Game analysis for a new club member.

Originally posted by tvochess
Please do so. 😉

Fat lady and you are obviously better chess players and both have problems with Dewi's comments. Please point them out, because it was certainly not all wrong. The things he said about pawn moves, development, castling, knight on the rim, outposts are very useful for a beginner. That's my idea, but I'm similarly rated as he is, so please ...[text shortened]... g doubled pawns and losses the bishop pair, which is maybe worse than the knight on the rim.

White was screwed from move 2. The fact that he had to give up his bishop pair to consolidate his position(Better control of the e5 square) only confirms the fact that he played badly so early on. He really needs to understand 1.d4 otherwise he's just gonna keep struggling.

So there's two ways to look at this: He needs to work on his tactics: He missed the mate. The other perspective is that he needs to work on his positional skills: He played 2.f4

Personally, I think he needs to work on his tactical skills. To not know the tactics and lose in 11 moves means he's got to work hard on his board vision. Has this happened to him before? Does he usually miss simple checkmates? 1 embarassing loss like this is just one loss, however if this is a pattern, then he really needs to work on fixing that.

Originally posted by hamworld
White was screwed from move 2. The fact that he had to give up his bishop pair to consolidate his position(Better control of the e5 square) only confirms the fact that he played badly so early on. He really needs to understand 1.d4 otherwise he's just gonna keep struggling.

So there's two ways to look at this: He needs to work on his tactics: He missed ...[text shortened]... is just one loss, however if this is a pattern, then he really needs to work on fixing that.

I agree, that's why I went for cheap tactical shots, and I accept they weren't even very good ones. He saw it as soon as he clicked submit, as we've all done before now. I don't think he would have missed it over the board, though that's why I left the knight fork undefended, i thought it might prove too tempting. I'd obviously not have played so loosely if I was expecting him to develop pieces. He has beaten me over the board, but again I was playing loosely and not thinking properly about what move each position needed. I guess that goes some way to answering my question in a previous thread about why I struggle against weaker players whilst beating some stronger ones!

Originally posted by Dewi Jones
I agree, that's why I went for cheap tactical shots, and I accept they weren't even very good ones. He saw it as soon as he clicked submit, as we've all done before now. I don't think he would have missed it over the board, though that's why I left the knight fork undefended, i thought it might prove too tempting. I'd obviously not have played so loosely ...[text shortened]... ious thread about why I struggle against weaker players whilst beating some stronger ones!

I thought this was a club game? If this was a correspondence game, then he definitely needs to work on his tactics.

Originally posted by Dewi Jones
I agree, that's why I went for cheap tactical shots, and I accept they weren't even very good ones. He saw it as soon as he clicked submit, as we've all done before now. I don't think he would have missed it over the board, though that's why I left the knight fork undefended, i thought it might prove too tempting. I'd obviously not have played so loosely ...[text shortened]... ious thread about why I struggle against weaker players whilst beating some stronger ones!

It's hard to resist the temptation, but going for cheap tactical shots against weaker players might prove harmful to you when you face stronger opponents (or when your weak opponents learn how to defend). You should look for moves that accomplish something regardless of how well the other player defends. Doing that against weaker players instead of going for cheap shots might be a good way to prepare yourself to face stronger opponents, who will know how to respond to your threats.

Everyone's knocking the lad's 2.f4 but isn't that the Stonewall attack?Or is first 2.e3 required for it to be a stonewall?
And isn't it a decent opening for amateurs?I would think it's on the same level as the Colle,which it resembles imo.

edit: dewi,I think it's great you want to help a lower rated player.But you took only 5 minutes to look at the game?Please take more time to think about the moves and what you want to say about them.
And I hope criticism won't deter you from further trying to help,you'll get better at it.Certainly if you take the critique to heart as there are some people here with experience in teaching chess.
Good luck 🙂

Originally posted by Wilfriedva
Everyone's knocking the lad's 2.f4 but isn't that the Stonewall attack?Or is first 2.e3 required for it to be a stonewall?
And isn't it a decent opening for amateurs?I would think it's on the same level as the Colle,which it resembles imo.

edit: dewi,I think it's great you want to help a lower rated player.But you took only 5 minutes to look at the ga ...[text shortened]... to heart as there are some people here with experience in teaching chess.
Good luck 🙂

If he was trying to play the Stonewall, he was just too slow. 2.f4, 3.e3 and 4. Bd3 should've been quickly played. Generally, when people play Bf5 against the Stonewall, you should play a quick Bd3.

