Chess games

I feel I played a really nice endgame here: https://chess24.com/en/game/GP94KXh8RHCHuq4LT2ABFg#

My opponent didn't seem to understand what he was doing though, not playing with any strategy but rather making generic 'developing moves' which allowed me to carefully take aim at his weaknesses.

Even though I have extremely minimal knowledge of the endgame, it seems to be one of my strengths. This is probably because my strategic ability is decent but my tactical ability is pretty poor, so almost all games I lose are due to tactics even though I almost always build up a positional advantage (many times +1.00 or more) out of the opening. However in endgames it is much more about strategy than tactics. If I could improve tactically I reckon I'd be a much stronger player.

I like how they took 1 minute to come up with the genius move 32. ...Rd8. After 22.b3 it looks like black has tons of problems, but even before then It seems black has little to play for. Maybe kingside expansion with something like g6 f5 (or maybe g6 is not needed if the rook is on the f file) to try to isolate your doubled pawns and in particular target the f3 pawn if you open up the f file, but I think white can just ignore it (though in certain lines the possibility of f4 must be taken seriously to make your bishop less happy). I find these "simple" positions quite interesting but typically am quite bad at them. I think I am better at tactics than strategy. Indeed, out of the games I won yesterday, first was just against a beginner, the next I won by exploiting an awkward diagonal pin to win a pawn (as black in king's indian style set up, undefended knight on c3, pawns on c5 and d4 with the c5 pawn only defended by d4, so I could just take it), the next I basically won by forking two pawns with my queen (though I had to play reasonably to milk the advantage I suppose - I basically just traded everything off to this end), the next I won by attacking and winning a pinned piece. While in both the games I lost I just got strategically pressured until one move losing blunders.

Yeah, and then even more ingeniously he disconnects immediately lol. b3 is strong yeah, either I win a pawn or open the c-file with decisive effect. I was a bit concerned about f5 ideas earlier and that might've given black some play as opposed to the nothing that he had. But I think I would've been able to sufficiently restrict kingside play. Also I feel that castling was a bit silly in the circumstances.

I have noticed you're the other way round - better at tactics as opposed to strategy. Maybe we'll get paired up at some point in chess club; it would make for an interesting game (which will no doubt end abruptly due to an elementary tactical error on my point). I think the games I won were decently won in that I pressed my opponent to lose as opposed to just being equal and then they blunder. One game I lost was really one that I won tbh, no point in bothering about a silly blunder at the end when everything else was like mate in 2. But the other that I lost was basically me getting squeezed to death by a Catalan opening where my c8 bishop's imprisonment for the whole game was the sole reason.

Though I looked at it with an engine out of interest and apparently black is holding on after b3 (white has a nagging edge of around 0.7) The most decisive error is a rather funny one: to protect the c pawn black should have played 24. ...Na8, and while he is doomed to passivity, it seems difficult for you to actually collect the pawns you are pressuring. Ree7 of course just loses a pawn and I imagine essentially the game. Yeah I did think castling looked odd, but then I thought that he wants to connect rooks, and it feels uncomfortable to move the king onto a dark square in the centre considering your bishop, so I could sort of understand it, even if it indeed wasn't objectively great.

Good position yields favourable tactics though lol, so if you played better strategically it'd be much harder to make a tactical error. I don't think I'm all that bad at strategy, I'm just dreadfully slow. I mean, I'm quite slow at calculating and hence not a rapid tactician either, but still. Some positions are obvious, for instance it's the main line of an opening you play a lot, you know your plan, or you clearly just want to take control of a file or diagonal, or whatever, but when it isn't obvious, I take ages to figure out something sensible. The correspondence games I've played on chess.com lately are, I believe, strategically very good. Certainly the computer has little bad to say about them. But that's because I have the opportunity to just think. When I played slow games on Thursday, okay, I pretty much won through tactical means, but my strategy was quite good. If I don't have time, I make fairly boring, purposeless moves, either developing or inconsequentially targeting something. But I think ultimately, however nice a strategic crush feels, I can't deny that I am much more excited and engaged by crazy tactics, and the greater interest probably yields greater relative aptitude.

