Answers.Body: <p><strong>First consider the difference between a 'truly' won position vs a 'theoretically winning' position</strong>. By that I mean - a position that is within your own abilities to convert to a win, in a way you can already see, vs a position that seems like it 'should be winning'. You see that stockfish says the position was -3.1, but at your rating level, -3.1 isn't 'truly' won -  first of course because you point out that you can't see how to convert it, and second simply because at your current level, it would be very natural to overlook a tactic that you or your opponent could perform with a larger impact than a 3 point material swing.</p>
  <p>So move away from calling a position like this 'won'; it could lead you to let your guard down. At the same time, a 3 point advantage 'should' be enough to convert to a win <em>with perfect play</em>, in most cases.</p>
  <p><strong>So what gets in the way of you converting this 'theoretically winning' position to a 'truly won' position? Complexity.</strong> Particularly at your level of play, but really in all levels of chess, complexity and asymmetry <em>is an advantage to the player on the backfoot</em>.</p>
  <p>Imagine an endgame where you have a rook and nothing else, and I just have a king. This should be a 100% won game (and if you don't consider that completely won, work on your endgames, so that you can convert a win in any circumstance where your opponent has only a bare king, and you have a minimum of material). Now now add 2 pawns and a knight for each of us to the board. Where before you would be able to easily slide your rook away from my king and make the mechanical advance that leads to checkmate, now you need to be cautious - are my pawns able to make a break for the 8th rank? Can my knight fork your rook and king? Is your knight trapped by the position of your own pieces? **Complexity has created the opportunity for you to make a mistake, and the same &quot;5 point material advantage&quot; of an extra rook is not so straightforward to convert to a win.</p>
  <p><em><strong>So reduce the complexity</strong></em>. Trade everything down until you have a rook and I have nothing. You indicate this is what you're trying to do, but that your trades are 'refused'. You will need to become better at 'forcing' trades. If you fork my knight and king with your knight, and your knight is protected, you have forced me to take your knight. Simply moving your knight in view of mine to 'tempt' me to take it requires me to choose to do so - as you rise in your chess level, your opponents will more often have their own plans, and you should never rely on someone 'being bad enough that they will play the way I want', always try to play in a way that doesn't require mistakes on the part of your opponent.</p>
  <p><em><strong>And reduce the asymmetry</strong></em>. Imagine you have a rook and 2 pawns, and I have a rook. Because we both have the same major piece, I can't attack your rook in a way that your rook can't attack back. Tactics might be possible on my part (skewering your king with your rook behind, as an example), but mostly your position is similar (but better) than mine. Asymmetry creates complexity that allows tactics to develop. Imagine instead I have a bishop and 2 pawns, and you have a rook and 2 pawns. From a material standpoint, this is still you being 'two pawns-worth of material' ahead, but now my bishop can attack your rook in a way that you can't immediately attack back, and my bishop also defends my pawns differently - it can become part of the pawn chain if needed, etc. Asymmetry naturally creates complexity, which creates the opportunity for me to prepare tactics, and also makes it easier for you to overlook something on the board.</p>
  <p><strong>So your goal when it looks like you have enough material advantage to convert to a win</strong> (as mentioned in other answers, the way to know this is to practice your endgames - for example are you confident in your ability to checkmate with a bishop and knight only?) would be as the mid-game winds down, to:</p>
  <p>(1) Play defensively. Keep your pieces connected and close to eachother. Being aggressive can be risky, and you no longer need risk to win, you need simplicity. Don't overlook your opponent's threats, deal with them, even if it seems slower than a 'near checkmate' that you can't quite calculate but you think is probably there. Keep in mind that for a sub ~1600 rated player, the most immediate improvement to your play will likely be just to not 'drop' / 'hang' pieces. Simply by defending all your pieces, you will be doing something that your opponents are not always doing.</p>
  <p>(2) Simplify. Force trades of material. Reduce asymmetry.</p>
  <p>(3) Watch for potential pawn breaks, on your side and the opponents. 2 connected pawns on the 6th rank are worth about as much as a rook, so don't ignore the threat of promotion, even if you feel you have a material advantage.</p>
  <p>(4) Keep your opponent's king &quot;out of the game&quot;, by pushing it into a corner, especially preventing it from approaching your opponent's connected pawns. A king next to 2 pawns on the 6th rank is quite frightening indeed.</p>
  <p>(5) <em>When safe</em> bring your own king into the game. As the material on the board simplifies, the relative power of a king increases, especially if there are no queens on the board, and even more so if there are no rooks on the board. If you're '2 points of material' ahead, but your opponent uses their king and you don't use yours, you will be unlikely to convert to a win.</p>
  <p>(6) Checkmate using simple principles once the dust has settled. Really learn your endgames so that you are confident in all simplistic checkmates (especially with a single rook, and a single pawn - sometimes a single pawn is winning, sometimes it is a draw, you absolutely must learn how to win with a single pawn, because that's how a 1 point material advantage converts to a win).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-16T03:52:10.137Z
Answers.Text: Bishop and knight mate imo isn't gonna be the most important- perhaps more important would be e.g. understanding the Philidor and Lucena positions
Answers.UserDisplayName: pulsar512b
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-16T17:31:47.230Z
Answers.Text: @pulsar512b Personally I believe that sub-1800 rate players get more bang for their buck by learning endgames (which teach tactics and give a feeling of the pieces generally) over openings (which I personally find too boring to get into as a novice chessplayer, though to each their own). Bishop and knight might come up infrequently, but probably takes less to learn than the first 6 moves of the mainline Lucena opening.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-17T00:01:57.430Z
Answers.Text: "Lucena opening" the Lucena and Philidor positions are key theoretical endgame positions you kinda just Have To Know (R+P vs R, Lucena is winning with the building a bridge idea, the Philidor with the 3rd rank defense) 
  
