Yesterday I had the chance to play the GPA for the second time.
It revealed my main problem crystal clear.
After the opening I had a good position. So far I'm pretty happy with the GPA. It hasn't the drawbacks of the Alapin (too slow) or the Smith-Morra (attack at the wrong side of the board).
The attack had come to a hold and there were no clear tactics in the position.
At that moment I started to use time in an uncontrolled manner.
25 minutes for one move!
I have to assume this is a habit of me. I never noticed it before, since when it happens I'm UNAWARE OF THE FLOW OF TIME!
But thanks to Blue Devil, who asked questions about it, I was alert this time.
I always thought I never reached an endgame because of my aggressive style of play.
That is true when I win. But not when I draw or lose.
The average length of my games is somewhere around 25 moves. That is extreme short. It's evident I have found the main reason now.
I have a lot of draws against lower rated people. For the same reason.
You can find the game here.
So it's clear what I have to do. I must overcome my addiction to time consuming moves. I'm just over-ambitious. I start to use time at the moment there is little happening in the position and it suffice to improve the mobility of my worst piece.
This is the only simple part of DLM's thoughtprocess that I don't implement automatically.
So let me think how I can train this. . .mmmm.
Here you have the problem of chess improvement in a nut shell. Or the problem of improvement in any area, for that matter. You have a blind spot, which you don't know. Others don't have that blind spot (not in the same area, I mean) so they can't imagine that you have. That's why they don't get the idea to help you. So you have to look for "circumstancial evidence". Everytime you don't understand something that somebody says, you have to start an investigation if it is part of your blind spot. I remember well that I dismissed the thoughtprocess of DLM as pure nonsense 2 years ago. Which was a signal that I didn't understand what he was saying. Thus revealing that there might be something that I was unaware of. Only by hanging as a pittbull on those incomprehensible things there is a chance that revelation will occur.
That's why I'm always advocating an unbalanced approach. Because by an unbalanced approach the things are less muffled. More pronounced.
The Curious Case of Analysis and Style
1 day ago