Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    04 Oct '07 14:14
    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.
  2. 04 Oct '07 14:49
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    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.
    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 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.

    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.
  3. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    04 Oct '07 14:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Mahout
    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.
    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. Thanks for the analysis.

    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)
  4. 04 Oct '07 15:12
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    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)
    That cheeky knight was causing you grief too!
  5. 04 Oct '07 15:49
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    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.
    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)
  6. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    04 Oct '07 15:53
    Originally posted by z00t
    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)
    I'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.
  7. 04 Oct '07 17:02 / 1 edit
    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.
  8. 04 Oct '07 17:28
    11. Bxc4 dxc4 12. d5 +-
  9. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    04 Oct '07 17:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    11. Bxc4 dxc4 12. d5 +-
    haha wow ... yah... wow... I missed that

    Nh4 would also be possible there...

    Both of those moves I analyzed heavily... I shoulda slowed down!
  10. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    04 Oct '07 17:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    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.
    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.

    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.
  11. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    04 Oct '07 17:38
    Originally posted by wormwood
    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.
    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 .
  12. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    04 Oct '07 17:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by ih8sens
    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 .
    engine schmengine. engine evaluation means nothing except when it finds a tactic or has a forced mate.
  13. 04 Oct '07 18:06
    Originally posted by wormwood
    engine schmengine. engine evaluation means nothing except when it finds a tactic or has a forced mate.
    I guess that's not true nowadays, especially with rybka.
  14. 05 Oct '07 00:41
    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
  15. Standard member bannedplayer306509
    Best Loser
    05 Oct '07 00:43
    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.