It seems you should have been able to spot that your wsb could become trapped. The computer has the game even after move 22. Bxe5, so clearly 22...Ne4 is a mistake after Nxe4...Bxe4.
22... Nd7 would have probably saved you, with the idea of pushing f6, giving your lsb an escape. Even if 23. h5, you could have moved your lsb to e4?
To answer your question, it doesn't seem to me that your strategy was flawed, you lost on tactics. White took a gamble by grabbing so much space with his pawns. That's something that can backfire, but on this occasion you got trapped.
To answer your question, it doesn't seem to me that your strategy was flawed, you lost on tactics. White took a gamble by grabbing so much space with his pawns. That's something that can backfire, but on this occasion you got trapped.
Are you saying that if i just played something like h3 on move 21, black is doing just fine and all the pawn storms white did are not to his advantage?
Well that's what the computer thinks. It has you half a point better.
Pawn storms will always change the structure of the game. If you can pull it off, great, but every attack of that scale risks leaving weaknesses. In this case, white's king could find itself terribly exposed, if you had managed to break through the pawn attack.
The best response after 22. Bxe5 I can find is to bring out your other knight, 22...Nbd7, protecting your knight on f6, so if the bishop takes you don't have to recapture with the pawn in front of the king, and also threatening the bishop on e5.
"Beginners are usually advised not to make too many pawn moves in the early stage of the game and develop the pieces instead."
Beginners are often told of many, too many general rules, principles, and whatnot. What they're seldom told about is how to evaluate if those rules and principles apply to the situation in front of them.
Activity is what governs an evaluation. Every pawn movement modifies the pawn structures and the pawn structures determine the mobility of the pieces by opening and closing roads inside and outside the camps, or simply by taking control of squares. Now, every pawn structure and its components can be submitted to attack, the reason why it's not always possible or advisable to merrily advance them to obtain more space while denying the same to the rival.
Apply the previous paragraph to your game and you'll see that White was risking little to nothing when pushing his pawns ahead and obtaining more and more space, due to Black being more interested in having a solid position with most of his pieces behind his own pawn structure. The only thing Black was targeting was White's c3–pawn with a mere piece.
Yes, you lost a piece due to not paying attention and yes, Black's position was playable until the distraction but, right or wrong, Black wasn't trying to make something of it.
Yeah, i once faced the hippo defense and i made a lot of safe pawn advances since the nature of the hippo is very passive. I find it easier to play safe & solid rather than active & attacking but i wish it was the other way around. I'll do some more analysis in order to find a better, more active plan than my futile attempt of doubling my rooks. Stockfish suggests that i should retreat my queen at move 12 in order to exchange the dark square bishops so i guess there wasn't much available than small maneuvering moves.
stop licking your wounds in the forum and get back in the arena
I think many of us would improve much faster if we spent more time analysing our losses - and getting the insights of others - instead of just instantly clicking "Play" again, don't you?
@kaukasar Systems like the one you faced in that game are meant to make it difficult for the opponent to develop activity anywhere on the board. Which doesn't mean you should stop checking and maintaining the flexibility.
For instance, 2.h3 doesn't give Black any advantage but makes Black play White should Black choose to go after positions where 2.h3 proves useless. For example, by playing a direct 2...c5 Black gets a Queen's Gambit with colors reversed. Black may also play more subtle with the following plan: e7–e6, Bf8–d6, Ng8–f6, Bc8–d7, Qd8–e7 and see if White castles short, to follow with 0-0-0, g7–g5–g4, Rd8–g8, etc., which may work because White's h2–h3 created a breaking point in g4. In other words, you may ignore 2.h3, or notice the possibility to modify advantageously the pawn structures with g7–g5–g4 and place your pieces to take full advantage of the aftermath.
In the game, you followed a safe all-around setup based on c7–c5, Bc8–f5 and e7–e6, which leads to plans based on e6–e5 or c5–c4 followed by b7–b5–b4. But then you played 6...Qb6 which goes against both; moreover, there's no follow-up to the Queen's pressure on b2 nor d4.
