Here is a game I played on chess.com. There were lots of mistakes made on both sides in this one, and it reminded me of a recent forum topic where we discussed whether or not to resign when you are down material.

True, if we were masters, there wouldn't have been the crazy swings in this game, but then again, there are sometimes opportunities to take advantage of mistakes (albeit small ones) at high levels of play. I never resign if I have a plan, even if the position seems clearly lost.

 I annotated this game with my own thoughts on moves. Most of this game is surely unsound, but if anybody would take a look at my midgame up until I lost my dark square bishop and tell me if that combination was sound it would be great. I have already analysed where I lost the bishop and rook--pure oversight and stupidity, but I'd like to hear your take on the defense... were my 4 passed pawns and rook enough to win? I really doubt it, but I didnt analyse this with a chess engine, and Im not very good at seeing how things would play many moves deep. I'm excited to hear what you all think.

Super Ugly Game!

4. Nf3. There's nothing wrong with this move, but I wanted to throw out the idea of 4. e4. Your opponent is not stopping you from making a real claim for the center, so I would go ahead with it. It also opens up the diagonal for your queen for a potential Qh5+.

 

6. g3. I would again go with something more aggressive like 6. e4.  Your opponent is behind in development and there is weakness due to his pawn move to f6.

 

 Very nice tactic to win a piece and then a rook.

 

 15. Bh3. Preventing castling is a good idea. Perhaps 15. Rd1 is a little better way to do it. Then you can play your bishop to g2 to challenge your opponent's light squared bishop. With such a big lead in development, you'd welcome a trade.

 

19, obviously saving the bishop is better. You gotta keep a constant watch. 

 

At move 29 you recognize you need to push your pawns to go for a promotion, but you don't push the pawn that is closest! 

 

32. g5. I like your plans with 32. f7. How does the light squared bishop cause problems for this plan? The bishop can't defend the f8 square.

Loomis wrote: ...32. g5. I like your plans with 32. f7. How does the light squared bishop cause problems for this plan? The bishop can't defend the f8 square.

---

Firstly, thanks for taking a look and especially the tip about the opening and e4. I am taking a look at how I might have played with a more active center.

As to 32. g5, I still think this was necessary. Consider:

 

 ...So... I think 32. g5 was required to protect that pawn while Black ran out of checks on my king, also allowing my rook to move out of my pawn chain and attack black's bishop and knight. Thats all I can find--but I overlook things, especially when I get a one-track mind on how I think it "has to" work out. Am I missing something?

 

Thanks so much for taking a look, Loomis!

You're right, I overlooked the discovered check.

Ok... just wanted to be sure it wasnt something else you were seeing.

i like games with crazy ups and downs. it's much more exciting. It seems online this rarely happens. Over a real wooden chess set though with my buddies these intense games often happen. I know the sweating bullets feeling. It's especially there when you have a possibility of beating a much higher rated player.