This is also seen in the Caro-Kann for instance 1.e4 c6. 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4. Bd3

Originally posted by hamworld
If he was trying to play the Stonewall, he was just too slow. 2.f4, 3.e3 and 4. Bd3 should've been quickly played. Generally, when people play Bf5 against the Stonewall, you should play a quick Bd3.

This is also seen in the Caro-Kann for instance 1.e4 c6. 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4. Bd3

I disagree, if black has a bishop on f5 it's usually better to place your bishop on e2. Especially in that Caro-kann line you provided.

Hi Dewi.

It not easy is it. But a brave post and hopefully you might pick up
a few hard earned tips as well as your opponent.

You have said far too much, you are trying to cram in 100 chess lessons
into one game. That is too much for a lad to take in.
The main lesson in that game was him missing mate in one.

Labour the fact that chess is not about taking a8 Rooks it's is checkmate.
He failed to spot a mate in one against him. There was the lesson.
King safety...King safety...King safety.

Hammer it into him. It is the first law of chess, avoid getting checkmated.

The notes.

Drop the metaphors (Knights on the rim and double pawns etc) unless they actually
play a critical part in the game and I mean critical. All that comes later...much much later.

The advice about not castling if you have no f-pawn was bad. (and damaging).
What did you want him to do keep his King in the centre.
Castling Kingside with no f-pawn is good! Ask any Kings' Gambit player.
If you had caught him with a trick based on the open g1-a7 diagonal
THEN you could have highlighted the need for Kg1-h1 in such positions.

Try to refrain from talking about things that never happened unless you have
a line to show what could have happened.

The Knight on the rim was not dim, the doubled e-pawns are actually good,
and the King was perfectly safe. (a lot safer than yours!)

"I'm not very good with QP openings, but I can't imagine this is a good
move in any universe."

Here's a tip I learned the hard way.
If you don't know or are unsure what to say then say nothing.
You are not inspiring confidence in the reader by saying you are not very good
at QP openings but are about to analyse one.

10 Minutes research would have given you have a line to use.

And if you are going to coach then you will spend double/triple the time
researching and preparing than you will actually coaching.

How about:

'With this (2.f4) White has laid his opening cards face up on the table and is
possibly going for the Stonewall opening with pawns on c3,d4,e3 and f4.'

The Reinfeld Note trick. (stolen and used by me on numerous occassions.)

Having used, as above, playing cards in an opening note later on go back to the
playing cards.

'This is the joker in the deck...'

'But with this move Black is keeping his cards close to his chest'

'Black now plays the Ace he has been hiding up his sleeve.' etc...etc...

Have a note theme running through the game, the notes writes themselves.

So keep it simply, don't over write.
If you do there will be an error in there and someone (as I'm doing) 😉
will highlight that wee bit and dance on it.

OK point that lad back to this thread and at this post. See if this helps.

Hi jackwils.

What was the idea with 2.f4 were you going for a Stonewall, did you see it somewhere,
Do you have Fred Reinfeld's 'How to Think Ahead in Chess"
(That is a Fred system book, Stonewall as White, Dragon and Laskers Defence as Black.)
You have only played 7 games on here so I don't have your opening yet.

Or was 2.f4 a suck and see pawn move. That's OK, at your level suck and see good.
I could yak all day about bad opening moves (2.f4 is OK if followed up correctly
and you got a good game.)
But until you play them and get scudded then it won't sink in.

Getting scudded is good. Enjoy getting scudded knowing you won't scudded
that way again (Well that is the plan).
Soon you will be doing the scuddings.

But you have to learn from your losses mate. Don't shrug them off and don't think
just because you spot one threat in one game you won't miss it in the next.

Here as White against reboot played a day or two before the Dewi game.


You spotted the mate in one on f2 and castled.

Good. More about that game later.

So how come a few days later you let Dewi mate you in one move?
Do you think Kings in castled positions don't get mated in one move?

