Hi all,
i played an OTB tournament today. 3 games in total. TC 90+5 minutes.
lichess.org/study/Vac6HiWY/2Ct6iSo2Maybe some stronger classical players have some input on what to improve and how?
My guess would be some basic opening theory and middlegame strategies.
Thanks a lot.
Overall, I'd say you played pretty well. Lots of mistakes towards the end of the last game, but that's to be expected if it's the third game of the day. I don't think I've ever played three long games in one day. Granted, the multi-day tournaments I go to have longer time controls (40/80, SD/30 +30 is typical).
Anyway, I think you have a decent understand of the opening. You could study some theory if you like, but I would recommend not spending too much time on it and focusing on other parts instead. Middle game strategy could certainly be something to study, and how to find the correct plan in a position. I recommend The Amateur's Mind by Silman. None of your games went into an endgame, so I can't really tell your level of endgames, but if you don't know basic rook and pawn endings and king and pawn endings, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with those. The Lucena and Philidor positions in particular are important in rook and pawn endings, and you should be familiar with the concept of the opposition in pawn endings.
However, I think perhaps your biggest weakness is board vision and tactics. Doing puzzles (either from a book or on Lichess) should help with that.
In your first game, it looks like you got outplayed by a higher rated opponent. This is to be expected of course, but from your notes, it also seems like you weren't that confident. It's important to remember that higher rated players are humans too, and not to treat them like a god just because of their rating. That's not always easy to do (I'm guilty of it too), but something to keep in mind. After 13...Bf5, you say "no counterplay for black." White is better, yes, but you do actually have one clear point of counterplay: the isolated d-pawn. White has it well defended, but you already have two minor pieces attacking it. Your plan should be to pressure the d-pawn, and even if you don't win it, hopefully tie down White's forces to defending it. That's why I think 14.Nxd6 was a mistake (or at least an inaccuracy) by your opponent. Yes, the bishop pair is often a good thing to have, but we have to be careful of blindly adhering to every chess rule. There are always exceptions. (In fact, a game that doesn't have any exceptions is a rare one.) In this case, your bishop doesn't really have much scope. It defends the c-pawn, but you can always play ...b6. It can't attack the d-pawn, while the knight can defend, which is why I think the trade wasn't a good idea. It does give White some initiative with Bf4, which is kind of annoying and makes it harder to blockade the pawn, and is probably why the trade wasn't worse than it was.
A small note about the second game: While what you did in the opening was fine, you could've been a little more accurate by playing 4.d4. Black can play ...d6, but that blocks in their dark-squared bishop, and now you've already played d4 with more control of the center. If you can put a pawn in the center with no big downsides, you probably should. That said, I also like what you did in the game, developing against the queen with tempo.
It's good that you're analyzing your games and making notes, but I would recommend putting in some variations too. Nothing crazy, just like "what if I did this instead, or he did this?" Also, if you have time, go over your games once without an engine and make notes, then go over it a second time with an engine, and see what you missed or misevaluated in your first analysis.
Finally, if the clock is an issue for you, I would also recommend writing down the clock times after each move. Some people do it every five moves, or after a critical move or whatever, but I do it every move and it's really not that hard. It just becomes natural after a bit. (Hint: use a [%clk ...] comment (e.g. [%clk 0:56:00]) to store the clock times digitally. You do need to enter the seconds even if you didn't record them--just use 00.)
Hope that helps, and good luck in your chess journey!
Thank you very much for your time and input!
I feel like your assessment about my weaknesses is pretty much spot on. Especially the part about board vision. I will solve tactic puzzles focusing on that aspect in particular.
The first game was against an unrated opponent, however that's not reflecting in his play. His piece coordination felt much better.
I focused on the d-pawn, which is why i calculated knight takes bishop, queen takes bishop and i'm going to attack the pawn again with the queen. However it wasn't enough in the end. The aspect on tieing down white's pieces was also a good one.
In the second game i thought about d4 earlier but decided against it due to seeing ghosts. d4, d6, Nf3 and black wins the pawn back, however you are right, a pawn in the center is a pawn in the center.
I'll definitely take your advice onboard. Thanks again for the time!
@Monolith4861 said in #3:
> Thank you very much for your time and input!
Sure, happy to help!
> The first game was against an unrated opponent, however that's not reflecting in his play. His piece coordination felt much better.
Yeah, lots of players OTB are underrated these days, because people are coming to OTB chess after getting good online.
> I focused on the d-pawn, which is why i calculated knight takes bishop, queen takes bishop and i'm going to attack the pawn again with the queen. However it wasn't enough in the end. The aspect on tieing down white's pieces was also a good one.
Yeah, unfortunately White already had a preferable position there. But it sounds like you had the right idea.
> In the second game i thought about d4 earlier but decided against it due to seeing ghosts. d4, d6, Nf3 and black wins the pawn back, however you are right, a pawn in the center is a pawn in the center.
Right, Black will win the pawn back either way, so you might as well play d4. But in this case it didn't matter too much, since you had an excellent position either way.
> I'll definitely take your advice onboard. Thanks again for the time!
You're welcome. I hope it helps!
The first opponent was just much stronger, you got outplayed from the beginning, no shame there.
In the second game you had a huge advantage at the start but trading Queens when the enemy King is exposed shows lack of attacking instincts. *However that was a Beautiful finish!*
In the third game you tell in your notations that you were misscounting the number of attackers and missing 1 move threats, tactics were clearly your downfall on this one!
- In all 3 games your main issue was tactics in the middlegame, you could do 10-15 minutes of puzzles a day to fix that.
