Unbeatable 1900s.

So recently I've been making efforts to improve my chess, with a goal to keep my blitz rating above 2000 all the time, now I'm not even 1900. I've been looking at tactics, at openings, endgames, everything. It nearly always seems to be some tactic that destroys me. And the other thing that happens is that I don't know the opening and don't play it correctly, which I've been trying to patch up. Looking at pawn structures, etc. And then the past few games I started slipping back, back, back, got depressed and keep making worse blunders and I can't even hold 1950 or 1900.

Take the following example - a Grunfeld, with c6. I've been led to believe that c6 is uninspired and weak in a Grunfeld as it doesn't challenge white strongly, that's what's written in FCO and it's not one of the big main lines. Only 2% of the moves are c6 there while 98% are cxd4, so you can't be expected to prepare for it.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/102027822121?tab=analysis

Now I figure wait until he has moved his knight to d7 to play cxd5 rather than free up the c6 square. Yet the computer likes the move cxd5 the most and you have to do cxd5 or it's pure equality according to the computer. Now Qb6 - and the only thing I can do that is consistent with my moves so far is take and damage his pawn structure. Suddenly his doubled-pawn structure is a brilliant weapon rolling down the queenside.

Also, apparently if I had played Bd3 I had the regular white advantage again, but because I played Be2, which you can do against the Grunfeld and a part of the main line and you would think would be better against fianchettoes as it doesn't bite granite, all the advantage is lost immediately. Where's the sense in it?

Move 12. Ne5 because what else am I going to do to attack, am I supposed to be passive now as white? Then after Nbd7 I have to move f4 or else just retreat and once again admit that white has nothing. And now the computer says black has a huge advantage.

Yes I dropped my backward pawn, I made a mistake in the fast time limit. This is low 1900 level blitz play, losing a pawn is game over?

And from then on it's catastrophe. His knights seem everywhere. 29. Kd2 may look like a mistake as it lets him to trade my good bishop and also directly grab a pawn, but if you notice I was getting killed by say Bd1 Bd3 anyway. You ever calculate one line and it's so horrific that you end up playing the other candidate because no matter how bad it is it couldn't be as bad as that? That's what happened there, he was winning pawns and good squares all over anyway.

And it's just robotic stockfish play to the end. I don't know what Hikaru would do or even a 2400 probably would find something even at that stage and somehow win but how?

Can anyone good, like 2200+ 2300, 2400 not uncommon blitz ratings at all to have try to explain what happened.

Idk probably take a break or slow down to other time controls because you play a lot. Also excluding the backwards pawn hang be2 was probably considered more passive then then bd3 to the engine. Also i think c6 works in these types of positions because the exchange of pawns transposes to a similar position in the queens gambit specifically the qe2 line with bg5 C6. Hope you all the best.

firstly normally the qxb6 trade is normally bad unless the b pawns are isolated,

you could also try playing a system opening like KIA or birds so you can play the opening really fast

Look at my last game, I played the kings and the scotch, it was perfectly countered and with nearly no time used as well as the oppent being sub 800 blitz and with a straight face people wanna say engine use isn't happening here....There are 800 blitz players playing at stock fish level here...

was it against john ray

like come on bro it was your fault you lost

You are a master your forgetting this is sub 800......

you played nf7

800s shouldn't be, defending the scotch within seconds with no time used, they shouldn't be defending complex trades in seconds as opposed to atleast 10 to 15 seconds..I got in time trouble a made some poor moves why didn't he?

You as a master obviously know why I played NF7 it was intentional....

Surly you know why this opening is used and its advantages to use the center as a advantage after the white castle, my point is sub 800 shouldn't be countering this with such ease..imo. Yes I suck when compared to a player at your level, but we don't see the board like you...

I get the reason but its a horrible move because you lose a knight

I know that I am no where near your level. but I do play 1900 level players on a regular basis in daily games. These are some of my humble observations of the game. please disregard if I am not correct.

a) I didn't like Qxb6. I probably would have castled 0-0. That Queen confrontation is common in the London and usually whoever takes is worse.

b) I did not like the g4 move. it seemed to just weaken the kingside and his pieces are already on that side of the board for the attack. the space that you have is on the queenside. I probably would have played Na4 shooting for the knight outpost on the c file and maybe produced some counter play. I think he would have had to pull his rook back to the queenside to defend. in the least it splits his forces for the attack. I need to look at the middle game some more. maybe there was a better way to protect the pawns. once they fall the position comes apart. thank you.