You may wonder why those plans and not others. Well, there may be others but since plans are about invading the enemy camp and the necessary steps towards it (while not allowing the same to the rival or at least not faster nor stronger than our invasion and threats), those are clear and easier to follow. Should you learn how to spot the clear and easy then you may step up into more deep and complicated plans, but everything in its own turn.
Take the following game as an example:
After 6...e5 Black is declaring his intention of putting his central pawn mass in motion and rollover every piece in front of it, thus making it difficult-to-impossible for White to coordinate his material both actively and defensively. White, clearly, didn't think in terms of plans but isolated moves, not bad in themselves by following generalities but very bad in the sense of not logically interconnected to achieve something or prevent the rival's intentions.
Correct me if I'm wrong but 18 out of 36 Black moves were made by pawns.
hey follow me at Mendolius
what makes a pawn different to every other piece ? it cannot retreat , every pawn you push although gaining space leaves behind it space it used to defend , break through pawn walls be that by a pawn gambit or a well timed sacrifice , then exploit the squares that become available
in your game i look at the h1 a8 diagonal and how white has it covered by only a pawn at d4 albeit that it has defenders , in a bishop and a pawn , remove or displace those defenders , and you might break through so i would
24 ,,,,bg6 25 h5 , knd7, to make white retreat the bishop from e5 , and if white replies 26 f4 to be stubborn , then be4 in reply
For example, by playing a direct 2...c5 Black gets a Queen's Gambit with colors reversed.
I did actually consider playing c5 straight away. I just need to improve my knowledge on queens gambit accepted line to become more confident in playing this opening.
Black may also play more subtle with the following plan: e7–e6, Bf8–d6, Ng8–f6, Bc8–d7, Qd8–e7
This setup looks appealing. I usually try to develop my queens bishop before i create a pawn pyramid (as white as well as black), but maybe that's not as important as i think, otherwise nobody would play the semi-slav defense...
White's h2–h3 created a breaking point in g4.
When i play london system and black goes for kings indian setup, that is a good sign for me to launch a h-pawn attack. I've never attempted to do it with the g-pawn as black but i get your point - pawn moves in front of the king may become a weakness, something worth considering when making an attacking plan.
In the game, you followed a safe all-around setup based on c7–c5, Bc8–f5 and e7–e6, which leads to plans based on e6–e5 or c5–c4 followed by b7–b5–b4. But then you played 6...Qb6 which goes against both; moreover, there's no follow-up to the Queen's pressure on b2 nor d4.
The reason why i played Qb6 was that this kind of queen move (for both white & black) is commonly seen in d4, d5 openings where the queens bishop has been developed, since the b7 or b2 pawn is left undefended. I didn't had any follow-up, i just thought that "this can't be a bad move, lets see what my opponent does. If i keep playing solidly, he will make a mistake sooner or later that i can create a plan around to exploit". I know this is not how masters think, but i keep doing it since in many cases (when my opponent does not make any obvious mistakes), general principals/ideas is the only thing that guides my play. Do you have a suggestion for how/what i should study to get away from the mentality of heavily relying on general ideas and hopes of my opponent making a blunder?
As an alternative, i considered playing Bd6, exchanging the bishops and putting my queen on a good square in the process. I've played this way against an early Bf4 several times before and got a good game. I wanted to try keeping more pieces on the board this time but it was probably not the best choice. Whites Bf4 is often an annoying piece.
Regarding your game, i like whites position at move 12, he has managed to give you doubled pawns (but it may not be such a big deal). Then he didn't have any good plan, like me, and lost. What was your intention of playing 12. a5? White haven't played a3 yet so there was no b4 threat?
@kaukasar "I know this is not how masters think..."
Masters sometimes "think" like that and more than often lose because of it. It's considered a defect and is one of the reasons behind them avoiding to play against weak opposition: Their play risks becoming shallow, resulting in wins explained by the opponents' kindness.