  But yeah, openings aren't gonna be Key I agree, like, principles are going to be enough for a while. 
  
  Probably most important is learn what you like learning :P
Answers.UserDisplayName: pulsar512b
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-17T13:41:45.457Z
Answers.Text: @pulsar512b Understood, thanks for the clarification! I didn't know the Lucena by name, but agreed that R+P vs R is a critical endgame to know.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-15T14:37:49.400Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-15T15:39:07.660Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-12-15T15:39:07.660Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Grade 'Eh' Bacon
Answers.Body: <p>I remember reading about this from one of GM Yasser Seirawan's books. What you want to do is:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Pick a target</li>
  <li>Figure out how to attack it</li>
  </ul>
  <p>In this case the obvious target is the White pawn on a3. Why this pawn? Because it cannot move (a4 bxa4 wins the pawn). It stands to reason it's easier to attack something that cannot move. The a3-pawn is also not easy to defend - it can no longer be defended by a pawn, so it must be defended by pieces, and you have more powerful pieces.</p>
  <p>Your last move 34...Nc4 accomplishes this goal of hitting the pawn. White can't defend it anymore. Next turn, you play 35...Nxa3 which increases your material advantage, and now you pick a new target - this time the pawn on b4. The reason is the same, it cannot move and it cannot be defended by a White pawn. Once you have identified the target it becomes easy to plan how to take it: you play ...Rc4, ...Nc6, ...Qb1, etc, and then you will have more attackers than White has defenders. After you grab the b4-pawn you have powerful connected passed pawns that you can shepherd to promotion &amp; victory.</p>
  <p>Note this analysis is superficial - 35.a4 bxa4?? actually loses you most of your advantage according to Stockfish - but that is because of the specifics of the position (in this case, White's bishops are actually quite threatening to your King).</p>
  <p>One more thing: because you are ahead in material, another powerful plan is to force trades. Your opponent will be trying their darnedest not to acquiesce, but a material advantage lets you create threats that your opponent cannot parry. In the final position for example, an immediate threat you have is ...Qd2. If opponent does not trade queens, you take the bishop on a2. If White plays 35.Qg3 for example, then ...Qc2 traps the bishop and forces another trade (of course, you will have to defend against the threatened Qxg7# first).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T21:40:37.847Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-14T21:40:37.847Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>There are two key things you need to do.</p>
  <p>The first is to know how to win a won endgame. You do that by studying endgames. That will do two important things for you. Apart from teaching you how to win a won endgame, it will also teach you to recognise which endgame positions are won, and which are drawn, despite your material advantage. That way when you are in a winning middlegame you know what kind of endgame you are aiming for.</p>
  <p>The second really important thing to do is to keep on fighting. The aim is not to get a winning middlegame position, it is to win the game. To that end a winning middlegame position is just one stop on the way to your real desired destination.</p>
  <p>If you are driving to visit friends or family and you stop two thirds of the way there for petrol (or gas if you live in the US) you don't stop because you think you have arrived. You carry on after the stop, in just the same way as you did before the stop, except that you are no longer worried that you are going to run out of fuel (or not win the game).</p>