I gya, I just don't understand how people are able to counter, so quickly...I its ment to catch the person and break them away from line preping, but had 0 affect... I give up on this game I think..

some more thoughts on the game.

a) after the Q trade at one point your pieces looked like a Jobava London set up except with the bishop on g5 instead of f4.

b) I think Ne5 may have been too early. The bishop on g5 is not really doing much. it's not pinning anything anymore and you don't want to take the knight cause it makes his DQB more active in the position.

c) with playing f4, the bishop may have been happier on f2 protecting the pawn.

d) queenside pawns: maybe a4 early before black plays b5. I would not be afraid of exchanging rooks on the a file.

e) later, I think b3 could have defended against the knight coming in.

just different thoughts at different times in the game.

Kinda cool to see the thought process of more advanced players.

thanks, but I am just a woodpusher.

I have lost to one of the top 50 players in the world though. lol

This is an old post, but I like the thought you've put into trying to understand where you went wrong.

Some things:

- I don't like cxd5 on move 6. That just helps Black develop his bishop better. Keep the tension and let Black exchange on c4, if he likes. Your c4 pawn is there to challenge his strong central d5 pawn, as a pawn on d5 helps Black control the e4 and c4 squares. By trading your c4-pawn away for no real reason, you have simply given Black an unchallenged d5 pawn - strengthening his grip on the center. I would have played Bf4 or Bg5 there, instead. Develop and keep the pressure on.

- I don't like Queen takes on b6. This just opens the file for Black's rook and gives him a nice mobile pawn on the b-file to march when needed. Either ignore the queen exchange offer and let Black exchange (in which case, you as White will get a mobile b-pawn to march when needed) - or move your queen away and argue that Black's queen is misplaced on b6.

- Whenever you have pawns on d4, e3, and f4 - always remember that your e-pawn is now backward. For this reason, you'll have to keep your knight on e5 and not move it again ... or you'll have to defend your e-pawn before moving the knight. For this reason, taking on c4 with your bishop would've been better than taking with your knight. (On move 16).

After that, there isn't much reason to examine any more, since your center pawns were falling and Black was invading your position.

In short - don't exchange your pawns away unless you have a good reason - especially when it comes to exchanging a wing pawn for one of your opponent's center pawns. The same goes for your pieces.

Rushing to exchange things is a temptation we have all felt, but sometimes it's best to resist the temptation and to play patiently, while looking for other moves that can improve our position.

Thanks for all the helpful comments and analyses. I ended up improving a bit and getting a new high. It was very strange how it happened - I got to my lowest point in rating in a long time, absolutely fed-up, depressed, I made this thread and I basically gave up, thinking of it as having been all a big failure. And it was only then when I gave up and tried to quit chess for a while but thought I'd play a little and then it started to come back up. And it went up super fast. Later I fell back again, but not as much. I guess the lesson is that hard work does tend to pay off even if not straightaway and it's always a decision, all time spent in chess is less time elsewhere. But I'm happy with my experience even if it's safe to say I have basically zero talent for the game.

1) I was surprised to see the amount of comments about Qxb6 being bad. If I leave the queen where it is he gets my b-pawns doubled and moving to Qc2 is obviously met by Bf5. I know there are instances where Qxb6 is good and even the main line in some openings - sometimes the knight goes to a4, the bishops to d2 and b5, and the king steps to e2 to connect the rooks - something like that where it's favourable for white, though that might be with isolated b-pawns. But then white has isolated pawns if he allows black to take. Maybe that's when it's a toss-up - that the opposing side has isolated b-pawns while I had thought it was a toss-up whichever side takes. I guess this is the sort of nuance is what separates the very good players from the good players, I'll look into it.

2) I wasn't sure why I wanted to play cxd5 there to be honest, I think it's that if black plays c6 there then the main line is that white should take with cxd5. That's likely why when my opponent played e6 which is an extremely rare move, I instinctively played cxd5. However the fact of him playing e6 locks in his bishop, so I should definitely hold off playing it there. That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the point.

3) Yeah I got destroyed in a couple of games against the English and I noticed my backward pawns on open files were a problem for me. I'll have to look out for them much more than I had been and make sure they're protected.

4) Theory prefers Bf4 in the Russian Grunfeld but as my opponent's e6 pawn was gone and there's a pawn on d5, Bg5 made sense here also.

5) Ne5 and f4 were definitely speculative. I thought white should be doing something active, especially since the opponent didn't play a regular Grunfeld so you would think white should be better. But probably I should have accepted that I hadn't responded well and black was equal at that point, so there was no reason to hope for a move like Ne5 to do anything good.

6) I should definitely have played a4, absolutely. That and Bf4 are what the computer is saying I should have done instead of Ne5, and axb5 would lead to doubled-pawns. a3 is a pathetic version of the same thing.

I'll try to remember and put into practice all these tips and nuances, thanks again.