This is how it´s supposed to be...

Today, I am going to finish analysis of my games from Gothenburg (it´s a good bit over the imaginary deadline).
The game that I want to show is played against the newest Swedish Grandmaster, Erik Blomqvist.
I already played this guy, twice, and in the very significant games, beating him both times.
The beginning of this game indicated that it could be triple, but once again in this tournament, I was not ready to finish off my opponents. 
The way I presented the game in the last period will be the same.



I will show some critical moments, where you can think on your own, and the solution is in the commentary.

This is the position right from the opening.
My opponent made some inaccuracies and in this position I already had winning advantage.
The thing is that in order to get this advantage, one has to play against all the conventional rules.
I am sure that if you think long enough, that the winning line can suit to some rule, but that reverse way of drawing general conclusions about the position is not the right way.
I call it, alibi conclusions that weaker players often do, because it is easier to blame on concrete features of the position then to blame your own understanding of chess.

This is the position from the introduction.
It never appear on the board, as Black played Bc6 instead of Rae8.
However, Erik had opinion that Rae8 could be equally good move.
The main defence idea for Black is the queens exchange on e3. If White tries to prevent it then he will ruin the coordination of his pieces, and there will not be mate construction around Blacks king!?
Well, one piece does little in that construction, and even if it looks very active, still when in attack you have to concentrate on one focal point.


Here is the game in chessviewer, and after the game you can read about general conclusions.




As you can see, this is one more game where I missed a win.
With the games against Rozentalis, Nithander, Bae and Wallace this was the fifth game where I missed clear cut victory.
If I manage to ruin all five games, then I can not considered me unlucky.
It is just that something was wrong in my play.
I did not published my game against Semcesen, as the main reason of my defeat was in the opening, and as a semi-professional player I can not reveal my secrets in the openings.
Nevertheless, I think that Daniel played that game very good.

Keep reading Chess&Life and you can see what happened only one week later.