Now what?

Hi Eladar,

All the lad said was he hoped it was not an ongoing game.

In the past people have in all innocence posted questions about a game
in progress and got in a wee bit of bother, he may have been looking out for you.



White has more space, better developed. Black has a loose piece on a5.
Keep the pawns on e4 and d4 till you see a very reason to push either one.
The White Rooks need taking up central squares. But first keep him
lagging in development.

1.Ne5 is the automatic choice. You always play Ne5 if given the chance
and it is not going to be kicked or swapped off very soon.

Note if Black plays Bc8 or Be8 with the idea of Nbd7, they will want
rid of that Knight ASAP. then the e5 Knight goes to c6
and it wins a piece. (the loose bishop on a5).

After 1.Ne5 Black best appears to be Bb6 to bring the loose piece in
and it hits the b-pawn which the f3 Knight was defending.

When ever you see a Knight move look back at what squares it was protecting.
That is the down side of any Knight move. It cannot move and hold the
same squares it was already covering. Rooks, Queens and Bishops can.

1.Ne5 Bb6 then Rfd1 (covers tactically the d-apwn. ) The a1 Rook has a
home on c1 unless you want use it to back up an a2-a4 push v those
advanced pawns. A lot depends on Blacks developing plan after Ne5.

@greenpawn34

Thanks for the advice on knights. It is probably obvious to many, but certainly not me. Now I have a concrete way of judging the knight move.

So much to see, so much that gets overlooked.

Rf1 to d1 defends the d pawn in an x-ray type scenerio?

There was a loose piece on a8 as well but hitting it would be easily stopped. Still a target. I missed the bishop on a5 as a target.

@eladar said
@Paul-Leggett

I will take your answer to mean nebulous.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I did answer Mchill's question, but not yours. Based on your previous post, I don't have an answer for you.

I think for all of us, there are parts of the game that we "get", and parts that we don't. For what it's worth, you are not alone.

@Paul-Leggett

I was just looking for some concrete ideas. Even after completing the centralizing rooks and Ne5, unless my opponent will get me into the what next situation.

But still I am finding looking at all of the board and questioning what my opponent is trying to do is needed as well. Sometimes I do that better than others.

@eladar said
@Paul-Leggett

I was just looking for some concrete ideas. Even after completing the centralizing rooks and Ne5, unless my opponent will get me into the what next situation.

But still I am finding looking at all of the board and questioning what my opponent is trying to do is needed as well. Sometimes I do that better than others.

I see what you mean. It might be worthwhile to take your original position, and play the black side against a computer. After several games, you will have a pretty good picture of how white can take apart black's position. It will also be good defensive practice.

Your remark about paying attention to what the other guy is doing is critical for all of us, and it is the core of what Ragwort was getting at. I know for myself, when I am at an OTB tournament, and I really make a concerted effort to suppress my opponent's play, my results are better. When I get caught up in my own stuff, I tend to miss my opponent's good moves, and I lose. It's more about discipline than knowledge sometimes.

How did the game go. Show us. I've figured out the opening.
There will be a a different move order in there but this will be close.

@greenpawn34 said
How did the game go. Show us. I've figured out the opening.
There will be a a different move order in there but this will be close.

[pgn]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4 a6 5. Bxc4 b5 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. Nf3 Bb4 8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2 h6 10. Be3 Bd7 11. Ne2 Ba5 [/pgn]

Here is the actual game:

@eladar said
@Paul-Leggett

If I had a clue what to do, I would not have started this thread. Let me know what you thought I should have gotten from his post.

Really all I see is a flowery way of saying he started off well then screwed up, do not do what he did.

You actually played three of the moves that have been suggested to you by some of the other posters before my previous contribution: Nf4, h3 and Ne5. On that basis it wasn't necessarily your "strategic thinking" that was at fault. So why didn't those moves work?

I said you un protected your d pawn which your opponent took. I told you about the research about the best players ability to properly un-pick their own ideas before making a move. This suggests one way you might like to try that could beef up your thinking routines before making a move.

How would I try to counter my move or plan if I were black now, knowing what I know?

Add that to things like "check all checks", "check all captures", and so on, and your toolkit broadens. What you do (or don't do) thinking wise before you make a move is the only place it is possible to make improvements in your play. Years ago trees of analysis and formalized 10 point thinking routines were all the rage. This just adds to that and gives an insight into what might be going on in a good player's head when they analyze. That was the point I was trying to make. Take it or leave it.

@Ragwort

I get what you were saying here. I did not understand what you were saying initially.

Maybe I should always attempt to use a three or 4 move conditional line as I play. If it does not play out then revamp, work lines I see and shoot for the most advantageous. Rinse and repeat. At least until a clear path arrives.

But still I need better plans. I picked up a couple that I think I actually understand.

@eladar said
I know I am supposed to have a plan, but I not. What idea would drive your decision making at this point?
[fen]rn1q1rk1/2pb1pp1/p3pn1p/bp6/3PP3/3BBN2/PPQ1NPPP/R4RK1 w - - 4 14[/fen]

I have a strong center. I feel like I should be attacking the kingside, other than that no clue. Is there something concrete here or is it just nebulous?

There's nothing in your OP that indicates the game has already finished and that you are asking for advice after the fact. It does read as if it's about a game in progress.

A suggestion for next time: Make it clear that the game is over, and ask what you could have done from the given position.

@caesar-salad

Guilty until proven innocent. I suppose some people function that way.

@eladar said
@caesar-salad

Guilty until proven innocent. I suppose some people function that way.

I wouldn't say you are guilty, but you are to some extent responsible for this misunderstanding occurring in the first place.

@caesar-salad

So blame a guy for asking a question from a game he lost. You are welcome to your opinion I suppose.

I suppose if someone is wondering if the position was from an active game he could ask.

@eladar said
@caesar-salad

So blame a guy for asking a question from a game he lost. You are welcome to your opinion I suppose.

I suppose if someone is wondering if the position was from an active game he could ask.

Eladar, he did not blame a guy for asking a question from a game he lost, because nowhere in your original post did you indicate that you HAD lost.

You also wrote it in the present tense, not past tense. For instance "I feel I should be attacking" as opposed to "I felt I should have been attacking".

Something as simple as starting with "This is from a game I just finished" or "...from a game I just lost" would have clarified matters tremendously.

I myself did not post until after that point was clarified. It seems that pretty regularly people do post positions from games in progress, usually not realizing what they are doing (if someone is going to cheat, the forum is obviously NOT where they would do it!).

In retrospect, I should have sent you a private message asking to clarify, so you could have posted yourself. Asking the question in public can be sensitive, as we have all seen here. For what it's worth, I saw the potential concern and did nothing to address it, so I'll accept some responsibility for it as well.

We all have moments where we do not communicate as well as we would like online- there is no tone, inflection, nor body language to flavor and temper our dialogue, and we do more guessing about what the other person meant than we perhaps ought.

I'm inclined to think that there is plenty of blame to go around, but that none of the blame has any real value other than for us to type more carefully. We got to the truth- perhaps in more threads than was needed, but we got there.

And I don't see a bad guy in the room, just a bunch of players who hopefully know a little more now than when we started.

@Paul-Leggett

As I pointed out, if he believe I might be cheating he could ask instead of jumping to false claims.

I wrote in the present tense because I want to know what I could do for future games.