here I was in disadvantage almost whole game, but position ,more or less , felt stable, so there were chances to defend. So what is special in this positions,that they had some good chances to defend, and how can I create them on purpose?
Time trouble.
@IamNOTamod said in #2:
> Time trouble.
really? as he lost his rook , he has 36 seconds, not so few time actually
> Time trouble.
really? as he lost his rook , he has 36 seconds, not so few time actually
Lack of endgame technique.
It is so common: strong opening, strong middle game, losing the endgame.
It is so common: strong opening, strong middle game, losing the endgame.
@tpr said in #4:
> Lack of endgame technique.
> It is so common: strong opening, strong middle game, losing the endgame.
yes, but I must mention, that if his middlegame was really strong, I wouldn't make it till the end and would loose, so it was convinient for Me to defend somehow
> Lack of endgame technique.
> It is so common: strong opening, strong middle game, losing the endgame.
yes, but I must mention, that if his middlegame was really strong, I wouldn't make it till the end and would loose, so it was convinient for Me to defend somehow
You were never in immediate danger. White was winning from your bad move 4...Ng6?
His first real mistake was 48 Kf2? instead of 48 Kg3.
You made then the mistake 49...Kf5? instead of 49...Nxb4.
53 Rf1? is the decisive mistake instead of 53 Bd6.
So it is all about the endgame.
His first real mistake was 48 Kf2? instead of 48 Kg3.
You made then the mistake 49...Kf5? instead of 49...Nxb4.
53 Rf1? is the decisive mistake instead of 53 Bd6.
So it is all about the endgame.
@tpr said in #6:
> You were never in immediate danger. White was winning from your bad move 4...Ng6?
> His first real mistake was 48 Kf2? instead of 48 Kg3.
> You made then the mistake 49...Kf5? instead of 49...Nxb4.
> 53 Rf1? is the decisive mistake instead of 53 Bd6.
> So it is all about the endgame.
this mistakes matters of course, but they all in endgame, so in endgame My position was already almost out of danger, I think main threats must be in middlegame, where there is complex understanding by my opponent needed to realize them, which he didn't
> You were never in immediate danger. White was winning from your bad move 4...Ng6?
> His first real mistake was 48 Kf2? instead of 48 Kg3.
> You made then the mistake 49...Kf5? instead of 49...Nxb4.
> 53 Rf1? is the decisive mistake instead of 53 Bd6.
> So it is all about the endgame.
this mistakes matters of course, but they all in endgame, so in endgame My position was already almost out of danger, I think main threats must be in middlegame, where there is complex understanding by my opponent needed to realize them, which he didn't
@aVague
The Answer is very simple, from move no. 32 to move no. 50. The rook on c5 stayed where it was. Engine didn't register the bishop moves as inaccuracies, as they didn't weaken the position in any way. But it shows clear lack of understanding from your opponent, He was practically playing without the rook for those moves, and then suddenly when he realized, he kind of panicked, maybe because he realized he wasted a lot of time.
Simply put, you won because your opponent blundered. But you were able to hold a draw because of lack understanding about piece activity from your opponent.
Edit: I sent this message and then realized I completely forgot to mention that your opponent should have kept pawns on both sides of the board, as he had white square weakness and also when a player has a knight, It gets very hard to hold on both sides of the board. As knight takes atleast 2 moves (bare minimum), to get to the other side of the board, whereas the Rook can get to the other side of the board in 3 moves, almost always. It is not possible only when it is very cramped. Therefore, it would have been better for him to keep pawns on both sides.
The Answer is very simple, from move no. 32 to move no. 50. The rook on c5 stayed where it was. Engine didn't register the bishop moves as inaccuracies, as they didn't weaken the position in any way. But it shows clear lack of understanding from your opponent, He was practically playing without the rook for those moves, and then suddenly when he realized, he kind of panicked, maybe because he realized he wasted a lot of time.
Simply put, you won because your opponent blundered. But you were able to hold a draw because of lack understanding about piece activity from your opponent.
Edit: I sent this message and then realized I completely forgot to mention that your opponent should have kept pawns on both sides of the board, as he had white square weakness and also when a player has a knight, It gets very hard to hold on both sides of the board. As knight takes atleast 2 moves (bare minimum), to get to the other side of the board, whereas the Rook can get to the other side of the board in 3 moves, almost always. It is not possible only when it is very cramped. Therefore, it would have been better for him to keep pawns on both sides.
@Gadhavi_Veerbhadra said in #8:
> @aVague
>
> The Answer is very simple, from move no. 32 to move no. 50. The rook on c5 stayed where it was. Engine didn't register the bishop moves as inaccuracies, as they didn't weaken the position in any way. But it shows clear lack of understanding from your opponent, He was practically playing without the rook for those moves, and then suddenly when he realized, he kind of panicked, maybe because he realized he wasted a lot of time.
>
> Simply put, you won because your opponent blundered. But you were able to hold a draw because of lack understanding about piece activity from your opponent.
>
> Edit: I sent this message and then realized I completely forgot to mention that your opponent should have kept pawns on both sides of the board, as he had white square weakness and also when a player has a knight, It gets very hard to hold on both sides of the board. As knight takes atleast 2 moves (bare minimum), to get to the other side of the board, whereas the Rook can get to the other side of the board in 3 moves, almost always. It is not possible only when it is very cramped. Therefore, it would have been better for him to keep pawns on both sides.
Yes, Good view , Much Thx!
> @aVague
>
> The Answer is very simple, from move no. 32 to move no. 50. The rook on c5 stayed where it was. Engine didn't register the bishop moves as inaccuracies, as they didn't weaken the position in any way. But it shows clear lack of understanding from your opponent, He was practically playing without the rook for those moves, and then suddenly when he realized, he kind of panicked, maybe because he realized he wasted a lot of time.
>
> Simply put, you won because your opponent blundered. But you were able to hold a draw because of lack understanding about piece activity from your opponent.
>
> Edit: I sent this message and then realized I completely forgot to mention that your opponent should have kept pawns on both sides of the board, as he had white square weakness and also when a player has a knight, It gets very hard to hold on both sides of the board. As knight takes atleast 2 moves (bare minimum), to get to the other side of the board, whereas the Rook can get to the other side of the board in 3 moves, almost always. It is not possible only when it is very cramped. Therefore, it would have been better for him to keep pawns on both sides.
Yes, Good view , Much Thx!
#7
"in endgame My position was already almost out of danger" * No. You had a lost endgame.
"main threats must be in middlegame" * No. Your king was safe and the position was closed. With 48 Kg3 you lose.
He failed to handle your advanced pawn with 48 Kg3 and with 53...Bd6.
From move 5 to move 47 you both played well: he kept his winning position and you did not lose.
"in endgame My position was already almost out of danger" * No. You had a lost endgame.
"main threats must be in middlegame" * No. Your king was safe and the position was closed. With 48 Kg3 you lose.
He failed to handle your advanced pawn with 48 Kg3 and with 53...Bd6.
From move 5 to move 47 you both played well: he kept his winning position and you did not lose.