Get into the habit of always looking at your King to make sure it's OK
Esepcially if he has three bits hovering near it.
That was an awful miss. Shocking Chess, even more so because........



And you have had pawns pinned to your King before and lost as the
other game with Dewi Game 9397674 (move 17) which led to your collapse.
Take these things onboard.

But cheer up jackwils. I have seen hope for the future.
You are already showing signs of two move trickery and you have the luck.

The Luck?
I know under 2000 players who set tricks and traps and never catch anyone
and others...ME! who catch a lot more than my fair share.

You have the luck, you are one of Caissa's chosen sons.
(of course you will get the unchosen ones coming on claiming that there
is no such thing as luck in chess...but they are the unchosen ones.)

All Caissa asks it that you sacrifice some of your time to her study. That is all.
The more time you spend in there the more she shall shine on you.

The two move trick is the golden rule for under 2000 players.

Never mind all this cods wallop about Knights on the rim and doubled pawns.
If you can set and spot tactcial tricks then you will be at least as good as I am.
When you get to that stage it's up to you how far you go. I will be of no further
use to you.

Back to the reboot game. You to play.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Dewi.

It not easy is it. But a brave post and hopefully you might pick up
a few hard earned tips as well as your opponent.

You have said far too much, you are trying to cram in 100 chess lessons
into one game. That is too much for a lad to take in.
The main lesson in that game was him missing mate in one.

Labour the fact that chess is not ...[text shortened]... . Rg1 Qh3 {Set up and fall for mate in one again.}[/pgn]

Just Wow!

Just only goes to show that you can only teach the lvl of your understanding to another person, be it chess or any other area.

Originally posted by Eladar
Just only goes to show that you can only teach the lvl of your understanding to another person, be it chess or any other area.

True, but understanding doesn't necessarily equal performance either.

Originally posted by tomtom232
True, but understanding doesn't necessarily equal performance either.

This is true. Board vision and mental stamina definitely come into play.

You can't judge a chess player's understanding of the game simply on rating, but you can judge it on his comments. 😀

Originally posted by Eladar
you can judge it on his comments. 😀

Not quite.I read and hear many comments I don't understand and/or disagree with.How am I to judge these?Are they talking bollocks?Am I right?Are they?

There's also parroting booknotes or other people's comments.

But I agree it's a much better indicator than rating.Ratings don't mean that much.And internet ratings are almost completely meaningless

Originally posted by Wilfriedva
Not quite.I read and hear many comments I don't understand and/or disagree with.How am I to judge these?Are they talking bollocks?Am I right?Are they?

There's also parroting booknotes or other people's comments.

But I agree it's a much better indicator than rating.Ratings don't mean that much.And internet ratings are almost completely meaningless

That's kind of unfair. Some people can't afford to play tournament chess so they play online. I'd like to think that if someone earns a 2600 rating in 5/0 chess, that means they could play well OTB(assuming they're not cheaters).

They say a 5/0 1800 player would lose to a 1500 OTB player over the board...

but the 1800 player is not invincible. An 1800 might lose to a 1500, the same way a 1500 might lose to an 1800.

It's amazing how harmful some of the advice given to beginners can be. I've seen players (admittedly quite young players) refusing to win a free piece in the opening with, say, knight on f3 takes a undefended bishop on g5, as they don't want to move a piece twice in the opening because their teacher told them that was bad.

I used to think that there are absolutely no hard and fast rules in chess (aside from the rules of the game), but Greenpawn's "avoid getting checkmated" sounds like a good one. Apart from that, the guidelines given to beginners have so many exceptions that I really wonder how useful they are.

Going through loads of other peoples' games, preferably with comments by the players themselves, and failing that then comments by a relatively strong player who is good at it, will do a far better job of teaching someone how to improve. It sort of goes in by osmosis - you find yourself getting a feel for when an attack has a chance of succeeding, when you need to develop and when you can forget about development and go for a quick kill.

My personal feeling is that it is better to improve by stages. You can't get much out of grandmaster games when you first begin playing. Better to look at games of experienced club players; how they punished weak play or defended themselves against unsound attacks. And of course the tactics - as Greenpawn pointed out, you can get to a remarkably high level just by going for cheap tricks all the time.