  <p>This tendency to sit back once you have a theoretically winning position is something which affects all players. You have to fight it by trying even harder to not let your opponent back into the game and to win it yourself. Perhaps one good way of doing this is by starting each think about your next move by asking yourself &quot;Why did my opponent do that? What are they trying to do? How can I stop them?&quot;</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T23:15:22.727Z
Answers.Text: you say in your last sentence: `Perhaps one good way of doing this is by starting each think about your next move by asking yourself "Why did my opponent do that? What are they trying to do? How can I stop them?"`
  you should ask yourself this questions always, not only in an "won position".
Answers.UserDisplayName: anion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-15T01:24:25.060Z
Answers.Text: Even better, figure out what your opponent wants to do on *their* next move, and stop them doing it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: alephzero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-17T14:56:02.707Z
Answers.Text: I think another reason people can have the "but I've already won" attitude is that nowadays you can watch strong players play online, and the game inevitably ends in a "won" position after a resignation. But a weaker player like me just needs to realize that in this situation one player is just confident that their opponent will always beat them in the current position, **not that their opponent will not even need to think to accomplish that**.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Keeley Hoek
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T14:15:04.210Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-15T22:32:16.070Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-12-15T22:32:16.070Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>I'm fairly new to chess (~3 months) and I have almost entirely been playing on chess.com where my rating sits somewhere between 1000 and 1100. Recently, I decided to sign up for lichess.org, where I was placed at ~1650 as I haven't played many games yet, and unsurprisingly I lose quite often.</p>
  <p>But facing higher rated players made me realise I don't know how to win a game of chess.</p>
  <p>On chess.com, the people I face will almost always trade pieces if offered, so if I have a material advantage it is very easy to trade off all other pieces then staircase checkmate and win. Facing higher rated players on lichess made me realise that if they don't cooperate like this I have no idea what to do. I know I sound pretty stupid here but somehow I have just never had a game like this before.</p>
  <p>In this game, by the end Stockfish says it was -3.1 (I played the black pieces) when my opponent lost on time, but if they didn't, I have no idea how I was going to win if they didn't at least trade queens.</p>
  <pre><code>[Event &quot;Rated Rapid game&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;&quot;]
  [StartFlipped &quot;1&quot;]
  [Date &quot;2020.12.13&quot;]
  [White &quot;&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Me&quot;]
  [Result &quot;0-1&quot;]
  [UTCDate &quot;2020.12.13&quot;]
  [UTCTime &quot;08:02:31&quot;]
  [WhiteElo &quot;1655&quot;]
  [BlackElo &quot;1645&quot;]
  [WhiteRatingDiff &quot;-6&quot;]
  [BlackRatingDiff &quot;+10&quot;]
  [Variant &quot;Standard&quot;]
  [TimeControl &quot;600+5&quot;]
  [ECO &quot;C48&quot;]
  [Opening &quot;Four Knights Game: Spanish Variation, Classical Variation&quot;]
  [Termination &quot;Time forfeit&quot;]
  
