What I Learned in January
I played 8 rated games this month against opponents with an average rating of 1944. I scored 3 wins, 4 losses, and a draw for a performance around 1900. Even though my rating is only 1950, I'm very unhappy with my performance this month, I should have made expert in LA. Taking performance on a month to month basis is pretty useless, but I actually learned a surprising amount from these games. I think playing more tournament games will help me improve considerably.
My endgame is weak to say the least, it needs to be my primary focus. I'm putting too much weight in my openings. Looking at my games I either gain a decisive advantage in the first 25 moves or I lose in about 50 moves (or in the case of my first round game in LA, BOTH). So at least my work on the opening and that first transition to the middlegame has paid handsome rewards. But I am finally getting outplayed in the endgame. When I was playing the C section I used to reach drawn endgames all the time and just convert them easily. This was also a theme of my dominance of the A Class at the Western States. But in expert things change, the mistakes are more subtle.
This new class is teaching me a lot very quickly. Chances are both players see most if not all of the tactical possibilities, which remain largely in the background. This is a sharp contrast to the lower classes where a missed tactic often decides the game. In this class tactics are used instead to alter the character of the position. But the effect of these tactics on the evaluation of the game often remains unclear.
This makes sense to me because rather than missing a strong tactic, stronger players allow tactics. No one will allow a change in the position that is obviously unfavorable so it comes down to either forcing an unfavorable change, or tricking an opponent into allowing an unfavorable change. The latter being through a positional sacrifice or often times a positional concession (IM Perunovic has been discussing accepting double isolated pawns as a form of strength at his blog). The former is done by punishing an opponent for a strategic blunder and is much more common at the expert level.
I have learned that experts make a lot of mistakes. They're subtle and there is usually no immediate punishment, but if I really seek them out I will find weaknesses. Then it is a matter of strengthening my technique to the point that once I find an advantage I convert it. That's where endgame study comes in. I've been reading Tal every day, just a couple games to get me warmed up, and in almost every game he discusses that from a certain point it is simply a matter of demonstrating his technique. At the beginning of the game he will make the position a little murky, of course usually launch a direct attack on the king, and then he just waits for his opponent to slip. Once his opponent slips it is over, Tal will never return the favor. But it is his strength in the endgame that is the complement to his ferocious attacks.
From playing players that are under 2000 I have gotten so used to seeing multiple mistakes. This is how the game usually goes: my opponent makes a mistake in the opening and I get a lot of pressure, then my opponent makes another mistake and succumbs to the pressure giving me an easy win. This is why my wins are averaging about 30 moves. If you look at the post below in the third game against Shoemaker you will see how this can hurt me. I got a lot of pressure and then I just waited because (I guess subconciously) I assumed he would make another mistake. And then I slip and let off some of the pressure and all of a sudden I am required to be extremely precise once again. I have been playing as if it is only required for me to be precise until I gain an advantage. This is not the case against stronger players, your play must be precise throughout. Gaining an advantage is only half the battle. Precision is the name of the game.
My endgame is weak to say the least, it needs to be my primary focus. I'm putting too much weight in my openings. Looking at my games I either gain a decisive advantage in the first 25 moves or I lose in about 50 moves (or in the case of my first round game in LA, BOTH). So at least my work on the opening and that first transition to the middlegame has paid handsome rewards. But I am finally getting outplayed in the endgame. When I was playing the C section I used to reach drawn endgames all the time and just convert them easily. This was also a theme of my dominance of the A Class at the Western States. But in expert things change, the mistakes are more subtle.
This new class is teaching me a lot very quickly. Chances are both players see most if not all of the tactical possibilities, which remain largely in the background. This is a sharp contrast to the lower classes where a missed tactic often decides the game. In this class tactics are used instead to alter the character of the position. But the effect of these tactics on the evaluation of the game often remains unclear.
This makes sense to me because rather than missing a strong tactic, stronger players allow tactics. No one will allow a change in the position that is obviously unfavorable so it comes down to either forcing an unfavorable change, or tricking an opponent into allowing an unfavorable change. The latter being through a positional sacrifice or often times a positional concession (IM Perunovic has been discussing accepting double isolated pawns as a form of strength at his blog). The former is done by punishing an opponent for a strategic blunder and is much more common at the expert level.
I have learned that experts make a lot of mistakes. They're subtle and there is usually no immediate punishment, but if I really seek them out I will find weaknesses. Then it is a matter of strengthening my technique to the point that once I find an advantage I convert it. That's where endgame study comes in. I've been reading Tal every day, just a couple games to get me warmed up, and in almost every game he discusses that from a certain point it is simply a matter of demonstrating his technique. At the beginning of the game he will make the position a little murky, of course usually launch a direct attack on the king, and then he just waits for his opponent to slip. Once his opponent slips it is over, Tal will never return the favor. But it is his strength in the endgame that is the complement to his ferocious attacks.
From playing players that are under 2000 I have gotten so used to seeing multiple mistakes. This is how the game usually goes: my opponent makes a mistake in the opening and I get a lot of pressure, then my opponent makes another mistake and succumbs to the pressure giving me an easy win. This is why my wins are averaging about 30 moves. If you look at the post below in the third game against Shoemaker you will see how this can hurt me. I got a lot of pressure and then I just waited because (I guess subconciously) I assumed he would make another mistake. And then I slip and let off some of the pressure and all of a sudden I am required to be extremely precise once again. I have been playing as if it is only required for me to be precise until I gain an advantage. This is not the case against stronger players, your play must be precise throughout. Gaining an advantage is only half the battle. Precision is the name of the game.
Good luck in your chess improvement quest.
I apologize, I did not realize that you were the force behind the site. It seems so heavily focused on IM Miodrag that it is easy to overlook the paragraph you included about yourself. I love chessdom and chess strategy, they are both very good.
I am also interested in lessons, I haven't looked into it nearly enough and I was wondering if you could recommend a plan of action.
I've noticed you like to play sharp positions. You can send couple of your games to miodrag.perunovic@gmail.com or talk to him on ICC/Playchess. Perhaps he could help.