What Went Wrong???

If you guys have any games that you played, and something went wrong, and you would like to have us check it out together, post it here. It's not exactly vote chess, but it's the same idea. We can help each other out in chess. 

Just post in the comments those games you would like us to analyze together!

This is a game I played against the world junior chess champion in a Texas Tech simul. I lost  

I Was black

I will take a stab at this one. I'm just one guy so obviously my thoughts aren't necessarily right, but here are some of the things I see, pointing to a few important points in the game:

Move 9ish: One of the things GM Axel Smith says is "No pawn break, no plan." It seems like you are trying to put your pieces on logical squares up to this point, but aren't working toward any particular pawn break to improve your position. On the other hand, your opponent you can see starting to work towards the d4 pawn break when he plays c3. In your position here, there are two logical pawn breaks you could be going for: d5 and f5, both with the idea of trying to pry open the diagonal for your bishop on g7. If you could get in one of those pawn breaks, your rooks would have an open file and you could try and push the e pawn and give your bishop an open diagonal. To try and get in one of those pawn breaks, you could either leave the rook on f8 and go for f5, or play 9. ...Ne7 and try to go for c6 followed by d5. Another way to do it would have been to play 10. ...Be6, and if he captures your bishop you get an open f-file when you capture back and an extra e pawn with which to try and force in d5. Lots of options, and I'm not sure what's best, but with your opponent choosing the pawn break, you end up seeing the center resolve itself and at the end of it, his pieces are already on good squares and yours are stuck behind your pawns - because he chose when and how to open the position up.

Move 17. You choose the wrong recapture here I think. By playing Rxe5, you block your bishop and leave him in control of the open d-file. He quickly closes the e-file your rook is on by playing Be3 and then the only open file on the board, he is in control of and he's able to invade your position. With this in mind, 17. ... Bxe5 is better. This lets you then be the one to play a bishop move and close a file - depending on what happens, you can double up on the e file and play Bd6, blocking his rook's access to an open file.

18. ...a6 feels too passive. Your opponent's pieces are much better. You need to play quickly to try and take some control with your own pieces with something like Rae8. Giving up the a pawn is a smaller price to pay than letting him invade on d7 (and you might even be able to trap his bishop with b6 if he tries to grab the a pawn). Regardless, though, your only chance at a draw is to have your rooks coordinated and working together to cut off access to your position with Rae8. Then Rd7 doesn't work in light of R8e7.

After Rd7, his pieces are just too strong, controlling too many squares, creating too many threats for your less-well-placed pieces to handle, and he is able to get a tactic against your bishop and go on to win. Maybe you could have given up a pawn and tried to get your pieces more active and create threats of your own, but against a player this good, it might have been too late. You did a good job of not falling for any tactical tricks until the position was too far out of reach and there's no shame in getting to an endgame and losing against a strong player - and he's definitely stronger than I am - but hopefully my thoughts are somewhat useful. I'll stop going on and on and let somebody else offer ideas. Anyways, I hope it's helpful - and, if not, ignore it, what do I know. Thanks for sharing, mate.

It can definitely be hard to play against a player that is better rated than you. I think the highest rated person I have won against on daily chess is a 1600-1700. A 2000 rating is definitely going to be a tough player to beat. 

I don't have much more to add to what masterdean said. I do think the main thing for everyone(including me) to remember is about the pawn pushes. When I looked at it, f5 seemed like a strong chance for counter play, trying to take a stab at the center, either getting rid of the pawn on e5 or opening up the f file for the rook to operate on. 

Also, on move 15, Rd8 seems like a decent move to me, to try to gain some control of the d file. 

I, only being around 1300-1400 rating, can't see much beyond this. But hopefully we have helped each other to see what we could have done better. I certainly learned a lot from what you put in, masterdean. I probably would have made many of the same mistakes in this game as the ones that happened. 

Move 17. You choose the wrong recapture here I think. By playing Rxe5, you block your bishop and leave him in control of the open d-file. He quickly closes the e-file your rook is on by playing Be3 and then the only open file on the board, he is in control of and he's able to invade your position. With this in mind, 17. ... Bxe5 is better. This lets you then be the one to play a bishop move and close a file - depending on what happens, you can double up on the e file and play Bd6, blocking his rook's access to an open file.  