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. O-O a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a3 Bb7 9. Re1 Ng4 10. Rf1 Nd4 11. Ba2 Nxf3+ 12. Qxf3 Qh4 13. h3 Nf6 14. b4 Bd4 15. Bb2 Bxe4 16. Qe2 Bxc3 17. Bxc3 Qg5 18. f3 Bxc2 19. d4 Qg6 20. dxe5 Bd3 21. Qb2 Bxf1 22. Rxf1 Ne8 23. f4 Qb6+ 24. Bd4 Qc6 25. Rc1 Qh6 26. Be3 d6 27. exd6 Nxd6 28. Rxc7 Rac8 29. Ra7 Ra8 30. Qf2 Rxa7 31. Bxa7 Qf6 32. Bd4 Qh6 33. f5 Qc1+ 34. Kh2 Nc4 0-1
  </code></pre>
  <p>So I'm not really looking for somebody to tell me the best continuation of this game so I could win, but is this a problem with playing too passively? As in, &quot;I should be actively attacking the king more&quot; is my assumption, but I'm unsure how to learn about how to do that. I came across Vukovic's <em>Art of Attack in Chess</em> when searching online but according to the /r/chess wiki that book is for 1800-2000 rated players. So my question is what should I be focusing on to be able to win in these positions?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T14:18:24.627Z
Comments.Text: Not bad for just 3 months of playing. While the final position is winning for black, in a blitz situation White's position isn't hopeless. They still have decent attacking chances against your king.
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T15:12:05.257Z
Comments.Text: Welcome to Chess-SE. Since you mentioned playing passively, notice that 29...Ra8 is a passive move, even though the idea of exchanging rooks itself is fine. Instead, Nc4 was another way to force an exchange (of pieces). It also gives you the option to play Rc6 and double on the c-file (if Rc6 immediately, then W can play Bd5). Also you can indeed trade queens but it would just take time. Slow conversion in a normal game may simply not translate to blitz.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Aravind
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T15:17:58.223Z
Comments.Text: Generally, attacks need more pieces than your opponent. On move 13, you could have (assuming it's blitz), played Nxf2, then Kh1 with the idea of f5, opening lines for your rook. It's unlikely to be objectively good, but this is a human strategy. His pieces on the queen-side aren't developed, whereas you've got all your pieces ready to go.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Aravind
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-14T17:01:58.360Z
Comments.Text: I realize you are not looking for advice on the position given.  It may help to provide additional positions to get a better feel of the kind of positions you are struggling with.  In the position given you are an exchange up, but the position is open and your opponent has the two bishops.  To win this is not so easy.  I suggest going with Brian's advice of starting with studying endgames.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-16T12:32:39.137Z
Comments.Text: Mediocre chess player here, but somehow move 16 seemed like an unnecessary trade to me; your bishops and queen are in a great position to attack the king, so IMO you'd want to maintain them as much as possible. You could've just taken Bxc2 instead of Bxc3 and gotten a free pawn while simultaneously dodging the knight. And it'd open up e4 for your own knight (to take, trade, or attack, depending on what white does). I haven't played it out beyond that, so I don't know if this would work, but I think you'd come out ahead? Curious if others agree. (Useful for myself to learn too.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: user541686
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-16T13:11:41.713Z
Comments.Text: Don't get hung up on *winning* the "won" game... focus instead on *not losing*.
Comments.UserDisplayName: J...
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-19T22:24:54.667Z
Comments.Text: I'm just under 1800 at chess.com, and I wouldn't consider this a won game in 10 minute chess at that level.  I'd certainly be happier to be playing black, but my sense is that the game is still more likely to be won or lost by a subsequent mistake than it is by black simply converting their material advantage.  The main point is that you have the luxury of making a mistake without losing the game, and if they make another mistake *then* it'll be a truly won game.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Noah Snyder
Tags: <beginner><psychology><middlegame>
Title: As a beginner, how do I learn to win in "won" positions?
ThreadText: # As a beginner, how do I learn to win in "won" positions?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-12-14)
  
  I'm fairly new to chess (~3 months) and I have almost entirely been playing on chess.com where my rating sits somewhere between 1000 and 1100. Recently, I decided to sign up for lichess.org, where I was placed at ~1650 as I haven't played many games yet, and unsurprisingly I lose quite often.
  
  But facing higher rated players made me realise I don't know how to win a game of chess.
  
  On chess.com, the people I face will almost always trade pieces if offered, so if I have a material advantage it is very easy to trade off all other pieces then staircase checkmate and win. Facing higher rated players on lichess made me realise that if they don't cooperate like this I have no idea what to do. I know I sound pretty stupid here but somehow I have just never had a game like this before.
  
  In this game, by the end Stockfish says it was -3.1 (I played the black pieces) when my opponent lost on time, but if they didn't, I have no idea how I was going to win if they didn't at least trade queens.
  
