10

I'm black, I defeated a 1830 very easily in a 11 + 10 game and I had plenty of time, but I played fast and didn't see mate, he was low on time. Analyzing with lichess engine

[fen "2k2r2/ppp5/7p/3Pp1p1/3n4/2PPK1B1/Pq4PP/R3R3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nc2 (1...Rf4!)

The engine suggested Rf4 and mate in 3, I played Nc2. And here

[fen "2k2r2/ppp5/7p/3Pp1p1/4K3/2PP2B1/Pqn3PP/R3R3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nxa1 (1...Qb6!)

I missed Qb6, mate in 4 and played Nxa1. Again I had plenty of time on the clock, around 10 minutes, the opponent was so easy to beat, but that's not the point, the point is I missed mate twice, I just wasn't looking for it.

Now that I look at it, I think I would never play Rf4, Yes the king is trapped but there's so much material on the board to take, I don't think I would have analyzed the Rf4 line, not in this life, nor the next one.

When faced with such winning positions, in a blitz match, do you go for materials or do you stop and analyze possible mating lines? I just want to know if I'm being a humain or am I not seeing those lines because I'm weak or careless.

if I'm in losing position or equal position, I analyze many lines trying to win, but games like these I try to simplify and reach a simple endgame.

Improve this question
  • 10
    In blitz, always go for the material. Leave complex calculations for slow games. So in my opinion I think you did well as I would do the same. Just my 2 cents... – AlwaysLearningNewStuff Apr 5 '16 at 17:37
  • 5
    For us humans simplicity is the key. Computers will chose the best line, humans a sure win. Even in a standard (90+30) game if I can transition to a won pawn endgame I do not bother myself with complex calculations. On the other hand an engine will find hidden tactics in lots of your games, don't worry about that. – sharcashmo Apr 5 '16 at 23:19
7

It makes no difference whether you deliver mate in 3, mate in 33 or your opponent resigns. On the score sheet and the tournament results you get the same score: 1-0. If you see a clear win then play it. Don't waste time looking for a "better" win. There is no such thing unless you are in a hurry to catch the last bus home.

Fixating about what the computer says in such positions is just silly. This is not just my opinion it is also shared by top players. I am currently reading Boris Gelfand's "Positional Decision Making in Chess" and he expresses this view in the book in positions where he is pursuing a positional winning plan and the computer analysis points out a quicker tactical win.

Improve this answer
1

In a fast time control I look to win. Mate is one way to win, but if it uses up time then I would take the easier faster way to win.

OTB I would spend some time looking for a mate but would not obsess about it if there were an obvious sure winning line.

Better to spend time training tactics and mates and combinations off the clock so next time mate will be easier to spot.

Improve this answer
1

“When you see a good move, look for a better one”.
Emanuel Lasker.

Of course blitz is different, but you were playing with a 10 second increment and with no time hurries. Any excuse why you didn't take some time to calculate the checkmates.

Improve this answer
  • Cute saying. And then your flag falls when you could have won easily by making a good enough move not wasting time for a better one? Might work for postal chess but not a winning strategy for OTB. – yobamamama Dec 26 '19 at 17:02
  • @yobamamama poster says he was not hurry in time and the game was timed with ten seconds increment. – user18196 Dec 26 '19 at 18:26
  • I replied to the Lasker quote. And it applies even less in a blitz game. – yobamamama Dec 26 '19 at 19:25
  • @yobamama in blitz you sometimes need to take some seconds to checkmate because if not the endgame is too much long for your time. this don't applies when there is increment – user18196 Dec 31 '19 at 19:16
  • If the endgame is that long I expect my opponent to lose on time:) My point was to balance time spent looking for mate vs taking the winning approach using less time. – yobamamama Dec 31 '19 at 19:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.