My Achilles Heel
I get as much pleasure from a clearcut positional win as a win by sacrificial attack. I have an attacking style for sure, but I win many games by positional finesse. My depth in analyzing strategic elements is solid, as is my calculation. I am able to evaluate positions at the end of lines very accurately although this for sure is the most difficult element of chess and I have many shortfalls in this category. My endgame is very strong although it needs to be much stronger if I expect to compete with masters. But there's one thing that costs me more games than any of these elements...
I used to call it haste or impatience, thinking that if I took my time I could overcome the blunders I made. Then I called it laziness, saying that I didn't work enough off the board and I didn't expend the necessary energy at the board. More recently I have called it boredom, because there are certain positions where I will not take interest and certain positions which I will produce very strong moves. But today I call it carelessness. I just find strong plans, I don't put the necessary effort into ensuring that the execution is sound. I don't care. I just figure it out along the way, even though I could easily check it and play another strong move if I tried. I have had this problem in school too. Once I know I can earn an A I don't really care whether I get it or not. That's led to a lot of B's that could have been easily avoided. Just like my carelessness at the board leads to losses. Losses, not draws, cause like I say I don't really care. If I think the game's going to be close and I'm going to have to work hard I might as well work hard trying to produce some sacrifice. This also helps me in my future games because I have real tournament experience in wild materially unbalanced games under my belt. But it hurts me because I don't remember how to win with even material (this is an exaggeration). And like I said I don't really care if I win or lose. But that's not true, I love to win tournaments, but just tournaments, not games. Don't get me wrong there are some games that are extremely satisfying to win and like I said I have won many games by a positional slight of hand. But usually I am only concerned with the first struggle, the first long tension, and if I win that I feel pretty good. Like I said I have been focused on that first transition for a long time and it's paid off. But there is another transition, and carelessness in this phase is the same thing I rely on if I lose the first transition. I get more determined and much more careful as soon as I have made a mistake. So why can I not achieve the same caution and care when my opponent starts to slip? Why do I assume they will make another mistake before I do? Am I really that arrogant during my evaluation of the position?
I used to call it haste or impatience, thinking that if I took my time I could overcome the blunders I made. Then I called it laziness, saying that I didn't work enough off the board and I didn't expend the necessary energy at the board. More recently I have called it boredom, because there are certain positions where I will not take interest and certain positions which I will produce very strong moves. But today I call it carelessness. I just find strong plans, I don't put the necessary effort into ensuring that the execution is sound. I don't care. I just figure it out along the way, even though I could easily check it and play another strong move if I tried. I have had this problem in school too. Once I know I can earn an A I don't really care whether I get it or not. That's led to a lot of B's that could have been easily avoided. Just like my carelessness at the board leads to losses. Losses, not draws, cause like I say I don't really care. If I think the game's going to be close and I'm going to have to work hard I might as well work hard trying to produce some sacrifice. This also helps me in my future games because I have real tournament experience in wild materially unbalanced games under my belt. But it hurts me because I don't remember how to win with even material (this is an exaggeration). And like I said I don't really care if I win or lose. But that's not true, I love to win tournaments, but just tournaments, not games. Don't get me wrong there are some games that are extremely satisfying to win and like I said I have won many games by a positional slight of hand. But usually I am only concerned with the first struggle, the first long tension, and if I win that I feel pretty good. Like I said I have been focused on that first transition for a long time and it's paid off. But there is another transition, and carelessness in this phase is the same thing I rely on if I lose the first transition. I get more determined and much more careful as soon as I have made a mistake. So why can I not achieve the same caution and care when my opponent starts to slip? Why do I assume they will make another mistake before I do? Am I really that arrogant during my evaluation of the position?
Carelessness and consistency seems to be a hobgoblin at every level.
Your analysis of the differences in what's needed to succeed at the Expert level ring true. I've defeated a few Experts over the years and I think in every case they probably made the mistake of taking me a little too lightly based on ratings difference and played some loose moves figuring I wouldn't take advantage.
wahrheit - when I am humble I learn, when I am cocky I lose. Now that I have a higher rating people are taking me more seriously, but I know what you mean about loose moves from both sides of the coin.
laziness
boredom
carelessness
Im familiar up to boredom. This one is hard to break. Sometimes you know you can win but youd rather stare aimlessly at someone accross the room.
What about just doing drugs and thinking that your playing chess but in reality you just put cheetos all over the house like a schizophrenic?
Check this out. A booklet written in the same spirit (and some same chapter headings )as the Art of Attack/
Have you seen it/ I just got a copy.
takchess - I have never heard of this book but Ken Smith is the Smith from Smith-Morra gambit so at least he knows a little something about attack. I don't think this book will really introduce much that's not in the Vukovic book but for only $10 I guess it's worth checking out. Let me know.