  ```
  [Event "Rated Rapid game"]
  [FEN ""]
  [StartFlipped "1"]
  [Date "2020.12.13"]
  [White ""]
  [Black "Me"]
  [Result "0-1"]
  [UTCDate "2020.12.13"]
  [UTCTime "08:02:31"]
  [WhiteElo "1655"]
  [BlackElo "1645"]
  [WhiteRatingDiff "-6"]
  [BlackRatingDiff "+10"]
  [Variant "Standard"]
  [TimeControl "600+5"]
  [ECO "C48"]
  [Opening "Four Knights Game: Spanish Variation, Classical Variation"]
  [Termination "Time forfeit"]
  
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. O-O a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a3 Bb7 9. Re1 Ng4 10. Rf1 Nd4 11. Ba2 Nxf3+ 12. Qxf3 Qh4 13. h3 Nf6 14. b4 Bd4 15. Bb2 Bxe4 16. Qe2 Bxc3 17. Bxc3 Qg5 18. f3 Bxc2 19. d4 Qg6 20. dxe5 Bd3 21. Qb2 Bxf1 22. Rxf1 Ne8 23. f4 Qb6+ 24. Bd4 Qc6 25. Rc1 Qh6 26. Be3 d6 27. exd6 Nxd6 28. Rxc7 Rac8 29. Ra7 Ra8 30. Qf2 Rxa7 31. Bxa7 Qf6 32. Bd4 Qh6 33. f5 Qc1+ 34. Kh2 Nc4 0-1
  
  ```
  
  So I'm not really looking for somebody to tell me the best continuation of this game so I could win, but is this a problem with playing too passively? As in, "I should be actively attacking the king more" is my assumption, but I'm unsure how to learn about how to do that. I came across Vukovic's *Art of Attack in Chess* when searching online but according to the /r/chess wiki that book is for 1800-2000 rated players. So my question is what should I be focusing on to be able to win in these positions?
  
  **Tags:** beginner, psychology, middlegame
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Not bad for just 3 months of playing. While the final position is winning for black, in a blitz situation White's position isn't hopeless. They still have decent attacking chances against your king.  
  > **username_2**: Welcome to Chess-SE. Since you mentioned playing passively, notice that 29...Ra8 is a passive move, even though the idea of exchanging rooks itself is fine. Instead, Nc4 was another way to force an exchange (of pieces). It also gives you the option to play Rc6 and double on the c-file (if Rc6 immediately, then W can play Bd5). Also you can indeed trade queens but it would just take time. Slow conversion in a normal game may simply not translate to blitz.  
  > **username_2**: Generally, attacks need more pieces than your opponent. On move 13, you could have (assuming it's blitz), played Nxf2, then Kh1 with the idea of f5, opening lines for your rook. It's unlikely to be objectively good, but this is a human strategy. His pieces on the queen-side aren't developed, whereas you've got all your pieces ready to go.  
  > **username_3**: I realize you are not looking for advice on the position given.  It may help to provide additional positions to get a better feel of the kind of positions you are struggling with.  In the position given you are an exchange up, but the position is open and your opponent has the two bishops.  To win this is not so easy.  I suggest going with username_10's advice of starting with studying endgames.  
  > **username_4**: Mediocre chess player here, but somehow move 16 seemed like an unnecessary trade to me; your bishops and queen are in a great position to attack the king, so IMO you'd want to maintain them as much as possible. You could've just taken Bxc2 instead of Bxc3 and gotten a free pawn while simultaneously dodging the knight. And it'd open up e4 for your own knight (to take, trade, or attack, depending on what white does). I haven't played it out beyond that, so I don't know if this would work, but I think you'd come out ahead? Curious if others agree. (Useful for myself to learn too.)  
  > **username_5**: Don't get hung up on *winning* the "won" game... focus instead on *not losing*.  
  > **username_6**: I'm just under 1800 at chess.com, and I wouldn't consider this a won game in 10 minute chess at that level.  I'd certainly be happier to be playing black, but my sense is that the game is still more likely to be won or lost by a subsequent mistake than it is by black simply converting their material advantage.  The main point is that you have the luxury of making a mistake without losing the game, and if they make another mistake *then* it'll be a truly won game.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2020-12-14. Score: 26 | Accepted answer
  
  There are two key things you need to do.
  
  The first is to know how to win a won endgame. You do that by studying endgames. That will do two important things for you. Apart from teaching you how to win a won endgame, it will also teach you to recognise which endgame positions are won, and which are drawn, despite your material advantage. That way when you are in a winning middlegame you know what kind of endgame you are aiming for.
  
  The second really important thing to do is to keep on fighting. The aim is not to get a winning middlegame position, it is to win the game. To that end a winning middlegame position is just one stop on the way to your real desired destination.
  
