Good game ruined.

In my opinion this is one of those games where I lost a practically won game. I honestly want to know where I went wrong. where were my mistakes? thanks in advance

As if my opponent said" Oh I'm not gonna mate you I'll make you resign really... really... fast"

@ BTMIllion

It is nice you added some commentary to your game.

Maybe I can help you with one of your idea's.

I know you want people to show you some mistakes. However, you also have to realize sometimes idea's can be mistakes.

For example:

Lets take the move 3...Nh6

You said the following statement " I think this is a poor move because of Bxh6(capturing a developed piece for an undeveloped piece can happen) "

You have to ask yourself. Is the knight on h6 really developed?

In the game you said you wanted to play Bxh6 because it would capture a developed piece for an undeveloped piece.

However, when I look at this position. I have a different point of view.

I am looking at the position and I am saying to myself who is the developed piece and who is the undeveloped piece.

In my mind your bishop is the one that is developed and the knight on h6 is undeveloped. You bascially gave away your developed piece for blacks undeveloped piece.

You have to ask yourself what does developing a piece actually mean?

Is moving a piece off the back rank to any random spot developing?

I personally do not believe that. When I develop my pieces I want them to have a future so to speak.

For example:

The black knight has moved from the g8 to h6. However, Is the knight really developed?

Is the knight hitting very critical squares?

Is the knight active?

When I look at this position. I say to myself that knight on h6 seems a little odd there!  The knight can't go to f5 because of the e4 pawn. The only other place the knight can go to is g4.

However, What if instead of 5.Bxh6 you was to play the move 5.f3 or h3.

Think about the above position for a min.

It might seem strange that I am telling you to play f3 or h3.

However, What on earth is that knight on h6 doing?

A knight is worth 3 points.

The pawn on e4 is worth 1 point and the pawn on f3 is only worth 1 point.

Our 2 pawns worth 2 points are crushing the 3 point knight?

Do you see that?

Also think about your dark bishop now.

After the small f3 or h3 pawn push we have bascially crushed the knight.

Now look at your dark bishop. It has not even moved and yet look how much influence it has.

Bishops are long range pieces and sometimes they can be very active and even considered developed with out them even moving!

Normally you only want to move a piece so it can become more active and so you can connect your rooks. Yet when you look at the dark bishop it is controlling all the squares from c3 to h6.

It doesn't have to move unless we want to castle queen side!

or

Unless we want to connect rooks.

or

Unless we see a good spot for it to get more influence.

In fact, I play a line known as the Saemisch which involves playing f3, Be3, Qd2, castling queen side.

Than throwing up the G and H pawns in an aggressive hack attack fashion.

You could of did this option in this position.

or

you could of played moves like h3, Bc4 or even Be2 than castled king side and slowly built up your position and tryed to do a pawn break in the center.

31. b5 doesn't throw the win away but it's a first step in a wrong direction. White should play against the black king using the h file and the a2/g8 digonal where the white queen stands, that's the main feature of the position, and there is no need to open additional lines like the b file, especially not the whole center (gaining so much space has actually weakened the white king). 31. g6, 31. c5 or 31. Rh7 should be prefered.

Then 33. Qb2 is just bad (33. c5 again, +-), same for 36. exd5 (36. e5 +-).

I see. I had the wrong idea behind the bishop knight exchange on h6. I also didn't really consider a piece's future in mind when it came to development. I did(like you said) just put them off the back rank rather than correctly develop them.The saemish KID idea seems sound, but I don't really think the idea hit me back then. I understand. The only thing I still have in mind is what to do when you have a good centre like that. I don't really see what plan I must have after I've established the pawn center. The only thing I try to do is keep my opponent  out of options and keep my position as is.

For what it is worth, my "two cents worth" would focus on  your pawn structure.  You seem to place them habitually on the fourth rank side by side.  It's a rather unusual style, and the most most striking thing that sticks out from reviewing your game.  I cannot recall ever seeing such a pawn pattern in any of the games I've played, reviewed, or studied.  And, well, I just don't think it serves you.

While a side-by-side structure on the fourth rank may give each pawn the most "forward momentum" and makes maximal use of tempi (time equivalent of moves), it leaves your overall pawn structure weak and easily underminded.  Furthermore, since the pawn structure will be one of (if not the) most important features of middle-game position that determines overall strategic planning, you're not leaving yourself with good attacking options.  Your troops just aren't properly organized.  Fortunately, your opponent didn't know how to capitalize on this, and you both jostled around various hypothetical positional threats for many, many moves.  (And, so you're not thrown by my analysis, I didn't scrutinize much after move 20 or so, since the side-by-side pawn structure kept repeating itself.)  Had your opponent known how to spot and attack weak pawns, you would have lost a lot sooner.

