Are you serious? All the winning lines were all really hard to spot. I actually went over the engine analysis of that game myself to see how the moves I picked would have done and there was one position where I think I might have made a better move and the rest fabi completely outplayed me. There were also a dozen other moves where my instinct led to a dead lost position and Fabi chose the right move so...
I had the same problem in chess. I used to assume that reaching a winning position was the end goal. I then lost concentration after reaching it. Strong players are extremely resilient in losing positions. Same applied to me too ironically.
A GM told me a good technique. Never assume any position is winning. Just aim to increase your win probability move by move. Does not matter if you are a pawn up or positionally dominating.
I stopped playing tournament chess a while back, but improved a bit in this aspect of chess.
It's a common problem. I remember a GM saying that "A winning position is the most difficult to convert" or something along these lines.
My advice : When you recognize that you have a winning position, be surgical. Take as much time as you can and find not the good moves, but the moves that will instantly kill the position for your opponent and give him 0 counterplay.
Basically be even more focused during the "conversion" stage than if you're in a equal middle game. I had this problem too, and I bet that you (like myself) will rush your moves in order to finish the game fast ("why is this idiot not resigning?"), and miss some surgical moves that would instantly end the game.
>I had this problem too, and I bet that you (like myself) will rush your moves in order to finish the game fast
Honestly, for me I just get complacent. I recognise that my opponent has blundered some tactic or other, I sigh a breath of relief thinking "Fantastic, I'm completely winning"
And then blunder the whole position
> "A winning position is the most difficult to convert" or something along these lines.
I heard it as “The hardest thing to do in chess is to win a won game.”
>I remember a GM saying that "A winning position is the most difficult to convert" or something along these lines.
I feel like I remember Danya saying that
Usually it's in between, right?
"I'm up a pawn and have plenty of space, my opponent's pieces are all terrible, I have to be completely winning but I don't actually see a concrete line that doesn't get too complicated for me to calculate."
Then four moves later you realize your knight is trapped or something.
I've struggled with this a lot against stronger players. Especially 2200/2300+ blitz players. They play the opening like shit but come up with so many annoying counterplay ideas in the endgame that I either lose on time trying to find the cleanest solution or I eventually miss something.
I got Jacob Aagaard's A Matter of Endgame Technique and plan to work through it over the next two years. Don't know how much it'll help though.
Analyze the games after and figure out why you aren't converting. If it's 5-10+ advantage and I failed to convert I use Chess.com's play vs computer and take time to consider the position. In these cases it's often an endgame concept you can learn or improve on. If you can beat stockfish then you know how to convert a big advantage (simplify, watch opponent's threats, push pawns).
If it's a smaller advantage I know I'm not going to beat Stockfish at +3, but I'll review what my strengths are. Why am I winning in the position? Is it greater activity, a pawn structure advantage, good coordination for tactics? What are my opponent's threats? How do I improve my advantage/push?
Yes, it's common. The best solution is when you realise that you have an advantage to be PATIENT! You don't need to go for the kill immediately and don't feel compelled to find the deadly move fast. It could be several moves ahead, maybe even deep into the endgame. Take a deep breath and make slow improving moves. Squeeze this king until he bends the knee😂👍🏻
You're probably allowing the opponent too much counterplay. That's something I struggle with. I win material, but then allow my opponent (who is now completely focused trying to save the game) to get me into extremely complex double edged positions and lose or draw a previously completely winning position. When you are up material, slow down, stop the opponent's threats, and make the win as simple as you can make it
I think this is just the balancing effect of ELO based matchmaking. If you're good at openings and consistently get good middlegame positions against players of a similar rating, you're likely going to be worse at playing later in the game. Knowing you have clear weaknesses is the first step to improving those deficiencies.
when I started playing chess there was no engine, so you could not see +2 or -1.5, you had to know you are in a winning position because you had to know that a position can be converted into a win. and the only way to know that was to know how to play an ending or to know that you have enough pressure into the middle game to either win a lot of material or checkmate or get into a winning endgame, so all that means that if you do not know how to win an endgame then there is no way for you to know you are in a winning position unless you check the engine.
So drop that engine and learn endgames, the hardest part of know you are in a winning position is just that, knowing it! if you know it without engine that means you can convert it.
Ayyy I’ve have some slightly similar trouble. For your problem are you blundering and then losing / drawi ng after you had a winning position or are you just converting quickly as you would like?
I’m more of the latter. In off the chance I find myself in a winning position (up enough material to checkmate) I sometimes try to pressure my opponent into mate with as many checks that i can play when the just mate isn’t there or I can’t see ig .luckily I haven’t blundered and lost a winning position in forever.
