So I've finally hit 1600 legitimately. I've been here before, but on many time outs that were waiting for me. I'm a bit proud seeing as a year ago I generally was 1350+-50. Breaking 1400 was hard. At that point blunders glared me down and I may have still missed them such as a hung queen or a free back-row mate. Wins were generally based on blunders, and generally strategic play wasn't that important. At this point I feel as though most wins are still based on blunders, however slightly less obvious ones. Something that a computer could tell you instantly when reviewing and you look at yourself and call yourself an idiot, but feel that maybe that line was beyond your sight, so you don't give yourself too hard of a time. Something I'm working on developing, but I excuse myself for these sorts of errors. Not saying I don't still hang my queen -- it definitely happens, but it's a lot rarer. I don't think I've just hung a queen where it could be captured on the immediate next move in a couple of months on this site (blitz is a different matter) although I've still been mated in 6 in basically what was a scott's mate sort of mate -- two pieces attacking the weak f-pawn so I can't really say I'm glaring-blunder-free and I'm by no way, shape or form blunder-free. But I've gotten better. The games at this level tend to involve more strategy definitely. I would say I put strategic ideas behind my play to an extent, however wins rarely come from my superior strategy but rather from an opponent's equally viable strategy crumbling first due to a less-obvious blunder.
I just reread the previous paragraph and didn't realize I added so much fluff. I didn't mean to boast but sort of just wanted to provide back-up information leading into my question. That said, I'm pretty happy with myself, though I wholly understand that 1600 may even be contemptible to some of you and it's not that huge of an accomplishment.
Now that I'm here I expect to start playing people in the 1700-1800 range a lot more than I used to. What I've noticed from these people is that their game is a lot more solid. This is expected of course, but let me expand. As a 1400 it seemed a lot easier to win against a 1500 than it does now against a 1700. And especially when I play against 1800+...whew. Pretty sure I could count those wins on one hand. I feel as though I can play through and keep myself in a reasonable position through the opening of the game, but once I get to the mid-game I may be in trouble. I feel as though I have a better chance winning a tactical game against 1800+ since though their blunders are rare, they do happen, and this gives me a chance to capitalize against them. But generally in a strategic game -- whew. I have no idea what to do after a while. I look at the moves and I'm stuck. They all seem equally safe, but I can't find moves that seem to make progress. On the other hand, my opponent SEEMS to be making relatively pointless moves as well -- until I get crushed in a rain of awesomeness. Now, I know 200 points is a lot, but I would not expect to be dominated that way. Up till now when I played higher rated players I always felt as though I knew what to do, I just didn't have the perspicacity to see it. For the first time in my chess life I feel as though I often find myself in a position where even in retrospect I can't tell what I should be doing.
I'm wondering if anyone else has hit this sort of problem, and any advice that could be offered would be greatly appreciated. As a 1400 looking at the game of a 1600 I could almost always tell why a move was made, the purpose behind it, etc., and I could identify the good moves and the bad moves. Now, looking at the game of an 1800 level player I'm often left bewildered as to why it is they do what they do, however they tend to come around and win. I don't know how to proceed.
Originally posted by amolv06At first congrats, way to go!
So I've finally hit 1600 legitimately. I've been here before, but on many time outs that were waiting for me. I'm a bit proud seeing as a year ago I generally was 1350+-50. Breaking 1400 was hard. At that point blunders glared me down and I may have still missed them such as a hung queen or a free back-row mate. Wins were generally based on blunders, and gen ...[text shortened]... ver they tend to come around and win. I don't know how to proceed.
Maybe you are used to make a deep plan in order to attack a simple weakness; your opponent tries to defend and forces you to stop for a while due to his tactics, then you continue, then he interrupts you etc.
But on a Sunday afternoon you enter a CC situation in which you must Respect your opponent. He is not a dolt, he is skilled, he has plenty of time, he is backed up with databases, he has access to limitless Theory -he 's Dangerous; so material, structure and chronic weaknesses (the static elements) are there for you to spot them. Spot them not and you do nuffin. If you spot them you have to try a dynamic strategy.
But a dynamic strategy takes into account the lead in development, the activity of the pieces and a specific co-operative concentration of force in a certain sector of the chessboard (I mention not the crucial Time issue coz over here we 're talkin bout CC and we are time rich big time).
You see the diff: advantage is not understood solely in static terms. When your Opponent blocks a pawn it is not the pawn that he blocks; when he lands a piece on a hole he does not conquer a square which anyway you could not reach it.
Now remember my friend, a bit earlier you were staring at the position and frozen you were thinking: "But generally in a strategic game -- whew. I have no idea what to do after a while. I look at the moves and I'm stuck. They all seem equally safe, but I can't find moves that seem to make progress."
So in your opinion amolv06 dude, what was your Opponent actually doing in order to progress?
Here's an example from a 2/3 that I played:
I had the initiative the whole time, but I lose on time. I'll see if I can offer my analysis over the next few minutes, and hopefully someone can help me correct it, but the following game illustrates exactly what I was talking about.
I intended to give up my b, c, and d pawns for development of my two bishops. I've been successful with this in the past in blitz.
1. e4 e5
2. d4 exd4
3. c4
This was a mistake. I intended to play c3, but it wored out anyway.
3 ... dxc4.
4. Bc4 cxb2
5. Bxb2
I give up two pawns for a large advatage in development. This is probably very unsound, but the advantage in development has proved useful to me in blitz games before.
