lichess.org
Donate

Basic calculation BUT

aVague

My brain worked so damn lazy, that even I saw that bishop sac in the end, but I didn't kept in mind queen check with pawn support after and that I placed rook just on g line. So time just ran out and I won, but I feel kinda ashamed , that I can't realize such simple calculation trought I see first move, I don't develop it in a way there is 100% result
How to overcome it?

https://lichess.org/YsVlKKpy/white#58

My brain worked so damn lazy, that even I saw that bishop sac in the end, but I didn't kept in mind queen check with pawn support after and that I placed rook just on g line. So time just ran out and I won, but I feel kinda ashamed , that I can't realize such simple calculation trought I see first move, I don't develop it in a way there is 100% result How to overcome it? https://lichess.org/YsVlKKpy/white#58
kindaspongey

[Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/YsVlKKpy"] [Date "2026.10.10"] [Black "IlziraN"] [Result "1-0"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+2"] [Termination "Time forfeit"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 30 f5?? (Mate in 8 --> -1.63) Lost forced checkmate sequence. Bxg6+ was best. (30 Bxg6+ Kg8 31 Bh7+ Kxh7 32 g6+ Kh6 33 gxf7 Qxc3+ 34 bxc3 Rg8 35 fxg8=R Rxg8) 1-0
You used ~9 seconds to choose 30 f5.

[Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/YsVlKKpy"] [Date "2026.10.10"] [Black "IlziraN"] [Result "1-0"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+2"] [Termination "Time forfeit"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 30 f5?? (Mate in 8 --> -1.63) Lost forced checkmate sequence. Bxg6+ was best. (30 Bxg6+ Kg8 31 Bh7+ Kxh7 32 g6+ Kh6 33 gxf7 Qxc3+ 34 bxc3 Rg8 35 fxg8=R Rxg8) 1-0 You used ~9 seconds to choose 30 f5.
aVague

@kindaspongey said ^

[Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/YsVlKKpy"] [Date "2026.10.10"] [Black "IlziraN"] [Result "1-0"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+2"] [Termination "Time forfeit"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 30 f5?? (Mate in 8 --> -1.63) Lost forced checkmate sequence. Bxg6+ was best. (30 Bxg6+ Kg8 31 Bh7+ Kxh7 32 g6+ Kh6 33 gxf7 Qxc3+ 34 bxc3 Rg8 35 fxg8=R Rxg8) 1-0
You used ~9 seconds to...

I know, it's just because I calcultated bishop sac

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/qkDRh6Uz) > [Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/YsVlKKpy"] [Date "2026.10.10"] [Black "IlziraN"] [Result "1-0"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+2"] [Termination "Time forfeit"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 30 f5?? (Mate in 8 --> -1.63) Lost forced checkmate sequence. Bxg6+ was best. (30 Bxg6+ Kg8 31 Bh7+ Kxh7 32 g6+ Kh6 33 gxf7 Qxc3+ 34 bxc3 Rg8 35 fxg8=R Rxg8) 1-0 > You used ~9 seconds to... I know, it's just because I calcultated bishop sac
kindaspongey

@kindaspongey said in #2:

... [TimeControl "180+2"] ...

A factor?

@kindaspongey said in #2: > ... [TimeControl "180+2"] ... A factor?
aVague

@kindaspongey said ^

... [TimeControl "180+2"] ...

A factor?

it's not about time factor, I just was mentaly doubt that move, if I waste more time, I wouldn't mark that move as perpective until I logicly see the right path of realizing. time doesn't gives it, understanding and seeing gives

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/FKq5F6pJ) > > ... [TimeControl "180+2"] ... > > A factor? it's not about time factor, I just was mentaly doubt that move, if I waste more time, I wouldn't mark that move as perpective until I logicly see the right path of realizing. time doesn't gives it, understanding and seeing gives
kindaspongeyedited

Perhaps, if you practice using time, you will find that the degree of waste decreases and the degree of seeing increases.

Perhaps, if you practice using time, you will find that the degree of waste decreases and the degree of seeing increases.
aVague

@kindaspongey said ^

Perhaps, if you practice using time, you will find that the degree of waste decreases and the degree of seeing increases.

I don't have patience to rise depth with thinking, if I see a move , I can't think deeper, because all seems obvious or I don't see something else

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/k2dm4Ghm) > Perhaps, if you practice using time, you will find that the degree of waste decreases and the degree of seeing increases. I don't have patience to rise depth with thinking, if I see a move , I can't think deeper, because all seems obvious or I don't see something else
kindaspongey

@aVague said in #7:

... I don't have patience to rise depth with thinking, if I see a move , I can't think deeper, because all seems obvious or I don't see something else

Seeing "something else" takes time and practice using the time.

@aVague said in #1:

My brain worked so damn lazy, ... I feel kinda ashamed , that I can't realize such simple calculation trought I see first move, ...
How to overcome it? ...

Have "patience to rise depth with thinking".

@aVague said in #7: > ... I don't have patience to rise depth with thinking, if I see a move , I can't think deeper, because all seems obvious or I don't see something else Seeing "something else" takes time and practice using the time. @aVague said in #1: > My brain worked so damn lazy, ... I feel kinda ashamed , that I can't realize such simple calculation trought I see first move, ... > How to overcome it? ... Have "patience to rise depth with thinking".
aVague

@kindaspongey said ^

... I don't have patience to rise depth with thinking, if I see a move , I can't think deeper, because all seems obvious or I don't see something else

Seeing "something else" takes time and practice using the time.

@aVague said in #1:

My brain worked so damn lazy, ... I feel kinda ashamed , that I can't realize such simple calculation trought I see first move, ...
How t...

just no, because reason, why I don't see move is that I have something in My Mind, that triggers me to nearby moves, which can be wrong or right, time itself doesn't gives Me energy to think more quality, I need some other sources, which may allow Me to see things deeper, or I need to remove thing inside, which bothers My Mind from dibving into calculation

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/MtFU5bYt) > > ... I don't have patience to rise depth with thinking, if I see a move , I can't think deeper, because all seems obvious or I don't see something else > > Seeing "something else" takes time and practice using the time. > > @aVague said in #1: > > My brain worked so damn lazy, ... I feel kinda ashamed , that I can't realize such simple calculation trought I see first move, ... > > How t... just no, because reason, why I don't see move is that I have something in My Mind, that triggers me to nearby moves, which can be wrong or right, time itself doesn't gives Me energy to think more quality, I need some other sources, which may allow Me to see things deeper, or I need to remove thing inside, which bothers My Mind from dibving into calculation
kindaspongeyedited

@aVague said in #9:

... reason, why I don't see move is that I have something in My Mind, that triggers me to nearby moves, which can be wrong or right,

Tell the thing in your mind: "Hey, I'm the boss around here!"

@aVague said in #9:

time itself doesn't gives Me energy to think more quality, I need some other sources, which may allow Me to see things deeper,

Maybe, you do need other sources, but that is no reason to try to do without more time. If the ignition key doesn't start your car, you don't decide to throw away the ignition key.

@aVague said in #9:

or I need to remove thing inside, which bothers My Mind from dibving into calculation

Maybe, it would help if you watched some episodes of Dr. Who.
By the way, from what I've heard, the thing is probably right to discourage dibving.

@aVague said in #9: > ... reason, why I don't see move is that I have something in My Mind, that triggers me to nearby moves, which can be wrong or right, Tell the thing in your mind: "Hey, I'm the boss around here!" @aVague said in #9: > time itself doesn't gives Me energy to think more quality, I need some other sources, which may allow Me to see things deeper, Maybe, you do need other sources, but that is no reason to try to do without more time. If the ignition key doesn't start your car, you don't decide to throw away the ignition key. @aVague said in #9: > or I need to remove thing inside, which bothers My Mind from dibving into calculation Maybe, it would help if you watched some episodes of Dr. Who. By the way, from what I've heard, the thing is probably right to discourage dibving.