Take for example, the position after just the first four moves.  You have pawns on c4, d4, and e4.  Putting aside for the moment that you've moved three pawns before developing either a knight or a bishop (violating basic opening principles--i.e., moving a pawn is not developing a piece), you've placed them in such a way as not only not to support one another but also giving Black's fianchettoed dark-square bishop an easy target of only one pawn (on d4, which is a dark square).

Focussing (again) just on the pawn structure--say, after you developed a few minor pieces first--placing the pawns on the fianchettoed bishop's dark square diagonal (c3, d4, and e5) would have both given you a strongly supported pawn flank (each pawn supporting the one diagonally in front of it) and considerably undermined the power of Black's fianchetto (i.e., with four pawns blockading the bishop's attack).  The ability to dominate that diagonal with pawns was the biggest gift that Black gave you with a weak g6 opening move and an anemic battle for central control.  You simply didn't take advantage of it--at all.

Most attack plans in the middle game tend to be either white-square plans or dark square plans, inasmuch as one or the other color tend to be dominated by one side.  Had you placed the pawns in the aforementioned diagonal flank of dark squares, and then smartly placed your dark square bishop somewhere powerful as well (say, supporing the lead e5 pawn on f4--instead of sacrificing it for a knight!!!), you could then develop your light squared bishop and start picking off Black's critical attacking pieces that would have been forced by your pawns to be stuck on the light squares.  That could have been a very powerful light-squared attacking plan, and one I certainly would have employed.  (The attacks by pieces take place on the opposite color of the squares you dominate with pawns--hence a light-square plan involves having the pawns dominate dark squares.)

Also, although bishops and knights are worth the same number of points in the standard exchange calculus, most experienced players do not exchange bishops for knights.  Knights are maximally vuluable during the early middle game before the position "opens up" (i.e., lots of material comes off the board).  Bishops tend to be less valuable during closed positions, which are typical in early middle games that do not involve sharp, tactical exhanges, but their value increases as the game moves on and their range is extended. As the bishops become more valuable, the knights become less valuable, because their range on an open board is limited.  Since it is far easier to open a position than to close it, bishops overtake knights in value as the game proceeds. Furthermore, there is a distinct advantage to having both bishops as the middle game lingers on and eventually transitions into the end game--namely, that you  can attack all squares on the board, instead of only half if you had but one bishop.  It's called the advantage of the "bishop pair" .   Ideally, you want to trade off both your knights for both of your opponent's bishops and get the bishop pair.  Aside from the "developed vs. undeveloped" controversy of Black's errant knight at h6 from prior comments (with which I entirely agree), you set Black up to have the bishop pair.  And, it didn't help that because your pawns were blockading your other pieces, your light-squared bishop was inactive for most of the positional jostling well into the late middle game.

I didn't see any major tactical blunders (but, as I said, I didn't scrutinize after about move 20), but because your pawns were not properly organized, you were prevented from developing a clear strategy for how to attack your opponent's king or gain material.  You appeared to be mostly reacting to your opponent or simply trying to find minor improvements in the position.  A lot of jostling, with no real attacking.

Get your pawns together, and I think you'll have better attacking chances with the possibilty of putting an actual strategy in place.

That said, keep up the good work.  That you even care to have your games reviewed shows your commitment to our sport.  (And, please take everything I say as but one intermediate-level player's opinion; I'm not all that far ahead of you.)

Regards,

--PL

Thank you guys for your comments. I appreciate your amazing support for helping me improve.

In my opinion the critical moment was 31. b5. Look at the position. Your only advantage is in space and you are giving it away, moreover your king will be in mortal danger. I would have played 31. g6, keeping the position closed and if black is not careful 32. c5 threatening mate and the knight.

I read PhillyLawyer whole post.

What I will say is some of what he said is right but some of it is not right.

Black played the move 1...g6.

By playing the move 1...g6, black is playing a hypermodern set up.

The parts in PhillyLawyer post were he says black is going to try and undermine or counter attack the center.

Those parts are correct.

Basically black's whole purpose is to allow you to have the center so he can counter attack it. That is what you do when you play hypermodern. 

You on the other hand as white are playing Classical by occupying the center.

The parts of PhillyLawyer post were he says playing 3 pawns in the center is not recommended. Those parts are highly question-able if not incorrect.

You placed 3 pawns in the center which is very powerful.

If black does not occupy the center or prevent you from occupying the center you are more than capable of doing it yourself. Which is what you did.

For that is Classical chess at its finest. No one should ever tell you that is wrong. It will never be wrong.

However, If you do accept the offer and occupy the center with your pawns you also have to keep in the back of your mind you will have to defend it. Black will aim eventually to counter attack it. Bascially you will have to stay on your toes and make sure you watch your pawn center for some time until you are castled or until black makes a strike.

