Safe, Simple, Centralize
How to win a winning position
When I review my games what I’m really looking for is patterns that happen over and over. One big pattern I noticed over many games was I often struggled to convert winning positions. After reviewing a lot of games where this happened, I could point to some causes:
Weakening my king position
Playing without a plan
Playing too fancy
From there, I wanted to create some guidance that I could realistically apply in-game. After some tinkering I settled on the phrase safe, simple, centralize. This addressed the main things I wanted to change and was easy to remember because of the alliteration.
Controlling the center, of course, is the first strategy advice many people hear, but it’s not often associated with converting winning positions. However, I noticed that a lot of the time when I got in trouble from a winning position, my pieces had drifted to the edge of the board, especially the opposite edge from my king. Focusing on centralizing was a way of correcting this. It also gave me something to do that was easy to understand and implement in winning positions without a clear tactical win: just bring the pieces to the middle. In that way it helped with the planning issue too.
In contrast, I haven’t found the advice to trade when you’re ahead to be very helpful. All things being equal, trades do favor the side that’s ahead in material, but focusing on this can lead to counterproductive patterns. In particular, you spend a lot of moves engineering trades rather than improving your pieces, and you trade good pieces for bad pieces. Singleminded focus on trading can work if you’re up 18 points, but in any remotely close position these patterns make winning harder.
Let’s get into the games!
I’ve won a pawn in the opening. How would you continue?
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
13…c5
Not a big mistake, but somewhat beside the point (the knight on d4 is already indirectly defended by Bxh2+). Black’s main problem at the moment is how to get out of the pin on the h4-d8 diagonal. The best way was Be5, preventing e5 (simple), overprotecting both knights (safe), and preparing Qd6 (centralize).
14. Kh1 Qc7??
Two question marks, not so much for the objective quality of the move, but for how big of a conceptual mistake this is. Now the trade on f6 will introduce various imbalances into the position.
Black’s dark-squared bishop gets more powerful.
Black’s king position is weakened.
Black might be able to use the open g-file.
Who benefits from all this? Well, White, actually - the weakened king position is the biggest factor. But that’s not really the point. The point is, why allow this at all? After this decision, the game won’t be about Black’s extra pawn, but about how all these imbalances shake out. Thus this move strongly violates the simple principle.
15. Bxf6 gxf6 16. Bh5 Rfd8?
Allowing more pieces to drift away from the weakened kingside. It would have been better to use the other rook.
17. Qg4+ Kh8 18. Qh4 Qe7 19. Bd1 Kg7 20. f4 f5 21. Qg3+ Kh8 22. e5 Bc7 23. Qh3 Kh7 24. g4
Notice how my king is all alone on h7 with all my pieces scrunched to the other side of the board. This happened over and over in winning positions I blew. According to the computer I would still be okay after Qd7 here. It’s essential to keep control of e4 so White’s knight can’t get to f6. But this is the point: because I allowed the position to get complicated and moved my pieces away from my king, I now need to find precise moves to avoid losing.
24…fxg4? 25. Bxg4 Rg8 26. Ne4
Now with the knight coming to f6 White is just completely winning. I managed to win this game after many random twists and turns, but that’s not really important.
In the following game I did a better job:
I’ve won a pawn and shattered the pawns around White’s king. How would you continue now?
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
🤔
24…Ne4!
A good example of when trading can make the task of winning harder. After 24…Nxf1 25. Rxf1 White’s rook enters the game and f6 could create threats against Black’s king. I understand this position is still winning, but what we’re talking about are the habits and patterns that make winning easier.
The computer’s top line after trading knights is a great example of how not to convert a win.
24…Nxf1 25. Rxf1 Qa5
Moving away from the center and also away from our king. The point is to threaten the Rxe3 Qxe3 Bc5, but playing tricky is another thing you should avoid when you’re winning.
26. Bf2 Qxa2
Further sidelining the queen to grab extra material when already ahead. The computer can see that White isn’t actually threatening anything so it can get away with all of this, but this is the kind of thing you should definitely not try at home.
25. Kg2 Qe7
Going closer to the center and towards my king, while also attacking the weakness on h4. Good idea!
26. Qg4 Nf6 27. Qf3
So far things have been going well and I’m still in control. It might even seem silly to analyze this game, but I find this situation - where you know you’re winning, but no direct win is apparent - very challenging.
27…Qe4?
The first time I go for a trade and it’s a mistake! Given how exposed White’s king is, I should definitely keep the queens on the board. The most straightforward way to continue would be Nd5, hitting e3 and h4, and keeping the pressure on.
28. Bf2?
White should have accepted the queen trade. 28. Qxe4 Rxe4 29. Rd1 and White’s pieces are starting to get active. Again, it’s still winning, but can you feel Black’s grip on the game slipping. After the move played, I got to grab a few more pawns and my opponent threw in the towel.
28… Qxc2 29. Qb3 Qxf5 0-1
I suspect my game review process, focusing more on patterns and habits than on individual good moves, might be fairly unusual, but I’m not sure.
I’d love to hear from you in the comments: Do you review your games? What does your process look like? Does your current process help you improve?
The 2 paragraphs beginning with "Controlling the center..." may well be the most useful that I've read all year. I've lost MANY winning positions due to a single-minded focus on trading pieces when ahead so... thank you for this column! I feel fortunate to have run into you at the Wachusett Chess Club.
Nate, you are way beyond me as a player. I have found problematic patterns in my games; fixing them is hard! Very interesting post, thanks.