This is a game I have just finished I was wondering whether any of you people could look through it give me some hints maybe and tell me where I went wrong.
You played well overall....just falling prey to some tactics towards the end
- it happens. Maybe you could have played on.
This will be a good game to go through carefully looking for improvements.
e.g. maybe on move 9 instead of playing 9.a3 you could have played 9.0-0 and bought the h rook
into the fray.
Or on move 28 where you overlooked the unprotected d pan and subsequent fork...suggests some tactics training might benefit.
Dropping a pawn for nothing and exchanging a knight and bishop for a rook didn't help - but you could probably tell that. Obviously walking into that knight fork was bad.
Your queen and bishop attack looks pointless, even if it might not be objectively terrible.
Originally posted by Mahout You played well overall and you were in a winning....just falling prey to the tactic towards the end - it happens. Maybe you could have played on. This will be a good game to go through carefully looking for improvements.
Just found one improvement without engine analysis - 16. Bb5 should put me up the exchange.
Missing that kind of thing is probably why this guy's rated 100 points above me.
Originally posted by Jasen777 Dropping a pawn for nothing and exchanging a knight and bishop for a rook didn't help - but you could probably tell that. Obviously walking into that knight fork was bad.
Your queen and bishop attack looks pointless, even if it might not be objectively terrible.
Just found one improvement without engine analysis - 16. Bb5 should put me up the exchange.
Please tell me if I'm wrong here - I don't doubt that I could be. Can this move be refuted?
I would have thought that, at some point, BxN and then Rxa5 was looking ok for you - dont keep trying to play spectacular tactical sequences, especially when using such an opening as the c3 sicillian - you want to win by the safest and most boring routes possible and learn to enjoy it because that is what that opening is all about.
26. h3 was pointless. Moves 20-26, you had a really great plan! You were mobilizing the queenside, due to his isolated pawn, and you were putting pressure on his knight and his a-pawn.
Therefore, you should have continued with that plan and played Rc1!, putting pressure on his knight and taking advantage of his poorly defended rook. It looks to me that moves wins you an exchange. Or you could have continued trying to pressure that isolated pawn.
But h3?? does nothing to continue your idea and is a random move. Always ask yourself, "what does this move benefit me"; "are there any other moves" and "what is my plan from this move?" That move doesn't benefit you (other than opening your king - but better would be f3, as you want your king closer to the center, not out of the way); there were better moves as I mentioned, and your plan is to get queenside play, not kingside play.
I know 26. h3 is a minor inaccuracy that I am rambling on about, but it shows me as an observer that you are not following a set plan. Always formulate a plan based on the weaknesses of your opponent and on your own strengths. Then firmly follow the plan; try not to deviate from it.
yeah 16.Bb5 would be a game winner. Ok you missed that tactical thing, but you could have won even so. You had a good game till blunder in the end.
I believe you could have won playing 25. Bxc6. (After 25. Bxc6, to recapture with the bishop would be a mistake by black cause of ... Bxc6 26.Rxa5 Rxa5 27. Nxa5 and black’s bishop is lost.)
Here's the best line, I think: ...Rxc6 26. Rxc6 Bxc6 27. Rxa5!
And white would reach a Knight vs Bishop endgame being up a pawn.
Your knight would stronger than Black's bishop, cause of the pawns structure. In K vs B endgames, it's usually better to have a bishop when pawns are in both sides of the board, cause it's a long distance operator. On the other hand, Knights can attack all squares, not just one color like Bishops.
Considering your pawns are on dark squares, weakening black's bishop, and considering pawns are concentrated on one side, in this case white's knight is stronger than black's bishop. And, of course, white would be up a pawn.
15. Bxe7 is a useful move to look at. It seems like an exchange for the sake of an exchange
- because you can. The best exchanges are ones you gain something from - even if it's just a
little subtle thing.
On this move though you had a good bishop, controlling a lot of squares and aimed at the
heart of the enemy camp. Their knight on e7 wasn't up to much, in fact it was a bit cramped -
almost in the way.
If the above statements are true (I've not a made a careful study) then you exchanged a good
piece for a bad piece and this is good for your opponent.
We have to think of the value of the piece not just by the assigned points system - bishop = 3,
rook = 5 etc but also any positive or negative attributes based on it's position. A pawn on the
7th rank about to queen is of greater value than one on the third rank being an obvious
example.
Even trades can be good if you are ahead in materiel based on the theory that if everything
got traded then you would have something and they would have nothing. But these ideas are
general principles only and have to be considered in the context of what else is hapening on
the board.
I also hate the Bxe7 move. You have a beautiful bishop eying black's camp with a clear open diagonal. All you moves leading up to this move is good - with great central control. I don't care what any computer says... that bishop is kick ass beautiful!
Originally posted by Wumpus I also hate the Bxe7 move. You have a beautiful bishop eying black's camp with a clear open diagonal. All you moves leading up to this move is good - with great central control. I don't care what any computer says... that bishop is kick ass beautiful!
I agree completely. I've been a big fan of bishops on a3 ever since playing through a game of Fischer's where he utilised it beautifully in the Nf3/a4/Ba3 line of the Winawer. It was probably the first positional idea I understood and it's still one of my favourites.
Originally posted by Fat Lady I agree completely. I've been a big fan of bishops on a3 ever since playing through a game of Fischer's where he utilised it beautifully in the Nf3/a4/Ba3 line of the Winawer. It was probably the first positional idea I understood and it's still one of my favourites.
Hi!
Nice game.I had two ideas which have not yet been adressed and about which I have a question.
17.0-0 from the gamecontinuation I gather the idea is to solve the backward pawn issue with a c4 push.But this just shifts the issue from the c-pawn to the d-pawn which is also easier to attack because it has advanced further.
I would try 17.Kd2,utilising the king to defend the backward soldier and try to cause problems with the rooks and bishop on the queenside.The knight could also invade there via e1-d3-c5 or e1-d3-b4.
Is this one of those times you can violate a principle (castle early and often) or is it a rubbish idea?
19....,Nd5? I think this is a mistake.The square is a nice outpost but not right now because if white captures on d5 the outpost is destroyed and black gets an isolani on top of it.Black should prepare first with Bc6 and then Nd5 so that he can recapture with a piece.
So I think 20.Bxd5 is the best move.
I'm learning to think more about positional matters.Have I got the right idea here?
I think I spotted another missed tactic.At move 25 you can capture the a-pawn
25.Nxa5,Rxa5? 26.Rxa5,Nxa5 27.Rxc7,Bxb5 28.Rc5 and you're up the exchange
25.Nxa5,Nxa5 26.Rxc7,Bxb5 27.Rc5 again wins the exchange
25.Nxa5,Ra7 26.Bxc6,Bxc6 27.Rxc6,Rxa5 28.Rxa5,Rxa5 29.g3(or h3) and you're up a pawn
It's actually the same as monteirof's 25.Bxc6 line.Maybe this is a bit trappier and therefore easier for the opponent to go wrong?
Please take a look at this game
20 Jul '09 21:26
Back to Top