The devil's in the detail

Round 2 then, and black against Christopher Archer-Lock (182). I took my laptop with me to the venue, but needn't have bothered for this game: since he'd just switched to 1. d4, all the database could tell me was to expect to be surprised!

In the event, we got a tepid line which - as usual - I failed to equalise against. But neither side scored many marks for attention to detail, and somehow I was able to solve all of my problems and then seize control. My opponent was forced into a lost ending, but the adventures continued - just as in the olden days...

I really don't know why the Exchange Slav continues to give me such problems! No matter how convincingly I show in analysis that Black can equalise however he wants, it never turns out that way at the board. 6... e6?! is unduly cautious, and if I really had to play such a move then this system would be a lot more popular. White got a good position but failed to keep a lid on my counterplay: ...Nf5-d6 could have been stopped, ...f6 was given to me without any work, and ...e5! should never be allowed to happen. Giving away the light squares with 16. Bxe4 also seemed quite compliant.

But I stumbled in turn for the very same reason: I couldn't be precise because I missed too many tactical details. Moves 25 and 27 are less damaging examples, but 32... Kg7? really is shocking. My train of thought cuts off so abruptly in such situations that it's not even conscious; I've had the problem for ages, but how to get a grip on it? Evaluating the consequences of 32... h6 33. Qxh6 Rc1+ is trivial - but you have to look at it first. 33... h6?? is just kicking a man whilst he's down...

My third round bye still seems like a sensible idea - it's one game I don't have to blog, anyway! I was hoping that Sunday would bring some improvement; I didn't have to waste energy worrying about whether I'd so much as find the venue, for one thing. The morning game turned out to be a bit of a collector's item, as I wimped out of a theoretical debate...