<Comment deleted by user>
In the third game your logic of forcing b3 doesn't make sense as black would win anyway if they got their king to b4. The real reason it works is that b3 takes away a square from the knight. Bf2 Nf5 Ke6 Nd4 Kf6 and now Nb3 is needed for white to make a draw
You make way too many quick draws. You should play until the very end. There's no way all those drawn games would have actually ended in draws.
I feel like you shouldn’t take so many draws against lower rated players. Think about it, Magnus would have won most of those ‘drawn’ positions, you can too
@wannabe2700 said in #3:
> In the third game your logic of forcing b3 doesn't make sense as black would win anyway if they got their king to b4. The real reason it works is that b3 takes away a square from the knight. Bf2 Nf5 Ke6 Nd4 Kf6 and now Nb3 is needed for white to make a draw
Damn you're right. I started by calculating the pawn endgame after 33. ...Bf2 34.Nf5 Kf6 and realised it was a draw, so I tried to create the conditions for a better version; including ...Bd4 and ...Ke6 in my mind made the pawn endgame winning, but it looks like ...Ke6 is the crucial move to that end and ...Bd4 ist important for other reasons. Good spot, thanks for pointing that out.
Regarding the draws, I generally agree; I've been working on my fighting spirit through the years and it has gotten better, but there's certainly room for improvement.
As for the last round though I thought my position was miserable (and it was); and I still believe a draw is better than a loss (after all, 0.5 > 0). I understand the sentiment of playing 'until the very end', and I agree with it to some extent, but in some cases I think it's good to be practical.
But yeah, in retrospect, I probably should/could have played on in rounds 7 and 8. My reasoning for accepting those kinds of draw offers so far has been something like 'I can't find a way of effectively playing for a win / making progress in the position', but I should perhaps increase the threshold of 'deadness' in a position to agree on a draw, and play things out by default.
> In the third game your logic of forcing b3 doesn't make sense as black would win anyway if they got their king to b4. The real reason it works is that b3 takes away a square from the knight. Bf2 Nf5 Ke6 Nd4 Kf6 and now Nb3 is needed for white to make a draw
Damn you're right. I started by calculating the pawn endgame after 33. ...Bf2 34.Nf5 Kf6 and realised it was a draw, so I tried to create the conditions for a better version; including ...Bd4 and ...Ke6 in my mind made the pawn endgame winning, but it looks like ...Ke6 is the crucial move to that end and ...Bd4 ist important for other reasons. Good spot, thanks for pointing that out.
Regarding the draws, I generally agree; I've been working on my fighting spirit through the years and it has gotten better, but there's certainly room for improvement.
As for the last round though I thought my position was miserable (and it was); and I still believe a draw is better than a loss (after all, 0.5 > 0). I understand the sentiment of playing 'until the very end', and I agree with it to some extent, but in some cases I think it's good to be practical.
But yeah, in retrospect, I probably should/could have played on in rounds 7 and 8. My reasoning for accepting those kinds of draw offers so far has been something like 'I can't find a way of effectively playing for a win / making progress in the position', but I should perhaps increase the threshold of 'deadness' in a position to agree on a draw, and play things out by default.
Great post Iakov! I agree a Lichess study with the games would be a nice supplement if your openings aren't too secret. GL in the upcoming, and ongoing tournaments