This week I had the same opponent, same color, for both games.
Round 2 Wednesday You can see where the time-pressure kicks in as I needlessly drop my f7 pawn. I give up on trying to make sense of the time-scramble as I can’t recreate a position where I am not winning his rook on e7 toward the end. It’s weird because I finished with 48 seconds where he had around 54 minutes, so why was he blitzing bad moves? But this is what they do, so ridiculous, and a 30 second increment would cut all of this out, and end the game even sooner in moves!
In Round 2 Thursday, he should have played 22.Ne4 and to try and show me that he is simply winning with the extra pawn, and better position (which I was tickled-pink to not see him play, BTW). Fruit says that it was even if I had gone with the …Bd6 idea, instead.
I saw that I was giving him the draw with 36.Qf6, but I had played 35…Qd2 with 18 seconds on my clock, and so a draw would have been satisfactory compared to losing on time; and as Alex and Peter showed me after the game, simply 35…Rh8 ends the confusion.
I got there 5 minutes late, but I still have to work on time-management in the middle-game, as this should have cost me half a point in the end. I was wasting a lot of time for no real reason, since I knew I playing a pawn sac with 18…Bc5+, but then had realized that what I was looking at, 20…Rd6, doesn’t work because after 20.e4xd5 his queen has the c4 square for escape instead of needing to retreat to d2. And then there was all of this business of trying to find an initiative after the pawn sac, but I came to my senses to find that fundamentally sound chess was the best policy here.