In this game your opponent played hypermodern. However, he never striked your center back with pawn breaks. Which is what he is suppose to do. Thus, He has failed in his hypermodern defense. At which point later in the game once all your pieces were developed and your king was castled. You could than tryed to use your pawn center to do a forward expansion.

Bascially the term they call it in chess is Steam Rolling your opponent with your pawn center.

Your center pawn mass will make you some what behind in development because of all the pawn pushes. Black in hypermodern fashion is banking on this lack of development which is why they will often strike with an e5, c5, or sometimes I have seen the move d5 from these positions.

Hypder Modern players aim for rapid development, quick castling, than begin counter attacking the center while you are trying to get castled.

They do these things because they know if they do not do them eventually your development will become even with there development. An your pieces will develop to there best possible squares compared to there's. Which means when that happens they better pray you can not open up the position because if you can they will get crushed.

I have not checked your game with an engine. However, I wouldn't be surpised if an engine was screaming for a center pawn push to be played in this game.

You have 3 center pawn. You own the center. How do you proceed? You proceed in the area you dominate. In this case that area is the center.

I liked most of your moves. I didn't like the bishop for the knight on h6.

However, Look at your other moves.

You put 3 pawns in the center.

Move 11.Rad1  you placed rook indirectly in front of the black queen.

I wonder if an engine would love the move e5.

Yeah I can't resist I'm going to look the game up on an engine lol.

Well as it turns out it likes the move e5 at move 19.

Yeah the engine even thinks you should of played other pawn center moves. At move 11 instead of Rad1 it likes the move c5+.

Yeah I knew a pawn break was screaming there. Black has not played the common moves e5 or c5.

Thus, White fully developed can now proceed with breaks to open things up to exploit his better placed pieces and space.

PhillyLawyer is right.  I've seen a lot of games where people neglect there dark squared pawn in the center that is only defended by a queen and is attacked by their opponents dark squared bishop in openings similar to this one.  Later white will develop other pieces blocking the pathway the queen has to the pawn and then by by pawn.  Usually you must resist the urge to forward a forth pawn to the fourth rank and just develop a minor piece, probably your own dark squared bishop, to protect that weakness before you move forward.  The four pawns attack I think is a waste of tempi.  The pawn structure can usually be undermine easily.  Just stick to 3 pawns and avoid the four pawns.  Not saying the four pawns attack is a bad opening, just saying that in my opinion I think it can cause you to lose the initiative, which white desperately needs to solidify his attack as he is the attacking player why give away the initiative?  It gives away the initiative because you are wasting tempi not developing pieces and giving your opponent more targets to hit.  I think people who play the four pawns attack are playing into blacks hands, as black is trying to undermine the center that was forfeited by them to white so that later it can be undermined.  Two people are playing chess, not just one.  Always think about your opponents ideas.  having four pawns in the center is great, but if they are not defended they can be a liability rather than an asset.

The pawn center is ok to me. I know the four pawns attack can be easily underminable but I do see some way of achieving success with it.I've seen a match which IM valeri lilov used to showcase the idea of prophylaxis. It was Karpov vs Timman Montreal 1979.In that match karpov plays against the pirc defense in which he supports his center with a kingside fianchetto and the technique he used to beat timman was to castle kingside, keep the pieces active and placed on advanced squares and bulldoze with the f-pawn. Like I said in my game, I tried to stop my opponent from any threats(or at least I think I was) although the idea I somewhat copied out wasn't executed the same way karpov did it.

The post above is Karpov vs timman montreal 1979

The below example is a line which has been played against the KID.

It is known as the 4 pawn attack.

The game you posted on post numer 1.

Had the moves c6 and Nh6 in play.

To be completely honest black didn't have a clue what he was doing and did a mix of several different lines.

Pirc, KID, and Slav-Caro Hybrid with g6 being played.

It was a mixture of all those lines a real hot mess.

The c6 move is common in some Modern Defenses, some Pirc Defense, some KID, can be played in some Gruenfeld positions as well, Caro-Kann structures, and Slav structures

However, the difference between the structures comes with the d6 or d5 move.

Some lines have a very common intention of striking the center with d6 than e5.

Other lines have a common intention of striking the center with d5 directly.

The d6 move is common in Modern Defense, Pirc Defense, and KID lines

The d5 move is common in Gruenfeld positions, Caro-Kann structures, and Slav structures.

Your opponent played terrible because he did a clash of idea's.

You see playing c6 and Nh6 with a d5 pawn push would made your e4 pawn flinch. Which if you pushed forward it would allow his knight on h6 to pivet on the f5 square. Which would of worked in harmony with the piece move.

However, he played d6 which often is follows up with a c5 or e5 pawn move. Yet, If he was planning to play c5, He should of never moved his C pawn to c6 first. So his only logical break was e5.

However, once he plays e5 the e4 pawn is not going to flinch/move. The pawn which will get hit will be the d4 pawn. The D pawn is the one which will flinch. The problem with having the d4 pawn flinch is he developed his knight to h6. On h6 the knight only real square is f5. Yet the e4 pawn guards f5. He needs to get that pawn to move not the D pawn. If the e4 pawn never moves he can't make use of f5. Which makes his piece out of play.

Your opponent was playing terrible moves.

The center was not locked. You don't play on the wings unless the center is locked.

The reason people can't find the pawn structure your opponent played is because it is terrible. No one sane would play the pawn structure that way.

It is a mash up of different pawn structures which do not work well together.

When you play the move c6 it helps with a d5 pawn strike but your opponent play d6 instead.

When you play the move d6 it helps with a e5 or c5 strike but they play c6.

When you play hypermodern and the center becomes closed you might have idea's of expanding on the wings with either b5 or f5.

Your opponent played Nb6 and f6.

When you play hyper modern chess you indirectly influence the center with pieces instead of pawns.

Your opponent played f6 than put his bishop on h6.

Your opponent developed his knight to b6 instead of c6.

Your opponented developed his other knight to h6 intead of f6.

Your opponents position is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich with out any peanut butter.

Your opponents plans are like a corn dog with no hot dog inside.

Your opponents strategy is like a marriage with no bride. A solo person standing at the alter in complete confusion. We can't even call his strategy a divorce because that would imply a union was formed at 1 time and your opponent never formed any union of any kind during any part of the game.

Classical players occupy the center with pawns directly.

Hyper Modern players occupy the center with piece influence indirectly.

Your oppoent did not play Classical chess because he didn't occupy the center with a pawn.

Your opponent did not play Hyper Modern chess because he didn't try to influence the center with any pieces. He played Nh6,N6, and Bh6

However, lucky enough for your opponent they do give the style your opponent played a name in chess.

They call it Losing chess.

Losing Chess, Sucide Chess, or Anti-Chess.

Your opponent will lose 99 games out of 100.

Your opponent will win 1 game though.

He will win that game either on time or making his opponent completely confused which will result in his opponent copying his crazy logic.

Once his opponent copys his crazy logic. he will win simply because he has more experience in that crazy logic than his opponent does.

Usually the thought process goes something like this.

"Hey my opponent played Nh6 and now he is playing f6 and g5. Oh snaps what is he doing? Maybe I can try and confuse him by copying his move and playing the move g4 as a counter response!"

His opponent thought process -  "HA HA I knew he was going to play g4 like this against me. What a good move. However, I have him right were I want him now he has fell into my trap. HA HA What a terrible chess player he is. I shall win."

After the game if you say anything to him at all. You open the door to massive insults or smack talk. You can say the words "GG" and he will respond with smack talk.

The simply reason he will talk smack is because he has never felt the feeling of winning a game. He has losted so many games he doesn't know what that feeling feels like any more and now that he has finally won his first game out of the last 100. His body is getting that surge of adrenaline and excitement.

At which point he will have a very hard time controlling his motor functions. In some cases they are begging for you to say something so they can respond instantly. Other times the adrenaline and excitement are so over whelmed they will start talking smack with out you saying anything. Usually when that happens it is because they haven't won a game in the last 150-200 games played. Which makes the surge even more.

There smack talk is actually much different than other types of smack talk you see on chess.com. You can actually distinguish the level of there smack talk compared to other people.

Usually the smack talk they display have no cussing in it. Often times cussing and very vulgar language come out of anger.

They on the other hand are not angery they are very happy. So the types of smack talk you will see out of them will be involve laugther, ego boosting, and dismissal of what you are saying.

For example a conversation could go such as.

You - GG

Them - hahahaahhaahhahaahha

You - ?

Them - Do not worry you fell into my trap. I played perfect moves.

You - WTF? You didn't play perfect moves I only messed up in time pressure.

You - You sir placed your pieces in bad spots.

You - Only got lucky.

While you are typing these sentences they will be laughing and shaking there head at there computer dismissing everything you are saying as if you have no idea what you are talking about. Once you are finished they will respond in laughter and begin massageing their ego .

Them - HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHA

Them - You should not feel bad. I was playing my pet line which I know very well. You never had a chance. I have no doubt computer engines will agree with the way I played in this game. Yes what a beautiful game.

At which point they will leave the chat leaving you a little upset and annoyed.

I'm not saying this is how it went down. I'm just saying this is how it could of went down if you said something to him more than likely.