Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

I have no idea why I lost this game...


  • 11 months ago · Quote · #21

    Sunshiny

    The simplest answer without much detail is you were outplayed positionally. McNastyMac offers useful information on it. Maheshroks and Markgravitygood mentions 15. Rec1 as the wrong rook. If you had played 15. Rac1, you could have followed with 17. Nf3 to defend your pawns. Your pieces would not be tied down as they were.

    Edit: 17. Nf3, not move 16.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #22

    mmuurrii

    .....you were beaten? by someone who understood the puzzle better than you.   isn't that how chess works?  silly question.   the answer is in your own mind.   if you are too lazy to figure out your own mistakes.....chess will confound you .....forever.....till the day you die......and then it will confound you ....in ....hell..... cause that's where you'll  go ......

    chess hell.....  where all lazy chess players go to sit around with a bunch of chess loser's and ......whine......all day and night long....into infinity.....till hell freezes over.....like in outer space....where hell has frozen over.....forever..... chess hell.

    ....maybe that's actually the chess.com forum bs----chess hell.  

    hey....you're already there.   

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #23

    Casual_Joe

    I'd say you lost because early on you began reacting to his moves instead of trying to play your moves.  He played well to create weaknesses in your position (particularly pawn structure) and he had much better piece activity.  This ultimately allowed him to win a pawn and go straight into a winning endgame.  Whenever you feel yourself reacting to your opponent's move, you have to try as hard as you can to find an alternative that accomplishes your goals.  (Of course sometimes defensive moves are necessary, but when you completely give up the initiative, defeat is only a matter of time, especially as you climb the rating ladder.)

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #24

    macer75

    rmurray wrote:

    .....you were beaten? by someone who understood the puzzle better than you.   isn't that how chess works?  silly question.   the answer is in your own mind.   if you are too lazy to figure out your own mistakes.....chess will confound you .....forever.....till the day you die......and then it will confound you ....in ....hell..... cause that's where you'll  go ......

    chess hell.....  where all lazy chess players go to sit around with a bunch of chess loser's and ......whine......all day and night long....into infinity.....till hell freezes over.....like in outer space....where hell has frozen over.....forever..... chess hell.

    ....maybe that's actually the chess.com forum bs----chess hell.  

    hey....you're already there.   

    um.... what.... are you.... talking about?

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #25

    bean_Fischer

    Your opponent has better knowledge abt Nimzo. 6. Qa4  can be played here. He can't play 7 ..Nc3 leaving his bishop hanging.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #26

    ipcress12

    chessicstudent: I suggest reading up a bit on the Nimzo-Indian. It's a strong defense to d4.

    Your 4. a3 is the Samisch variation. While it's not currently popular, it's sound enough and more than sound enough for chess.com play. The usual Samisch approach is based on 6.f3 not 6.Bf4. From your archive I see you often play 6. Bg5 and that's a better move.

    This is my first official chess game in forty years and my first over the internet. I'm not that happy with my play either. I played too cautiously.

    I haven't done a Fritz analysis of our game. I think I may have muffed 11...c5. I worried I might lose the exchange on my queen rook, if I wasn't careful, because of your bishop on f4 and the possibility of Bf3. I addressed that concern with 12...d5, as well as opening further attacks on c4.

    12.Re1 seemed to be a placeholder move and better was probably available.

    One of my goals here is trade off our light-squared bishops, which you allowed with 13.cxd5.

    17. dxc5 wasn't necessary and I didn't mind seeing it.

    I don't think 23.c4 was that bad. That pawn was in trouble no matter what.

    chessmickey is correct that not taking 23...Rxf3 was a major mistake on my part. The combination looked good but I lacked confidence and was worried about time. I stuck with my strategy to win the c pawn and grind out the ending. That might have been hard even a pawn up.

    No, you didn't make any major blunders at your level. The next level you face is positional, especially since you play queen pawn openings.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #27

    chessicstudent

    Tons of awesome analysis on this thread; thanks a lot, everyone! And, of course, kudos to my opponet, ipcress12 for a well-deserved win.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #28

    chessmicky

    At move 24 you have a difficult position, so it'snot easy to suggest a good move. But there are better and worse alternatives. A move that looks interesting is 24.Qe4. Now Black can't just grab your c3 pawn with  24...Rxc3 because after 25.Rac1 I think you're just about equal again. For instance, 25...Rxc2 26.Rxc2 wins the Nc6. That's not to say that you're out of the woods after 24.Qe4; you're not. With good play Black keeps an advantage, but your pieces are more active and you have more prospects for counterplay that you did after 24.c4. 

    You don't want to be stupidly reckless in an inferior position, but you do want to strive for activity.


Back to Top

Post your reply: