Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Explain My Mistakes


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #1

    Kevin_Grem

    Hello! I really could use some help from some high level chess players. I want to learn how to learn from my mistakes so that I do not make them again. 

    I play standard 30 min chess games and after each one is finished I always do a computer analysis on them. The problem is, I don't always know why the computer says that certain moves are bad. 

    Just so we're on the same page here, the computer analysis that chess.com offers is said to be a 2500 level rating and gives three different types of bad moves: inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders. Inaccuracies are the smallest errors and blunders are the biggest. I can almost always go back and understand why a blunder was made. I can understand the the mistakes maybe 50% of the time, sometimes more if I really spend a lot of time looking at it. The inaccuracies I can virtually never tell why they are bad. I need the help of some strong players (please be very good, I want accurate advice) to explain WHY the computer says that my moves are bad. I can't learn much if I don't know what my error was and how to correct it. 

    I will post my first example in a bit. For now I will leave it at that because for some screwed up reason chess.com will delete my posts if I take more than a half hour to compose them. (Seriously you guys NEED to fix that nonsense!). 

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #2

    Soccersoccer

    If anyone has any good chess strategies tips or tricks post them and I will put them all together into an article or blog

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #3

    2200ismygoal

    i would not trust the computer analysis of the chess.com computers they are horrible.  Best way to learn from your mistakes, break out a real board and pieces and go through your games slowly and compare your moves to the moves strong players played in similiar positions.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #4

    Soccersoccer

    Definitly

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #5

    Kevin_Grem

    Ok, here's my first computer analyzed game: 

    ?! = Inaccuracy

    ? = Mistake

    ?? = Blunder

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #6

    2200ismygoal

    Re1 yea wasn't a very good move, maybe e5 or d3 is better, but after is plays e5 and you play f4 your rook would stand better on the f file.  14.  c3 hangs a pawn and opens up his dark squared bishop.  The first rule to getting better is to stop hanging pawns and pieces.  Once you do that you will probably hit 1700.  I would just focus on tactics for now.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #7

    zschess

    The 2000 Computer Analysis claims that Sicilian Defense is a mistake!!!!!!!!!

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #8

    2200ismygoal

    zschess wrote:

    The 2000 Computer Analysis claims that Sicilian Defense is a mistake!!!!!!!!!

    +1

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #9

    Kevin_Grem

    2200, can you explain why 9.fxe5 was a mistake?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #10

    2200ismygoal

    I think since you are slightly behind in developmet and have less space opening the position with fxe5 does not seem to be in your favor.  I maybe would have played f5 in that position.  Make the dark squared bishop stare it's pawns.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #11

    2200ismygoal

    Or nd2 than to f3 trying to catch up in development.  Black can't play exf4 because e5 would win a peice for you anyways.  One thing strong players I find are good at (2200+)  is leaving tension in the position it creates more opportunities for your opponent to go wrong as well.  If fxe5 isn't forced why play it unless your getting a clear strategic advantage, and who knows maybe he would blunder with exf4

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #12

    Kevin_Grem

    Here is another game I played, this time I made a lot of mistakes...can someone explain why they are wrong and can you teach me what lesson I should take away from it for the future?

    The reason I played 6.bxc3 is because I was told that if you have to make doubled up pawns that it's better to have them capture towards the center. Why is dxc3 the better move? 

    For move 16 the computer said d4 was a mistake (though it didn't call it that for some reason, it called it an alternative suggestion)...what's wrong with d4 and why should I play Kd2?

    Also for move 18 why Bf1? 

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #13

    Kevin_Grem

    Also, why 9. c4, why 13. Bh3, why 19. f4, etc. 

    I'd like all my mistakes/inaccuracies explained by a master player who can teach me something from them. Thanks. 

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #14

    iamdeafzed

    Kevin_Grem wrote:

    Hello! I really could use some help from some high level chess players. I want to learn how to learn from my mistakes so that I do not make them again. 

    I play standard 30 min chess games and after each one is finished I always do a computer analysis on them. The problem is, I don't always know why the computer says that certain moves are bad. 

    Just so we're on the same page here, the computer analysis that chess.com offers is said to be a 2500 level rating and gives three different types of bad moves: inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders. Inaccuracies are the smallest errors and blunders are the biggest. I can almost always go back and understand why a blunder was made. I can understand the the mistakes maybe 50% of the time, sometimes more if I really spend a lot of time looking at it. The inaccuracies I can virtually never tell why they are bad. I need the help of some strong players (please be very good, I want accurate advice) to explain WHY the computer says that my moves are bad. I can't learn much if I don't know what my error was and how to correct it. 

    I will post my first example in a bit. For now I will leave it at that because for some screwed up reason chess.com will delete my posts if I take more than a half hour to compose them. (Seriously you guys NEED to fix that nonsense!). 

