Your analysis is pretty good, I like how you give an explanation for every move. Often I like to include the imbalances, like in critical positions where I can assess the position, and this skill translates to evaluation over the board.
Your analysis is pretty good, I like how you give an explanation for every move. Often I like to include the imbalances, like in critical positions where I can assess the position, and this skill translates to evaluation over the board.
thank you, i got this habit of analysis on most moves from my current work making a chessable course, where i'm annotating almost every move, so im glad that same thing works here
Is it okay to share this with my FB Community. It is definitely impressive.
BTW, did you video record the game, or did you enter each move manually?
BTW, did you video record the game, or did you enter each move manually?
i notated my game. so i have it on paper.
Is it okay to share this with my FB Community. It is definitely impressive.
feel free.
Good analysis of a good game. As you pointed out, some of White's moves seem very strange, but that was a great attack that came out of a strong pawn break supported by well-manuevered pieces.
I'm looking at this without an engine as well. I think the decisive pawn breaks are the key-theme of this game. The kingside breaks were very strong and direct and then the b4 break was deep.
I think Victor desperately needed to prepare and play d4 and this was not even attempted.
I really like Ne7. I want to give it an exclamation mark actually.
Well done.
Your analysis was pretty great and I especially liked how much emphasis you put on the reasoning behind each move. First, a bit about the opening. You should try giving more depth to variations, like when you gave 4.d3 Nc6 5.f4 d5. Full variations are necessary to understand what the player actually calculated during the game, so the consequences of both exd5 and fxe5 should be explained. Also, it's clear that both players need to work on their understanding of the two knights italian which, although is considered equal for black, hides many subtleties. After 4.Nf3 you mention that this enters a worse version of the two knights, but really after 4.Nc6 5.d3 this is just a normal version, nothing really bad about it. The whole point of playing Nc3 is to introduce Na4 ideas into the position, so now we have a waiting game. If black plays 5.d6 immediately 6.Na4 wins the bishop pair (although after 6.Bb6 white won't take it right away). If 5.a6 or 5.a5 then 6.Be3 almost forces Bxe3, opening the F file and taking control of the f4 and d4 squares, since 6.Ba7 7.Bxa7 will make the rook lose to much tempo while the c1 bishop only took one move to develop. Your move 5.h6! is an interesting test to White's understanding of their setup. Now Be3 is met by Bb6 and Na4 by Be7. White should certainly play 6.O-O O-O 7.h3 and since now both sides have included castles and h pawn moves, black is out of improving moves and must commit to either d6 or moving the a pawn. 6.a3?! should be marked as an inaccuracy...it's just unnecessary right now. Na5 is not a threat since the e5 pawn can't be left hanging. -- 6.a5 7.Bd2?: you correctly point out that White doesn't really know what to do with their pieces. 7.Be3 should be the move whenever black touches the a pawn in these positions. I think both your handling of the position and your analysis where great from this point forward. 10.Na4 and 11.Qe2 were grave mistakes by your opponent and 11.Ne7 and 13.b5 punish them nicely. On the 18 move its clear that Black completely took over the game and the given variation after the possible 20.g3?? is very convincing. On my first look at the game 20.g5 felt a bit premature and the calmer 20.Qg6 was crushing (now g5--h5 and the h5 they can't even take on g5) but honestly your solution is hard to refute. I thought instead of 23.Kg2 23.Qh4 looks better, since Nxg2 Qxh5+ Rh6 Qf7+ is very confusing. Overall, really nice game and analisys and there wasn't much I could comment on besides the opening, as play the Two Knights Italian from the white side
Your analysis was pretty great and I especially liked how much emphasis you put on the reasoning behind each move. First, a bit about the opening. You should try giving more depth to variations, like when you gave 4.d3 Nc6 5.f4 d5. Full variations are necessary to understand what the player actually calculated during the game, so the consequences of both exd5 and fxe5 should be explained. Also, it's clear that both players need to work on their understanding of the two knights italian which, although is considered equal for black, hides many subtleties. After 4.Nf3 you mention that this enters a worse version of the two knights, but really after 4.Nc6 5.d3 this is just a normal version, nothing really bad about it. The whole point of playing Nc3 is to introduce Na4 ideas into the position, so now we have a waiting game. If black plays 5.d6 immediately 6.Na4 wins the bishop pair (although after 6.Bb6 white won't take it right away). If 5.a6 or 5.a5 then 6.Be3 almost forces Bxe3, opening the F file and taking control of the f4 and d4 squares, since 6.Ba7 7.Bxa7 will make the rook lose to much tempo while the c1 bishop only took one move to develop. Your move 5.h6! is an interesting test to White's understanding of their setup. Now Be3 is met by Bb6 and Na4 by Be7. White should certainly play 6.O-O O-O 7.h3 and since now both sides have included castles and h pawn moves, black is out of improving moves and must commit to either d6 or moving the a pawn. 6.a3?! should be marked as an inaccuracy...it's just unnecessary right now. Na5 is not a threat since the e5 pawn can't be left hanging. -- 6.a5 7.Bd2?: you correctly point out that White doesn't really know what to do with their pieces. 7.Be3 should be the move whenever black touches the a pawn in these positions. I think both your handling of the position and your analysis where great from this point forward. 10.Na4 and 11.Qe2 were grave mistakes by your opponent and 11.Ne7 and 13.b5 punish them nicely. On the 18 move its clear that Black completely took over the game and the given variation after the possible 20.g3?? is very convincing. On my first look at the game 20.g5 felt a bit premature and the calmer 20.Qg6 was crushing (now g5--h5 and the h5 they can't even take on g5) but honestly your solution is hard to refute. I thought instead of 23.Kg2 23.Qh4 looks better, since Nxg2 Qxh5+ Rh6 Qf7+ is very confusing. Overall, really nice game and analisys and there wasn't much I could comment on besides the opening, as play the Two Knights Italian from the white side
I don't have a ton of experience OTB against the Italian since I don't face it often. I tend to have a more intuitive style, so my calculations don't always get deep, unless the line is pretty forcing, and I lack a bit a of tactical skill because of it. Much appreciated, for your deep analysis on my game.
That was a great game. I love how you annotate your game and analyze without a computer. I could be completely wrong from my skim, but is Nxg2 a strong tactic that wins for black instead of 20.g5?
That was a great game. I love how you annotate your game and analyze without a computer. I could be completely wrong from my skim, but is Nxg2 a strong tactic that wins for black instead of 20.g5?
I believe I had considered it but I wasn't so sure
my critique is don’t use the engine
of course not, I personally dislike engines, especially with my post game analysis, hence this post.
