Milestone: 1400 on Chess.com Rapid

It was twelve months ago, 5 October 2022, that I celebrated reaching 1300 on Chess.com Rapid. At the time, the achievement felt undeserved and unsustainable, like I was overperforming, winning games not because I was objectively better than my opponents but because they were being careless or playing on tilt. Sure enough, I failed to hold 1300 and dropped as low as 1200 in December 2022 before resuming the upward trend. This time around, it feels different, and the game that elevated me past 1400 illustrates why.

My opponent, playing with the black pieces, went for an opening defense with which I was unfamiliar. In the past this would have prompted a minor panic, but thanks to Richard James and his chess openings handbooks I had in my inventory an opening that seemed appropriate for the occasion. Although my intuition proved correct, there was a major flaw in my execution, which gave Black an opportunity to crush me. He missed it, and I ultimately went on to win the game. The point is I'm adding more and more weapons to my arsenal and constantly upgrading them. It doesn't mean I've got what it takes to reach 1500, but I don't foresee another hundred-point rating slide, either.

---

1. d4 g6
2. c4 Bg7
3. Nc3 b6
4. e4 Bb7
5. f3 Nf6
6. Be3 0-0
7. Qd2 Nc6
8. Nge2 e6
9. Bh6 d5

Assigned the white pieces, I opened with 1.d4, to which kaswar85, rated 1437, replied 1...g7. Expecting to transpose into the King's Indian, I continued 2.c4, and Kaswar fianchettoed with 2...Bg7. I deployed my knight with 3.Nc3, and here Black surprised with 3...b6 -- a signal that he was preparing to double-fianchetto. Pausing to consider the position, I recognized the e4 square was available for my pawn; and if Black proceeded to fianchetto, I felt I could defend with a pawn on f3 in Samisch King's Indian spirit. After 4.e4, Black indeed fianchettoed with 4...Bb7, I continued with my plan of 5.f3, and Black developed his kingside knight with 5...Nf6.

In the Samisch King's Indian, White prioritizes attacking Black's dark-square bishop above developing the kingside, hence I continued 6.Be3, to which Kaswar replied 6...0-0, and 7.Qd2, to which he replied 7...Nc6. After 8.Nge2, Kaswar played 8...e6, opening up a diagonal for his queen. My next move swung the eval bar from +1.43 to -2.99; and when I first saw that it was a blunder in the game review, I was dumbfounded. What I played was the natural-looking 9.Bh6. However, what I failed to see was that after 9...Nxe4 Black was attacking my Queen, and if I recaptured with a move like 10.Nxe4 Black had a queen-fork with 10...Qh4+ also attacking my bish. After 11.g3 Qxh6 and 12.Qxh6 Bxh6, Black would not only be up a pawn but also would be preventing me from castling queenside. Fortunately, Kaswar also missed the tactic, and after 9...d5 I had an advantage of +1.69.

10. e5 Nh5
11. g4 Bxh6
12. Qxh6 Ng7
13. cxd5 exd5
14. h4 Ne6
15. 0-0-0 Ba6
16. g5 Nb4

The game review considers my next move, 10.e5, another miss -- because again 10...Ne4 is a strong reply for Black. What the engine wanted was 10.Bxg7, although at the end of the line suggested by the game review White remains up a pawn and has what looks to me like a playable position. No matter, though, since Kaswar played 10...Nh5. What I should have played next, according to the game review, was 11.0-0-0 to get my king off the Black queen's diagonal from h4, but I played 11.g4 attacking the knight on h5. Black, instead of checking with 11...Qh4+, captured my bish with 11...Bxh6. I recaptured with 12.Qxh6, and Black safetied his knight with 12...Ng7.

Black was attacking my pawn on c4 and double-attacking my pawn on d4, so I captured first with 13.cxd5 and Black recaptured with 13...exd5. The main plan in the Saemisch King's Indian is to castle queenside and pawn-storm the kingside -- typically in that order. The way I have been playing until now, however, is to delay castling or not castle at all in favor of attacking early. One reason my order is ill-advised was demonstrated above and involves tactics with Black's queen giving check from h4; the other reason is positional and involves connecting and activating the rooks. On move 14 the engine wanted 14.0-0-0, but I continued 14.h4. With my king still in the center, Black's best reply was 14...f6 to attack my pawn on e5. The move he played was 14...Ne6, and my advantage grew to +2.04. You know how the game review can indicate for multiple moves in a row that the best move was X but then when you finally play X it's not the best move anymore? This was one of those occasions: On move 15 I finally played 15.0-0-0, but now the engine wanted 15.f4. I'm guessing that because I advanced a pawn to h4 on the previous move, a queen-check from that square was no longer possible. Moreover, a pawn on f4 would have facilitated the pawn storm I was undertaking. After Black's 15...Ba6, the engine evaluated my position as +3.09 -- but it plunged to -1.75 after I played 16.g5. The Stockfish line beginning 16...Bxe2 makes no sense to me, but Black missed it anyway, replied 16...Nb4, and my advantage rose to +1.30.

17. a3 Nc6
18. Bh3 Bxe2
19. Nxe2 Na5
20. Bxe6 fxe6
21. Rd3 Qd7
22. h5 Qc6+
23. Nc3 Nc4
24. hxg6

After continuing 17.a3, the eval bar dropped to even. The reason? "You allowed the opponent to win material through an eventual fork." What the game review finds that I missed is 17...Nd3+ and Black's knight threatens to fork my rooks from the f2 square. Black's actual reply was 17...Nc6, so I continued 18.Bh3, Black captured with 18...Bxe2, I recaptured with 19.Nxe2, and after 19...Na5 my advantage soared to +4.15.

The game review preferred 20.f4 over my next move, 20.Bxe6 -- apparently because after 20...fxe6 Black's semiopen f-file made my backward pawn on f3 a target for his rook. Seeking to avoid 21...Nb3+ and at the same time defend my f-pawn, I played 21.Rd3. Stockfish, labeling my move a mistake, wanted the more forcing 21.h5. Black, moving his queen onto a more active square, replied 21...Qd7. Now I played 22.h5 to start breaking through the Black king's castle, but Black counterattacked on the queenside with 22...Qc6+. According to the engine I should have blocked with 23.Rc3, but I continued 23.Nc3. After Black's 23...Nc4, I captured with 24.hxg6 and Black resigned.

---

Final thoughts

Kaswar and I both played poorly: the game review rated us 650 and 1,000, respectively. How, then, was I able to come away with the win? What gave me the edge, I believe, was that after neutralizing Black's double-fianchetto threats in the opening I had a clear plan of attack while Black did not. As much as the chess experts like to poohpooh openings, I still argue that most of my games are won or lost on the merits of my opening decisions. Even if Kaswar had chances later in the game, they arose from flaws in my understanding and execution of the opening.

Would my rating climb be faster if I focused more on middlegame and endgame study? It's possible I'm making inefficient use of my time by spending the majority of it learning opening variations and sidelines. On the other hand, a recent guest on Ben Johnson's Perpetual Chess Podcast commented that the role tactics play in a game is a function of the game's length; to wit, whereas Classical and Correspondence games tend to be decided largely by tactical prowess, Bullet, Blitz and even Rapid games are less tactical in nature and more blunder-prone because players have less time to calculate. In an ideal world, I would be working equally to improve opening theory, positional understanding and calculation habits; but given my current level and the reality that I mostly play Rapid, openings will continue to be my main focus for the foreseeable future.