Game 4104795
It's games like these that get to me... I thought I had played fine, the game looked totally equal and then suddenly it's lost. I know my last move was a blunder, but it didn't really matter, my game was lost anyways. I would just like to know where I went wrong.. I just can't see it.
Originally posted by ih8sensJust taking a quick look through (and you're a stronger player than me - so all due respect). It seems as though your opponent is co-ordinating their pieces better and you're a little too impatient to attack. The doubled pawns were a problem then you developed the queen leaving the rear of the doubled pawns on prise - which your opponent captured. The tactical shots were just beyond the horizon as you had to move the rook that was now under threat and then...as if you were annoyed with the bishop that took the pawn...you traded it for a rook.
Game 4104795
It's games like these that get to me... I thought I had played fine, the game looked totally equal and then suddenly it's lost. I know my last move was a blunder, but it didn't really matter, my game was lost anyways. I would just like to know where I went wrong.. I just can't see it.
Like you were trying to slash your way out of the swamp but the thrashing around was causing you to sink deeper.
Looks like you love the fireworks but need to appreciate when it's better to sit back and defend.
Originally posted by MahoutAll very true. I probably should have stayed in 'positional mode' for a few more moves. I just hate being the defender, I'm totally a Tal wannabe. Thanks for the analysis though.. it all sounds about right. Looking back I also think that perhaps Ba3 was questionable too.. had my opponent castled kingside I'd be great but otherwise I was in trouble. Thanks for the analysis.
Just taking a quick look through (and you're a stronger player than me - so all due respect). It seems as though your opponent is co-ordinating their pieces better and you're a little too impatient to attack. The doubled pawns were a problem then you developed the queen leaving the rear of the doubled pawns on prise - which your opponent captured. The tactica ...[text shortened]... s like you love the fireworks but need to appreciate when it's better to sit back and defend.
edit - I actually might disagree with the Bishop for rook trade... I did get a bishop and two pawns for that rook, it just turns out my opponent used his rooks nicely together (another strategic aspect of the game that still needs work on my part)
Originally posted by ih8sensThat cheeky knight was causing you grief too!
All very true. I probably should have stayed in 'positional mode' for a few more moves. I just hate being the defender, I'm totally a Tal wannabe. Thanks for the analysis though.. it all sounds about right. Looking back I also think that perhaps Ba3 was questionable too.. had my opponent castled kingside I'd be great but otherwise I was in trouble. Than ...[text shortened]... ooks nicely together (another strategic aspect of the game that still needs work on my part)
Originally posted by ih8sensPerhaps you could start by explaining in your own words why you took his bishop with your rook. That was not forced so I presume you had thought of something even if it didn't work out. Better to have a bad plan than no plan at all ... (says the wiseman)
Game 4104795
It's games like these that get to me... I thought I had played fine, the game looked totally equal and then suddenly it's lost. I know my last move was a blunder, but it didn't really matter, my game was lost anyways. I would just like to know where I went wrong.. I just can't see it.
Originally posted by z00tI'm starting to think it was a bad plan but the idea was a simple exchange. The game looked even to me (which it obviously wasn't) so I figured that I'd simplify it a little bit more to play for the draw (an inevitable finale, or so I thought). By taking his bishop with my rook, I also gained 2 pawns (pawns which I had thought would be cruciall). I now recognise that I was dumb to ignore the power of two rooks in the endgame.
Perhaps you could start by explaining in your own words why you took his bishop with your rook. That was not forced so I presume you had thought of something even if it didn't work out. Better to have a bad plan than no plan at all ... (says the wiseman)
with just a quick look and a low rating, but still 🙂, there were open/half open files, so you needed the rooks. in those kind of positions, unless there's an obvious positional advantage, giving the exchange is not a good idea.
second, again, in an open game, and when you had given the exchange, it's really a bad idea to give up the two bishops, especially to a knight.
Originally posted by ih8sensI think the exchange could've worked. I would've been very tempted to play it. it's a bit risky way to play for us patzers, but I'm sure a Good Player could've held the game together.
Game 4104795
It's games like these that get to me... I thought I had played fine, the game looked totally equal and then suddenly it's lost. I know my last move was a blunder, but it didn't really matter, my game was lost anyways. I would just like to know where I went wrong.. I just can't see it.
and I definitely think disregarding static piece values is a good thing to experiment with. I've sacced even whole pieces for long time pawn advantage, and won. I've also lost such games miserably, but that's the only way to get the feel for what is possible and what's not.
Originally posted by wormwoodjust a thought as I run this through my computer.....
I think the exchange could've worked. I would've been very tempted to play it. it's a bit risky way to play for us patzers, but I'm sure a Good Player could've held the game together.
Crafty made the exchange, judging it to be a significantly better move than Qc1 and then goes on to lose 😛.
Originally posted by ih8sensengine schmengine. engine evaluation means nothing except when it finds a tactic or has a forced mate.
just a thought as I run this through my computer.....
Crafty made the exchange, judging it to be a significantly better move than Qc1 and then goes on to lose 😛.
I would have played the exchange sac too. Well, considering my skill in chess this might be the best confirmation that the move was poor...
The position was indeed open, and black's rooks scary, but until 25.d5 Nc5! you had the pair of bishops as at least partial compensation. I cannot really pinpoint a moment when you went wrong (again, my chess is awful!), but if I had to pick the point when the draw started slipping out of your hands I'd chose when you allowed him the maneuver to exchange his knight for your bishop.
This is a matter of personal taste, but haven't you resigned a bit early? Maybe I'm missing some crushing tactics, but although you will very clearly lose a pawn (and exchange a rook), it will require some work for him to convert this to a win, especially with your pawn on d5. I'm not saying black is not winning (he is indeed, with proper play), but there would have been probably a few traps you could have pitched to him before the fat lady sings. Just my two cents...
Take care and good luck in your climb to the 1700s
J34
Good analysis... I resigned the game because black was clearly going to have at least one unstoppable passed pawn. The game had another 20-30 moves in it with perfect play, I'm sure; but it was lost. I think the rook exchange sac was actually incorrect. I should have kept the queens on the board.