Help Alison With Her Turbulent Moves

2 games for your consideration.........in the first, I was much better against an opponent rated 400 points above me, and I absolutely blew it. In the second, I make a positionally dubious move against a lower rated player with a direct plan in mind and get rewarded. 

These haven't been stockfished, and I'm not making a lot of effort to annotate them because I'm interested in seeing what others think. These games are vaguely representative of what I'm doing out there in the wild, and it's good to get a second opinion.

Lol, queen hang in my variation. See how I didn't check with a computer?

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb44. Qc2The Saemisch is what I'm most familiar with, but it's not necessarily a healthy habit; I play all of the 4th moves except f3

I always play the delayed Saemisch.  Double edged but can lead to powerful attacks if not met correctly.  Being a specialist in the Saemisch is why I am so confident about these positions, and both sides make important mistakes.

4... O-O 5. e4Sideline; some good names here though. I found it through Pia Crammling

Seems logical, why not play e4 if you can?

5... d66. a3

I am not sure a3 is needed.  But it might be.

Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 e58. Bd3Still theory, I believe, but I don't know it

The pin B-g5 where black has no dark squared bishop is incredibly dangerous and should not be allowed.  I think both sides are mistaken around here, allowing the pin and not applying it immediately.

8... Nbd7 9. Ne2 b610. O-O Bb7 11. d5!?Simple idea: Close the center, play f4, Ng3-f4, Bg5, Qf2, and checkmate. Usually I wouldn't be doing this as Nc5 takes my precious bishop....but that's not a bishop, it's a pawn, and I'll happily take a knight for it

I think d5 is the wrong plan.  It closes the position, concedes c5 and whites central pawns become immobile, static and targets.  Plus see later.  B-g5! followed by f4 and N-g3 if needed to protect e4.   White is much, much better imho.

11... Nc5

Another drawback to e5, black has c5 for a N.

12. f4 ?Qe7?

12... ef! 13 Bxf7 

f4 concedes e5 as well and leaves the e pawn backward.  Black can aim for putting his Ns on c5 and e5 and B on a6.  If this happens white is strategically lost.  Black has to be careful for a few moves but should emerge close to winning.

13. fxe5!

While you can!

dxe5 14. Bg5!

At last/

Ncd715. Ng3 c6 16. Nf5 Qd8 17. Qf2h6? 18. Nxh6+ gxh6 19. Bxh6Re8??politely setting his forehead on the muzzle of my gun(19... Ng4This is what I was calculating; it's a mess, but I'm pretty sure I always get the better of it 20. Qg3 Nf6 21. Rxf6 Qxf622. Qxg4+ Qg6 23. Bxf8 Rxf8 24. Qf52 pawns up, passer on the h file, better center, safer king, and it's otherwise a bad bishop contest to see who can improve the smell of their stinky piece)

I agree.  White is 2 pawns up in an ending and should win despite his bad bishop.  Unless she leaves her queen en prise.  

20. Qg3+ Kh7 21. Qg7# 1-0

The first game is a gambit in the French defense, which I vaguely recall as the Milner-Barry Gambit. White sacrifices some pawns for a lead in development.  The second game was an excellent example of developing an attacking plan. 

First game:

14. b4, I disagree with your assessment of the position, where it is much more complex than a material advantage. Notice how white has practically all of his pieces developed, while black's king is stuck in the center. Moreover, notice how the knight on e7 is practically paralyzed due to a riposte like 15.Nxd5. Although you have the center, you can't fully utilize it yet since your immediate problem is to finish development and get your king to safety. As a result, I vaguely remember 13...Qb8 being the move to play instead of 13...Qc7 to prevent such tactics from happening. 

Instead of 16...axb5, I would have considered 16...a5 to close up the position, and to try to deny the b5 square.  Again, the assessment is too simple. There is more to the position than trading off your bad bishop. 

18...Rxa2 is hard to give a suggestion, as it looks like Black is going to give up castling anyway, and the position looks very cramped. I would have given 18...Be7 a shot, and if white decides to take on g7, black starts to fight for the g-file with Rg8. The line you give with 18...Nxd4 is actually better, since you would have two bishops for a rook, the center pawns, and it looks like you would have beat off the attack. So 18...Nxd4 is a good find, and should have been the way to go, albeit instead of 21...g6, the simple 21...Rxh7 seems ok.   18...f6 looks kind of passive. After 18...Rxa2, black is completely lost. Try not to be greedy next time, and pay attention to your opponent's threats. 

Second game: 

The problem with playing 5. e4 and 8. Bd3 is that you suddenly have to find a way to make your Queen-Bishop battery on the b1 -h7 diagonal active. 5. e4 is a pretty solid move, but probably not the most topical one. Mainline goes 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Qxc3, where white has not damaged his pawn structure, acquired the two bishops in an open position, and has some pretty solid squares for his pieces. The problem is that he has spent some tempi moving his queen around. 

I agree with above, and would have gone in for 11. f4 immediately, instead of playing 11. d5. 11. d5 seems to hand a comfortable outpost for black's knight a c5 without a struggle. 

Other than that, the attack seemed pretty straight forward. Nicely done!

Thanks for all the lovely notes!

The (wrong) logic behind not wanting to sacrifice the exchange in game 1 was not just based on a rook being 5 points; it was also an issue of the rook being so active and the existence of open files in the position. It felt really strange to give such a great rook; its counterpart was hardly a crowd pleaser. But I definitely see why I should have been willing to enter that position.

Absolutely agree with the assessment that Bg5 was not played quickly enough; one of the reasons to allow the structural damage is time - I get one additonal tempo (by not allowing Ne4 - kicking the Q) and that should be instantly re-invested in the best piece on the board: My dark squared bishop. If I'm not going to use the tempi, I might as well be playing the true classical line with 7.Qxc3 Ne4 8.Qc2. 

It's funny, closing the center seemed really strategic and "correct" at the time....but looking at it in the cold, clear light of day (and with extra pairs of eyes), I have no idea why that move occurred to me out of all the simple, good candidate moves. Sometimes, I overthink myself into making weird/bad moves.

Thanks again; great notes!

This game had me feeling a bit like Rocky Balboa: In the ring, fighting someone who is objectively better than me, and somehow staying on my feet. The fight goes on, my opponent falters, and I begin to work my way back toward victory.......but, in the end, it's not enough. Oh well. Maybe I'll get there in the sequel.

Second game 17. e5 looks very strong.

I think you get a lot of excellent positional advantages and then you lose.

Her opponent's name is a bit imposing.

Yo quierro dar mi agradecimiento para el mafia de cuba por mantiena mi familia tan comodo en sus casa enorma y por las partidas. Ustedes son briliantes en ajedrez y una insecta como yo es honrada a ha jugado con tan jugadores. Gracias - no tomo preguntas 

That explains everything.

?