Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

My Games Analyzed


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #1

    bigyugi9

    Hey all.  I am 1900 fide and have been 1900 since last november.  I had a summer goal of breaking 2000, but I ended up losing rating.  Anyways I am not giving up!  So I am going to post games of decent time control when I play them and I hope you can help me analyze them.  Of course i'll try to provide my own annotations.  So here we go:



  • 22 months ago · Quote · #2

    bigyugi9

    Another game...this time I win since he drops a pawn randomly in a queen and rook endgame, But I couldn't find any middlegame chances.  Please Analyze: 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #3

    Metaknight251

    h3+ in the second game was a nice touch.  In the first game, I think allowing the knight to get to e4 was a mistake (but I'm not entirely sure how to stop it in the first place). 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #4

    Timmy62

    Hello! In the first game 9.Nf5 didnt seem right to me, it looks like your falling to far behind in developement. Just normal developement looks good to me, either Be2 or Bd3. Bg3 if you want to keep your dark squared bishop.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #5

    Mr_Spocky

    If you want to get higher. Face comps. There easy as hell

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #6

    bigyugi9

    Metaknight: I don't think I could have stopped e4 it's that I just didn't kick the knight in time. 

    Timmy: I am pretty sure nf5 allows white to retain an advantage.  It might look unnatural to you, but it lets me grab the bishop pair and his development is too awkward to take advantage of any development advantage (which I don't think he has). 

    Mr_spocky: I don't care much about rating here.  I am trying to get higher rated in real life over the board and I doubt playing computers will help me.

    I'll try to post more games soon.  Keep the analysis coming and please defend your ideas.  I especially want ideas on the second game since I did not get much of anything until endgame.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #7

    Snar

    i think that in your first game, exd4 was better than nxd4.

    exd4 grabs the center, and gives you a lot of mobility and space

    nxd4 does infact place it on a nice square but trading it off for the bishop on e7 does not seem like a strong idea, that bishop wasn't doing much on e7, and wasn't going to do much for a while. Was it worth 2 tempi to trade off your very nicely centralized knight for his passive bishop on e7? I don't think so

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #8

    bigyugi9

    Snar wrote:

    i think that in your first game, exd4 was better than nxd4.

    exd4 grabs the center, and gives you a lot of mobility and space

    nxd4 does infact place it on a nice square but trading it off for the bishop on e7 does not seem like a strong idea, that bishop wasn't doing much on e7, and wasn't going to do much for a while. Was it worth 2 tempi to trade off your very nicely centralized knight for his passive bishop on e7? I don't think so

    exd4 is certainly playable, but positions after a later d5 are not to my taste as they may result in an isolated pawn and there is nothing wrong with that, but I just don't want to deal with when I don't have to.  Nxd4 is perfectly fine leaving a pawn on e3 which doesn't matter since the darksquared bishop is outside.  I am going to argue that there is no point of a centralized knight if it has no future.  You see the centralized knight looks nice, but does not do much since it has no targets.  Its main useful points are b5 and f5.  On b5 it has no point.  I think nf5 is indeed a strong idea to obtain a more dynamic advantage of 2 bishops.  If i had maintained those 2 bishops and not played bf3 I think white is just better.

    Sometimes you can't just follow rules about development and tempi.  Tempi does not matter if your opponent can't take advantage of it.  The bishop on e7 will eventually be able to oppose my own darksquared bishop so it was fine to get rid of it.  Honestly, I think my opening in the first game is not so problematic.  However, in the second game all the pieces are liquidated into equality.  In that game a deeper understanding of the opening is necessary and I would like help with that.

    Edit: I'd like to add the nf5 idea is not something I made up on my own. When I learned how to play against nbd7 systems in old indian I was looking through games and it is an idea that 2700 gm vitiguov has employed not in this identical position, but in a similar position which arises from this opening.   

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #9

    Timmy62

    Well im not gonna argue too much on Nf5, maybe ive been burned to much while neglegtic developement and it colors my view.

