Good at getting an advantage, terrible at converting

@Buttercup22 said in #10:

Thanks and that's true. Also you could be in a position where one side has an advantage but must play more accurately than the other side to convert it to a win. I'll go a step further. If such demands of a position are stark enough it's possible that a human player might be even better off if his opponent had the objectcively winning side when him making one little mistake would ruin his position. That's kind of what some of these coffeehouse gambits are based on. And that's why they are fun to play as the "disadvantaged" side.

Yes, you have mentioned an interesting point: the advantageous positions in which a mistake, a slip can turn the situation into defeat. The high degree of precision required here makes it difficult to turn advantage into a win.

@Professor74 said in #5:

Usually getting an advantage in the opening or early middlegame is a matter of applying some general principles and a bit of calculation. Once the advantage is achieved, it is often necessary to use some more complex procedures. In addition, the rival risks more looking for salvation. This makes it difficult to turn advantage into victory.

I hadn't seen this problem this way but it makes a lot of sense. Thank you!

@Professor74 said in #11:

Yes, you have mentioned an interesting point: the advantageous positions in which a mistake, a slip can turn the situation into defeat. The high degree of precision required here makes it difficult to turn advantage into a win.

For me it happens a lot. I'm a much more intuitive / positional player than a skilled tactician. I will often get an advantage out of the opening or in the early middlegame, and feel compelled to play for a win. But then even if I play moves that the objective computer evaluation says are proper ways to exploit my advantage, they often take me into tactical dogfights that are beyond my skill level, and in the confusion I blunder into a loss.

I once read an evaluation of the Alekhine--Euwe championship matches, where AA was supposed be the master of complex positions, but Euwe was supposed to be the calm, technically-minded logician / exploiter of minute advantages. The comment was that games quite often featured wild tactical melees. Yet why would Euwe go into such lines, since it didn't seem to be best given his own skillset? The reason given was that AA often guided the games into situations where the best line of play for his opponent involved all-out active play. And if Euwe saw that "logic dictated" sharp tactical play, he would tend to play using that best approach, even though it played into AA's own strengths.

If you have +2 on position alone, not gonna lie, its quite hard to win if you lack understanding of mid game, pawn structures and many many other topics, the only option you have its to improve.

Now, if you are talking material advantage, say 2 pawns, or a full piece, its a whole different story that can be solved in general, with a methodical play that will allow you to win by force. The methodology is more or less like this.
1.- Verifyng the advantage.
2.- Consolidate your pieces.
3.- Shut down counterplay.
4.- Force a defensive stand.
5.- March.

1.-So basically you need to be alert to when to start executing the plan, sometimes its as soon as you get the advantage, other times you might need to reposition first and start a few moves after, but the important part is that you know when you will switch to methodology mode.

2 and 3.- Before you start attacking, you need to assess if your pieces are standing strong , or if your position is shaky despite the advantage. Make sure your pieces are defended, not attacked, not prone to tactics and that there will be no infiltrations either in diagonals, files or columns.

You may need to retreat to safe squares preemptively, and shut down diagonals or any open plug first. Generally speaking, you do not want to exchange when you are ahead unless there is a problematic piece that can create some counterplay, it is on a very good defensive stance or if it will worsen your opponents position.

4.- Once you know that your opponent cant launch an attack, then you start targeting his pieces that cant move much or that are very well positioned and dont want to move. This will force the opponent to defend them with another piece, effectively shutting down an attacker and a defender. After that, you either start piling up, or seek different targets with other pieces, which will tie down another attacker and defender.

Once you do it with all your pieces, your opponent wont have much room to maneuver and will have no moves, or bad ones, then, you just push with the free extra material you have..

Books are of limited use. It’s the „praxis“ which counts. Playing games and trying to convert thus improving is the right way.

@Sarg0n said in #15:

Books are of limited use. It’s the „praxis“ which counts. Playing games and trying to convert thus improving is the right way.

@Akarsh_2010
I aggree, PLAYING/PRACTICING those advantageous positions and getting the best out of them is a skill(set) on itself, which covers lots of factors: time-management, positional understanding, tactical view, patience, psychology and much more.

Btw. there is already a book, which covers lots of those positions to practice/play for example against a computer:
Clinch it by Cyrus Lakdawala. It covers topics like...

• Exploiting a development lead
• Exploiting the attack
• Defense and counterattack
• Accmulating advantages
• Converting favorable imbalances

So, this is a really complex topic and you can't just say, you're better, because you came out of the opening with an "advantage". You may be just better in one are of the game, but you have to be a skill-balanced player, to survive against stronger opposition.

Have fun and good luck on your chess journey!

EDIT: Just wanted to add a quote from the book How to become a Candidate Master from Alex Dunne:
"It has been said that most tournament players play the opening like Grandmasters, the middlegame like 1800 players and the endgame like children. This holds true to a large extent, at any level below Master. Memory, study and a familiarity with opening principles mean that most games are decided in the middlegame or later; only a small percentage of games are actually decided in the opening."