I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt. 🙂
I don't care for your second move, in short, it invites a hole either on d3 or d4. Holes are usually a great place for an opponent's outpost. Black had faster development, your king side sleeps. I'd develop before launching an assault, unless there is a trap or trick line involved.
Originally posted by WanderingKingI don't know but 14...Nxd3+ looks pretty good.
[pgn]
1.e4 e5
2.c4 Nf6
3.Nc3 Bc5
4.h3 O-O
5.Qf3 b6 {this seemed like a good idea at the time. That bishop on b7 was supposed to be strong...}
6.d3 Bb7
7.Qg3 Nc6
8.Bh6 Nh5 {I forgot that I need my bishop on c8 for this to work.}
9.Qg4 g6
10.Bxf8 Kxf8
11.Be2 Nd4
12.Bd1 Nf4
13.Nf3 f5 {A desperate attempt to bring the b7 bishop into action.}
...[text shortened]... es, I still managed to put my pieces around the white king. Was there something I missed there?
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI wouldn't have resigned if I my clock hadn't been ticking way too fast for me. I had less than two minutes to my opponent's 7. In such tactical positions I usually spend a lot of time trying to find a killer. I didn't find anything, and in the final position I didn't even see a way to complicate things. So I expected the game would go on to an endgame where I would lose on time or be mated because of having too little time to think.
8. ... Ne8 avoids losing the exchange. Your king is a little exposed at the end, but you are not short of material. The exchange is about quality not quantity, since there aren't any open files yet it isn't one that matters. You shouldn't resign that position.
Time trouble occurs when you are brought out of your territory. Don't worry about what you could do from this position, worry about how you ended up in this position... I noticed you didn't write anything about where you think you went wrong.
Basically, you should note up a game and be critical of yourself... Wherever you think you went wrong point it out then the rest of us(not really me but GP Paul L and Paulbuchman) can tell you where you're being too critical.
Originally posted by WanderingKingWhat do you think about 13...Nxd3+ good or bad?
[pgn]
1.e4 e5
2.c4 Nf6
3.Nc3 Bc5
4.h3 O-O
5.Qf3 b6 {this seemed like a good idea at the time. That bishop on b7 was supposed to be strong...}
6.d3 Bb7
7.Qg3 Nc6
8.Bh6 Nh5 {I forgot that I need my bishop on c8 for this to work.}
9.Qg4 g6
10.Bxf8 Kxf8
11.Be2 Nd4
12.Bd1 Nf4
13.Nf3 f5 {A desperate attempt to bring the b7 bishop into action.}
...[text shortened]... es, I still managed to put my pieces around the white king. Was there something I missed there?
Originally posted by WanderingKingIf it was me, I would have played right to the end under those clock conditions. You have nothing else to lose, and 7 minutes could easily allow your opponent to make a mistake.
I wouldn't have resigned if I my clock hadn't been ticking way too fast for me. I had less than two minutes to my opponent's 7. In such tactical positions I usually spend a lot of time trying to find a killer. I didn't find anything, and in the final position I didn't even see a way to complicate things. So I expected the game would go on to an endgame where I would lose on time or be mated because of having too little time to think.
In positions like that with short time, you need to adjust your mental process and go into "swindle mode". Don't bother trying for deep combos. Instead aim for simple threats and "two-movers" that require very little time on your part, but require your opponent to see and counter them.
The difference between swindlers and other players is that other players resign in positions like these, while they don't.
Be a swindler!
Originally posted by Fat LadyI wish I had noticed that!
An obvious cheapo to try at the end (it's got to be better than resigning):
[pgn]
[FEN "r2q1k2/pbpp3p/1p4p1/2b1pp2/2P1Pn2/2NP1nQP/PP3PP1/R2BK2R w KQ - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
{--------------
r . . q . k . .
p b p p . . . p
. p . . . . p .
. . b . p p . .
. . P . P n . .
. . N P . n Q P
P P . . . P P .
R . . B K . . R
white to play
--------------}
15. Qxf3 Bxf2+ 16. Qxf2 Nxd3+
[/pgn]
Paul: The problem is that I don't see two-movers quickly enough. But you're probably right, I should have played to the end. But I just didn't see anything to do and indecision costs time...
6 edits
Originally posted by WanderingKingThis is what I was thinking of when I asked if you thought 13...Nxd3 was good or bad.
[pgn]
1.e4 e5
2.c4 Nf6
3.Nc3 Bc5
4.h3 O-O
5.Qf3 b6 {this seemed like a good idea at the time. That bishop on b7 was supposed to be strong...}
6.d3 Bb7
7.Qg3 Nc6
8.Bh6 Nh5 {I forgot that I need my bishop on c8 for this to work.}
9.Qg4 g6
10.Bxf8 Kxf8
11.Be2 Nd4
12.Bd1 Nf4
13.Nf3 f5 {A desperate attempt to bring the b7 bishop into action.}
es, I still managed to put my pieces around the white king. Was there something I missed there?
Originally posted by theReturnOfTheKINGThis is a good example. When you set a goal (defend g7) look for multiple ways to achieve this goal, don't play the first idea right away especially in critical positions like this where an acurate defense is needed. With knights they can often play to two different squares that defend a common square.
I don't know if its been said, but instead of Nh5, you could have played Ne8! With f5 on the cards, Plus you don't lose the knight