Help me analyze my two Giuco Piano Games
Sort:
Kernicterus
Mar 17, 2010
0
#1
First game you immediately blundered on move 10 giving black a substantial positional advantage. The main line here runs:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Ne5 10.bxc3! Nxc4 11.Qd4! with a nice position for white.
The second game I believe the main move is 12.Re1 or 12.c4. Either way, you are building up the pressure on black.
Mar 17, 2010
0
#3
I actually suspect my mistakes go way beyond the Opening. Thanks for sharing that mainline on how to handle Ne5, I was wondering on what's best at that point.
In the second game I always felt like I was behind a tempo...wasn't sure how to squeeze in time to do what was required...
2nd game: 18. f3
EDIT: Nah, not much better: 18. .... Rg6
Mar 18, 2010
0
#6
tony. You could be right...I've wasted a lot of time memorizing openings in random lines...thinking my memory would be of service but it seems to have not helped much at all. Now I've gotten a sense of why things open the way they do but I think I took the long route to that understanding. Even when I've got advantages, I'm so weak in the rest of the game that it all goes to pot.
The two games above are real time, not turn based...and in my opponent's defense, he doesn't know anything about openings...
You don't think sharp lines help clarify the situation for learning? I find other slower games to be blurry in what they hope to achieve?
tonydal wrote:
To Afaf: you may not agree with me on this, but...I think you would learn a lot more about the game if you were to eschew such sharp lines and play something more restrained. The problem with these kinds of variations is that games involving them are often more or less decided by the books, so you (and your opponent) become just a couple of messengers punching in the right (or wrong) moves. This (obviously) is especially true in the turn-based mode.
I'm totally puzzled. I heard many strong players recommending that the beginners should not play positional openings like 1.d4. They should also avoid super-theoretical openings like Sicilian or Spanish. Instead, they should play Gambits, open crazy games like this Italian side-line, the purpose being to get better at tactics and to understand the importance of development. Now you come and say exactly the contrary. Whom shall I believe?
Mar 18, 2010
0
#8
costelus wrote:
tonydal wrote:
To Afaf: you may not agree with me on this, but...I think you would learn a lot more about the game if you were to eschew such sharp lines and play something more restrained. The problem with these kinds of variations is that games involving them are often more or less decided by the books, so you (and your opponent) become just a couple of messengers punching in the right (or wrong) moves. This (obviously) is especially true in the turn-based mode.
I'm totally puzzled. I heard many strong players recommending that the beginners should not play positional openings like 1.d4. They should also avoid super-theoretical openings like Sicilian or Spanish. Instead, they should play Gambits, open crazy games like this Italian side-line, the purpose being to get better at tactics and to understand the importance of development. Now you come and say exactly the contrary. Whom shall I believe?
I never understood that advice (1.e4 gambits for beginners) either. Why do I need to hang pawns and lose games to get better at tactics while I can study tactics separately and play normal d4 openings? 
yeah you messed up in the opening like other people said here's some more lines.
I agree with Tony on this. d4 games can be highly tactical as well (Semi-Slav for instance) so you aren't really avoiding playing tactics by playing d4.
Chess is more than tactics however and although I totally advocate beginner players studying tactics like mad, you need to know something about positional play and if you are hanging pieces on move 10 consistently you won't learn anything about these concepts. (Also, you should really work on not hanging pieces on move 10!)
In fact, IMO, in d4 games you are probably less likely to lose to these cheapos and you may learn more about how to use your pieces and as you learn this you will probably become stronger and stop losing pieces early.
The thing that I really dislike about a lot of chess players that are my strength and weaker is their obsession with openings. I feel that by memorizing any lines out of a book that you really aren't helping your chess. You need to understand the ideas behind each move in an opening and then you can stop relying on books and more on principles and ideas.
This is kind of a ramble but hopefully it makes some sort of sense.
For the first game, I was wondering why not:
As you can see, this gives you a bigger edge. And the responses for black would be what looks like natural moves for 1300s in a blitz game.
@RobKing, I respectfully disagree. Without knowing openings, I would play natural moves based on opening up my king and trying to develop. As I was doing that, I would lose constantly to positional mistakes that immediately got me in trouble, or later gave me a bad endgame.
Since I have started studying openings, I have learned new positions, and tried them out without fear, and learned how new positions can make my brain work harder to calculate tactics I'm not use to.
On the one hand, I do lose a bit more because of me being unfamiliar with non-queen's gambit games, but I've also won games because of the opening's strong position and quick development. Of course, studying why the opening is played the way it's played, is important too. It's not like I am copying an opening out of a book. I'm sure someone higher rated might have a different view tho.
Mar 20, 2010
0
#12
thanks everyone. I'm gathering up all the advice and response and digesting it. Will update soon. :)
what an interesting post! and i agree with all those who believe studying long complicated variations, doesn't really help the developing player!
I remember starting out with The Guccio Piano, the more i tried to memorize lines to beat my friend Robert (who was at the same level as me) the more i lost!
I soon realized, that i had far more successful results against him, when i simply played moves that i understood and soon, the more i recognized the patterns in the opening, i tried different routes.
all the best now :)
tonydal wrote:
RobKing wrote:
The thing that I really dislike about a lot of chess players that are my strength and weaker is their obsession with openings. I feel that by memorizing any lines out of a book that you really aren't helping your chess. You need to understand the ideas behind each move in an opening and then you can stop relying on books and more on principles and ideas.
Yeah, that's always been a problem: people spouting off about the Whatzis Variation of the Russianov Attack. They all sound terribly important and knowledgeable while they're opining...but all you have to do is play a3 or something to derail them, and they're sunk.
I did play a game this weekend where I wish I knew more theory...I played Jorge Sammour-Hasban who is rated 2600+ USCF and I played the Scandinavian but he replied with 2. Nc3. After 2. ... d4 3. Ne2 I wasn't really familiar with the position and I found myself far worse very fast.
I probably didn't stand much of a shot anyway, but still...