Give him a break.This was his 2nd game on here. I cant understand how come 1600s players can laugh. What do you think what 2000 players think of your games? Oh right I forgot, how many of you guys posted any of your games that you saffered a bad loss?
It looked good until Qxb7
Sort:
King, most of these guysnever suffered losses like that. They began understanding pawn structures, minority attacks and king hunts LONG before they ever touched a chess piece. But guys like me - I know I played games like this before. Here is a beauty I remember long before I ever had any training at all - I had a chess program on the Super Nintendo, with the White pieces.
When I was first learning chess, my friend had this insanely awesome opening he would play against me all the time - I would lose time and time again.
Here is the game that inspired me to begin to play 1. f4 (no lie!)
So I began to brainstorm. My f-pawn is so weak...what should I do? I put some serious thought into this. I began to see that the f-pawn can be advanced to f4, and the knight must be put behind the pawn for defense and for development. I had never even heard of Bird's Opening - this was all in my head at the moment. I turned on Chessmaster and began to look up 1. f4, and began to learn about Bird's Opening, and some guy named Henry Bird. There weren't many games in the databases (I like that!), and I began to try this opening out. No more weak f-pawns!
Then, I finally got Tim Taylor's Bird's Opening book. I figured if I am going to learn this opening, let's get a book on it. I really like the look of the Leningrad eventually (now I play much more Stonewall, it appeals to me a lot). I remember at first trying to learn the Classical, and getting burned early a lot. Let's set up a game that would have been a lot like what I was playing (this is not a real game, but would be very much like what I suffered through the first bunch of games trying to learn the setup.
I posted these games in the hopes that people will remember they began from somewhere. Maybe someone can post a terrible game of their own, or some silly things they did back when, and show that we all learn from somewhere!
Just to comment on a few things that the other good comments left out.
On move 17. Qxb6 you asked: why not axb6, and put a !? next to the move. The reason is quite simple. Black at this point have a massive lead and no matter what piece he captures you with he will be up a rook and a bishop. In most cases, the side that is in the lead will benefit from an exhange, since the other side will have fewer pieces to set up a counter-attack and change the balance. And this is especially true when it comes to trading the very mobile queens. So black in this position will want to trade as many pieces as possible. After axb6, your queen can escape to the a6-square, but after Qxb6 you will have to trade.
That's also why I think 14.Bb4 is a bad move. You are the one that is down in material, yet you voluntarily trade pieces. Also, that is the move that makes 15.Bd7 such a threat.
draconlord wrote:
(though I was capable to figure out that move 16 was not an actual blunder, and he did not :D)
Actually move 16 is a blunder. He could have moved 16.Qa5 and saved the rook I believe though it might have been a little awkward for a few moves. Qxb7 takes the rook and the queen off the board which he really needs still since he's already down a bishop.
Kingswraith->Darn...you're right.
Birdbrain->Hmm...there's this one(and btw, this is long after I learned how to play chess):
I managed to fall to this opening blunder about three times in blitz before I wised- up.
Draconlord, I would say it has happened to the best of us
You were useful too *goes to challenge you*