12 October 2014

Annotated Game #136: What exactly happened?

In this sixth-round tournament game, if one looks at it in the early middlegame then White appears to be sitting pretty, having accomplished all he could hope for out of the opening by move 18.  Indeed, as of move 26 I still had all the cards.  At this point, however, I "lose the thread" of the game and start a strategic downhill slide, becoming distracted from my queenside-based pressure while not properly defending the kingside.  The ineffectiveness of my strategic flailing is highlighted around move 29, as pieces begin to simply shuffle back and forth.  Despite this slide and Black's subsequent takeover of the initiative, my position was objectively at least equal until the board sight blunder on move 40, where my opponent seals the win with material gain.

So was it a simple tactical error that lost the game?  In reality, my mental state was poor after failing to grasp what was needed in the position and handing the initiative and its accompanying pressure over to the opponent.  The pressure of defending successfully (even if not optimally) eventually exhausted me and contributed substantially to the actual game-losing error.  On the other hand, if I had stuck religiously to my thought process, using CCT would have prevented the loss.  In the end, the result came from a combination of factors - tactical, strategic and psychological - as is the case with most chess games.

Even though I understand how the game evolved after analysis, it still makes me shake my head and wonder what exactly happened, especially after having a position that any English Opening player would love to see.  At least the analytic process should help me play stronger in future such situations.

No comments:

Post a Comment