On a side note, I'm having a difficult time with this "ultra slow" play; True its allowing me to look deeper and it has helped: For example, in one instance, I was set on a move but stubbornly decided to go through the candidates, and low and behold, I found a better more.

But sometimes I still get side tracked from the normal thought process and overlook stuff; For example check out this move sequence: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.c3 d6 6.Bb3 a6 7.d3 h6 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.h3 g5 10.d4 exd4

click for larger view

Black just recaptured, so natural candidates for White are 11.Nxd4 & 11.cxd4. While looking these over, I noticed 11.e5 which looks powerful. However, I became focused on Black's defenses instead of White's potential and didn't see White's threat 12.Ne4. I played 11.Nxd4 and now have to worry about problems on the e-file

But White can secure the two Bishops with 11.cxd4 Bb4 12.Qc4

Lets make a "Thought Process Check List". There could be 20 items to check off; for example (1) check all checks & (2) check all captures, etc.

I always seem to forget something, like you mentioned, the "non-forcing" move that defends.

The way my dilemma in this puzzle was resolved was very satisfying indeed, some real catharsis.

I guess this is what pretty much separates players by strength: What one sees and doesn't see, which by itself embraces or relates to almost all aspects of analysis: Checks, captures, threats, non-forcing moves, etc., all must be seen and carefully appraised. Leave one out and disaster strikes.

<The question is, would you have seen this during a long time control? Just knowing it's a puzzle lures us to keep searching until we find the winning move. But during a real game, how do you know there is a winning move? What would trigger you to switch into "puzzle mode" and search until the winning move is found? That's the key, and I have to give Fedorov a lot of credit for finding this while the clock is ticking> The ability to assess the position figures here I think; visualization is one thing but calculating is another

He had to "sweat" the old fitting off, (copper pipe), and, in the process, set fire to the 2x4. (FIRE!!!) Actually, it was no big deal. He told me what he had done, and ran to the shop to get his fire extinguisher. I nonchalantly grabbed a glass of water and flung it onto the source, this put it out. Unbelievably - with maybe 50-100 gallons of water already all over the floor and in the carpets - the guy yelled at me for causing more water damage!

Then - when it was supposed to be all fixed - they turned on the water and something gave way, squirting water everywhere. (Second flood.)

Then I had to have a guy come over and suck up all the water ... this took another 1-2 hours. And that night, we drove all the way to Birmingham.

It was a heck of week, that Tuesday, I had to go to school ... my autistic daughter threw a fit ... she was taking off her shoes and throwing them at people.

The week after the hot water heater blew up, I sprained my ankle, and wound up going to the ER like 7-8 times in about 5 days. (Complications.)

Here is a game that I played, probably within the last month. (I liked it so much, I saved it to ChessBase.)

A.J. Goldsby (1800) - Some Player (1000) [A82]
1-0 (on-line) tournament, chess.com (3), 05.2013
[A.J.G.]

1.d4 f5 2.e4 d6 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Bd3 Qd7 5.h3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Rd8 7.c3 a6 8.a4 Na5?! 9.Bg5!? h6? 10.Ne5! dxe5 ; ('?') He did not even see the threat.
11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qxg6+ Bxg6 13.Bxg6# 1-0

I searched through my games - to find the link, so that you could replay it, it might have been more than 2 weeks ago. (I could not find it.)