You were down a piece for a pawn after move 17.
There really is not much point in looking at the rest of the game. If you miss forks like that in a 30 minute game, you need to do a lot more tactics problems.
You lost the endgame because you were down a piece.
So the reason I lost WAS the bishop being taken. So even if the pawns weren't taken at the very end, I still would've lost?
So the reason I lost WAS the bishop being taken. So even if the pawns weren't taken at the very end, I still would've lost?
No, losing the bishop meant that once your opponent developed his pieces and traded down the remaining pieces to an endgame, where he had two pieces and you only had one, you couldn't defend your pawns.
As a result, your opponent was able to promote one of them to get an extra queen and checkmate you.
The loss of the bishop was a fatal wound from which you had little chance to recover.
You probably had noticed that when someone gets an extra queen, there is not much you can do. and that you are going to lose 99.9% of the time. Most people will resign.
As you get better, you will notice that many people will resign when they lose any piece for no compensation. Your chances are better being down only a piece (compared to being down a queen and a piece) but in slow games, you will still lose 95% of the time. It's up to you. You can play on but it is like trying to save a sand castle when the tide comes in. There's not much you can do.
any one play 1 d4 here ??if yes please suggest me how to play accurately in queens gambit
any one play 1 d4 here ??if yes please suggest me how to play accurately in queens gambit
There are already 9 million threads on how to play the queens gambit declined. Read some of them.
https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=queens+gambit+declined
I started playing a3 in that line because of Bb4. It's not threatening, but it is rather annoying.
Hello everyone.
I am posting one of my chess games in hopes of critique. Can somebody spot my specific mistakes and blunders and give clear explanations on why better candidate moves would've helped me? I have tried computer analysis but do not quite understand why the best moves it suggests benefit me. Can someone help me figure out if the game could've possibly been a draw after my light squared bishop was taken?
Basic info regarding the game:
1. 30 min. game
2. This game was somewhat recent. Played on July 23, 2017
3. I play as White. My opponent was " elomoha. "
4. My opponent was rated a respectable amount higher than me.
5. I am not an experienced player in terms of real life competition; my rating on chess.com is probably not indicative of my actual skill level since I have never played in a tournament.
6. This game was long-ish (73 moves)
I held on to a minimal advantage through most of the opening (btw I am not very used to the Taimanov Sicilian), but quickly lost it after my opponent snatched up my light squared bishop due to a fork in the late opening/ early middle-game stage. Black carried a sturdy lead for the rest of the middle game. I played more aggressively here, thinking that if I played well, I could fight for a draw. The endgame is what killed me, however. Black didn't have a huge lead in the beginning of the endgame, but after somehow managing to snatch up some more pawns, I was finished.
Thanks for any help you can give!