I thought I was gona win this game , but then things went bad. Can someone point out the turning points? ThanksGame 860763
Ok, Please uderstand two things before I begin. I'm not a GM and this is just my opinion. Second, I'm not picking on you or being mean, just giving my opinion to hopefully let you learn.
At move 6, white played Nb5. You should have punished him with a6 and gained some tempo. Instead you played Bb4. White responeded c3 and gained a tempo instead (by forcing your bishop to retreat). Move 8,9, and 10 you move your knight around and retreat you bishop some more- giving your opponent more development and space. This is very evident in the development of your light bishop (being trapped behind pawns for awhile).
Of course, the space and time advantages become evident with 13. pXN and you go down material.
the game continues on pretty normally. You get some decent attacks in on his king-side, but with inferior material, but are defended against.
By move 48, you are trying to hold off 3 connected pawns with one pawn and have 2 rooks vs. a rook, a knight, and a bishop (both are considered losing in an endgame). From here, it is just a matter of white applying his advantages to win.
Frankly, I think you were starting to lose by move 10 (you had given up alot of time and space advantages) and were definately losing on move 13 (when you gave up a material advantages). I don't see anywhere that you were winning.
Remember that advantages are more than just material. They can also be space (board control), time, development, and position. You seem to be giving away time and space in your game and forgetting that those will equate to material and position advantages later.
Hope this helps with your future games. Good Luck.
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldYep, you're right. Guess playing the English has hurt my four knights game. 😲
Bb4 was the right move in that situation cause it's the only way he could defend the c7 pawn without losing his castle. White should have played Kb5 instead of Be5, he would've won a pawn.
Looking the opening sequence more, I think h6 was a blunder.
Yep, 6. ... Bb4+ was not bad. Perhaps 6. ... Ne4 was even stronger.
Black gave away a piece at move 12. although after 12. ... Ne4 it still was an open game.
Despite all what happened, simply taking Bxc2 on move 20. (instead of Bh3) would have won back the piece, and black was a lot better, if not winning.
Originally posted by Saint NickWell, maybe winnning was a poor description. I was thinking I could prevail, but looking back, I lost too much material. Thanks for the helpful analysis. I will study this some more.
Frankly, I think you were starting to lose by move 10 (you had given up alot of time and space advantages) and were definately losing on move 13 (when you gave up a material advantages). I don't see anywhere that you were winning.[/b]
I very quickly looked through the game, and one move really bothered me, that was black's 24th move, Bh4 x e1.
The reason I hate this move, is I have a program where a young American GM, by the name of Josh Waitkizin, who is a great attacker and loves to sacrefice and loves the positions you are in, believes in "maintaining the tension". If you do not maintain the tension, and simply trade stuff off rashfully, your opponent will refute, set up a defense, and being down material, you will lose. What reason do you have for trading off your good bishops for that lousy knight on e1? Exactly, you have no reason to do so, sure the knight on e1 is a good defender, but it can't actually hurt you, IT HAS TO STAY THERE. White's other knight is also pretty lousy and forced to stay there, white bishop has nowhere to go because of the pawn structure, and white's king's rook is stuck by his own peices, so although you are down material, given this position, white has FOUR STUCK PEICES, so it's like you are up 3 peices! (minus the one you sacreficed)
But for some odd reason, you inneciated a trade of your good peices for white's 4 useless/lousy peices, so at this point, white being mathematicly up material, was probably smiling. I would of kept both bishops, they are very good and maintain the threat. Many times the threat is more deadly then the execution, it causes the defender to sometimes panic the whole game and maybe make other weaknesses you can exploit when he tries to defend. As I said, white's knights and bishops are useless where they are, white's king rook is stuck on two measely squares, they can't hurt you, can they? Nope, they can't. So why on Earth did you give him a chance to free them up through trades? And to top it all off, you gave him counterplay on your own king with an open g file!
What I would of done, as I said, was keep the bishops and simply add more to the attack, say, do a rook lift or something, which white has no way of stoping anyways. You are free to rook lift as much as you want/need and take the time to do so, because white is threatening nothing with his 2 knights, bishop and rook stuck in the corner of the back/second rank.
But again, winning these type of games is probably hard for your rating, this is complicated chess, even for myself. A 2000 rater would probably have to think hard even to plan a finishing coup to grace of white's bad position after sacreficing some material like you did. White is hanging by a thread in the middlegame, tetering over the edge, but it's still very difficult to calculate. I have no doubts that a 2000 rater would find a way win your position, but he would have to concentrate hard though. Tal would love your position.
Originally posted by mateuloseNo one loves being down material for no real advantage which is what happens in this game. The attack on white's king may look dangerous but white defends well and converts the material advantage. Black made lots of mistakes and at no point was he in a position that a 2000 rated player would convert for a win against good play from white.
I very quickly looked through the game, and one move really bothered me, that was black's 24th move, Bh4 x e1.
The reason I hate this move, is I have a program where a young American GM, by the name of Josh Waitkizin, who is a great attacker and loves to sacrefice and loves the positions you are in, believes in "maintaining the tension". If you do no ...[text shortened]... y win your position, but he would have to concentrate hard though. Tal would love your position.
Originally posted by XanthosNZStill, he traded a good attacking peice for a bad defensive one, that's a no-no. Maybe white could defend/refute, in fact, through deeper analysis I think he can, but the game would certainly be more interesting if this didn't happen. It's not easy for white to defend like you might think. But the trades simply helps white out, you shouldn't help your opponent defend your sacrefice attack, even if there is a refutation hidden there, make him FIND IT. And yes, the game is filled with mistakes, both sides are low rated so it's expected, these mistakes are especially in the opening, but I don't think the poster in question wanted opening advice when he posted about this game.
No one loves being down material for no real advantage which is what happens in this game. The attack on white's king may look dangerous but white defends well and converts the material advantage. Black made lots of mistakes and at no point was he in a position that a 2000 rated player would convert for a win against good play from white.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI'm not sure I agree; by move 40 the material is EVEN; 2 rooks and 6 pawns versus a rook, knight, bishop and 5 pawns. Plus White's h-pawns are doubled and Black has a supported passed f-pawn. Black's made a few mistakes, but the killed was allowing White's rook to get to the 7th; I would have been tempted to exchange rooks and play with the Rook against the two minor pieces; with Black's superior pawn structure I think he would have had winning chances, although it's a probable draw with best play.
No one loves being down material for no real advantage which is what happens in this game. The attack on white's king may look dangerous but white defends well and converts the material advantage. Black made lots of mistakes and at no point was he in a position that a 2000 rated player would convert for a win against good play from white.
Originally posted by mateuloseI think the reason black traded there was forgetting the fact that the pin on the g pawn no longer existed. If it did then white would have been in serious trouble.
Still, he traded a good attacking peice for a bad defensive one, that's a no-no. Maybe white could defend/refute, in fact, through deeper analysis I think he can, but the game would certainly be more interesting if this didn't happen. It's not easy for white to defend like you might think. But the trades simply helps white out, you shouldn't help your ...[text shortened]... but I don't think the poster in question wanted opening advice when he posted about this game.
Of course black shouldn't have played Bxe1 however the alternatives all involve moving the h3 bishop and giving up the pressure on the king. Even if black does play the right move here he is still losing.
The queen trade in the early 30 moves was also a very bad mistake. After black takes white's queen, if white takes the F pawn, the king has to take otherwise white wins a rook. So, Kxf7, Bh5! Wins the rook for a bishop. Wow, what a crazy game 😵. Hope I didn't sound critical, just pointing some things out 🙂.
Josh. M