What did I really skipped in Middlegame to get real advantage?

@RemRus said in #4:

Don't waste your pieces. You made three moves with your bishop and exchanged them for knights. For what? No reason. Didn't get any benefit.
Save the pieces, then you will have more chances to create combinations.

@aVague said in #5:

... what do you mean? I trade because I found that knight can bring danger in future, and my bishop is too useless. also My rating is higher then yours, so I may have more experience in that

Well, I certainly don’t have any Earth-shaking rating, so maybe aVague can tell me: Wasn’t it appropriate to scold the f4-bishop? (BAD bishop! BAD bishop!) And yet, there was aVague, on move 9, giving up the OTHER bishop. The machine thinks that 9 Bxc6 took aVague from an approximately 0.3 advantage to an approximately 0.1 disadvantage. The machine thinks that 9 Bd3 would have been better. I suspect that it would have been better still to put the bishop on d3 in the first place.
It IS somewhat surprising that aVague thought for ~22 seconds and did not notice the opportunity to play 15 Nxd3.
And on move 17, aVague‘s other bishop was gone.
“... [Part of Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Réti] can be appreciated as almost a primer on the subject of how to turn the two bishops into a significant advantage. ...” - GM Andy Soltis (2011)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/092389148X?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback&asin=B006ZQISDY&revisionId=f4836601&format=3&depth=1
I would think that aVague‘s king would have felt a draft after 25 g3.
Apparently, 26...Rf7 (instead of 26...Rxf1+) eliminated most of der_rasierer’s advantage and 31...b6 (instead of 31...Qf3) turned things decisively in aVague‘s favor.

@kindaspongey said ^

Don't waste your pieces. You made three moves with your bishop and exchanged them for knights. For what? No reason. Didn't get any benefit.
Save the pieces, then you will have more chances to create combinations.

@aVague said in #5:

... what do you mean? I trade because I found that knight can bring danger in future, and my bishop is too useless. also My rating is h...

You re writing like make fun of Me xD
Yes that s exactly what I m talking about, longer thinking gives nothing. I thought 22 sec not to see obvious move, maybe because I was up to anylyzing overall complexety of position not noticing th obvious

@aVague said in #13:

... longer thinking gives nothing. I thought 22 sec not to see obvious move, maybe because I was up to anylyzing overall complexety of position not noticing th obvious

Perhaps, it takes practice to learn to use thinking time properly.

(@)aVague: 'You re writing like make fun of Me' ~ The, 'm' in, 'me' is not capitalized.

'xD' ~ Putting, 'xD' in your comment does not make you appear unaffected by others' statements; it does the opposite, and it is unprofessional to use when you are ---according to yourself, at least--- asking for advice.

'longer thinking gives nothing. I thought 22 sec not to see obvious move' ~ Firstly, there is no secret strategy to finding good moves; there are only good strategies. Using your time ---which you never do--- can provide a higher chance of finding good moves, but only if you practice the strategy of...thinking.

Secondly, stop cherry-picking things; instead, commit to this plan: For the next week, practice using all of your time. Can it get worse than thirty thousand Blitz games with zero improvement?

Thirdly, there are no, 'obvious moves,' and searching for them is an attempt at a shortcut.

'maybe because I was up to anylyzing overall complexety of position not noticing th obvious' ~ Since this is aVague that we are discussing, it is more likely that you were looking for useless checks.

@shadow1414 said in #14:

... it is unprofessional to use when you are ...

Does anyone have an obligation to be professional here?

@shadow1414 said in #14:

... there is no secret strategy to finding good moves; ...

But aren't some strategies more widely known than others?
"... If so, you are missing out on a whole area of chess strategy. ..."
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1857445414?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback&asin=B0DTDP6D7N&revisionId=d6d44d8f&format=3&depth=1

@shadow1414 said in #14:

... For the next week, practice using all of your time. ....

Is that really possible? The opponent does not necessarily announce when a resignation is about to happen.
Is it desirable in a 3+2 game?
"... For many people with little time for chess the default option is internet blitz, in which the players have five minutes or less for the entire game. I cannot warn too strongly against taking this route if you want to improve, ... Instead of playing good moves, a player honed on blitz will look for moves he can make quickly and perhaps bring himself closer to a win on time. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

@shadow1414 said in #14:

... there are no, 'obvious moves,' ...

[Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/L30NH4E7"] [Date "2026.09.30"] [Black "der_rasierer"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1686"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+2"] [Opening "Indian Defense"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 15 Ndf3?? (5.93 --> 0.20) Blunder. Nxd3 was best.
Wouldn't many players say that 15 Nxd3 was obvious?

@shadow1414 said in #14:

... 'maybe because I was up to anylyzing overall complexety of position not noticing th obvious' ~ Since this is aVague that we are discussing, it is more likely that you were looking for useless checks.

Does it seem very likely that aVague was using ~22 seconds to look for checks in the position after 14...Bd3 where no checks were possible? After 32...Kh7, did aVague play 33 Qd7+ ?