At this point I should maybe stop playing the open sicilian until I become much stronger in tactics:
.
.
@noobforlife #1
In my opinion you are quickly jumping to conclusions.
But chess is not always about attacking and tactics. There's also "consolidate" a position, and converting a material advantage.
In this game you had a won position for several moves.
And you played very well in this game overall imho.
In my opinion you are quickly jumping to conclusions.
But chess is not always about attacking and tactics. There's also "consolidate" a position, and converting a material advantage.
In this game you had a won position for several moves.
And you played very well in this game overall imho.
At move 20: missed a simple win with Qe7. When attacking, you're not supposed to move your pieces backward.
Your game only started going downhill at move 20. I don't know what your choice of opening has to do with that.
And your conclusion really does not make sense. If you want to become better at tactics, you'll want to practise precisely this kind of bloody games! And gain experience in it.
Not avoid it.
And your conclusion really does not make sense. If you want to become better at tactics, you'll want to practise precisely this kind of bloody games! And gain experience in it.
Not avoid it.
You play too fast. If you had thought longer, you might have found 21 Qe7. Tactical games often end around move 30. You can spend all your time. As this was an increment game you even do not risk losing on time.
@ProfDrHack that was my frustration talking, there is no way I would give up on the open sicilian if I want to become stronger.
I agree with @tpr, you play too fast. You spent 20.5 seconds on 21. Bd2. In a 10+7 game, you can afford to spend longer. The problem is, how do you know to spend longer?
In this situation, you clearly have an advantage in that your pieces are much better placed; you are down three pawns but up a piece; in such a position, I would be looking for checkmate opportunities if I were you (otherwise Black trades pieces and your piece may not be so good against his pawns in the endgame). So, as soon as Black plays 20...f6, you should be thinking "that pawn move is pretty weakening, I wonder if I can exploit those weaknesses?" The "weakness of the last move", in this case, is that the move ...f6 undefends g7 (previously, the f-pawn was just blocking sight of the g-pawn; now it isn't). So that's how you might have found the idea of 21.Qe7, doubling on the seventh rank and winning the game.
So it's a combination of mental attitudes: you thought "my Bishop is attacked, I should move it away", which is not an attacking idea, and you didn't spend enough time to find the right move, even though spending more time in any position around that point would have been more than justified: you have a dominating position, and if you find a winning move, then you win! (By the way, I notice that you have a very nice "training" rating, indicating that you're not bad at finding winning moves; but again, you just need to spend more time in those winning positions.)
All that being said, well done on getting to that position in the first place. Next time, spend a bit more time to find the winning move, and I'm sure you'll come out the well-deserved victor!
In this situation, you clearly have an advantage in that your pieces are much better placed; you are down three pawns but up a piece; in such a position, I would be looking for checkmate opportunities if I were you (otherwise Black trades pieces and your piece may not be so good against his pawns in the endgame). So, as soon as Black plays 20...f6, you should be thinking "that pawn move is pretty weakening, I wonder if I can exploit those weaknesses?" The "weakness of the last move", in this case, is that the move ...f6 undefends g7 (previously, the f-pawn was just blocking sight of the g-pawn; now it isn't). So that's how you might have found the idea of 21.Qe7, doubling on the seventh rank and winning the game.
So it's a combination of mental attitudes: you thought "my Bishop is attacked, I should move it away", which is not an attacking idea, and you didn't spend enough time to find the right move, even though spending more time in any position around that point would have been more than justified: you have a dominating position, and if you find a winning move, then you win! (By the way, I notice that you have a very nice "training" rating, indicating that you're not bad at finding winning moves; but again, you just need to spend more time in those winning positions.)
All that being said, well done on getting to that position in the first place. Next time, spend a bit more time to find the winning move, and I'm sure you'll come out the well-deserved victor!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.