Rediscovering Turbo Eval : My Past Held The Answer

This was my thought process for the past 5 months.

Where Have I Been?

Okay, so my last post was on April 25, about five and a half months ago, which is a bit of a long time, so I feel that I owe an explanation as to why I stopped posting and what has happened since.
Around April, I sort of lost motivation along with the fact that I had other things on my mind. I had hit 2100, and felt that I had successfully broken my plateau, so my main goal for starting these blogs was sort of satisfied. I was also in the midst of graduating high school, so that took some priority. Summer months, I spent worrying about college, and generally grinding my rapid chess on Chess.com, though not with any particular thought process that I can remember. I reached 1680 USCF during the summer, but I felt way more achievement when I hit 2200 rapid on Chess.com about a week before college started. College was new and exciting and scary, but at the end of the day, it's just school. Girls are terrifying, but let's be honest, I play chess... that wasn't really in the picture. A month into college, I also turned 18, which was way more anticlimactic than I was expecting. I suppose I am an adult, but I don't feel like it, and I certainly don't feel prepared for it.

Why Come Back Now?

About two weeks into college, I played in a tournament and I won against a 2000 USCF rated player, the highest person I had ever beaten, being over 300 points higher rated than me. I ended up tying for first that tournament.
I was riding that high into my next tournament, where I get paired against a 2250 NM. I lost, but I fought hard, and I am happy with that game, but the rest of the tournament was not good. I went 0.5/3 and got a bye for my final round. Coming out of that tournament, I thought about it for a bit. I realized that I needed a thought process that I could effectively practice to push myself into the category of slightly good chess players.
I eventually found myself thinking about Wilhelm Steinitz, the first world chess champion. I actually really liked his ideas, and thought, "Maybe I can make a checklist or way of thinking to imitate his way of play." Namely, focused on his ideas such as gaining small advantages and small plans to push for small advantages.
I remembered these blogs right around this time, and I thought, I should make a new thought process and compare it with my old ones. But for the life of me, I couldn't remember what my old ones were about. So off I go, reading my old blogs, remembering stuff, until I found it, the explanation of Turbo Eval.

The Answer I Had Lost

Here is the basic explanation of Turbo Eval found in my original post:

my thought process will be based around small 2-4 move plans that can improve my position slowly. This should hopefully help me become better and better at making simple effective plans in the middle of games, both against computers and humans.

I was shocked. Please understand that I was looking for something to critique and criticize. Some part of me wants to blame it for being not good enough to achieve what I want, but the fault is mine. I strayed from the path. I stopped using it in it's intended form. I first made Turbo Eval in December 2024, but by April, I had let it devolve into something that it absolutely wasn't. It resembled Super Eval and Jeremy Silman's thought process more than its base form.
The worst part? I remember basing Turbo Eval on Wilhelm Steinitz. The exact same person who I was hoping to be inspired by today. After reading it through, it basically contained everything that I actually wanted in a thought process. I already had the answer, I had just let it go, and allowed myself to forget about it.

But I am back, and I am hoping to prove myself with it again. As I need some practice, I will perform a "boss rush". Going up the ladder on chess.com bots. I will show accuracies and how much I felt I used Turbo Eval. For consistency sake, I will be playing with the white pieces each game. These blogs will be different, as will have time constraints. It will be important for my development as a chess player and a user of Turbo Eval to get better at using it in within time constraints.

Intro Done! Boss Rush Time!

Martin (250)

---

There's not much to say about a game against Martin. It was over in 11 moves. I had a 72% accuracy vs. Martin's 53%. The reason I had so low accuracy was simply because I was unsure what to do if after Bc4, Qd4 was played. Bc4 in multiple positions was important, but I was unsure, so I just developed other pieces.

I would say I used Turbo Eval 7/10. It wasn't really difficult enough to necessitate using it, and my mind instantly wanted to just attack.

Maria (1000)

---

This was a simple game. I played with 98% accuracy vs Maria's 82%. After she blundered a piece in the opening, it was simply about taking space, and finding lines of attack. I eventually landed a brutal Bxh6, which completely opened up the black king's position, and the game ended a few moves later.

