I've been trying to learn/play some attacking chess...so can you take a look at my most recent game (which I tried to put some of my new found knowledge into). Comments are welcome!!!
Heres the link: Game 352353
Thank You!! 😏
Originally posted by dividebyUnfortunately, i don't know much about chess yet, but i'm learning! I still took a look at your game though... it sure didn't take you long to win!!! getting a pawn to the 7th rank after 15 moves is impressive, well done.
I've been trying to learn/play some attacking chess...so can you take a look at my most recent game (which I tried to put some of my new found knowledge into). Comments are welcome!!!
Heres the link: Game 352353
Thank You!! 😏
I've studied your game. It seems black had lost his focus on defending on the Queen Side, which is the main idea of Queen's Gambit Opening. You did well to punish him.
Another big mistake is black could not gather a well defending position for the King at early moves. Black should have been urged to gain save position first, and then attack briefly after white loose momental attack, which is almost definite to occure in Queen's Gambit Opening. I think black should have been moved the bishop in the fianchetto square.
Well, congratulation. Maybe we could have some games some other time. Right now I have had already 6-only-game limit.
Bye..
Originally posted by herasoulWe'll explained, herasoul!!! I truly agree. And congratulations, devideby. That was quick and accurate move replies. I suspected that Whocares' QB was intended to develop early out but was made weaker with his e6 move. It was correct that it had been more effective on the b7 square with the plan of attack through the diagonal when the right time permits. The advancing d pawn should ahve been captured to ease the burden of attack. Black here as I have observed is passive in his move exchanging pieces maybe to simplify only and not to have a good counterplay. White here is more agressive and his initiative paid off. Good play, devideby.
I've studied your game. It seems black had lost his focus on defending on the Queen Side, which is the main idea of Queen's Gambit Opening. You did well to punish him.
Another big mistake is black could not gather a well defending position for the King at early moves. Black should have been urged to gain save position first, and then attack briefly afte ...[text shortened]... could have some games some other time. Right now I have had already 6-only-game limit.
Bye..
Originally posted by dividebyAny more games to my comment, phall?
I've been trying to learn/play some attacking chess...so can you take a look at my most recent game (which I tried to put some of my new found knowledge into). Comments are welcome!!!
Heres the link: Game 352353
Thank You!! 😏
😏
Just love to see good games.
bye...
Originally posted by herasoulYes there is one more game which I played with a very strong player named Peter9. He has won 26 out of 26 of his games, so I'm not to sad that I lost to such a good player, but in our game (which lasted 50 moves), I couldn't find any place where I went wrong. I tried to analyze the game with Chessmaster, and it gave both of us 100% agreement percentages and showed 0.00 errors for both sides. I would really appreciate it if you have a look at the game and tell me where you think I went wrong 😕
Any more games to my comment, phall?
😏
Just love to see good games.
bye...
Thank You...here is the link to the game:
Game 344821
Hmm... my largely unqualified comments...
Thank You...here is the link to the game:
Game 344821[/b]
You lost a move on move 7 by using the queen to capture the pawn, rather than the knight, developing the queen arguably too early and getting attacked next turn... BUT given that using the knight would have meant an unpleasant exchange of bishops losing a defender for the king, it might have been unavoidable. Probably bad to get into that situation in the first place by allowing the exchange there. Under the circumstances, maybe I would have held off another turn on the castling and captured the pawn first, which would also have let you threaten his queenside some, esp. that bishop, eg. 6. pxd5, pxd5, 7. Q-b3 gaining a move.
On move 19, if I were him, I would have attacked with the queen instead of retreating, say to f4, allowing him to eventually uproot the knight from that scary position, either immediately, or, if you protected with the rook's pawn, via your bishop or pawn. That would also have avoided the obvious disadvantage of putting the queen in front of the rook in a file where the your rook might be able to get at it after clearing some pawns. Since he made that, what I think is a mistake, why did you immediately move the knight away, allowing him to win back the territory?
I think what really got you was moves 27-30 -- a sweet combination ripping your king out of his hole, and eventually costing you a rook. I didn't see that all. You should have immediately responded to move 27 by Qxe4 (as opposed to the rook, which would have exposed the other rook to capture of course), -- he would have lost a piece I think, on that variation, rather than the disasterous consequences that actually happened later to your rook. Failing that I think capturing the knight on move 39 was a mistake. I would have perhaps moved the queen to f7. That would have guarded you against the check/exposed attack by protecting both the rook and the g6 square, worst he could've done would be to force a knight trade.
On 46, I wouldn't have traded queens under any circumstances leaving yourself with a knight against a rook. Instead, I would've gone, say, Q-b4, but haven't really thought that one out, might've left a fighting chance. After that, the game was lost.
Hindsight is, of course, 20-20. In hindsight, I think you lost the game on move 27 (though I could be missing something), buy you played that game a lot better than I would have! :-)
You should have immediately responded to move 27 by Qxe4 (as opposed to the rook, which would have exposed the other rook to capture of course), -- he would have lost a piece I think, on that variation, rather than the disasterous consequences that actually happened later to your rook.Ok I'm a dummy. I missed something in my comment. That would have led to the same loss of material because 27. ... Qxe4, 28 QxQ, RxQ, 29. RxR. Duh. And the alternative, trading rooks first on move 27, wouldn't work, because then the queen wins the rook at f7. Me got no brain. uh-duh.
(You know you play too much chess when the first thing that pops into your head when you wake up after an extremely alcohol-laden new years party, which actually also involved chess playing, albeit with shot glasses in disturbing fashions, is "oh shit, I was wrong about my comment on a rook move in..."😉
Here's my opinion about your game:
I agree with the move 27 both on you have moved (Bxg2) and on paul has sugested (rook exchange). But I think you should move 27.f7 to gain stronger defense and also attack/possess the centre square.
Actually on the move 24, you should've made 24.Qa2! to attack the C pawn and also the King side (which can compensate the d Knight or the d Rook). Slowly but sure, you must gain your attack and defense at the same time. At this point, you couldn't leave the centre square and the potential White attack on the f7.
But actually from the middle moves (7 and laters) you seemed to waste some moment by to many moves by knight. It looked like you had attack White's side, but you didn't. REMEMBER: Black should wait the right moment to attack White! Black could put the pressure on white by making solid defense. When white has nothing to attack, then it's your time to attack.
Your too early attack can harsh yourself. Your pieces (e.g. the black-square Bishop) were outposed. Not to mention your bishop and knight on the Queen side, which is looked harmless and non-functioned.
OK, that's my opinion.
Maybe another good game?
Or should we play?
😏