Loss by resignation: 1283-1274

After an extended break from rated live chess games, on the morning of 20 April, a Thursday, I felt the urge and the confidence for a Rapid game on Chess.com. I'd been sleeping poorly for the last two weeks on account of work-related pressure, an overseas excursion and a cold, but I had been binging casual Blitz games and anonymous Rapid games online and felt like there was energy enough in me to finally play a rated game.

The system matched me, at 1283, with a 1324-rated player named "kmorudin" and assigned me the white pieces. I opened with 1. d4. As a 1.d4 player, I have experience with four replies: 1...d5, 1...Nf6, 1...c5, and 1...e5. My oponent replied 1...e6, the Horwitz Defense, and that meant I had to recourse to opening principles rather than rely on theory. One option was 2.e4, but I didn't want to transpose into the French in the event of 2...d5. I continued 2. c4, controlling the center from the wing, and Black replied with the timid-looking 2...d6. Again forgoing 3.e4, I continued 3. Nc3, in spirit of the Queen's Gambit, and again Black replied with a seemingly timid pawn move: 3...c6.

1. d4 e6
2. c4 d6
3. Nc3 c6

As illustrated by the image above, after three moves Stockfish evaluated my position at +1.2, and that jived with my own feeling that I had superior control of the center with more advanced pawns and better development with a knight off the back rank and open diagonals for my dark-squared bishop and queen. Although Black's bishops were hemmed in, his queen had access to b6 where it could target my pawn on b2; therefore, I prioritized deploying my kingside knight with 4. Nf3 over developing my dark-squared bishop along the c1-h6 diagonal. After 4...Nd7, I proceeded 5. e4, and Black replied 5...Be7.

As games transition from opening to middlegame, players begin identifying weaknesses in their opponents' setups and conceiving plans of attack. Due to Black's decidedly passive opening, however, there were no weaknesses for me to target, nor could I determine which side of the board I wanted to attack on. At depth=20, Stockfish lists my top three moves as 6.Bf4 (+1.49), 6.Be2 (+1.25) and 6.Be3 (+1.24). Still reluctant to undefend b2 and invite 6...Qb6, I played 6. Bd3, which I felt had the added advantage of preparing to castle short. Stockfish reduced my advantage to +1.1, but after 6...b6 from Black I was up to +1.5 -- possibly because Black had blocked the path of his queen to the b-file.

4. Nf3 Nd7
5. e4 Be7
6. Bd3 B6

Stockfish indicates my best continuation from the position shown above was 7.Bf4, but I was reluctant to invite 7...e5 or some other pawn move that would destabilize my center. In hindsight, I can appreciate that 7.Bf4 would have given me more control of the center and that 7...e5 would have been to my benefit. What I played was 7. 0-0, to which Black, recognizing that I had committed his majesty to the kingside, replied 7...Bb7 in just two seconds.

8. d5 lowered my eval bar to +1.0, as again Stockfish recommended 8.Bf4; but after Black's 8...Nc5, attacking my bishop on d3, my advantage rose to +1.7. How to deal with Black's attack? To me it didn't seem that my light-squared bishop was a valuable piece, stuck as it was behind pawns. If Black is keen on investing a third move with his knight to capture my bishop, so be it; I will use the recapture tempo to develop my queen. I played 9. b4, attacking the knight and forcing the issue. But this was a mistake; Black made good on his threat with 9...Nxd3, and my advantage dropped to +0.6.

7. 0-0 Bb7
8. d5 Nc5
9. b4 Nxd3

After my capture of Black's knight with 10. Qxd3, Black replied 10...e5, finally advancing a pawn into the center. However, Black's movement of a pawn that had already moved while he still had a knight on the back rank is presumably the reason Stockfish increased my advantage to +1.3.

Based on the top three recommendations at this point in the game -- 11.Rd1, 11.dxc6, 11.a4 -- it appears Stockfish made up its mind I should be attacking on the queenside. To me this wasn't obvious. I developed my bishop with 11. Be3, and Black developed his knight with 11...Nf6. After 12. a3, which dropped my advantage to +0.7, Black castled: 12...0-0.

10. Qxd3 e5
11. Be3 Nf6
12. a3 0-0

Still unsure how best to proceed, I had an idea of attacking Black's center with my f-pawn. Since that required moving my knight, I played 13. Nd2. Stockfish disapproved and reduced my advantage to +0.4. Black, meanwhile, increased the tension on the queenside with 13...a5.

After five seconds of thought, I proceeded with my plan of 14. f4. It lost me all my advantage and brought the eval bar to dead even. Whether or not Black knew it at the time, vacating the f2 square and leaving my queen to be sole guardian of the bishop on e3 would be what decided the game. Black recognized that my bishop was effectively trapped and attacked it with 14...Ng4. After 15. fxe5, Black captured my bishop: 15...Nxe3.

13. Nd2 a5
14. f4 Ng4
15. fxe5 Nxe3

Needless to say, my queen recaptured with 16. Qxe3 -- but this may have been Black's plan all along. With my queen dangerously positioned on the king's open diagonal, Black played 16. dxe5, clearing a diagonal for his dark-squared bishop. Failing to recognize the tactical sequence Black must have foreseen, I disregarded my queen's vulnerability and attacked Black's e-pawn with 17. Nf3. My advantage fell to -1.6.

Black continued with his best move, 17...axb4, removing my defender of the c5 square. Still oblivious to Black's plan, I recaptured with 18. axb4, eqaulizing material and momentarily redefending c5, but Black recaptured on b4 with his bishop: 18...Bxb4. My last chance to avoid catasrophe, i.e. get either the queen or the king off the long g1 diagonal, was now. 19.Kh1, the engine's top recommendation, would have left me at a disadvantage of -1.6, but at least I'd still be in the game.

16. Qxe3 dxe5
17. Nf3 axb4
18. axb4 Bxb4

Instead, I snatched Black's e-pawn with 19. Nxe5, and it was all over. The evaluation bar sunk to -10, and Black unleashed the move shown in the image at the top of this report: 19...Bc5.

My queen's fate, stuck as she was in an absolute pin, was sealed. I played on a few more moves in desperate hope my opponent might blunder or get disconnected. That didn't happen, and after move 25 I resigned.

Key takeaways

Similar to the holding game in backgammon, where one player is behind in the race but is better positioned to strike should his opponent roll poorly and leave an outfield blot, Black's approach in this game was to wait patiently for me to mess up. I was ahead in the race, so to speak, having achieved a superior position in the opening -- but his patience was ultimately rewarded, as he took less risks and I was the first to make a consequential mistake.

Although I achieved superiority in the opening, the Game Review offers helpful insights into how and why I could have made better moves. One

Identifying that the queen was on a diagonal with the king but not anticipating that my opponent would look for ways to turn that to his advantage is an example of a bug in my code that must be fixed if my chess rating is to resume its upward trajectory. In my early games I would frequently fall victim to the pawn fork, but as I gained experience I learned not only to strive for pawn forks against my opponent but consider what my opponent might do when I place two pieces on either side of a square.