  If you are driving to visit friends or family and you stop two thirds of the way there for petrol (or gas if you live in the US) you don't stop because you think you have arrived. You carry on after the stop, in just the same way as you did before the stop, except that you are no longer worried that you are going to run out of fuel (or not win the game).
  
  This tendency to sit back once you have a theoretically winning position is something which affects all players. You have to fight it by trying even harder to not let your opponent back into the game and to win it yourself. Perhaps one good way of doing this is by starting each think about your next move by asking yourself "Why did my opponent do that? What are they trying to do? How can I stop them?"
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_11**: you say in your last sentence: `Perhaps one good way of doing this is by starting each think about your next move by asking yourself "Why did my opponent do that? What are they trying to do? How can I stop them?"` you should ask yourself this questions always, not only in an "won position".  
  > **username_12**: Even better, figure out what your opponent wants to do on *their* next move, and stop them doing it.  
  > **username_13**: I think another reason people can have the "but I've already won" attitude is that nowadays you can watch strong players play online, and the game inevitably ends in a "won" position after a resignation. But a weaker player like me just needs to realize that in this situation one player is just confident that their opponent will always beat them in the current position, **not that their opponent will not even need to think to accomplish that**.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2020-12-14. Score: 18
  
  I remember reading about this from one of GM Yasser Seirawan's books. What you want to do is:
  
  * Pick a target
  * Figure out how to attack it
  
  In this case the obvious target is the White pawn on a3. Why this pawn? Because it cannot move (a4 bxa4 wins the pawn). It stands to reason it's easier to attack something that cannot move. The a3-pawn is also not easy to defend - it can no longer be defended by a pawn, so it must be defended by pieces, and you have more powerful pieces.
  
  Your last move 34...Nc4 accomplishes this goal of hitting the pawn. White can't defend it anymore. Next turn, you play 35...Nxa3 which increases your material advantage, and now you pick a new target - this time the pawn on b4. The reason is the same, it cannot move and it cannot be defended by a White pawn. Once you have identified the target it becomes easy to plan how to take it: you play ...Rc4, ...Nc6, ...Qb1, etc, and then you will have more attackers than White has defenders. After you grab the b4-pawn you have powerful connected passed pawns that you can shepherd to promotion & victory.
  
  Note this analysis is superficial - 35.a4 bxa4?? actually loses you most of your advantage according to Stockfish - but that is because of the specifics of the position (in this case, White's bishops are actually quite threatening to your King).
  
  One more thing: because you are ahead in material, another powerful plan is to force trades. Your opponent will be trying their darnedest not to acquiesce, but a material advantage lets you create threats that your opponent cannot parry. In the final position for example, an immediate threat you have is ...Qd2. If opponent does not trade queens, you take the bishop on a2. If White plays 35.Qg3 for example, then ...Qc2 traps the bishop and forces another trade (of course, you will have to defend against the threatened Qxg7# first).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2020-12-15. Score: 11
  
  **First consider the difference between a 'truly' won position vs a 'theoretically winning' position**. By that I mean - a position that is within your own abilities to convert to a win, in a way you can already see, vs a position that seems like it 'should be winning'. You see that stockfish says the position was -3.1, but at your rating level, -3.1 isn't 'truly' won - first of course because you point out that you can't see how to convert it, and second simply because at your current level, it would be very natural to overlook a tactic that you or your opponent could perform with a larger impact than a 3 point material swing.
  
  So move away from calling a position like this 'won'; it could lead you to let your guard down. At the same time, a 3 point advantage 'should' be enough to convert to a win *with perfect play*, in most cases.
  
  **So what gets in the way of you converting this 'theoretically winning' position to a 'truly won' position? Complexity.** Particularly at your level of play, but really in all levels of chess, complexity and asymmetry *is an advantage to the player on the backfoot*.
  
  Imagine an endgame where you have a rook and nothing else, and I just have a king. This should be a 100% won game (and if you don't consider that completely won, work on your endgames, so that you can convert a win in any circumstance where your opponent has only a bare king, and you have a minimum of material). Now now add 2 pawns and a knight for each of us to the board. Where before you would be able to easily slide your rook away from my king and make the mechanical advance that leads to checkmate, now you need to be cautious - are my pawns able to make a break for the 8th rank? Can my knight fork your rook and king? Is your knight trapped by the position of your own pieces? \*\*Complexity has created the opportunity for you to make a mistake, and the same "5 point material advantage" of an extra rook is not so straightforward to convert to a win.
  
  ***So reduce the complexity***. Trade everything down until you have a rook and I have nothing. You indicate this is what you're trying to do, but that your trades are 'refused'. You will need to become better at 'forcing' trades. If you fork my knight and king with your knight, and your knight is protected, you have forced me to take your knight. Simply moving your knight in view of mine to 'tempt' me to take it requires me to choose to do so - as you rise in your chess level, your opponents will more often have their own plans, and you should never rely on someone 'being bad enough that they will play the way I want', always try to play in a way that doesn't require mistakes on the part of your opponent.
  
  ***And reduce the asymmetry***. Imagine you have a rook and 2 pawns, and I have a rook. Because we both have the same major piece, I can't attack your rook in a way that your rook can't attack back. Tactics might be possible on my part (skewering your king with your rook behind, as an example), but mostly your position is similar (but better) than mine. Asymmetry creates complexity that allows tactics to develop. Imagine instead I have a bishop and 2 pawns, and you have a rook and 2 pawns. From a material standpoint, this is still you being 'two pawns-worth of material' ahead, but now my bishop can attack your rook in a way that you can't immediately attack back, and my bishop also defends my pawns differently - it can become part of the pawn chain if needed, etc. Asymmetry naturally creates complexity, which creates the opportunity for me to prepare tactics, and also makes it easier for you to overlook something on the board.
  
  **So your goal when it looks like you have enough material advantage to convert to a win** (as mentioned in other answers, the way to know this is to practice your endgames - for example are you confident in your ability to checkmate with a bishop and knight only?) would be as the mid-game winds down, to:
  
  (1) Play defensively. Keep your pieces connected and close to eachother. Being aggressive can be risky, and you no longer need risk to win, you need simplicity. Don't overlook your opponent's threats, deal with them, even if it seems slower than a 'near checkmate' that you can't quite calculate but you think is probably there. Keep in mind that for a sub ~1600 rated player, the most immediate improvement to your play will likely be just to not 'drop' / 'hang' pieces. Simply by defending all your pieces, you will be doing something that your opponents are not always doing.
  
  (2) Simplify. Force trades of material. Reduce asymmetry.
  
  (3) Watch for potential pawn breaks, on your side and the opponents. 2 connected pawns on the 6th rank are worth about as much as a rook, so don't ignore the threat of promotion, even if you feel you have a material advantage.
  
  (4) Keep your opponent's king "out of the game", by pushing it into a corner, especially preventing it from approaching your opponent's connected pawns. A king next to 2 pawns on the 6th rank is quite frightening indeed.
  
  (5) *When safe* bring your own king into the game. As the material on the board simplifies, the relative power of a king increases, especially if there are no queens on the board, and even more so if there are no rooks on the board. If you're '2 points of material' ahead, but your opponent uses their king and you don't use yours, you will be unlikely to convert to a win.
  
  (6) Checkmate using simple principles once the dust has settled. Really learn your endgames so that you are confident in all simplistic checkmates (especially with a single rook, and a single pawn - sometimes a single pawn is winning, sometimes it is a draw, you absolutely must learn how to win with a single pawn, because that's how a 1 point material advantage converts to a win).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: Bishop and knight mate imo isn't gonna be the most important- perhaps more important would be e.g. understanding the Philidor and Lucena positions  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 Personally I believe that sub-1800 rate players get more bang for their buck by learning endgames (which teach tactics and give a feeling of the pieces generally) over openings (which I personally find too boring to get into as a novice chessplayer, though to each their own). Bishop and knight might come up infrequently, but probably takes less to learn than the first 6 moves of the mainline Lucena opening.  
  > **username_8**: "Lucena opening" the Lucena and Philidor positions are key theoretical endgame positions you kinda just Have To Know (R+P vs R, Lucena is winning with the building a bridge idea, the Philidor with the 3rd rank defense)   But yeah, openings aren't gonna be Key I agree, like, principles are going to be enough for a while.   Probably most important is learn what you like learning :P  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 Understood, thanks for the clarification! I didn't know the Lucena by name, but agreed that R+P vs R is a critical endgame to know.  
  
  ---
  
  