game analysis #3

1. Nf6 Alekhine defence, a poor choice for a player trying to learn and improve. It's not a bad opening but the black player can easily end up with a very cramped position and be wiped off the board if they make a mistake. Just keep it simple as you try to learn with 1.e5.

5.g6 this allows your pawn structure to be wrecked after 6.Bxf5 gxf5. This is a long term weakness that cannot be easily fixed. Bxd3 was better.

8.f6 well intentioned to challenge the white centre but a bit too weakening for me, the e6 square is very vulnerable after this. I would prefer 8.dxe5 followed by 9.e6 after either white recapture. 

The next sequence where you lose your knight is evidence for why you should not be f***ing around playing the Alekhine defence as a novice player. You didn't play it accurately (unsurprisingly) and your lack of space and safe squares to put your knights has resulted in losing a full piece for nothing. 

16.0-0-0 I probably prefer 16.0-0 to defend the Bg7 and create the threat of e4 with a discovered attack on the queen. 

18.exd5 allows white to recapture cxd5 and now his queen is pointing right at your king on c8. Not a lot of good options for you at this point but maybe 18.dxe5 trying to activate the Bg7 is an idea. 

22.Rxd6 white has given you a real chance to get back into the game here with 22.Qxe3+ 23.Nxe3 Rxe3 but you missed it. Did you spend a good deal of time on this move analysing carefully as this was a daily game, or did you blitz out Rxd6 without much thought? Even cxd6 would not have dropped an exchange... 

White then blunders his knight after a nice idea by you and we reach a position where you have bishop + 5 pawns vs rook + 5 pawns. The structure of the pawns and placement of the pieces mean this is still losing for you but it's still an absolute result given how the game has gone. Now, will you fight on and really make white struggle to finish you off...?

33.b5 you blunder the bishop in ridiculous fashion and it's all over. How long did you spend considering your options on this move? Did you analyse the position at all before playing b5? 

You are making life extremely hard for yourself if you want to get better, and if losing horribly is getting on your nerves. Cut out playing openings you don't understand, keep it as simple as possible. If you get out of the opening without losing anything, all your pieces developed, castled king, you have done well. Make this your objective for every game. The blunders....what can be said? Missing 22.Qxe3+ and 33.b5 leaving your bishop hanging were just terrible mistakes and indicate that you were not concentrating, taking enough time, or even looking at the chuffing board with both eyes. No amount of analysis, advice, teaching, studying etc can legislate for this - it's on you to switch your brain on and look properly. Daily chess mate, 24hrs minimum per move, an analysis board to test out the moves you are thinking of playing, testing out what your opponent might play. You are not doing it properly and with enough diligence, simple as that. 

Thanks. I probably just don't know how to study properly or take my time, rushing is a bad habit from years of playing bad chess... so I may be worse off than a beginner. It might be time for a coach to help. As for the game, I meant to defend with Kings Indian but I literally moved the wrong piece on my first move and had to figure out what to do. It wasn't intentional.

For not knowing the opening you did fairly well avoiding some of the well-known mistakes.

White's 11 a3 missed 11 Qa4+ winning the knight.  The knight wasn't really lost until 13...Na5 (Nb8 would have saved it) but at least dropping the knight avoided White immediately playing e6 with a dagger in your position.  8...f6 was a positional error that was never fully exploited by the opponent but is the type of weakening move that is particularly bad after the light-squared bishops have already been traded off. You were fortunate that White allowed that dagger to be traded off and letting your dark squared bishop get active.

20 e6 would have planted that dagger (20 ...Bxc3 21 ed+ Rxd7 22. bc would have given white a bishop for the pawn while trading queens) and 21 e6 was also possible (instead of ed being check it would have attacked a rook and thus still worked)

Once you reached the K+B+5P vs K+R+5P ending you needed to activate your king.  Leaving your bishop to fend for itself against White's combined rook and king would have proven quickly fatal even without dropping the bishop.

By the way if you need an advice how to analyze games, here is what I can recommend:

https://www.chess.com/blog/nklristic/how-to-analyze-your-games-first-steps-to-chess-improvement