18199 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?
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!
Hi, here's another game I lost, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly happened. The blunder, of course, played a big part in it. I'm black.
I basically stated the reasons I lost in the game, but would like further feedback. There are a couple of questions in the diagram.
"I didn't actually realize he was attacking my rook." Why not?
12...c6 may have been better for you.
the theory on the closed ruy goes 5.. Be7, indirectly defending by closing the e-file. 6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Nxe4 is completely safe.
as played i think that Bxf2+ is actually a huge mistake in these kinds of positions. white gets a strong center, open file for the rook and great piece activity. after that, well, life sucks.
this bullet game is an example of what i mean - it's surprisingly hard to find improvements for black (actually engine says that black is already lost after 9.. d6 - about +3.5 score)
I'm curious why Black didn't play 6.Nxe4 ? Your 5.b5 move deflected White's bishop from attacking your defender of e5, and so that was your window to take on e4.
8.Bxf2+ was a disastrous blunder, since Black had just sacrificed an active bishop for no compensation.
Samir, the reason I didn't play I didn't play Nxe4 is because after white plays Re1, he wins the pawn back, with what seems like better development to me.
8.) Bxf2 was not a disastrous blunder because I would have lost material anyways, with white forking the knight and bishop with his pawn.
Ben, I'm with you on your first point. You're right about the awkward development after 6.Nxe4. However, there had to have been a way to preserve your material. I don't think the bishop sac was necessary.
Let's say we allow the fork to happen. You start off a piece up after 8.Nxe5, but return the piece immediately after White recaptures whatever piece you leave behind.
8.Nxe5 , 9.d4 Bd6 , 10.dxe5 Bxe5
There's no material loss.
"Qatar Masters Open 2014! Round 2 - Hosts GM Daniel King & GM Simon Williams "
11/27/2014 - Mate in 4
by szammie a few minutes ago
sexism in chess?
by XPLAYERJX a few minutes ago
How do I best handle this situation with pawns? (diagram)
by gspaulsson a few minutes ago
by Agamtailor 3 minutes ago
by BillPhilip 3 minutes ago
Stupid Mate In 2
by Alec_CA 4 minutes ago
my first game in 11 years
by USCFDex 7 minutes ago
A simple(?) mate in 2
by happyface79 9 minutes ago
Kings Gambit: Theory
by Rickett2222 19 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by OrganicVegetables 23 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!