Can someone critique my moves?

Nahaiko
Hi. This is my first forum post here and i just wanted someone to critique my moves.
As you can see this was my match against a 900+ player.
Before i begin i just wanted to let you know that i'v changed my play style. Now i know that you should practice tactics as beginner and also learn the basic end games and checkmates etc. But i wanted to take a different route. I wanted to play a positional approach. Although my skills in that area are lacking, i'v read quite a bit of it. I just wanted to know how to play a slow game.
So what do you think?
    

Rat1960

6. Qf3?? Qxd4 not much point getting into positional chess if you miss simple hanging material.

AnhVanT

I think this game is boring! In an open game like this, I expect to see a lot of tactics. I understand that you want to play it carefully but as a student learning chess, I will try anything I like and then learn from it. It is an online game  so unless the game is really complicated, you should go for tactics and tactics and tactics.

ponz111

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

AnhVanT
ponz111 wrote:

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

Huh? I thought tactics was the main thing under 2000. Now you confuse me!

 

IMBacon

 

AnhVanT
IMBacon wrote:

 

 

Learn more about open the center and plan an attack on uncastled king. You are awesome as alwasy IMBacon grin.png

DeirdreSkye

That was a very good game. For your rating, you are very good. You make me wonder why you are so low rated.  

 

 

This is not just a good game. This is almost a model game! I am very impressed! Well done!

DeirdreSkye
ponz111 wrote:

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

  Surprisingly you have no idea what you are talking about.

If 2.e5 is a principled mistake as you say then it is a mistake after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 too.

Afterall 2.e5 will lead in the same line by transposition

 

 
There are at least 3 2400+ players that use the move regularly and some of the games are really amazing.
 
 

 

IMBacon
AnhVanT wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

 

 

Learn more about open the center and plan an attack on uncastled king. You are awesome as alwasy IMBacon

Thank You, but if you keep on studying, youll be seeing what im seeing and then some.

drmrboss
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

  Surprisingly you have no idea what you are talking about.

If 2.e5 is a principled mistake as you say then it is a mistake after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 too.

Afterall 2.e5 will lead in the same line by transposition

 

 
 
There are at least 3 2400+ players that use the move regularly and some of the games are really amazing.
 
 

 

 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5?! suboptimal move of French , better is 3. Nc3 or 3. Nd2 variation.

 

The fact that that a variation exits in ECO doesnt mean it is a good move. With heavy computer analysis, a lot of opening theroy have been changed. A lot of opening becomes suboptimal , e.g King gambit, Danish gambit. 

 

 3. e5 would be excluded in top tier opening books. (both human opening books and computer opening books)

DeirdreSkye
drmrboss wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

  Surprisingly you have no idea what you are talking about.

If 2.e5 is a principled mistake as you say then it is a mistake after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 too.

Afterall 2.e5 will lead in the same line by transposition

 

 
 
There are at least 3 2400+ players that use the move regularly and some of the games are really amazing.
 
 

 

 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5?! suboptimal move of French , better is 3. Nc3 or 3. Nd2 variation.

 

The fact that that a variation exits in ECO doesnt mean it is a good move. With heavy computer analysis, a lot of opening theroy have been changed. A lot of opening becomes suboptimal , e.g King gambit, Danish gambit. 

 

 3. e5 would be excluded in top tier opening books. (both human opening books and computer opening books)

oh boy , one more engine user that understands nothing about chess.

I would ask you what's wrong with 3.e5 but you obviously don't know and that is not a surprise.

There are some things that engines can't teach . One of them is "thinking".

IMBacon

The merits of 2.e5 can be debated.  But i think in the context of what the OP is looking for, its a mistake.

drmrboss
DeirdreSkye wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

  Surprisingly you have no idea what you are talking about.

If 2.e5 is a principled mistake as you say then it is a mistake after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 too.

Afterall 2.e5 will lead in the same line by transposition

 

 
 
There are at least 3 2400+ players that use the move regularly and some of the games are really amazing.
 
 

 

 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5?! suboptimal move of French , better is 3. Nc3 or 3. Nd2 variation.

 

The fact that that a variation exits in ECO doesnt mean it is a good move. With heavy computer analysis, a lot of opening theroy have been changed. A lot of opening becomes suboptimal , e.g King gambit, Danish gambit. 

 

 3. e5 would be excluded in top tier opening books. (both human opening books and computer opening books)

oh boy , one more engine user that understands nothing about chess.

I would ask you what's wrong with 3.e5 but you obviously don't know and that is not a surprise.

There are some things that engines can't teach . One of them is "thinking".

 

At least compare the profiles, and guess who understand more about chess.  nervous.png

 

DeirdreSkye
drmrboss wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

You are telling a 900 rated player he should play tactics?

By the way White's 2nd move was a mistake--moving a pawn twice in the opening without a good enough reason.

Correct was 2. d4.

  Surprisingly you have no idea what you are talking about.

If 2.e5 is a principled mistake as you say then it is a mistake after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 too.

Afterall 2.e5 will lead in the same line by transposition

 

 
 
There are at least 3 2400+ players that use the move regularly and some of the games are really amazing.
 
 

 

 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5?! suboptimal move of French , better is 3. Nc3 or 3. Nd2 variation.

 

The fact that that a variation exits in ECO doesnt mean it is a good move. With heavy computer analysis, a lot of opening theroy have been changed. A lot of opening becomes suboptimal , e.g King gambit, Danish gambit. 

 

 3. e5 would be excluded in top tier opening books. (both human opening books and computer opening books)

oh boy , one more engine user that understands nothing about chess.

I would ask you what's wrong with 3.e5 but you obviously don't know and that is not a surprise.

There are some things that engines can't teach . One of them is "thinking".

 

At least compare the profiles, and guess who understand more about chess.  

 

    Your profile says that you understand chess? Oh my God! Then I did a huge mistake, I stand corrected. What a decisive proof indeed!

    The problem with ignorant that don't know they are ignorants is not that they are ignorants that don't know they are ignorants, it's that they can't hide their obvious to everyone but unknown to them ignorance. They will inevitably launch the nonsense. It's an irresistible urge! 

   

    All you engine-users/number-lovers predict that this or that will be refuted because you see some numbers based on wrong human parameters. You don't understand that future engines not only won't refute most(if not all) of the established openings and lines, they will actually prove that chess is so rich that all of them are playable.

    Chess is like art, you can explain art with numbers, every color every grade can have a number. You can explain music with numbers, every note is a number.

    But you can't put numbers on creativity and chess is not knowledge or memory. Chess is not things that can be measured only with numbers. Chess is also creativity. Of course to understand, that you have to first understand what creativity is. And you don't. Engines will eventually understand that when humans find a way to put it in the parameters.

    Until then engine-users/number-lovers will say every nonsense one can think!

I don't mind, it is always a good laugh!

    If your profile doesn't say that you are a good comedian, change it now.

IMBacon

Can we stay on Topic, and work on answering the OP's question, and not turn another forum post into "Look at me"

Preggo_Basashi

 

Preggo_Basashi

If you don't realize 1.e4 e6 e5 loses a tempo.

Or if you only know it wastes time because you're relying on opening principals to give you answers.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you're low rated, that's fine though.

DeirdreSkye
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If you don't realize 1.e4 e6 e5 loses a tempo.

Or if you only know it wastes time because you're relying on opening principals to give you answers.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you're low rated, that's fine though.

Have you any idea how many moves in opening theory waste time?

 

a6 and h6 played in the first 7 moves!

Isn't that "waste of time". If OP played this line you would call it waste of time but Nakamura Kramnik or Leko played it? What then? Would it still be " a waste of time"?

 

      Guys, chess is much more than "waste of time". There are cases where the waste of time matters and there are cases where it doesn't matter. 

     2.e5 is hardly the best or the most ambitious but it's not wrong! It gives perfectly playable, normal positions. White can't claim an advantage but that is hardly relevant if you are not a 2600+ GM. As long as it doesn't blunder something, either positionally(badly weakening) or tactically(blundering), and as long as it has a good reason, it's fine! Otherwise half of the established opening theory is "waste of time" 

    For example:

 

 

 

Preggo_Basashi

I don't always know how to explain it. 

Sometimes in the middle of a game I know a move is good and I have no idea why, and the engine agrees it's the best move. Shrug*

In any case e5 is a waste of time... so... I don't know what to say.

 

 

Is 2.e5 playable? Yes

Is it stupid?

...

...

...

yes.