By the way, how are you finding the course? I am peer tutoring tomorrow lol, dunno why I signed up for it but shouldn't be too bad.

Lol yeah Na8 was the recommended move but I think I had some ideas which he would've found very difficult to stop (considering how badly he'd play the endgame in general). I thought after b3 the evaluation was higher than +0.7 but I might just be recalling wrongly.
I was just thinking f6 Kf7 would've been more sensible since f6 is a desirable move anyway, but idk the details.

When I say tactical error, the first one is almost always me missing a tactical combination/idea that keeps my nice ±1 opening advantage going. I very often even straight up identify the position during the game as a critical position and realise that in order to maintain the advantage I need to respond correctly. But it's usually a bit too much of an abstract tactic (which often puts me into ±1.5-2) so I lose my advantage and then the game is equal for some time, and if I lose it's probably due to making tactical mistakes.
I'm slow too which is why I'm looking forward to Tuesday's games.

I've got to say I'm not enjoying it so far. Lectures are pretty boring; I don't even think I've learnt anything new yet, so just quickly getting the assignments done and then concentrating more on other maths (non-uni) which provides more problem solving. I don't like how we don't solve any problems in the lectures, but I guess that'll come later (hopefully). Also I am pretty annoyed with how non-rigorous some of the 'rigorously deductive' geometry is. I'm starting to get worried that we're not gonna be sufficiently prepared for our exams.
Just hoping the course becomes more interesting/challenging. It's pretty much exactly what I was fearing right now.

The engine I used might be slightly different (it's with the program Chess King; think it's Houdini), which could mean slightly different evaluations. But I mean yeah from a human, strategic perspective, after b3 black is really up against the wall.

Those abstract tactics tend to be missable even to very strong players I guess. Pins, skewers, removal of defender, forks...strong players won't miss them. But the less definable stuff is another matter. So I don"t think its indicative of any tactical deficiency, so to speak.

If you refer to Intro to geometry, it is indeed lacking in true rigour. To be frank, first year is just easy. I have no talent, skipped lectures, procrastinated, went out on nights before exams, and I come out with a very strong first. So far tis year a lot of the core is boring, but a lot of modules aren't, and already I feel it is going to be harder.

I'd still really like to see more of the more abstract tactics (which as you've said, aren't just your basic delections, skewers, pins etc.). It can make for some really dominant play since you only end up having to react to a few of your opponent's 'threats', for the rest you have nice clever combinations planned out (Stockfish sees all lol).
But yeah maybe it's not tactical deficiency, but it's a little deflating knowing that my frequent opening advantage never gets put to use because after a handful more moves I'm in a position where I need to find that clever combination to respond (or not respond) to an opponent's threat or similar in order to not lose it.

I would skip some lectures but I don't think I can anytime soon, because I risk missing important information - not mathematical, but stuff like info about deadlines/dates for classes/rescheduling and assignments.

I have come down with something...very bad cold or maybe it is early onset of flu..the night before I am supposed to play a fairly long competitive chess game. I don't wanna be coughing and sneezing constantly in that kind of scenario, for my opponent's sake and my own dignity...I best hope it disappears immediately, somehow..

Yeah I noticed you had a cold. I was pretty sure it was you playing on board 1 but I thought it'd be awkward if I asked and it wasn't you lol.

Anyway wanna exchange games (and analyse if you like)? Might sound sad but the first thing I did when I got home is whipped out the scoresheet and threw it into stockfish haha.

I was pretty sure it was you on board two also lol. Man, my game felt complicated (looking back on it on PC, it isn't that bad really; it's amplified in OTB I feel). We both had under five minutes left - I was still writing down moves because I felt I wanted to record it and there was just enough time - before the time control, maybe around move 24. I took an age on a lot of moves but it's good to do so I guess so long as you don't lose on time..

