You are right to not like 6...c5. Here's a little tip that I found in a Silman book: before finalizing your decision to move, ask what that move does for you. In the case of 6...c5, the bad results (weakened light-squares, backward d-pawn) outweigh the good (kicking White's queen off the strong d4-square). Anyway, I believe you provided your own insight into the game rather nicely.
Thank you, I feel like I've learned from it and plan to start doing it regularly
If I understand you, you're not so much interested in an analysis of this particular game, what you really want to know is: how do I go about analyzing my games? That's a very good question, and I'm sure that better players than me could offer better insights, but here are a few suggestions: 1) Go over all your games, not just all your wins or all your losses. Every game contains lessons, and even games where you "know" what you did wrong will contain surprises. 2) First go over the game without a computer. Try to get a good sense of the flow of the game and try and describe in English (if that's your mother tongue) what your intentions were with every move. 3). Then go over the game with a computer. Here you will find undreamed of tactical possibilities lurking in the quietest positions. But be sure to give the computer enough time. A computer assessment after 10 seconds is almost sure to be subject to change. Try to understand the tactical themes that the computer uncovers. You'll find them reoccurring time and again.
This is a time-consuming process, but when you are done, you will have a good understanding of the strategic and tactical flow of your game, and you'll be a stronger player.
I think these are really good tips. In this case I did the computer analysis before doing my own. Well the only computer analysis I have ever used is the one featured on chess.com I've done it for several of my games.. mostly what I look for is reduce blunders to 0 and mistakes to 2 or less. But from now on I will see what the computer said paying more attention to the alternative lines suggested AFTER i analyze it first, thats an effective idea.. What computer programs do you suggest that are free or relatively cheap?
Obviously I've heard of rybka and fritz but I'm sure they cost a pretty penny.
4....You make several references to his powerful outpost on d5, but why didn't you take the opportunity to play 17...Bxd5 eliminating the outpost and closing off access to your backward pawn? Andhis 18.Nxe7 was inferior to 18.Rad1 which preserves a powerful grip on d5. He can then plan to maneuver his N to f5, an even better outpost.
5...You missed a chance to improve your position with 25...f5 and then your opponent missed the very strong 26.Rd6!
6...As you point out 36...Bxg4 is based on some kind of miscalculation. I think you had decent drawing chances with the simple 36...hxg4. It's very hard to win these kind of endings
1... Yep all true.
2... I played Nxd4 instead of something else because I was thinking that d5 was inevitable and if I played anything then he pushes d5 else forcing me to move the knight again and losing time in development
3... Looking back between move 7-10 the only move I still agree with is move 8.a6 because after he moved his knight out he got immediate attacking chances on my b5 square with both pieces. But I think your probably right though if I focused Kingside no doubt my opponent would attack the open diagonal to my king shortly so I guess I was preempting that but developing Kingside was still better. Especially what I was looking at for him right before move 7 was his advancing of the cpawn to c3 checking with the Queen reinforcing with the bishop and me staring down trouble but looking at it now if I developed Kingside in the meantime I probably would have had a chance to defend the attack without significant loss and castle kingside.. with a tricky position but a lead in development. ITS THE FEAR!! THE FEAR MADE ME DO IT! haha... yeah I wish I stopped focusing on his threats and focused on my counterplay because I would have been fine.
4... On move 17.. Bxd5?? I'm confused because I physically am not in a position to play that move as my bishop is not attacking that square. Rad1 would have been an excellent move with all his pieces coordinating and me scrambling.
5... Oh yes I thought I addressed that in the analyses. I rated h5 as a big mistake because I wouldn't find time to advance it all the the way with his attacks eminent, I was mistakenly still trying to take advantage of the Rook staring down the King on the g-file. I guess its one of those moves that was inspired by the fact that my opponent has been outplaying me with pressure and effective piece placement and I was looking for some counterplay and place some pressure back on him.. but its definitely a mistake idea.. an ambitious move but ineffective because I'm not trying to defend my weaker position which was the theme of this endgame and with this move and the dubious bishop sacrifice I obviously was not recognizing that this was the context that I needed to play for while the game was at hand.
I play white, both my opponent and I make some dubious moves. Endgame is 3 pieces vs the Queen and I get the mate with the Q. Opening is Scandanavian.. I am not proud of this game but I learned from some of my mistakes.
First game playing online, been playing live until now. Was White and lost. One thing I notice in my analysis that seems to be different then other annotated games I see is that while I am understanding the concepts of the positions to a small degree I'm not going into details in calculation of alternative, superior lines. Maybe thats a sign of a novice calculating ability or just not enough effort spent looking at other possibilities vs. understanding the position.
