Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Could of Won! Should of Won!


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1

    theopenfile

    Hi, heres a game i just played, i believe i played rubbish in the openening but i managed to pull it back. I Could of won in the endgame due to my queenside pawns. But Was in serious time trouble and My opponent  got me in an unnavoidable checkmate but i offered him a draw before he spotted it and he accepted lol!!

    I saw i had better queenside pawns during the middlegame but do not know how to take advantage of this. Also i always get into time trouble alot how can i help this?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #2

    piphilologist

    Could have learnt grammmar! Should have learnt grammar!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #3

    theopenfile

    piphilologist wrote:

    Could have learnt grammmar! Should have learnt grammar!

    I could ignore this comment, I should ignore this comment. I will ignore this Comment.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #4

    nswwsn

    First off forcing a queen trade like with 30)Qf4 will make your advantage much easier to use.

    With the queens off the board get your king active and supporting your pawns. Then slowly push your two conected passed pawns down the board.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #5

    theopenfile

    nswwsn wrote:

    First off forcing a queen trade like with 30)Qf4 will make your advantage much easier to use.

    With the queens off the board get your king active and supporting your pawns. Then slowly push your two conected passed pawns down the board.

    Thanks. i wanted to trade queens during the endgame but i never even thought of how that move forced the trade. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #6

    k90762289487

    I agree with trading the Queens, but I would probably have done it sooner at move 22 with Q-d5 instead of grabbing the pawn at d7. This would give you a 3 to 2 q-side pawn advantage while also opening the E file for your rook. You would later be able to follow with B-f4 and R-e7 giving you a very strong positional advantage on the q-side to utilize with your q-side pawns 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #7

    theopenfile

    k90762289487 wrote:

    I agree with trading the Queens, but I would probably have done it sooner at move 22 with Q-d5 instead of grabbing the pawn at d7. This would give you a 3 to 2 q-side pawn advantage while also opening the E file for your rook. You would later be able to follow with B-f4 and R-e7 giving you a very strong positional advantage on the q-side to utilize with your q-side pawns 

    I actually thought of the Q-d5 move during the game but didnt go with it as i didnt think i would be able to utilize the extra queenside pawns.  I guess i should be more confident next time i choose a move.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #8

    VULPES_VULPES

    piphilologist wrote:

    Could have learnt grammmar! Should have learnt grammar!

    You mean:

    "Could have learned grammar! Should have learned grammar!"

    Well, that's what I learned anyway. English is my second language, but it's better than my native Chinese by a long shot.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #9

    browni3141

    I disagree with the queen trade on move 22. One pawn offers some drawing chances, especially if there are some mistakes. Two pawns is completely winning. A later queen trade definitely wins easily. The only thing you had to watch out for in the end was Q+N attacking your king. Q+N can be a very powerful attacking combo.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #10

    piphilologist

    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    piphilologist wrote:

    Could have learnt grammmar! Should have learnt grammar!

    You mean:

    "Could have learned grammar! Should have learned grammar!"

    Well, that's what I learned anyway. English is my second language, but it's better than my native Chinese by a long shot.

    Learnt is the UK word, learned is american.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #11

    TonyH

    I would use this game as an opportunity to study B vs N endgames. I posted some lines in the game just to show you the ideas and get you started



  • 2 years ago · Quote · #12

    ClavierCavalier

    piphilologist wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    piphilologist wrote:

    Could have learnt grammmar! Should have learnt grammar!

    You mean:

    "Could have learned grammar! Should have learned grammar!"

    Well, that's what I learned anyway. English is my second language, but it's better than my native Chinese by a long shot.

    Learnt is the UK word, learned is american.

