FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I don't know if there's anything about posting from sites other than this one, but I didn't see any in the stickied rules post. If so I can take it down.
I played as white in this game:
First of all don't expect a game like you'd see in a tournament or something. I'm aware that the beginning would be considered unorthodox and/or simply poorly played, and I'm not that good in general.
I'm more concerned with the middle of the game. I'm not sure if I got greedy around move # 23-27, or could've made a better move when he starts coming after me at #28, or what. I thought moves #9-18 were fairly solid.
Any analysis would be appreciated, save for the obvious part about it being questionable to lose the rook of course.
i think u were pretty much losing the whole match. one point 22. nf4, threatening Qg5 might be better, and prolly leads to a tricky position with traps, but most likely a draw.
only move is like 22 kd8, where the idea for white will be c4, and qg5 while ideas of moving rook over later maybe
Long story short, I don't think analysing one game is going to help you very much. It looks like you're still at the stage where you need to concentrate on the basics: don't lose material for nothing, get your pieces into positions where they are doing something useful, get your king into safety, build a strong pawn position, control the area of the board you're interested in (typically the centre)... until you have the basics down there is not much point considering specific lines of play.
The only point where you possibly had any counterplay was after move 16 Rf1. You are an exchange and some pawns, with full development as compensation. Otherwise it was losing for white all along.
Generally, stick to the basics:
Save the feelings like you should have won for when you don't drop a rook right in the beginning of the game. Or any material for that matter.
However, we can all improve with proper practice - a couple of years ago I played an improving player on this site and hosed him quite thoroughly, but last time I saw his rating, he's the one who would be kicking ass if we played again. (But he's probably enjoying beating the 2000+ rated players more.)
Going by your position, I got these:
So unless I'm missing something, it looks like the best things for him would be to not move his queen or move his king to b8, and probably to move the knight to f6. I agree that it doesn't seem like the most likely win, but like you said a few bad moves for black from there could've done it. It does seem more likely for it to end with a draw or loss for me though.
That's a good point about developing the knight, I hadn't thought of that. I think I was too preoccupied with trying to set up my other bishop. If anything I probably thought that his bishop there was development. Qf2 definitely does seem like a better move.
Unfortunately, this was the sort of response I was trying to avoid. I asked for analysis of the specific lines, not the simple parts about the rook, etc. I don't see how this is much different from a chess puzzle. I can assure you that I know the most basic of basics; however, I don't treat every random internet game with the utmost care. I may still be basically a novice compared to high level players, but that's irrelevant to the quesiton. Thanks for responding anyhow.
Not once in that game was a position that was winning for you.
Probably, but I was working towards having a piece advantage, so I thought there was at least a chance.
I'm pretty sure I said "could've". Save the condescension for a thread you read thoroughly?
OK. Since you acknowledge that you didn't give this game your fullest attention, there really isn't any meaningful advice except "Play better". By any reasonable standard you were dead lost by about move five and the only reason you got back into the game was that your opponent also didn't play well - possibly having no plan beyond "Win a rook by a cheap shot as early as possible". It's not possible to comment meaningfully on specific lines of play because that only makes sense if we assume that both of you suddenly start playing well and treating the position on its merits.
Since you acknowledge that you didn't play this one well, how about you show us a game where you did - and ideally one where you think your opponent also played well?
When I was young I used to like writing out the scores of some of my games and annotate them like in the chess books. But my comprehension of the game was poor and the annotations weren't worth reading. A few years later I read some of them again and cringed. Fortunately no-one else ever saw them.