Reflections from the Livingston Allegro

I participated in the Livingston Allegro (rapid 20+10) tournament recently. Overall my performance was nothing to write home about scoring a 1.5/5. Securing a draw in the first round. A loss. A win. And two further losses.

My last two classical games were losses, where the takeaway was that I didn't come up with my own attacking ideas when my opponent was pressing for theirs. So I thought I would try to play more aggressively in this tournament.

My first loss came as a result of a straight up piece blunder in a somewhat equal position. I just hung a knight for no reason. There was a Bishop on e4, and I played my Knight on c6 (which was undefended). I had originally seen that move wasn't possible and then forgot about it. My opponent was playing reasonably quickly and he was around 5 minutes ahead on clock. So there was some sense of playing moves which actually make my opponent think, but this was premature.

My second loss was again a blunder, but this time it was "only" a pawn. As white I had a rook securing the open d file and my opponent played Bd5 anchored by a plack pawn on e6. I only saw the reason for this move as blocking the file, but the Bishop was also attacking the a2 pawn, that I missed defending. The pawn ended up being the difference in the endgame. Part of the reason I didn't see this was also because, this time my opponent was under time pressure, and I thought I would play fast. I was also a bit distracted, because he took a lot of time in the opening while I was still within my prep (or at least knew the thematic ideas). The issue was that I didn't switch from that mode to a fully focused mode.

My final loss was in my last round, I was quite tired. It was a d4 semi-slav with me as black. The position was again fairly equal. White had a bishop on b1 and was preparing for a Queen-Bishop battery on h7. I saw that, but thought I had enough time to defend against it (or at least run away with my king). I again played a move which I thought was attacking, but was actually loose. I played an undefended knight on to c4 (this time), I saw that if my opponent played Qc2 then I could still play f4 and defend against Qh7+. But I unfortunately didn't see the possibility of Qd3 (which attacked the knight and threatened the Qh7+). What's worse is that I didn't realize that Qh7+, followed by Qh8 is mate! My own queen was on d7 and the king didn't have any escape squares.

The losses were hard, and it makes me wonder whether I need to have some mental checklist against loose moves. Or more so: figure out what's the right definition of playing aggressively? Is there a way to do it, while not being loose? I also feel I need to be better with time pressure both on the giving and receiving end of it.

Okay, now the only thing that I was proud of. 

My Round 3 opponent was a WFM. She was the first titled player that I have ever played. I decided to concentrate fully and give it my best shot. She played some kind of Catalan, where the game was fairly equal for the most part. Queens came off early and we were going into an end game with two rooks, opposite coloured bishops and a knight each. I had a lot more time on my clock and then in time pressure, the WFM gave up her knight for 3 pawns. According to the computer it's still equal. But because of that trade, I was able to trade off one pair of rooks, and then my knight became quite active. Also her three extra pawns weren't as dangerous (or coming down the board). So I was able to press my advantage on the clock and she flagged in a worse position.

Here is the full game: https://lichess.org/study/gF1ha9mO/By8WSvPz