14655 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Help with this game would be great! Thanks!
You want us to analyse a 1 0 game ? At that level of play ?
Forget about it. Read the basics, play longer time controls.
Analysing a game for a beginner can be a daunting task if they don't know what questions to ask or how to go about it. Due to the level of the game I will make some general comments and invite you to study this game more thoroughly than your annotations show so far.
Your aim in the opening is to develop pieces and gain control of the centre. The queen and the rooks are powerful pieces which should come into play later in the game. They are very useful but they are also too valuable and can't mount a successful attack on their own. Use your minor pieces for support and clear your way to victory.
This follows that checks early in the game don't achieve much. You need enough developed pieces to make meaningful threats. Generally with early checks you waste moves moving the same piece around while the opponent develops his pieces to defend against your threats.
What is your opinion of 3. Bb5+ and what comes after that? Most frequently when people play the bishops like that, they either intend to trade pieces or pin pieces against the queen or king. Unless you have intention of carrying out your threat, it's meaningless to move your bishop twice while the opponent moves it only once (and develops it at the same time).
In retrospect, was 4. a4 a good move?
What do you think you should have played instead of 8. Nc3? You could have supported the bishop in a variety of ways (not just d3), initiated the exchange or retreated the piece (and possibly given control of the diagonal to the opponent).
Similarly, what do you think a better move would have been instead of 11. Rd1? And what was the point of 12. Rd3?
13. Nb5 simply hangs the knight. Your opponent didn't notice that and he played 13... Qxc2. I would like to assume your played Nb5 with the intention of forking the rook and king with 14. Nc7+. But you didn't play that and you responded to the queen's threat of taking the bishop. Considering the fork was your intention all along, do you think you should have gone for it? You'd get a rook for a bishop and an almost cooked knight. Kind of equal stuff but the black king would have lost the right to castle.
So with 16. Qxd3 you won the queen (and are just 2 pawns down) in a clear majority of pieces. Where do you think the tables were turned after that?
17. f4 makes room for the king. But why would you need that? You're under no threat. And that knight of yours still hasn't been developed (and you're still hanging that b5 knight). What do you think you should have done instead? Highlight the following text for an answer after you have thought about it. Retreat the b5 knight (where?), develop the f1 knight and castle with your king. That puts him to safety and brings out your final major piece.
Am I missing something with 26. Ba1 and why you didn't capture the rook? You had mentioned just a move ago they can't attack/defend diagonally.
As a final note, both you and your opponent made some very unpopular moves. Before choosing a move, you should at least ask yourself a) whether you have any pieces hanging and b) what are the short-term consequences of the move you're thinking of playing, i.e., will the piece be attacked or will the moving piece leave a holes in my defense?
Move 13 "didn't see the pawn"
Anyway Irontiger is right. 1/0 isn't chess to begin with, and especially when the players just throw away pieces at eachother. What's the point of looking at such a game?
Last night I thought my bishop on c4 (turns out it was a pawn on c4) was captured even though my bishop was fianchettoed and thus on g2, right by my king, the whole game. I really did believe I was down a piece from that point on.
Even though my opening was defined by me putting a pawn on c4, and the bishop on g2, everything is going so fast you can forget things like this.
Tsk tsk tsk elubas, you just don't play enough bullet chess. A member for 5 years and not even 5000 bullet games... not even 1000 bullet games!? You've been slacking my man.
And for what? A 1900 USCF rating? Was it worth it? Really? I think we both know it wasn't.
Griever3216, thanks for the comments. I realize I need to play slower games in order to think further ahead.
by mhamdmhamd441 a few minutes ago
by mhamdmhamd441 2 minutes ago
10/10/2015 - Sometimes It Works
by yoursisnodisgrace 5 minutes ago
Will The Real Fischer-Spassky 1972 Design Please Stand Up?
by GM4U 6 minutes ago
Tournaments for Chess Engines Question
by HGMuller 10 minutes ago
Is The USCF Needed or Is It a Dunsel Organization
by DrSpudnik 17 minutes ago
This Site Will Soon Have 13 Million Members !
by 2travel 17 minutes ago
Chess is very hard because it`s stupid, here is my proof!
by 2travel 19 minutes ago
Does anyone want to participate in my competitions?
by sanath1987 22 minutes ago
Millionaire Chess 2!!
by uscftigerprowl 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!