I've just chucked it on chess.com analysis. Link here: https://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor?diagram_id=3164022 Loving one thing: Nxb3 followed by e5 is computer recommended. I get just one inaccuracy, and it's in a somewhat surprising place: computer prefers Rfc8 over Rac8. I thought the rook on a8 was doing nothing and the rook on f8 was protecting some sensitive points, but oh well lol. 9 centipawn loss average with 6 moves considered sub-optimal (my negative way of reading "good"..)

Yeah I noticed you had a cold. I was pretty sure it was you playing on board 1 but I thought it'd be awkward if I asked and it wasn't you lol.

Anyway wanna exchange games (and analyse if you like)? Might sound sad but the first thing I did when I got home is whipped out the scoresheet and threw it into stockfish haha.

Ah, the cheeky point of Rfc8 over Rac8 is that white can sac a pawn with Nc6 then plant a knight on b5 threatening to fork rook and queen (since no rook guards a7..) and white seems to have compensation (though is still a little worse). A hard spot though.

I love how thematic our games were with regards to our styles. You played a pretty sharp Sicilian and found some nice tactics to break through and win; I played a closed centre positional game where I played in the most exaggerated Karpovian way known to man (not necessarily good): https://en.lichess.org/vApaSCw1#87, focusing on taking every single square away from my opponent and stopping every ounce of counterplay to the point where I was straight up comprising my chances to start a straightforward attack.

Surprisingly enough, analysis suggests my play was very accurate until I played d6 (I thought I had to do something at some point ffs). Then came the mistakes for which I don't think I can blame myself, since it was very hard to play accurately in such a position. What would've been wonderful is to have played h3 Kh2 in response to h4. I dismissed the h pawn rush like an idiot, coming very, very close to playing d7 and blundering mate (I think you looked at my board in this position lol).

But yeah you played accurately. I was seeing your game just thinking 'play d5!' which you eventually did, and then I trust you not to miss a tactical opportunity lol.

Yeah but lucky for us most people would never see such a line (or further how white makes use of any compensation). Was your opponent graded btw? Mine was equivalent to 1420 FIDE which is a little surprising because he played quite accurately for the most part. But then again the only thing I know about such ratings is how they play in 30+0 online chess. Also I think he had quite a lot of experience compared to my nothing.

I didn't ask. I heard he may have played for (slightly) higher teams before, and indeed the way he talked about moves and the way he played he really didn't seem all that weak for someone on the G team or whatever it was..chess.com gives him like 21 average centipawn loss with a few inaccuracies and just one mistake (namely Bb3 hanging the e5 tactic). Well, Silman suggests that such online ratings may be inflated..

You can probably just look up '[Name] ECF' to find his rating. Yeah I'm pretty sure too that online ratings are generally inflated (with lichess being straight up ridiculous). I think there's another D team match next Thursday so looking forward to that. Although I have to say I did not expect to have to work so hard to win my game with it being the lowest division team and all. Makes me wonder how good the A team is! But it all comes down to me having very little chess experience; I'll need to play far more frequently online if I want to get good, but for some reason I find it psychologically very difficult to play very often.

Aha, I find someone with the same name in Coventry Chess, so very likely right.. it says standard rating is 112D and previous rating is 126F...I have no idea what the letters mean. But just assuming 112 is his present rating, that gives 1540 if I recall the conversion right.
Yeah to be quite frank I half expected my opponent would just hang pieces (well, I suppose Bb3 did hang a piece in a convoluted way, but I don't think it's conceited to say that that was not an easy tactic..), but on the other hand these are people who are interested enough in chess to join a team, so even it's a lower team, they're not gonna be diabolical, most likely.
Since playing last Thursday I've had much less motivation to play online, partly because OTB feels so much more engaging, and it does indeed seem that I play more accurately in the OTB situation.

Oh fair enough that's a pretty decent rating. But yeah they can't be that bad since they are also quite experienced in matchplay on top of their interest in chess.

Yeah OTB is way more fun. And I love things like physically pressing the clock and moving the pieces lol. I'm gonna try to force myself to play online more though, since that's really the only way I can improve reasonably quickly (starting seriously at 18 is pretty damn late to try to get very good at chess...).