Beginner Help

This isn't annotated like the sticky says, because I have zero ability to make a proper objective view on my own. So I don't know how to even make any variations on my own. I could use the thoughts of some of you real chess players.

Except for 19. Qxa5. That was a very obvious mistake and an overlooked knight. Would something like Qc2 have been an actual improvement?

As for what I was thinking before that costly blunder (if it would help color any advice),my ultimate goal was to aim more power to the H file and that was slowly looking more unattainable as the game progressed. So I began to improvise to see if I could open anything up, though very quickly was mostly just on defense from move 20 on.

Not very strong commentary/annotations, I know, so that's why I didn't put it in there.

Could I have even done anything differently for better results? Was my opening flawed from the start? Or am I doing something fundamentally wrong and maybe I should just go back to reading theory stuff for a while before trying again?

Any and all constructive thoughts welcome.

A note about doing your own analysis:

Did you know that chess engines analyze backwards? By this, I mean they start with your last move and go to your first. I believe at least part of the reason is that it allows them to see the results of a move before the actual move itself. Then, once they get to a move that seems to have been the root of any negative results, it is easier to identify.

This may or may not be why, but it led me to do something similar in analyzing my own games.

When I look at a position that is obviously bad, and I don't mean straight out blunders, but things like weak squares or threats I could not counter. I go back a few moves and see what I might have done to prevent it. More times than not it is easy to see the stronger move that could have been made. Then, from there, I look at other canidate moves.

As for this specific game:

1. Bb4+ - Why this move? It accomplishes nothing and only allows white to advance a pawn with tempo. Now, knowing this, what do you think a stronger move might have been?

2. Look at the position after 8.Nbd2 - Look at your pieces, look at your opponents pieces. Do you notice anything significant?

3. Generally, in this game at least, you pieces do not seem coordinated.

What were the time controls?

1. I don't understand at all, actually. If that's what it allows me to do, it was the wrong response?

2. My bishop is blocked in, where behind his pawn line is open?

This game was 15/10

Thanks for the tips about analyses! I'll try something like that to review my games. That's more of an idea about how to actually review it than I had before, much obliged.

I'm glad if my words have helped.

1. Look at the moves again with the technique I described above. Knowing that Bb4+ is pointless and allows your opponent a possible gain in tempo, what other moves do you have that could have been stronger.

2. The answer is realted to #3.

Sorry if I don't seem too helpful. I'm a teacher. And part of my philosophy is to let my students find their own answers when they are given the tools to do so.

For more guidance on analyzing your games, you can go to the URL below under the section called Thought Process/Analysis. Lots of good stuff there.

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/subject.htm

It sounds like you think I was black? If I was supposed to clarify that, my mistake. I thought player names were always "white vs. black" I was white, so it was my gained tempo, wasn't it? If that's not what you're saying, then I really don't know what you're trying to say at all.

And yeah, you're being a little obscure, but I can tell you're trying to help. Your time is appreciated. I'm just not terribly confident I will find these answers yet.

Will check out that link. Thanks. :)

You are absolutely correct. I got confused despite the names being clearly listed at the top of the game.

Sorry about that. You can send my comments to your opponent.

Of course, this brings up another part of analysis; looking at your opponents game and what they might have done to undermind or help your position.

Considering that you were white and not black, I would say your only real issues were with not identifying attacks both yours and your opponent. Everything else, considering your rating, looks pretty good.

I would recommend the following article from the page I listed above. It is entitled A Generic Thought Process. I've found it quite useful in trying to eliminate my own blunders.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman14.pdf

Not identifying attacks. Hm. With that in mind, do you mean something like here?

 Something like 19.Bxh5 ... ? 20. Nf6+ fxf6 21. Bxf6 ... ? 22. Qg4+

as a start, maybe.

Am I going about this the right way?

You know, I used the word 'attack', but threats is actually the correct term. Sometimes a threat is an attack, sometimes, it isn't.

looking at move 14.

It appears Qxb4 wins a piece.

14. Qxb4 If 15. Nxe2 16. Kf2

And the knight has only Nd4 or Nxf4 and he is lost after Qxe5+

And your 19. Qxa5 - It is difficult to tell if this was intentional. Generally speaking, it takes 3 pieces to compensate for a missing queen.

In any case, by making that move, and the questionable Rf4 to protect the knight you overlooked the threat of f6.

Granted, these are not as obvious as your opponents move 10 ...Bh3. But they are things to watch out for.

ANd, yes, it appears your 19. Bxh5 was probably a better choice than the queen sac you went with.

I think I understand what you mean now. You've given me a great deal of resources to learn and much to think about, where I was directionless before.

Much obliged, kleelof 

No problem. Good luck.