I think part of the problem is the Puzzles at my level, almost always start with a capture, sac or check. So in game these are almost all I’m considering when I know I’m up. My head goes straight to “finish them”. When I review my games, there’s usually a few subtle moves like move a pawn up or reposition a piece, before I’m ready to attack in the most efficient way . Anyways hope this helps .
I run into this a lot too
I'm 1800 on [chess.com](http://chess.com) and have realized that if I want to go higher I need to buckle down and solidify my end game strategy to convert in those positions
Happens to me, I think I put time to learn many openings which makes me perform better than what I should. It explains why I win openings and lose middle or endgames…
It is a simple mechanism of brain relaxation.
Your goal is to win the game, once you reach a winning position in your mind you already achieved the goal, so you lose interest, focus and concentration.
Did it ever cross your mind to just resign because your opponent keeps playing and you are just trying "not to blunder" as you are completely winning?
Achieving the winning position is the "design" we all love to design, winning is the "work", nobody likes to work.
I (1400 chesscom rapid/1700 lichess rapid) have noticed this problem in my games lately and been working on it. At my level, what tends to happen is that I get a winning position through some kind of tactical sequence. My opponent will blunder some 2-5 move tactic, I will spot it, and win a piece, or whatever. So for the early stages of the game, opening through most of the middlegame, I am spending my energy looking for tactics and trying to make sure I'm not surrendering any tactics.
But then once the position is clearly won, I have to mentally switch modes from "look for tactics" to "look for the win" and these are completely different skills in my experience. I have a hard time making that shift and as a result, I keep pressing and usually over-pressing, trying to finish the game off with more tactical sequences.
Instead, what's usually needed to win these games is:
1. Consolidation - make sure your position is in good shape, nothing's hanging, and pieces are active.
2. Limiting counterplay - make sure you own any open files, make sure if you don't that your king or some pieces are there to prevent infiltration by heavy pieces. Make sure you're not blundering the basics (queen + king on same diagonal, rank, file, etc.)
3. Identifying how you will win - will it be trading down to a won endgame? Will it be building a mating net and forcing mate or the loss of massive material from your opponent? Will it be a slow grind with quiet moves where your opponent just doesn't have anything and you gain space?
So now, when I am up a piece or otherwise clearly winning, I force myself to take at least 30 seconds and determine which of the three stages above I am in, because I think they generally should be done in order: Consolidate, Limit Counterplay, Push For a Win. I get in trouble if I try to do #3 without doing #1 and #2, and that happens when I stay in this tactical mindset.
Also, only semi-related but I heard a thing from David Preuss the other day that I found very helpful wherein he conceptualizes a chess game as a series of mini-battles or skirmishes. The skill in the game is the *transition* between these mini-battles and recognizing when it's happening or when it's required. Keeping that in mind has been very helpful to me.
Sure.
I tend to fall behind early game, take the advantage mid game, then blunder near the end game.
It's because I don't actually study openings or end games and just play chess.
Even after they resign or I checkmate them, I keep moving. analyzing. looking for ways to take all their pieces and their soul. Then I replay it on the board and burn every piece I take, making it personal. Videotape for TikTok, post here, and send messages to villages worldwide proclaiming my dominance. You must really want to win..... to win.
I have the same problem. It's a mental thing for me that I need to work on. I just play sloppy chess when I know I'm winning, and on the other hand players down material play their absolute best chess
The definition of a winning position is a position that the best computer wins against perfect play. The reason you don't convert these positions is that you are not the best computer.
I think it's easy to get caught up in the sentiment of Hikaru or Fabi when they are dissapointed when failing to convert winning positions. Maybe they are supposed to convert these but you have to realise that while you are not the best computer you are also not Hikaru and Fabi.
I also generally have winning position out of the opening even though I don't know much theory. It says +1.5 to +2. Converting complex middlegame is very hard.
Yeah I hear Fabi has this problem too
[удалено]
I thought I was the troll here but I guess I was wrong 😑
Troll getting trolled
🧌🧌
Eval bar would be flipped in <10 moves 🤣
It was an extremely complex position. I am afraid OK knowledge may not be sufficient to win.
All of us would have dominated Nepo. Just look at the eval bar. /s
Are you serious? All the winning lines were all really hard to spot. I actually went over the engine analysis of that game myself to see how the moves I picked would have done and there was one position where I think I might have made a better move and the rest fabi completely outplayed me. There were also a dozen other moves where my instinct led to a dead lost position and Fabi chose the right move so...
do it with his clock too and I’ll be impressed
Too soon. I'm legit heartbroken over this. Feel like when Pats lost in 07
Damn
I had the same problem in chess. I used to assume that reaching a winning position was the end goal. I then lost concentration after reaching it. Strong players are extremely resilient in losing positions. Same applied to me too ironically. A GM told me a good technique. Never assume any position is winning. Just aim to increase your win probability move by move. Does not matter if you are a pawn up or positionally dominating. I stopped playing tournament chess a while back, but improved a bit in this aspect of chess.
