In the last post I promised to post some game(s) from the tournament.

Since then I had some thoughts about my last games, so I decided to combine it in one post. In the last 2 tournaments I got good results, top “B” performance rating and good placement. So I am satisfied, but at the same time I see the following: in 5 games out of 8 I didn’t see the “killer” move 2 times and 4 times – saw it, but didn’t play.  Playing these moves would get me “A” performance rating – this is what I want, so maybe this is one of the things that separate me from getting to “A”.

By “saw it, didn’t play it” I mean that I saw the right move, made some calculations and didn’t like the result.

I’ll ask the critics to excuse me, but I went again to what Dan Heisman wrote.

“Definition: Board vision – your brain’s capability to interpret chess position and see what is legal and/or possible on the chess board. Board vision tells you what is possible, but does not differentiate what is good or bad. For example, quickly seeing that a bishop in one corner of the board attacks squares at the other corner is good board vision (even if the possible moves to those squares are unsafe or the attack is inconsequential).”

‘Evaluation – Looking at a position and deciding who is better, by how much, and why. Static evaluation is when you evaluate a given position without trying to move the pieces. Dynamic evaluation is done at the end of each analysis line, after you have tried to determine a potential sequence of moves.”

I am interested here in dynamic evaluation – this is what went wrong in the examples above.

I commented already the games from the first tournament in the posts “Missing the knockout punch” and “Step beyond the dogma”,  so I’ll comment the first game from the last one. I played White with the guy rated 250 higher, Sicilian defense,  Moscow variation.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. c4 Nc6 6. O-O g6 7. d4 cxd4
8. Nxd4 Bg7 9. Be3 Nf6 10. f3 O-O 11. Qd2 Rfc8 12. b3 Ne5 13. Nc3 a6

game1_1

The following Black moves are actually the same as Crafty recommends, but I kind of started to like my position more, considering it more active.

14. Rfd1 Qd8 15. Rac1 Nfd7 16. Nd5 Nc5 17. Bg5

game1_2

17. … Bf8 18. Qe3 Nc6 19. f4 Nxd4 20. Qxd4 Ne6  Computer wants Black to play f6 on moves 17-19.

game1_3

21. Qf2 Nxg5 22. fxg5 Rc6 23. Rf1 Qe8.  Computer doesn’t like Nxg5 ( me too at the time),  estimate goes from 0.8 to 1.5, and 1.8 after Qe8.

game1_4

24. Rc3 Bg7 25. Rf3 e6. Here is the moment, when my board vision did not work at all.

game1_5

So,  I played 26. Nf6+ ( he asked me after the game, why didn’t you play Nb6?). Of course 26. Nb6 Rb8 27. Rxf7, with computer evaluation 1.9. I think, I was too much concentrated on king-side, otherwise I can’t explain it. This is exactly what Dan Heisman meant,  seeing that queen on one end of the board defends the square on another end.

26. … Bxf6 27. Rxf6 Rc7 28. h4 Qe7 29. h5 Kg7 30. Qd4 Kg8

game1_6

On moves 29 and 30 I miss Rxf7. Not that I didn’t see it, I didn’t want to give up my 2 rooks for queen and pawn. What I didn’t see is that I get d6 pawn too – bad dynamic evaluation.  Also I was obsessed with threat on a1-h8 diagonal.

31. h6 e5 32. Qxd6 Qxd6 33. Rxd6. Giving up the pawn after 31. …e5 wasn’t necessary, Rf8 keeps it safe.

game1_71

33. … Kf8 34. Rd5 Re7 35. Rfd1 Ke8 36. c5 Rc8 37. b4 Re6 38. a4 Ra8 39. Rd7 Re7 40. R7d6 Rc8 41. R1d5 Rb8 42. b5 axb5 43. axb5
Rc8 44. c6 bxc6 45. bxc6

game1_8

45. … Re6 – decisive mistake 46. Rxe6+ fxe6 47. Rd7

game1_9

47. … Rxc6 48. Rxh7 Rc1+ 49. Kh2 Rf1 50. Rg7 Rf4 51. h7 Black resigned 1-0

It was my first win against “A” class player, the game that I think I played well strategically, but the stuff in the title of the post could leave me with worse than I got result.

Advertisements