    The chess.com engine is, from my experience, useful for pointing out tactics you missed during a game, particularly ones that both you and your opponent missed. If you allow your opponent a simple checkmate in one and he executes it, you'll probably see what your mistake(s) was immediately. But if your opponent also misses the tactic (i.e. he blunders in kind), you'll be less likely to realize you made such a grave error during the game.
    It should also be noted that missed tactics include beneficial ones in addition to the prophylactic kind like avoiding mate in one. If you failed to notice a 'winning move' that exploits a pin or deflection, then that's also worth noting. And the chess.com engine is great for these.

    That said, the engine is (from my experience) of limited use otherwise. For one, it will routinely demerit common book moves with '?!' marks (e.g. 1.d4,Nf6 2.c4,g6?!...the start of the King's Indian Defense), which makes one wonder how suspect some of the rest of its analysis is. For two, even if its alternatives are better (and I take at face value that generally they are), what good is knowing what the correct move was if you have no idea what the idea behind it is? Much of good chess playing (at least insofar as humans are concerned) is knowing how to come up with realizable plans. How does knowing that, "You slipped from a better position to an equal one. You should have played 21...Ng4" instead of 21...Ng6 help you to come up with more realizable plans in the future?
    Lastly, all engines suffer from well-known issues like the horizon effect.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #15

    iamdeafzed

    Kevin_Grem wrote:

    Also, why 9. c4, why 13. Bh3, why 19. f4, etc. 

    I'd like all my mistakes/inaccuracies explained by a master player who can teach me something from them. Thanks. 

    I assume in the second game you posted that you're playing the white pieces, given the context of your comments. But please make sure that you clarify such points a little better in your future posts.

    That said, I agree that 6.bxc3 was inferior to 6.dxc3. And the reason has to do with both development and piece activity. In general, yes, it is better to make a pawn capture that goes toward the center as opposed to away from it. You're right about that. But...that's if all other things are equal. And after 5.Bxc3, all other things aren't equal.
    Minus forced mating sequences, all chess moves have good and bad points to them. Even the opening move 1.e4 by white (good though it is) has the drawback of permanently weakening white's control over the d4 and f4 squares. So really, the key to becoming a good (or at least better) chess player is honing your sense of when a move's good points outweigh its bad ones.

    Back to choosing between 6.bxc3 or 6.dxc3. The main pro of 6.bxc3 is it brings another white pawn closer to the center and in particular helps reinforce d4 control. One could list others (e.g. it opens the b-file), but the first point is really the main one.
    The pros of 6.dxc3 are that it opens the d-file for the queen, such that she now has influence over those squares from her starting position. And the c1-h6 diagonal is now opened for the queen's bishop to develop on and exert influence over. One could again probably list other pros, but these are the main ones.

    Bottom line is you can boil the 6.bxc3 versus 6.dxc3 question down to one of 'is it more important to choose better development and a worse pawn structure or better pawn structure and worse piece activity?'
    Given that the center has been opened and white is already behind in development after 5...Bxc3 (thanks largely to white playing Nxe5 earlier), white's short term development/piece activity actually matters more in the position than the possible long term prospects of his queen side pawn structure.

    That's essentially the reason why 6.dxc3 was the better choice in this particular position.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #16

    iamdeafzed

    Kevin_Grem wrote:

    Also, why 9. c4, why 13. Bh3, why 19. f4, etc. 

    I'd like all my mistakes/inaccuracies explained by a master player who can teach me something from them. Thanks. 

    The idea behind 9.c4 is to activate the bishop on b2 by opening the long dark diagonal (a1-h8). Frankly, I'm not sure I entirely buy its line with Bxg7 and I wouldn't play that unless I was damned sure I calculated accurately (as it's usually a bad idea to grab pawns when you're behind in development). But I will concede that the end position the engine arrives at after calculating looks good for white.
    I suppose 9.d3 is somewhat redundant in the sense that it's main point is to ask black what he's doing with his knight on e4, and after 9...Bxf3, the reply 10.gxf3 has the same effect. However, 9.d3 is (in my view) safer/less prone to miscalculation than 9.c4, it does ask black to clarify some of the piece tension and to be honest, I probably would have chosen it myself.

    I believe the ideas behind 13.Re1+ are 1.) black can't reply with 13...Kd7 because then 14.Bh3+ would gain a free development tempo, and 2.) try to exploit the fact that black hasn't connected his rooks yet, such that if he replies to the check by moving his king, white can play Rxe8 and then black will have to waste time recapturing with his king instead of doing the more desireable recapture with his other rook (hence the engine's 13...Ne6 to block the check instead of move out of it). I'm guessing as to the engine's intended line after 13.Re1+,Kf8 (say): 14.Rxe8+,Kxe8 15.d4,Ne6 (15...Na5?? 16.Bb5+ and then Bxa5) 16.Bh3 followed by 17.Re1 perhaps?
    Personally, I think 16.Bh3 was ok...probably just not the most accurate.

    19.f4 is most likely to try to play f5 and dissolve some of white's pawn weaknesses on the king side. The move you played, 19.Re4, is hoping for 20.d5 to try to strand one of the black knights, but the problem with this idea is it fails to account for the fact that black can play d5 himself (which he did). So here, I agree with the engine that 19.Re4 was, at best, a waste of time.


Back to Top

Post your reply: