Game #509: the Van't Kruijs Opening as Black, and four wins I let go
On June 5, 2024, in game #509 of my rapid journey, I lost to kathmandu15 (938) with Black and dropped from 937 to 929. White opened with 1.e3, the Van't Kruijs Opening, and as Black I was winning four separate times: the engine had me at -6.42 after move 14, and my best winning chance in the game was 91.4%. Each time I let it go. The game ended with White up a whole rook, and the record says I didn't even resign: I abandoned it.
This was a 10-minute game, so the clock is part of the story. But most of these chances came early, when I still had plenty of time.
Where I was that week
Game #509 sits in week 22 of the journey, the week of 91 blunders. It was the sixth loss of a seven-game losing streak, games #504 to #510, and by the end of it I had gone from 974 to 923. I had also faced 1.e3 three times before: I won game #2 and lost games #199 and #357. So this was a chance to stop a run in two senses, and I didn't.
| Game | #509, June 5, 2024 |
| Opponent | kathmandu15 (938) |
| My colour, rating after | Black, 929 (from 937) |
| Time control | 10 minutes, no increment |
| Opening | Van't Kruijs Opening (A00) |
| Result | Loss, game abandoned after move 49 |
| Accuracy (Stockfish) | Me 69.2, White 70.4 |
| My blunders / mistakes / inaccuracies | 10 / 3 / 4 |
The Van't Kruijs Opening as Black: what went right
The Van't Kruijs is 1.e3: White moves the king's pawn only one square. It's not a bad move, just a quiet one. My answer, 1...e5, was the engine's first choice. After that I put my bishop on c5 (the engine marked that as an inaccuracy and preferred ...d5), retreated it to b6 when White's b-pawn hit it, and then pushed ...d5 and ...f6.
White, meanwhile, pushed pawns everywhere: a3, b4, h3, g4, b5, h4. The engine called 5.g4 and 10.h4 mistakes. By move 10 I was -2.97, and my opening accuracy over the first twelve moves was 87.8. If there is a lesson for the Van't Kruijs Opening as Black from this game, it's that the simple plan worked: take the center, castle, and let White's pawn moves loosen their own position.
On move 12 I traded my bishop for White's bishop on c3 (a mistake by the engine's count, -1.91 to -0.44), and then White grabbed my a-pawn with the knight.
Moment 1: the queen check I didn't play, twice
Taking on a4 was a blunder by White: -0.26 to -6.42. Queen to a5 was a check and a double attack (one move that threatens two things at once). White has to deal with the check, and then my queen takes the knight. I took a pawn on b5 instead, and the evaluation came back to -1.62.
Then White blundered again, taking back on b5 with the c-pawn, and the exact same move was there one more time. Queen to a5 with check now attacked the knight on a4 and the pawn on b5, and the engine rated it -6.42, "completely winning". I took the pawn with my bishop instead (-1.43). Two moves in a row, the same check, the same knight hanging on a4. I was looking at what my pieces could take, not at what my queen could attack with check.
Moment 2: the pawn push that walked into a check
A few moves later White's king stepped to f1 (an engine mistake), and I was again a little better, -1.16.
This was the turning point of the analysis: -1.16 to +3.53. My pawn push attacked the knight, but it also cleared the diagonal from b3 to my king. The engine's answer for White was queen to b3 with check, hitting my king and the bishop at the same time. It's the same pattern as moment 1, only this time I was on the wrong side of it. kathmandu15 didn't see it either: White played the knight to d5 (another blunder), and I was back at -1.83.
Moment 3: the queen trade that let White breathe
White then made two mistakes and an inaccuracy, and on move 23 I was -6.33, with a 91.1% winning chance. My bishop had taken White's d-pawn and stood on d3. I took White's knight on e2 with check (a mistake, -3.52), White took back with the queen, and then:
In my game #364 the lesson was to trade queens when ahead. Here the trade was a blunder: -3.35 to -0.90. The engine's knight move attacked White's rook and bishop at once and kept my advantage. So trading isn't a rule. It's a question, and the question is whether something stronger is on the board.
Moment 4: the endgame, four more chances
After the trade we reached a rook endgame, two rooks each. It swung like the rest of the game. On move 29 a pawn check, ...d3+, was the engine's move (-3.11); I gave a rook check instead (-0.87). On move 32 I did find the right capture on f2, and I was -4.63. Then this:
Rook to f4 was a check and a double attack again: it hit the king and the undefended pawn on g4. I went after the h4 pawn instead, and -6.13 became -1.41. Look at the list: queen to a5 check, queen to a5 check, pawn to d3 check, rook to f4 check. Four of my missed wins in this game were checks.
Moment 5: the rook trade that gave White a free road
White blundered back again, I blundered back again, and on move 38 I was still -2.96.
I offered a rook trade, and the evaluation went from -2.96 to +1.09. After the trade, White's king walked to d5, then e6, then e7, right next to the pawn on d6. On move 40 I pushed a pawn to g6 instead of bringing my king to g8, and it was +4.00. White promoted on d8, my rook took the new queen, the king took my rook, and when I promoted my e-pawn a move later, White's rook was waiting on e4 to take it. That left White with a rook and a pawn against my two pawns. I had 2:28 on my clock and I left the game.
I can't reconstruct what I was thinking. I can see that after move 33 I used less than a minute for the next seven moves, in an endgame where every one of them mattered.
What I learned from game #509
Checks first. Four times the winning move was a check. Before any capture now, I ask what checks I have and what each one attacks.
Trades are questions. The queen trade on move 24 and the rook trade on move 38 both turned winning positions into level or losing ones. In game #364 I lost by refusing a trade, here by accepting them. The rule I keep is narrower: trade when it takes away your opponent's play, not when a stronger move is waiting.
Finish properly. The position was lost, but abandoning isn't how I want to end a game. Resigning takes one click.
What came next
The next game, #510 against majid443 (1041), was the seventh loss in a row and took me to 923. Then I beat Ras-stafari twice, and the day after this game I beat Avazbek1999 (1093) in game #514, one of my biggest upsets. The week ended at 956. For another win I threw away, see game #364; the whole series is on the journey page.
If you want to know the difference between the inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders in a game like this, I wrote a plain explanation. And if you want your own games read like this, that's what Chess Coach does inside Claude: how the analysis works. You can replay game #509 on Chess.com.
Frequently asked questions
How did you answer the Van't Kruijs Opening as Black?
After 1.e3 I took the center with 1...e5, the engine's first choice, and then put a bishop on c5 and a pawn on d5. White kept pushing pawns on both wings (a3, b4, h3, g4, h4), and by move 14 Stockfish rated the position -6.42, winning for me.
What was the move you kept missing in game #509?
Queen to a5 with check. On moves 14 and 15 it attacked White's king and the undefended knight on a4 at the same time, and the engine rated it -5.78 and -6.42. I captured pawns instead both times.
How many blunders did you make in game #509?
Stockfish counted ten blunders, three mistakes and four inaccuracies in my moves. My opponent made eight blunders. Among my 462 losses where the analysis says I missed a win, only ten had ten or more blunders from me.