Chess positions tell us stories, there's a storyline inside each one of them. You just need to understand its language, what's going on and what may logically happen.
Now, in old western movies, the hero wears a white hat and the bad fellas wear black hats. To save time digging into the story someone may use the color of the hat. Which may hold true in a western movie. Which also needs to be an old one. And even then, it wasn't always like that. This explains why principles, rules, guidelines, etc., don't apply to too many stories. Judge a person from what he does and will likely do and not from what he looks like. In chess, the piece activity tells us who is who. And the last thing we want is leading a bunch of passive nobodies with no future.
"Regarding your game, I like white's position at move 12, he has managed to give you doubled pawns (but it may not be such a big deal). Then he didn't have any good plan, like me, and lost. What was your intention of playing 12.a5? White haven't played a3 yet so there was no b4 threat?"
After White's move 12 his game is strategically lost, meaning he has no good plan leading into invading Black's position or breaking down his piece and pawn coordination, or a sensible way to oppose Black's plan of setting his central pawn mass in motion. General principles are amazingly misguiding in that position: Black only has one developed piece against White's two, plus castle (which "translates" into four tempos versus one), not to mention White's healthy pawn structure opposing Black's with two isolated and one doubled pawns.
Concrete thinking: Black is aiming to set his pawns in c6, d5, e4, and f5, leading to a hands-free situation of building threats along the g–file (and here you see the bonus of Black's h–pawn to answer Pg2–g3 with Ph6–h5–h4–h4xg3). Should White manage to concentrate enough defenders on his Kingside, Black may use his space advantage to switch faster and support the advance of his central pawns into the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd ranks.
This clarifies that the f6–pawn isn't a weakness but an asset due to Pf6–f5–xe4, trading the only opposition in the center. 12...a5 is explained by Black trying to preserve his dark squares Bishop because his pawns will be on the light squares –and may need support to go any farther–, the Bishop having no natural opposition (White's dark squares Bishop), and its foreseeable use against g3, f4, h4 or even the Queenside pawns.
Tactically, White was threatening with 13.Na4 Bb4 14.a3 Ba5 15.b4 Bc7 15.Bd3 followed by Pc2–c4 and an eventual Pb4–b5, and Black can't get his ideal central pawn setup while White gets activity based on passing a Pawn on the Queenside. Incidentally, this clarifies that White's minor pieces are misplaced to deal with Black's intentions, as having 13.c2–c4 would make White's game completely playable. In the game (after 12...a5) should White have played 13.Na4 then 13...Bd4 14.c3 Ba7, leaving the Knight misplaced in a4. Then, shouldn't White have played 12.Na4 instead of 12.0-0? Yes, he should, and the game would have remained about equal after 12.Na4 Bb4+ 13.c3 Ba5 14.Bd3 because of the reasons explained above.
The Devil is in the details.
To answer your question, it doesn't seem to me that your strategy was flawed, you lost on tactics.
His strategy was flawed!!.
1. His opponent didnot play london system accurately. ( wasting moves like a3, b3, h3 ).
2. So he had a chance to get rid of white' best piece on Bf4, by playing 6.......Bd6. ( There is no Nf3 by white to fight for his best square).
3. London/ stonewall strategy is clearly, fight for e5 for e5 square for white, fight for e4 square for black.
4. Tactically, yes he did 2 moves tactical blunder pointed out by computer. But human are not computers, human need to get rid of those pricks to avoid blunders . In bullet/ blitz, just look at active pieces on the board ( not 64 squares, not 16-32 pieces). Human need strategy first/ tactics second wherase computers do tactics first/ strategy second.
Thanks for all the feedback & guidance. Today shall be the day when i start my long and hard journey of moving from thinking in general principles to concrete ideas. I am not sure exactly how i will do it but that's the aim from now on.
Beginners are usually advised not make too many pawn moves in early stage of the game and develop the pieces instead. That's what i did, but ended up being crushed by my opponents pawns. What did i failed to understand during this game? Should i have gained more space by advancing my pawns instead of doubling my rooks on the half open file?