John Laning and I are working our way through this book, we are only about 1/2 way through it. (A couple of my other students have finished it. One college student and I went through the whole thing last summer.)

Sometimes, winning material can only leave you with a bad game.

I waited until now to drop off some musings on the topic of thought process, which we've discussed frequently in the past. In slow games, I've been incorporating much of what we've discussed, while in Post Mortem Analysis, I've been following Artur Yusupov's ideas on recalling what one was thinking on every move, writing it down, then analyzing that. Analysis of Analysis, so to speak. Laborious but necessary

In the PM of my recent slow game, what I found was this: I faltered in the Thought Process. First, I looked at Candidate A, a strong check. A piece would've been won, but one has to find a key, beautiful move 6 moves down the line. I was unable to find this move, so I moved onto Candidate B. My instinct after looking at B was so strong I thought "Well this is simply overwhelming" which it was. I was ready to send the move over when I paused and thought "There's still Candidate C" and part of the process is to review all candidates. So instead of playing B right away, I looked at C and came to the erroneous conclusion it was as strong as B, perhaps more accurate. And so without even working out a line for B, I played C, which lost. For some reason, perhaps fatigue, or just plain sloppiness, I didn't even bother to work out a line for B. I just thought "B and C do the same, so it doesn't matter". Well it did matter.

Afterwards it was suggested I should've played A with the idea that I would've eventually found the killer 6th move given the extra time. This intuitive idea has merit. Though there's no guarantee I would've found the move, I would've at least had the chance since I had more time to work with.

What irked me is I went against the thought process and settled on C without fully analyzing B, which at the time, I felt intuitively was completely winning. A real faltering and a hard lesson to have to learn

Take care, keep at it

I thought you'd be interested in my "thought process collapse" as an example of how important it is to stick with the program and not drift from the routine. I'm not saying I would've won the game; but by strictly following the program, I would've given myself the best chance to win.

<I have several questions. About candidates A,B, and C--which one was more forcing?> 'A' was a check, so I'd say that was the most forcing since the Black King had only one move

<How much did candidate A seem to be winning by? If it was a whole piece then maybe you shouldn't look for something better!> The problem was I didn't find the move (a real nice deflection) that won the piece until it was shown to me in PM; thats why I moved onto the other candidates; As I worked down the sequence, I was stuck on move 6 and simply didn't see the winning "shot"

<It's also possible that candidate A was too complex to calculate with the time remaining> Time wasn't an issue since this was a correspondence style game with no set time limit; but I know what you mean

Here's the game up to the critical move 19 for White. No doubt, once you see the position, things will be clearer. Treat it as a puzzle. that will be fun. Can you find both winning candidates? and can you find the winning sequence for candidate A?

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.c3 d6 6.Bb3 a6 7.d3 h6 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.h3 g5 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 O-O 12.Nf1 Ng6 13.Ng3 Re8 14.Nh5 Nxe4 15.Be3 Nf4 16.Bxf4 gxf4 17.O-O-O Nxc3 18.Qc4 Bxd4

The winning line with Candidate A (19.Qxf7+) is <19.Qxf7+Kh8 20.Rxd4 Ne2+ 21.Kd2 Qe7 22.Qg6 Bf5 23.Qxh6+ Bh7 24.Re4> and following this nice deflection 24...Qf8 25.Qxf8+ Rxf8 26.Rxe2 and White is up a piece.

Sadly, I made it as far as move 23, but didn't find 24.Re4 :(

Candidate B was 19.Rhe1, a temporary piece sac that brings the other rook into play. I cannot find a reasonable defense for Black. If you can, I'd be much interested in seeing it.

On this question <What's wrong with 11.cxd4?> Nothing at all. (NOTE: The following is all from my notes)

First, I miss calculated thinking after 11.cxd4 Bb4 I was "stuck" for awhile with my Knight pinned. I overlooked that 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Qc4+ nets a pawn. So, I checked the next candidate 11.Nxd4 and became hypnotized with the move, which does a lot of things I liked. Positionally, Black is building up a piece presence on the King side. With my Queen on e2 and uncastled, I wanted to prevent the Black maneuver Nh5-Nf4. Capturing with my knight 11.Nxd4 opens up the d1-h5 diagonal. Second, my knight on d4 conveniently covers e6, a logical place for the last black piece to develop. Third, my Knight on d4 acts as a pawn, so to speak, blocking Blacks DSB and the diagonal to f2, a potential weak point for White. So, I liked 11.Nxd4, keeping the position dynamic. Whats funny, is the other Black Knight gets to f4 via g6! :)

Out of curiosity, I checked when I first posted at <CG> and found it to be Feb 2009. So, for about 2 years I just posted regularly, had fun and made some friends. After we made our acquaintance in 2011, I decided "What the heck, lets really make an effort to see how good I could be". Thus, for the past 2 years, and primarily through your encouragement and interest, I've made an effort to work lots of problems, study various aspects of thought process, selecting candidates, etc. This has been very beneficial and revealing and has definitely improved my game. My point is this: From a competitive standpoint, one is required to do everything in their power to become better and capitalize on any natural strengths while correcting any inherent weaknesses. This is true in any sport. It takes a lot of sacrifice and desire and this is all fueled by the competitive desire to triumph. I say all this to illustrate two aspects of improving chess competence. (1) First and foremost, one must have the desire and passion to improve their game. Not all have this, and (2) Second, one must be able to answer the question of knowing they have become the best they can. This is difficult to realize, especially when one considers that the elite athletes in all sports have the attitude they can always improve. At what point does one stop striving, certain they can get no better or having reached a level of satisfaction?

This brings us back to the solitary nature of chess. One always has the right to self-determine what they want out of chess, what benefits they seek, whether the endeavor is more social-based, or if one just wants to have fun and a nice break from the day-to-day routine. No outside party can rightly criticize how another approaches and enjoys chess.

<What good are rating points?> First, rating points should not be obsessed upon. All this does is bring on undue stress and anxiety. To me, rating points are simply a useful metric to gauge one's progress, thats all. You are right, if one isn't interested in improving, rating points have no meaning whatever.

When you are stuck on a ratings plateau, and cannot seem to move forward, I know that this can be a most frustrating experience. I was stuck at around 1500 for approximately 3.5 years, later at 1700+ for close to 5 years ... and finally around 2000 for maybe 10-15 years.

I think the key is to believe in yourself and never get up. ALSO - it is very important never to get so fixated on ratings that you lose enjoyment of the game itself. Every win [or well-played (tough) draw!] has its own reward, remember the words of the great Seigbert Tarrasch.

I think I have seen real growth in you as an analyst. If you remember to work daily, do tactics every day ... I think eventually all this hard work has to pay off.

Good advice LMAJ, but how do we know we will reach your stature when you can play blindfold against ten opponent?

Not everyone can be a genius like Einstein. Most people can only dream of writing a best-selling book, creating a great play or building the world's tallest building. However, in chess, one must harness your own brainpower and unleash it on your opponent.>>

With that said, and at the risk of sounding like an old hen, IMO, the best vehicle for finding this out is by playing 40/2hr games. Not with a view to following your rating, but to find out at what point you are winning and/or drawing on a regular basis and using your opponent's ratings as that level. Due to time constraints, perhaps set aside some time each month to play one game; and give yourself at least 6 games. No pressure, no rush

I think you will find yourself at least mildly surprised at what this level is as I'm sure its higher than what you may contemplate. I say this since I'm certain your talents would best come to fruition at this time limit. (Or vice-versa, your enhanced skills are more than likely not being fully utilized in short time limit games...and if this is true, then being discouraged is silly: you are not giving yourself a fair chance)

I think my goal needs to be continuous improvement but not so much that it involves a lot of work without fun. It's not likely chess will ever "pay the bills" and I will never be among the best player's. So what do I expect to get out of it? Utimately--enjoyment and friendly competition. <<>> >>

I honestly do not think it is too late for you to become a master. (seriously)

The brain really is nothing more than an organic computer, you must program it for success. (I did. Even when everyone ALL told me, "You are too old, you will NEVER break master now." ... I did not listen to them.)

I know of several people who became either a master or an expert at a late age. I remember one player - whom I beat in a speed chess tournament overseas, proclaiming that: "When I retire, I will do nothing but play chess ... and I WILL break master." Personally, I thought he was nuts, but he did it and even wrote a book about his experience. <Master - at any age.> There was also a fairly well-known doctor from the state of New York. He was around class-C his whole life. He stated that when he retired he was going to do "nothing but immerse himself in chess." I doubted him as well, however, I know for a fact that he broke 2100 (and might have gone higher) had not a heart attack ended his life. (I think I heard it was a heart attack, I am not 100% sure.)

My pastor told a very rousing story about the Colts tonight. Tony Dungee said the whole season, "This is our time." He said it all season, he did not even waiver when the Colts went down 14-zip ... IN THE SUPER-BOWL! (They eventually came back and won.)

I think the bottom line is once you make up your mind what you really want to do, then you will do it. Of course, you perhaps do not want to sacrifice family life for this goal, however, so that (also) is something to consider.

Just my two cents worth, feel free to ignore it if you like.

I remain your loyal friend, just as you have always been mine!

On this comment: <18...Qxd5 - I'm not sure what's next here. 19.Rad1 Qf3> Here, I think 19...Qe5 is the move that is strongest for Black threatening Qxg3 & Ra8