5 ... Nf6
6. e5
With the large advantage in development, I wanted to press as much as possible. With 6. e5 my intention was to press black's position while forcing his knight back. If 6 ... Ne4 then 7. Qf3 appears to get me a knight.
6 ... Ng8
7. Nf3 h6
h6 was one I hadn't anticipated for some reason, and hindered my plans.
8. Nb1d2 d5
8 ...d5 may possibly have been a mistake as he may not have seen the en passant. He may also have wanted to get his queen out, so I'm not sure, as it allowed him to do that.
9. exd5 ep Qxd6
10. O-O Be6
11. Re1
I expected the pin to be temporary with a 11 ...Ne7 or Be7. That was okay, though because I intended to follow with BxB and then Rb1 or Rc1. I would have had all my pieces in a position to bring them in to an attack then.
11 ... Nf6
12. Nd4
With the triple attack on Black's bishop from the knight, bishop and rook I figured I was going to win at least a pawn, plus get my rook in a very strong position. Also on my mind was The possible fork between black's king and queen from the rook if black didn't block it.
12 ... Be7
Blocks the fork, but still allows my rook into a pressing position.
13. Nxe6
This may have been a mistake. Perhaps I should have played Bxe6, but I can't see why. This is a very open game at this point, and I thought that the two bishops would serve me better than a bishop-knight combination.
13 ...fxe6
14. Rxe6
I chose to capture with the rook rather than the bishop to keet the black bishop pinned, and gain tempo by causing black to move the queen. My plan was to attack Black's remaining bishop, hoping to win it. I had forseen that the bishop could be saved, but his knight would have to move back to g8 to do this, and this seemed to lead to good things for me as I was far more developed than him.
14 ... Qd7
15. Ba3 Nc6
16. Qe2 Ng8
17. Qh5+
Forcing the King to move to d8. This takes away the castling possibility. I now have a stationary target to attack. If 17 ...Kf8 then 18. Rf6+ gxf6 (or Nxf6). Black can't play Bxf6 bringing his queen in because his bishop is pinned. After 18 ... gxf6 or Nxf6 then 19. Qf7++.
17 ... Kd8.
18. Bxe7+ ??
I was rushed on time but in retrospect this seems to be a bad move. I lose an attacking piece and allow him to bring in a piece to defend, and allowed his rook on h8 freedom to move down his back row. The idea behind this move was to take the Bishop out so 1.) it couldn't take out mine first, and 2.) it could not move to d6. I intended to bring my rook in the back row to d1 and attack his queen, and perhaps in the rish of blitz pin his queen. Definitely a miscalculation on my part.
18 ... Nxe7
19. Rd1 Kc8
20. Ne4
Here, while I still had an advantage in development, I had lost the attack. I could perhaps force him to shuffle his pieces around, but I don't see any way to press him anymore.
20 ... Qe8
21. Qh3 Kb8
22. Nc5
I seem to have an attack again with Na6 if I could only see it!!!
22 ... a6
23. Nd7+ ?
I was in a real rush on time here. I didn't even consider Nxa6+. That said, in retrospect after analyzing the position for a while, I don't know if it would have done me much good. For instance:
If black recaptures with his pawn then I seem to have the win. 24. Rb1+.
[FEN]rk2q2r/2p1n1p1/p1n1R2p/8/2B5/7Q/P4PPP/1R4K1[/FEN] (posted in following post)
If 24 ... Ka7 25. Qe3+ Nd4 26. Qxd4+ c5 27. Qxc5++. The other option is 24 ... Kc8 25. Rxe7+.
[FEN]r1k1q2r/2p1R1p1/p1n4p/8/2B5/7Q/P4PPP/1R4K1[/FEN] (posted 2 posts down)
From here it can proceed one of two ways.
25 ... Kd8 26. Rxe8.
[FEN]r2kR2r/2p3p1/p1n4p/8/2B5/7Q/P4PPP/1R4K1[/FEN] (posted 3 posts down)
Black can't play 26 ... Rxe8 because 27. Rd8 leads to mate.
So after white plays 26. Rxe8 Black must follow
26 ... Kxe8
27. Qe6+ Ne7
28. Qf7+ Kd8
29. Qe6+ Kb8 (or Kb7)
30. Rb1+ Ka7
31. Qe3+ c5
32. Qxc5++.
If instead of 25 ... Kd8 black decided to play 25 ... Qd7 then 26. Qxd7++.
If, however, instead of 23 ...bxa6 Black decided to play 23 ... Rxa6 then things would have looked different. I can not find a winning line from here, and things look fairly even.
Since, even after analyzing I can't seem to find anything except perhaps being able to force a draw after 23. Nxa6+ I don't feel too bad playing 23. Nd7+. After this black proceeds:
23 ... Ka7
24. Qe3+ b6
25. Qa3 Na5
Here I'm very short on time. I completely miss the threat on my bishop from black's knight.
26. Rxe7 Nxc4
27. Qg3 Qd8
28. h3
Things have totally fallen apart for me. I have no attack left. h3 was just a rushed move because I was going to really have to rush just to keep the game going and I wanted to avoid the back-row mate.
28 ...g5
and black wins on time.
I realize I made a couple of mistakes, however I felt I played this game reasonably well. I didn't see any outright blunders, and I had the initiative the whole time, but I don't see how I could have gotten trhough my opponents seemingly impenetrable defense. This is the sort of game I'm referring to, and I can't seem to figure out what I should have done to win this one.
To answer your question, I can't honestly figure out exactly how my opponent got out of that except by tactically blocking every threat I saw.
Sorry for the long post, and there's my analysis. Any help would be greatly appreciated.