    Learnt is quite common in America.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #13

    ClavierCavalier

    Is that actually a grammar problem?  I know he meant "Could've," but I'm not 100% sure that "Could of " is actually a grammar problem or if it falls under something else.  Either way, I don't think picking on someone for their mistakes is the best.  We all have blind spots.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #14

    JG27Pyth

    27.Qd5+ is another good spot to have gone for the exchange. If he initiates  the exchange white will have three connected pawns bearing down on the black's one lonely fellow...but however he plays it you'd have a winning game.  *edit* ahhh well, that's a little glib, black can actually win a pawn back because of some awkward bits in your positions... but anyway... the general idea is right. Smile

    In situations like this you need to be hungry for the simplification. Keeping pieces, particularly the queen, on the board in this kind of situation is your opponent's best hope -- you might easily blunder a piece to a simple combination or leave him an opportunity to perpetual check in what should certainly be a won game for you. Indeed you hung the game to a simple checkmate procedure and lucked out when your opponent failed to see it.  An opponent who accepts draw when he's got checks to give and the enemy king trapped in the corner? Bizarre and quite generous.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #15

    b_complex

    haha, I will try this kind of draw offer as well. well done, mate. as the others already said: learn to like endgames and try to exchange pieces when you are 2 pawns up.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #16

    FirebrandX

    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    Is that actually a grammar problem?  I know he meant "Could've," but I'm not 100% sure that "Could of " is actually a grammar problem or if it falls under something else.  Either way, I don't think picking on someone for their mistakes is the best.  We all have blind spots.

    Correcting a blatant problem that has cropped up due to the invention of the Internet is not picking on someone in my book. I will always correct a post that uses 'could of' instead of 'could have' or 'could've'. There is absolutely NO point in the English language where 'could of' is correct. It's a clear indication that people are getting dumber with each new generation. In my generation (grade school in the 1980s), I never saw anyone make that mistake. This is because we'd get red marks on our papers for mistakes like that, and we'd quickly learn not to make them.

    I don't care if I get flamed, banned, or suspended from web sites. If I can teach just one moron to understand the difference between 'of' and 'have', it will have been worth it.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #17

    ClavierCavalier

    FirebrandX wrote:
    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    Is that actually a grammar problem?  I know he meant "Could've," but I'm not 100% sure that "Could of " is actually a grammar problem or if it falls under something else.  Either way, I don't think picking on someone for their mistakes is the best.  We all have blind spots.

    Correcting a blatant problem that has cropped up due to the invention of the Internet is not picking on someone in my book. I will always correct a post that uses 'could of' instead of 'could have' or 'could've'. There is absolutely NO point in the English language where 'could of' is correct. It's a clear indication that people are getting dumber with each new generation. In my generation (grade school in the 1980s), I never saw anyone make that mistake. This is because we'd get red marks on our papers for mistakes like that, and we'd quickly learn not to make them.

    I don't care if I get flamed, banned, or suspended from web sites. If I can teach just one moron to understand the difference between 'of' and 'have', it will have been worth it.

    I'm not sure it's really the internet's fault.  I blame America's failing education system, and probably the media.  To be honest, I think that the problems with "the next generation" is actually the fault of the previous generation.  

    Maybe they should of learnt english, maybe they should of taught English, but maybe they of a disability.  Yes, the fact that I of used it in another place to replace "of" doesn't seem to make sense.  Now it's starting to get strange. I of crossed the language barrier and should of stopped when I of'ed the chance...  :-p

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #18

    NachtWulf

    IM-ing via the internet and texting are probably large (if not the largest) culprits, due to the fact that people at both ends attempt to communicate through their keyboards/keypads at speeds similar to normal conversation. As a result, butchering of the language is often "excused" to the point of minimal understandability. With the acronyms and abbreviations come grammatical errors as well, which few bother to correct (and those who care are often branded 'grammar Nazis'). Personally, I think it's terrible that the English language is allowed to rot in this fashion, so I do what I can to preserve the remnants. Frankly, you probably should, too; at a minimum, the use of proper English makes one seem more intelligent.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #19

    Elroch

    "Could of" is a common mistake which I associate with people who speak a lot more than they read. It clearly results from mishearing "could've" and not thinking that it does not make sense. It cannot be blamed on texting and the Internet, since I recall it being common when I was young.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #20

    Elroch

    "Could of" is a common mistake which I associate with people who speak a lot more than they read. It clearly results from mishearing "could've" and not realising that it does not make sense. It cannot be blamed on texting and the Internet, since I recall it being common when I was young.


Back to Top

Post your reply: