Don't Panic

Chess teachers talk a lot about identifting 'critical positions' in games. Then they spend a lot of time arguing amongst themselves about what a 'critical position' is. For me, a critical position is any position that tests the boundaries of your understanding of the game.



This game played yesterday is typical of how I lose at Chess. The first critical position is at my 19th move where I came up with the same two plans that Crafty considers. The idea in both is to utilise the half-open c-file pressuring the c2 pawn and later have play against White's extended King-side pawns. The direct way of doing this is 19. ... Na4 20. Nxa4 Bxa4 21. Rc1 Rc4 or 19. ... Na4 20. b3 Nxc3+ 21. Rxc3 Rxc3 22. Qxc3 Rc8.

Instead I chose the second way, first building up on the c-file before undertaking action. The decision was a result of my anxiety to develop the h8 Rook before commencing action. 19. ... Rc7 is not wrong, but it allows white to spark a tactical skirmish. My planned defence to the pin on my Knight was that after 26. Qf2 I would use the mating threat on the weak back rank to cover everything and have two acive minor pieces against rook and two pawns with a good game. But my opponent played 26. Qe3 attacking the Knight and defending the back rank, the second critical position (for me) because I immediately hit the panic button.

Having missed 26. Qe3, I didn't take the time to even consider the simple 26. ... Rd5 (Crafty: 0.00 at depth 16) and started looking for ways to swindle my way out of it with predictable consequences.

There's an old rule that the first mistake is rarely a game losing blunder, but that the blunder occurs in trying to correct the first mistake. As in this game, 19. ... Rc7 was fine it just didn't turn out as I had expected, so instead of calmly searching for a new plan I went into panic mode.