    Anyway in second game did you consider 12...f5, with the idea to play against his bishop, and not allowing e4 to free his game?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #10

    transpo

    bigyugi9 wrote:

    Hey all.  I am 1900 fide and have been 1900 since last november.  I had a summer goal of breaking 2000, but I ended up losing rating.  Anyways I am not giving up!  So I am going to post games of decent time control when I play them and I hope you can help me analyze them.  Of course i'll try to provide my own annotations.  So here we go:

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    After 4...Nbd7 White can get the better pawn structure by playing 5.e4. If Black the plays 5...exd4 then k 6.Nxd4 and White has established Maroczy Bind pawn structure with a strong edge in initiative. If Black plays 5...c5 then White plays 6.d5 and gets a pretty much permanent space advantage with flank attack possibilities on both wings due to blocked center. The move 5.Bg5 is a suboptimal move which gives Black opportunities to wrest the initiative from White.

    I would continue but, it requires time and effort that I have to invest elsewhere.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #11

    bigyugi9

    Timmy: I didn't consider f5 since I just saw that he can plop his knight into e5 and gain a tempo up my queen.  Its an interesting idea though and probably wouldn't let the game simplify so quickly.

    Transpo: bg5 is theory and scores better than e4.  Also I don't like the positions after 5. ..c6 in the 5. e4 line. White's play is really slow.  Just looking at few of the games played by gms in the c6 line I see white often playing be2, re1, bf1 and I don't really understand it, so I try to avoid stuff I don't understand unless you have some good explanations.  5. c5 after e4 doesnt make much sense since it leads to a bad version of czech benoni and exd4...isn't played often at all.  Anyways I don't like playing the positions in either line as it is not to my taste.  The bg5 line is logical and easy to understand.  It scores better, so i don't see a problem with me playing it.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #12

    transpo

    bigyugi9 wrote:

    Timmy: I didn't consider f5 since I just saw that he can plop his knight into e5 and gain a tempo up my queen.  Its an interesting idea though and probably wouldn't let the game simplify so quickly.

    Transpo: bg5 is theory and scores better than e4.  Also I don't like the positions after 5. ..c6 in the 5. e4 line. White's play is really slow.  Just looking at few of the games played by gms in the c6 line I see white often playing be2, re1, bf1 and I don't really understand it, so I try to avoid stuff I don't understand unless you have some good explanations.  5. c5 after e4 doesnt make much sense since it leads to a bad version of czech benoni and exd4...isn't played often at all.  Anyways I don't like playing the positions in either line as it is not to my taste.  The bg5 line is logical and easy to understand.  It scores better, so i don't see a problem with me playing it.

     5. c5 after e4 doesnt make much sense since it leads to a bad version of czech benoni and exd4...isn't played often at all. You are right about the bad variation of the Czech Benoni for Black after ...c5.  The reason Black doesn't play ...exd4 is because it automatically grants White the Maroczy Bind pawn structure.

    First, it is best to be clear what opening we are in.  The game is an Old Indian Defense, Ukranian Variation, 4.Nf3 by move order transposition since you played 3.Nf3. 

    bg5 is theory and scores better than e4.The bg5 line... It scores better, so i don't see a problem with me playing it.

    The Bg5 line is played in 1290 games as opposed to the e4 line which is played in 3211 games in a 4 million+ games database.  The e4 line has a 44% winning edge based oveCr 3200 games in comparison with a 44.5% winning edge for Bg5 based on only 1290 games.  The winning percentage for e4 is backed up by almost 3 times as many games. 

    Here is the clickable for the games database I am referring to: http://www.chessbites.com/

    Despite the statistics, as you write, "...The bg5 line is logical and easy to understand..." for you.  And,"... Anyways I don't like playing the positions in either line as it is not to my taste..."

    Also I don't like the positions after 5. ..c6 in the 5. e4 line. White's play is really slow.  Just looking at few of the games played by gms in the c6 line I see white often playing be2, re1, bf1 and I don't really understand it, so I try to avoid stuff I don't understand unless you have some good explanations.