The reason I did not take w the bishop was because their was a threat of a pin on the bishop but maybe their was a way out idk 

Thanks everyone and masterdaen00 your comments were very very helpful you were talking about  a lot of the things that the computers were saying I think this forum will be very help full thanks again every one 

o and masterdean00 it was not to long you were very insightful and you stuck to things that were relevant and you broke down a 2hour game in to 4 paragraphs

thanks!   

I’m glad it was some help! On the Bxe5 vs Rxe5, you don’t have to worry about a pin there - the rook would be defended so it isn’t really a pin... and there was also if Bxe5 Re1 the move Bh2+ making use of the discovery and you can either trade off his active rook or, if he blunders and takes you, go up the exchange. So yeah that is why Bxe5 was safe to respond to your answer there.

yeah I was just a little worried about having an isolated pawn if he takes the rook  

but  also I did not see bh2+ 

thankyou

I’ll try to post the game later but I’m so upset with myself. I was playing the highest rated opponent I’ve ever faced and fell apart in the endgame. I’d like to know what I could have/should have done. The game was against Fast Monty if you want to look before I post it. 

I was the black pieces. (In case that isn’t pointed out) 

I’m not in any place to give advice about pawn endgames, but to me it looks like the major move was move 54. Allowing the king to enter the position just ended the game on the spot. Kd5 would have been better I think. Also, I would not have allowed the trade on move 52, instead I would’ve pushed the pawn with b3. But that might be a personal preference. You’ve probably already seen the moves on your own, I’m sure masterdean will have a more in depth explanation

I appreciate you taking a look Collin. He was frustrating me defensively and I didn’t respond well. The pressure of playing a player with a considerable elo advantage probably played into my thoughts too much psychologically. But yeah, I couldn’t figure anything out at the end. 

Ok, here's my analysis of the endgame. Take it with a grain of salt because I'm not a perfect technical player by any stretch of the imagination, but here goes.

The endgame starts at move 38, so I'm starting there. The pieces have just come off with you forcing the queen trade and then your opponent swapping rooks and playing e5 to blockade up your two center/kingside pawns. Taking stock, we have Black a pawn up in a knight endgame, but the pawns are not too far apart as the knight hops, making the defensive task easier and what's worse, White's king has a clear path to the action where Black's route is less certain. Bad news first: with best play, this looks like a draw. I tried it against an engine and had no luck, then let the engine help me and both times, White could stop up any progress. So, to answer the premise of 'What went wrong???,' the answer is, you traded a position where your pieces were active and on offense for a much calmer endgame where you were a pawn up but not as close to the action and would have to really work for it. Stepping back a couple of moves to move 35, and you are very active, having threats, and you traded that activity away to an uncertain endgame. The biggest lesson is, if your pieces are active and you have threats, don't trade to an endgame unless it is a sure thing. On move 35, you are threatening their pawns on e4 and f4... those threats can't be handled by your opponent. Instead of forcing the queen trade, simply 35. ...Nc5! wins the e pawn. Now they can force the endgame if they want with Rxd8 and Qd4, but you enter the endgame up two pawns instead of one, a far likelier win.

Long story short, you had an active position and traded it for an endgame you thought was winning but was realistically a two-result endgame, but assessing how strong your position was and how you still had threats, you should have continued pushing those threats and, with one move more, had a technical win to convert. Even against a tougher opponent, if you're better, don't be afraid to keep playing the position! You didn't have to settle for that endgame.

That's the end of part one of the analysis I'm going to give on this one: What went Wrong. I'm busy at the moment, but I want to do a little more later today looking at the endgame itself because, even if engines would draw it, we aren't engines, and there were several moves where you slid from a two-result endgame closer to a draw. Collin pointed out one of those moments; I'll take a deeper dive into the endgame itself later, but hopefully this was at least somewhat helpful. More to come...

Alright, part 2, the endgame.

Move 38, we've traded into a knight endgame with you having the extra pawn. Technical endgames are a little different than the rest of the game in that to make progress you have to begin considering your win versus draw conditions and play with that long-term plan in mind. So, let's take stock of our wining/drawing conditions.

