Did I do good?

Sort:
Viau_A

I would like to know if I played good trading my knight and my bishop for his pawn and rook (if its recommended or not) and also, if theres a name to the way he oppened (so i can do some research) and if I could have took advantage of it in some other way.  I did not know what to do so I copied his move. Thats all...

KingsMove
hmmm... that opening looks like the Scotch gambit... and about the exchange, most modern masters agree that trading a knite and bishop for a rook and pawn is generally a BAD idea if you are in a middle game, Ill explain it like this: if you look at the position that is left after you trade the bishop and knite, black has two pieces developed while you have NONE so white is very behind in development for no real compensation. Another thing to notice is that while rooks are more powerful that a bishop or a knite they are also ¨slower¨ as in that they are usually the last pieces to come into the game and the knites are the first so in trading off one of his slow pieces for two of your fast ones you are handing over the initiative to him; this would occur even in the event that black wasen´t up in deveopment. Also as a side note black obviously blundered a pawn for nothing in the example you set and even in that position white has no good attack to compensate but with the pawn on e5 black would have an even better position. Trading a knite and a bishop for a rook and pawn is more acceptable in an endgame or in a complex middlegame where there is at least some positional compensation for the exchange. 
Viau_A

That make sense. Ty.

 

Fotoman

I think you will find as "a rule" a bishop and a knight are better than a rook and a pawn. White had another advantage though he was already a pawn up and black's king is exposed.

Here is a very plausable variation that could be played. Please note that Black's position looks dire indeed.

dalmatinac
2 pieces are stronger than rook.You did not do good.
Viau_A

I see what I did wrong thoe, after the sequence I put up, I did attack the bishop with a pawn, but then procided to devlop pieces instead of attacking some more. I did end up wining the game, but at least now I realise I did bad.

Fotoman

There are plenty of positions that involve the "sacrifice" of the bishop and knight for the f2 (or f7) pawn and the rook in order to open up the king are very playable. The Open version of the Ruy Lopez with Bc5 variations come to mind.

The advantage in the current game is that white can mobilize an avalanche of pawns and smother black before he can mobilize. Even in the variation I published above, if black plays 13...Qe4, the best he can try for, it looks like a position I would like to try for.

 

highflyer
this was not a good move because you have given to many pieces up for nothing in return. the opening is a form of gambit maybe scotch not sure off hand but you could have attacked the unprotected pawn early with your knight then you would have had control of the center of the board. the bishop couldnt really do much but take a pawn chances are it was a defensive scare tactic. it is not bad to copy moves to an extent but you still have to play your game because when you copy your opponents moves your playing their game not yours. it seems like you got to aggresive to quickly without the proper backup.
Fotoman
Viau_A wrote:

I see what I did wrong thoe, after the sequence I put up, I did attack the bishop with a pawn, but then procided to devlop pieces instead of attacking some more. I did end up wining the game, but at least now I realise I did bad.


Good. Experiment and learn, question everything.

Alander97
Having a rook in the opening moves means less power on the board.I reccomend you all to do it.