I would say I used Turbo Eval 9/10. It wasn't difficult, but I just followed simple plans, which is what Turbo Eval is designed for.

Wendy (1500)

---

This was another simple game. I played with 98% accuracy vs Wendy's 92%. This is another case of a blunder in the opening leading to a simple matter of converting the game. The blunder in this game relied on the fact that Re1 pinned to the black king. On move 20, I found a nice Bxg7 move to open more lines of attack, and give Wendy opportunities to make more mistakes. Other than that, it was pretty simple.

I would say I used Turbo Eval 9/10. Simple plans after an early blunder lead to easy conversion.

Li (2000)

---

This game was a bit more difficult. I played with 88% accuracy vs Li's 82%. I always struggle against the Sicilian, even if I have good chances. On move 13, I missed Qa4 attacking the bishop on g4 and preparing rook mobility, but I preferred Qc2 because I was allowing my rooks into the game, while pinning the knight on c6. Move 17. Ng5 lost me a lot of advantage. I was just trying to attack the f7 pawn, but everything can be defended, and I should want my bishop on e2 to attack the queenside. Eventually, Li made a blunder that I didn't throw away, and then the game turned into a simple endgame being up a whole rook.

I would say I used Turbo Eval 7.5/10. There were moments where I just didn't really think all that much, but either way, I got some practice.

Francis (2300)

---

This game was certainly more challenging. I played with 85% accuracy vs Francis's 81%. The alekhine is another opening that I get annoyed with. I used to play it, so you would think I know how to play against it, but I usually get myself into some trouble. I actually played the opening okay, but on move 14, I doubted myself and played Be2, which gives black initiative with Bc6. The main issues that I made were around moves 20-25. I played this a4, Ra3 idea, but it was simply the wrong idea, placing the rook on d1 and then going to d3 at some point was better. During the moves of 26-32, I certainly didn't calculate everything correctly, but I still got into a better position. The final blunder I made was Qe4 in the endgame, allowing the trade of my queen and bishop for the two rooks, as after this it is a draw so long as Francis just brings his king. But he didn't which allowed me to win the pawn rush. In this game, I was getting a little low on time around move 40.

I would say I used Turbo Eval 8/10. I definitely came up with some plans and things, but some were just the wrong plans, and of course, when I was low on time, I didn't really think about plans, just trying to play moves that seemed good.

Chess.com Engine (2500)

---

This was a very nice game by me. I had 97% accuracy vs the bot's 92%. During the game, I felt that the opening was shaky, mainly considering the pawns on c3, d4, and e5 felt very vulnerable, but things sorted themselves out to be in my favor. Some maneuvering allowed me to keep his king in the center and put lots of pieces on the attack. 23. Bxe7 was a nice find, as if black takes back, d6 almost completely wins the game, and if you don't take back. Well the game shows what happens. On move 29... Qd4. I was hovering my queen over the rook on f8, but luckily noticed that after Qxf8, Kxf8, Re8, Kf7, d8=Q, Qa1+ and black is the one giving checkmate. That would have been heartbreaking, and it was a clever trap by the computer.

I would say I used Turbo Eval 9/10. I used it a lot more productively and consistently in this game, and it shows.

Reflection

Overall, I am happy with how I am settling in to using Turbo Eval again. I will obviously need more practice, because there were some games were I started to slip, but still, I haven't done this in a bit.

For those who may have enjoyed reading my blog posts in the past, I apologize for not posting, and I will try to get back into a schedule. This is as much for others entertainment as it is for my own growth. Maybe I'll even reach 2300 on chess.com. Who knows.

If you are interested in thought processes or training to fight against the computer, consider joining lichess's The Club of Believers. felew699 has some amazing progress in his posts, and considering he is the one who founded the club, I would highly recommend looking at his content.

Also, please excuse any horrible writing I may have in this post; I had completed it fully, and then my draft updated, and all my progress was deleted, so I had to rewrite everything from memory, which was a pain.

Thank you for reading, and enjoy the rest of your day!