Does winning from the second diagram make up for losing from the first diagram?
Both games were played by me today at Street Chess , with the standard time limit of 15 minutes per game. The position in the first diagram came after the following moves
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Bb3 Bg4 9.d3 Qc7 10.h3 Bh5 11.Ne2 Bd6 12.Nh4 g5 13.Nf5 Bc5+ 14.d4 Bb6 15.Qe1 c5 16.Nxf4 gxf4 17.Bxf4 Qd8 18.Bd6 Re8 19.dxc5 Ba5 20.Qh4 Bg6 (D1)
Now I figured that 21.Qh6 should win, but then over thought in the position, and decide
d that 21. ... Nh5 22.g4 was too messy, and that there must be a "cleaner" win in the position. I then chose 21.Ne7+ Rxe7 22.Qxf6 Rd7, miscounted the pieces and swapped on d8, to lose the game.In the second position (D2), my opponent realised he was worse, but (verbally) dared me to find a way of breaking into his position. As I currently control all the entry points along the d file for the rook (and king) I was able to play Ra1, Ra8, Kc4, Kb5, Ka6 and Kb7 while my opponent helplessly pushed his king side pawns.
For me the two games don't balance out in the short run. Having lost the first position I then proceeded to lose my next game as well, still kicking myself about the previous round. So one loss contributes to the next. Winning the second game was nice, but doesn't necessarily help me win the following game.
Nonetheless in the long term I am more likely to remember the second game, as winning manoeuvres leave a bigger impression than losing blunders.
2 comments:
Well, if in the second game your opponent thought he had some kind of "fortress" going, he was sadly mistaken.
Seems to me you were right to look for a better solution to the first position. You probably don't need the aggregation but I think, 21.Be7! Rxe7 22.Qxf6 Bxf5 23.Rxf5 leaves the Black king position in-defensible.
Post a Comment