A game that I am pretty proud of
No problem! Sure, you are moving this piece 3 times after that sequence you said. But what is your opponent doing? Well, he made 2 pawn moves (moving pawns incessantly isn't a good idea), both hurting his kingside. If he castles, those pawns will not give him the protection he needs. He will have to devote pieces to the defense of his king, and none will be on active squares. I know that you did end up winning because of this, but remember :Not every game is a tactical game. Taking opponents seriously is critical. Always expect them to play the best move. If this game converted down to an endgame with minor pieces on and pawns equal, you would be at a disadvantage. Why? Because White has 2 Bishops and 1 Knight, and You have 2 knights and 1 bishop. As you might know, bishops are usually better than knights because they can play on both sides of the board.
So to stay out of a slightly worse position you would have to either keep a rook on, or trade knight for bishop. Probably could happen, but as I said, assume your opponent will play the best move.
Your opponent castled into an open file with the h pawn hanging while the only piece defending is the bishop....
ehh
No problem! Sure, you are moving this piece 3 times after that sequence you said. But what is your opponent doing? Well, he made 2 pawn moves (moving pawns incessantly isn't a good idea), both hurting his kingside. If he castles, those pawns will not give him the protection he needs. He will have to devote pieces to the defense of his king, and none will be on active squares. I know that you did end up winning because of this, but remember :Not every game is a tactical game. Taking opponents seriously is critical. Always expect them to play the best move. If this game converted down to an endgame with minor pieces on and pawns equal, you would be at a disadvantage. Why? Because White has 2 Bishops and 1 Knight, and You have 2 knights and 1 bishop. As you might know, bishops are usually better than knights because they can play on both sides of the board. (Gtg, have to get off this monitor, I'll continue this at home)
Makes sense, long-term planning isn't something i am good at (neither in chess nor in real life). Thanks!
OK!
No problem! Sure, you are moving this piece 3 times after that sequence you said. But what is your opponent doing? Well, he made 2 pawn moves (moving pawns incessantly isn't a good idea), both hurting his kingside. If he castles, those pawns will not give him the protection he needs. He will have to devote pieces to the defense of his king, and none will be on active squares. I know that you did end up winning because of this, but remember :Not every game is a tactical game. Taking opponents seriously is critical. Always expect them to play the best move. If this game converted down to an endgame with minor pieces on and pawns equal, you would be at a disadvantage. Why? Because White has 2 Bishops and 1 Knight, and You have 2 knights and 1 bishop. As you might know, bishops are usually better than knights because they can play on both sides of the board. (Gtg, have to get off this monitor, I'll continue this at home)
Makes sense, long-term planning isn't something i am good at (neither in chess nor in real life). Thanks!
Ya same. I just know the basics.
Not the best game I have ever played... I also blundered a piece but still managed to win with a fancy setupped backrank mate.
I am 640. Could you analyze the game?
Very nice game except some little mistakes.
a good game for a 600, you were very principled and solid throughout (besides the rook). The best tip i could give you is that in queen pawn positions like that you don't want to play knight c6 or c3 without playing your c pawn out first