1. They will manage to draw if they trade pawns. Get rid of all but the one extra we have, trade the knight for the pawn, and it's a draw.
2. They will draw if they can blockade things up and keep our king out of it, also aiming to keep us from creating a passed pawn at all or, at the least, from creating a second one.

1. We will win if we can create two unstoppable weaknesses, preferably two passed pawns. They'll have to give up the knight for one of them and we can then win with the other. Or...
2. We will win if we can get king in front of the pawns with a winning king and pawn and trade off the knights.

With those conditions in mind, we can see the general things we need to do. One, we have to avoid pawn trades unless they are necessary to make progress, because each pawn trade brings them closer to a drawing condition. Two, we need to get our king active both to try and create two weaknesses and to be in position if a knight trade happens. Three, we need to work on a passed pawn. The f pawn is our extra pawn, so pushing it at some point makes sense since we can trade off the h and g and be left with the f pawn. In some scenarios, the h pawn could be the passer as well, depending on how trades go, but in our pawn majority the f-pawn is the one we are currently thinking of.

Knowing these things, here are some points where I think you made moves that allowed the win to slip further away and the draw to become easier for them.

38. You spend a few moves redirecting the knight. I think the king is more important here, as getting the king active or at least in front is a win condition. Additionally, the knight is here doing an ok job for the moment, hitting b3. Playing a5 and maybe here is an option, to lock down the b pawn or maybe create a situation where we can liquidate the queenside pawns, maybe sac the knight to get two connected passers over there... all long-term thoughts, but that could be a possible plan, lock them in place, then hit them with the knight to create a weakness. Alternatively, just activating the king would be good here. Instead, the knight maneuver takes some valuable time for them to get their king forward and in blockading position.
43. You played a5 here, but this doesn't help with winning conditions. In terms of pawns to push over on the queenside, the f pawn is the potential passer, so it makes sense to try and engineer it advancing rather than the h-pawn, which they can maybe blockade up with their pawns. But, the real reason I point to this move is because with it, you are allowing them to play for one of their drawing conditions: they can play exf6+, forcing a pawn exchange, which is one of their drawing conditions. Better would have been 43. ...f5, where you lock up those pawns, keeping them on the board, which you want, and cementing a weakness. After f5, their knight is tied to the defense of the f4 pawn. You can begin working on creating your second weakness then, potentially maneuvering your king around to hit that pawn with king and knight, win it, and go on to win. So, f5 would have worked against their drawing condition of trading pawns and towards your winning condition of creating a second weakness to go along with your first advantage, the extra pawn on the queenside.
54. You have managed to make progress now, with a potential passer on the h-file as well as a weak pawn on f4. How to exploit both weaknesses? Win condition 2 says we need an active king to either attack weaknesses or support a king and pawn endgame, so here I think Kd5 has to be played, locking their king out of blockading squares (playing against drawing condition 2) and being ready to play against either weakness if allowed. If their king moves, you can head to either weakness to try and force it through. There's no guarantee of a win here, still, unfortunately, as some pawns have been traded, but it gives you a better chance of making progress I think than the move you played, which let them step up with their king and blockade you. A few moves later, the kingside pawns are traded, and regardless of the single potential passer it's a draw - they can trade the pawns, sac the knight for the last one, and game over.

I hope this discussion of endgame strategy/technical play makes sense and seems useful to you. It can be a different beast than the middle game, requiring a long-term approach with less immediate tactics (though they can be ever-lurking) and more strategic play, aiming for a distant picture of a winning or drawing position. As I said in part one, I don't think this was a winning endgame against an engine, but against a person, it could certainly have worked out for you. Sorry you ended up having to concede the draw - that can be very frustrating!

Alright, I'm done. I hope it was helpful! Now to turn back to my own games, where I just stupidly, blindly blundered a queen and lost a game, so what do I know about any of this, lol.

@Masterdean thanks for the analysis. I appreciate what you pointed out. I will definitely keep them in mind in my future games. I fell into the trap of thinking I was better in the endgame because I was up material (which I’m sure we are all guilty of) so I will look at my position more objectively in the future. Great analysis as always and thank you for your time and effort. 🙏. 

thanks for the analysis, I learned some stuff from reading that. I am so clueless with this techincal endgame stuff.