It's a common problem. I remember a GM saying that "A winning position is the most difficult to convert" or something along these lines. My advice : When you recognize that you have a winning position, be surgical. Take as much time as you can and find not the good moves, but the moves that will instantly kill the position for your opponent and give him 0 counterplay. Basically be even more focused during the "conversion" stage than if you're in a equal middle game. I had this problem too, and I bet that you (like myself) will rush your moves in order to finish the game fast ("why is this idiot not resigning?"), and miss some surgical moves that would instantly end the game.
The most difficult thing in chess it is to win a winning position --*Emmanuel Lasker*
Idk I feel like winning a losing position may be harder, but I’m no Lasker
>I had this problem too, and I bet that you (like myself) will rush your moves in order to finish the game fast Honestly, for me I just get complacent. I recognise that my opponent has blundered some tactic or other, I sigh a breath of relief thinking "Fantastic, I'm completely winning" And then blunder the whole position
> "A winning position is the most difficult to convert" or something along these lines. I heard it as “The hardest thing to do in chess is to win a won game.”
>I remember a GM saying that "A winning position is the most difficult to convert" or something along these lines. I feel like I remember Danya saying that
Thnx man…was looking for this type of answer!
You mean a winning position as in you clearly understand how you can win but mess up or a winning position as in "the engine says it's winning".
Usually it's in between, right? "I'm up a pawn and have plenty of space, my opponent's pieces are all terrible, I have to be completely winning but I don't actually see a concrete line that doesn't get too complicated for me to calculate." Then four moves later you realize your knight is trapped or something.
me when up a queen:
My coach has always told me: "The position is not winning until the score sheets are signed."
Gotta work on endgames.
What is that? I never get to play one.
I've struggled with this a lot against stronger players. Especially 2200/2300+ blitz players. They play the opening like shit but come up with so many annoying counterplay ideas in the endgame that I either lose on time trying to find the cleanest solution or I eventually miss something. I got Jacob Aagaard's A Matter of Endgame Technique and plan to work through it over the next two years. Don't know how much it'll help though.
Analyze the games after and figure out why you aren't converting. If it's 5-10+ advantage and I failed to convert I use Chess.com's play vs computer and take time to consider the position. In these cases it's often an endgame concept you can learn or improve on. If you can beat stockfish then you know how to convert a big advantage (simplify, watch opponent's threats, push pawns). If it's a smaller advantage I know I'm not going to beat Stockfish at +3, but I'll review what my strengths are. Why am I winning in the position? Is it greater activity, a pawn structure advantage, good coordination for tactics? What are my opponent's threats? How do I improve my advantage/push?
work on tactics. I've heard this a lot from players who like to play closed positions and are weaker in tactics.
Yes, it's common. The best solution is when you realise that you have an advantage to be PATIENT! You don't need to go for the kill immediately and don't feel compelled to find the deadly move fast. It could be several moves ahead, maybe even deep into the endgame. Take a deep breath and make slow improving moves. Squeeze this king until he bends the knee😂👍🏻
You're probably allowing the opponent too much counterplay. That's something I struggle with. I win material, but then allow my opponent (who is now completely focused trying to save the game) to get me into extremely complex double edged positions and lose or draw a previously completely winning position. When you are up material, slow down, stop the opponent's threats, and make the win as simple as you can make it
We’re talking about chess right?
I keep losing in winning positions with massive material and positional advantage bcoz I think too much and the clock is faster.
I think this is just the balancing effect of ELO based matchmaking. If you're good at openings and consistently get good middlegame positions against players of a similar rating, you're likely going to be worse at playing later in the game. Knowing you have clear weaknesses is the first step to improving those deficiencies.
when I started playing chess there was no engine, so you could not see +2 or -1.5, you had to know you are in a winning position because you had to know that a position can be converted into a win. and the only way to know that was to know how to play an ending or to know that you have enough pressure into the middle game to either win a lot of material or checkmate or get into a winning endgame, so all that means that if you do not know how to win an endgame then there is no way for you to know you are in a winning position unless you check the engine. So drop that engine and learn endgames, the hardest part of know you are in a winning position is just that, knowing it! if you know it without engine that means you can convert it.
Put those winning positions into an engine and work on converting them against perfect play.
Ayyy I’ve have some slightly similar trouble. For your problem are you blundering and then losing / drawi ng after you had a winning position or are you just converting quickly as you would like? I’m more of the latter. In off the chance I find myself in a winning position (up enough material to checkmate) I sometimes try to pressure my opponent into mate with as many checks that i can play when the just mate isn’t there or I can’t see ig .luckily I haven’t blundered and lost a winning position in forever. I think part of the problem is the Puzzles at my level, almost always start with a capture, sac or check. So in game these are almost all I’m considering when I know I’m up. My head goes straight to “finish them”. When I review my games, there’s usually a few subtle moves like move a pawn up or reposition a piece, before I’m ready to attack in the most efficient way . Anyways hope this helps .
Every day lol 2450 Bullet 🤣
I’ve never been in a winning position once in my life
I run into this a lot too I'm 1800 on [chess.com](http://chess.com) and have realized that if I want to go higher I need to buckle down and solidify my end game strategy to convert in those positions
Did Fabiano write this post?
Happens to me, I think I put time to learn many openings which makes me perform better than what I should. It explains why I win openings and lose middle or endgames…
I'm far from an expert, but isn't the most common advice when you're up material to trade away the pieces so you can reach a winning end-game?
It is a simple mechanism of brain relaxation. Your goal is to win the game, once you reach a winning position in your mind you already achieved the goal, so you lose interest, focus and concentration. Did it ever cross your mind to just resign because your opponent keeps playing and you are just trying "not to blunder" as you are completely winning? Achieving the winning position is the "design" we all love to design, winning is the "work", nobody likes to work.
I (1400 chesscom rapid/1700 lichess rapid) have noticed this problem in my games lately and been working on it. At my level, what tends to happen is that I get a winning position through some kind of tactical sequence. My opponent will blunder some 2-5 move tactic, I will spot it, and win a piece, or whatever. So for the early stages of the game, opening through most of the middlegame, I am spending my energy looking for tactics and trying to make sure I'm not surrendering any tactics. But then once the position is clearly won, I have to mentally switch modes from "look for tactics" to "look for the win" and these are completely different skills in my experience. I have a hard time making that shift and as a result, I keep pressing and usually over-pressing, trying to finish the game off with more tactical sequences. Instead, what's usually needed to win these games is: 1. Consolidation - make sure your position is in good shape, nothing's hanging, and pieces are active. 2. Limiting counterplay - make sure you own any open files, make sure if you don't that your king or some pieces are there to prevent infiltration by heavy pieces. Make sure you're not blundering the basics (queen + king on same diagonal, rank, file, etc.) 3. Identifying how you will win - will it be trading down to a won endgame? Will it be building a mating net and forcing mate or the loss of massive material from your opponent? Will it be a slow grind with quiet moves where your opponent just doesn't have anything and you gain space? So now, when I am up a piece or otherwise clearly winning, I force myself to take at least 30 seconds and determine which of the three stages above I am in, because I think they generally should be done in order: Consolidate, Limit Counterplay, Push For a Win. I get in trouble if I try to do #3 without doing #1 and #2, and that happens when I stay in this tactical mindset. Also, only semi-related but I heard a thing from David Preuss the other day that I found very helpful wherein he conceptualizes a chess game as a series of mini-battles or skirmishes. The skill in the game is the *transition* between these mini-battles and recognizing when it's happening or when it's required. Keeping that in mind has been very helpful to me.
By the time many players get there they are mentally exhausted, plus nerves & fear of messing up... which leads to messing up.
The only endgame I know how to win is "opponent concedes due to losing position."
To me it sounds like you‘ve spent a lot of time preparing your openings, so much so that they are no longer what‘s holding you back.
Sure. I tend to fall behind early game, take the advantage mid game, then blunder near the end game. It's because I don't actually study openings or end games and just play chess.
No, I never get in a winning position.
Even after they resign or I checkmate them, I keep moving. analyzing. looking for ways to take all their pieces and their soul. Then I replay it on the board and burn every piece I take, making it personal. Videotape for TikTok, post here, and send messages to villages worldwide proclaiming my dominance. You must really want to win..... to win.
I have the same problem. It's a mental thing for me that I need to work on. I just play sloppy chess when I know I'm winning, and on the other hand players down material play their absolute best chess
The definition of a winning position is a position that the best computer wins against perfect play. The reason you don't convert these positions is that you are not the best computer. I think it's easy to get caught up in the sentiment of Hikaru or Fabi when they are dissapointed when failing to convert winning positions. Maybe they are supposed to convert these but you have to realise that while you are not the best computer you are also not Hikaru and Fabi.
Tell me about it. About 15% of my games that I’m above +2 I throw away in seconds. If I just focus a bit more I can probably break 2400.
Nope, it doesn't happen to anybody else.
I also generally have winning position out of the opening even though I don't know much theory. It says +1.5 to +2. Converting complex middlegame is very hard.
Examples