wise, about the game, and the odd situation as well. Off the gate, just because you won the game doesn't mean black wasn't lost earlier in the game: 1. you wom the game because your opponent blundered that rook on his last move (made the last mistake) 2. if the IM said black was lost after d6xc7, I would at least ask him why (the reason) or expect him to tell why, PLUS 3. agree, if black was lost, then show how (or prove it), or show the sequence(s)/lines that win for white 4. what does the machine say? have you checked? it's important to find out/figure out why/how, if Nf6 is a blunder, black loses; i don't see why/how after d6xc7 Chess wise, the game, to my surprise, is, if not full of mistakes, there is a lot of them for the level of you both. honestly, i would expect better moves from players rated 1700, needless to say from players rated 2200. you both made a move that was dubious, and then the next move was dubious as well. there was no move that was marked as good, not one. Chess wise, after white exchanged Bxf6, Rxf6, black did not have a lot of activity as you mentioned, so much so that the evaluation was quite even (your words). In my view, even though there was open lines/files, black's pieces had no harmony or coordination, plus no clear aim/target of attack; that means black had NO compensation at all for the pawn, plus it's got the isolated c6, a7 pawns'; black does not even have any concreate threats to seek an advantage or take the initiative. i was looking.... hmmmm what about white playing c3 instead of Nc3? (following up with that trading pieces idea) what does the engine say here for white? The "the bishop pair that could be very difficult to deal with" that wasn't. The right way to proceed? after Qe1. I don't know, I'd play Ba5 (trying to recover the pawn), or finding a better position for the black queen Qc5+; or Ba6 right away followed by Re8. 5:59 Chess wise, if you find yourself saying "coming up with a plan for me was really really hard to do and it was tough...", even if you had the bishop pair and a lot of open lines, that is a [clear [enough]] indicator that black's position was not good or was just bad (not lost at this point though) 10:57 Down a pawn and against a passed wing pawn, doesn't look drawish to me. That position isn't. So, the 2200 player couldn't find Rd4-d7 (after g6, which opens the long diagonal to the black king); I think he should have found it. I probably would not have found/seen it either. I recently had my moment of not seeing a possible checkmate which I think was easier to see than Rd4-d7 here (I'll share it later in a separate comment. I'm 1650 USCF) After Rd4-d7 If Rf8xf7, Qd4+ (first), Kg8, Rd7xd8+, Rf8, Rd7 (threatens mate on g7), Rf7, Qc4 wins. If Rd8xd7, Rf7xd7! and how does black stop Qd4+ ? if Kg8 Qd4 anyway (or Qc4+ and you give up your queen to stop mate with Qd5) and Qd2+ to delay mate Wow... Then white went on with Qa3 bad move, Qb2 blunder, a5 blunder. That's too many mistakes (specially a5) in a row for a 2200 rated player. Yes, it was a strange attitude or behavior from the IM about your game and the result, even just the fact that he was there specifically to watch it. I don't know what they were trying to do there, it isn't very clear to me. From his comment that you were lost on move 6 (even if was true) after you won the game, I would speculate they were trying to show you do not play well? But that would also apply to your opponent!, even more so! It was odd on their part definitely. But Nick, just to remain with our feet on the ground, you didn't win the game (don't get me wrong), rather Bill lost it (and with reason after so many mistakes). Thanks for sharing your experience. I have not had a similar one so far.
Thanks for such a well articulated and well crafted comment. Much appreciated for you taking the time on this one. Yeah I had some of the same questions as you did for sure after his comments. Show me the mines. Most of my comments are referring to engine eval after the fact for sure to be perfectly clear. Indeed both openings were played quite dubious as you mentioned. Bill though at his floor of 2200 is also 85 years old. I’m sure his strength is quite lower on some days. At times he gets tired and his play deteriorates. No slam on Bill at all since he can still play like a master. I think he just gets tired on longer games now. Also to his credit he plays all sorts of different openings. I think he does this because he’s just there to have fun. My title is a bit clickbaity for sure. It’s was more being such an odd situation with an IM that is looking for students but didn’t really want to instruct. Then the few things he did instruct on the engine said were different. In the endgame with the outside l Passer the eval was +0.7 so not completely winning for white. I mainly study endgames and am quite confident within them so having an outside passer I felt at the time I could have stopped it against my opponent. Against an IM most certainly I lose that game. And to Bill wonderful credit I did not win the game that’s correct. He lost the game and I found the right way to capitalize on his mistake. He was quite low on time as well. Again thanks for sure a well crafted comment and thanks for watching. Much appreciated.