    I will explain in words and variations the anti-King's Indian Defense attack by Black that White thwarts by playing, after ...c6, Be2,Re1, Bf1.

    Also I will esplain in words and variations why 9.f3 or 9.Bd3 are better than 9.Nf5?! in the logic of the 5.Bg5 line.

     

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #13

    bigyugi9

    ok please explain. Also in the chessbase online database it says white scores like 61% in the bg5 line.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #14

    transpo

    bigyugi9 wrote:

    ok please explain. Also in the chessbase online database it says white scores like 61% in the bg5 line.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________

    Please post how many games the 61% is based on. Also, please post the White winning % for e4 and number of games it is based on

    Now to the explanations

    First, regarding the 5.Bg5 line. After 1.c4 d6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 e5 .d4 Nbd7 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 the characteristic pawn structure you have arrived at is known as the "Free Formation". Almost all openings result in one of 6 characteristic pawn structures.

    As you probably know well, the pawn structure holds the game under its remote control. The characteristics of the Free Formation:

    1.all pawns on the board, none across the middle-line.

    2.when a "ram" and/or "lever" (in the position of your game the White pawn at d4 and the Black pawn e5 form a "lever" (a potential pawn break) has established contact between the pawns Free pawn structures are ripe for planning R play. Rs are meekly dependent on "levers" for attacking activity into the enemy camp.

    After 6...exd4 Black has altered the pawn structure. With the move 7.Nxd4 White has yet again transformed the pawn structure into a characteristic "Jump Formation" pawn structure. It is another of the 6 characteristic pawn structures.

    With my next post I will continue the explanations.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #15

    bigyugi9

    bg5 has a 61.3% winning percentage from 1537 games and e4 has a 57.8% winning percentage from 6282 games on chessbase online database.  Honestly, though which move you pick is probably based on taste rather than which is better.  Both are fine for white.  

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #16

    transpo

    bigyugi9 wrote:

    bg5 has a 61.3% winning percentage from 1537 games and e4 has a 57.8% winning percentage from 6282 games on chessbase online database.  Honestly, though which move you pick is probably based on taste rather than which is better.  Both are fine for white.  

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Sorry I haven't posted in a while. Am involved in a project involving chess in public education on a county-wide basis.

    In interim I read your thread, "Maroczy Bind against e6 style Sicilians".

    I only have time to post the following.

    There is one system that really works against the Maroczy Bind in the e6 style Sicilians. It is the Symagin system. But this is only good against the Maroczy in the e6 style sicilian (pawn formation type White pawns at c4 and e4, Black pawns at d6 and e6)

    When the pawn formation is White pawns at c4 and e4, Black pawns at c6 and d6; that is the Boleslavsky wall. That is the pawn formation that would result in the game you posted. I will cover the Boleslavsky Wall with my next post.

    Sorry I don't have more time.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #17

    transpo

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 22 months ago · Quote · #18

    bigyugi9

    transpo wrote:

    bigyugi9 wrote:

    bg5 has a 61.3% winning percentage from 1537 games and e4 has a 57.8% winning percentage from 6282 games on chessbase online database.  Honestly, though which move you pick is probably based on taste rather than which is better.  Both are fine for white.  

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

     

    Sorry I haven't posted in a while. Am involved in a project involving chess in public education on a county-wide basis.

    In interim I read your thread, "Maroczy Bind against e6 style Sicilians".

    I only have time to post the following.

    There is one system that really works against the Maroczy Bind in the e6 style Sicilians. It is the Symagin system. But this is only good against the Maroczy in the e6 style sicilian (pawn formation type White pawns at c4 and e4, Black pawns at d6 and e6)

    When the pawn formation is White pawns at c4 and e4, Black pawns at c6 and d6; that is the Boleslavsky wall. That is the pawn formation that would result in the game you posted. I will cover the Boleslavsky Wall with my next post.

    Sorry I don't have more time.

    I don't know what symagin system is.  


Back to Top

Post your reply: