In all these cases, I didnt win by anything brilliant that I did. Rather, I lost because I did something (see [a],[c]). So this led me to the conclusion that if I wanted my win/loss ration to improve, and for my rating points to rise - I should try and get rid of all these three problems. But of course, my opponent is unpredictable, so i can only gid rid of something which I can control - namely me.
This necessarily caused a change in my chess philosophy. Namely, I am trying now to just hang in there. Just find the most "un-losing" moves that I can each move. Nothing too active. Just make sure that my next move is not an outright blunder. just something reasonable - Then quitely wait for my opponent to hang himself.
I have had some surprising results using this technique. My first win against harmless came because of it, and I was able to defeat some other higher rated opponents too. Because now they are the one overpressing, trying to create something, trying to attack. Do something, anything, be active. But by just parrying the attacks, just trying to frustrate all their intentions, they just might try something risky, and it might backfire on them. And it does. Sometimes, they suddenly hang a piece, or they sacrifice something. But at the sub-2000 level, sacrificing something without an immediate mate is almost always fatal.
Now, compare this with my most recent loss. I played a game against RomaLavrn yesterday, and I got mated. Why? Because I tried to "storm the barricades" - attack his position. Setting up combinations. I did all that - and I still lost. I spent a lot of time trying to find out why I lost, and I came to the conclusion that it would have been better if I had just prevented his attack first instead of trying to develop mine.
I dont know if this "philosophy" is good, or if will enable me to reach master level. It may cause irreparable harm to my chess development. I my become too passive. But it works right now, and so I will use it. It is the pragmatic approach.
Now, I had been searching the net for books on prophylactic play. But I cant find any. The Dvoretsky books has a reputation of having emphasis on prophylactic play, but it may be too advance for me. Maybe I should just buy "The art of defence", or some book about karpov. Does anyone have recommendations?
I was just thinking the same thing! Almost all of my recent games have been decided by a gross mistake. These games have been 95% good chess (complicated tactical threats, good positional play) but never the less at some point one of the players leaves a piece en prise, doesn't notice a mate in one etc. I guess what separates an Expert and a Class player is that the latter makes 1-2 really bad moves a game.
Prophylactic play is rather difficult concept; denying the other player good moves or creating threats that counter his plans. Silman covers in his books some more easily understandable parts:
+ Eliminating knights by taking away the supporting squares.
+ Making the other players bishops "bad"
I believe you are playing prophylactic chess when you find yourself asking after each move what would your opponent want to play, where would he like to place his pieces and how can you deny or at least hinder these plans.
When I read through the Richard Reti's Masters of the Chessboard I ran across some games by W. Steinitz. These games made a big impression on me - Herr Steinitz basically denied all the good moves from his opponents and slowly built an unstoppable attack.
Going through some of the Ruy Lopez games where Steinitz plays white might be a good idea.
- bahus