I'm really frustrated by this game. There we no big blunders that I can find. My position just kept getting worse, and worse, and worse....all night long. Really an agonizing game.
/
I have no idea why I lost this game...
Sort:
Uh... No actual game here.
Huh. That's weird. I've put the game back in, but it lost my analysis too :(. My night just keeps getting better...
I have no idea why I lost this game...
Well, apparently you weren't checkmated, so you lost either because you ran out of time or you resigned.
Umm, well I resigned because I was completely lost, but that's very obviously not what I was asking.
Keep in mind I'm kinda nooby but maybe this'll help:
Weaker pawn structure. I'm not familiar with this opening but I would've done 4. Bd2 instead of 4.a3, to avoid the doubled pawns. Losing your black bishop was kinda unfortunate, I think (bishops nice late game and this caused another doubled pawns) but I also think you're still doing fine at that point. I don't know that 17. dxc5 was necessary (you could've spent that move putting your knight in a better position), and I don't know about the moves from 21. h3 and on... I'm not sure how in danger you were of checkmate, or what would have been the best position for your king, or what you should have been doing with your moves. But I think you lost the game when you lost the c pawn, so I'm guessing 29. Qe1 was your biggest mistake of the game.
So... black managed to wrangle out a better pawn structure is all, way I see it
Your move 29. Qe1 was a mistake; it let black take an important endgame pawn. Qc1 would have been better.
cloudychocolate wrote:
Your move 29. Qe1 was a mistake; it let black take an important endgame pawn. Qc1 would have been better.
Hm. I must be missing something. 29. Qc1 meets ...Rxf2#, no? I think I'm just losing a pawn here no matter what.
chessmicky wrote:
The variation of the Nimzo-Indian that you selected (4.a3) is not that highly regarded. As you noticed, when you just made "natural" developing moves, Black was able to get a strong attack on your weakened pawns and the weak c4 square. But Black wasn't that accurate! I think 12.Bd6! would have cramped Black a bit.
After 17...Qxc5, if you look at your position you should notice that you have several weak pawns (a3, c3, f4) while Black has none. And you don't have any compensation: You don't have the two bishops, for example. So you have a defensive chore ahead of you.
23.c4 was a real error. It's always worth remembering that pawns can never go back! so when you push your c-pawn, you give up all control over some squares. You were obviously not quite alert enough about some of the tactical threats in the position--but neither was your opponent! You can't actually save your f-pawn with 24.g3? Why not? Because your Queen is now overworked defending the Nf7 and Rc2 Black should have played 24...Rxf3 winning a piece since if 25.Qxf3 then 25...Qxc2! When Black missed that, the position drifted back closer to equality after 26...Qxc6
You needed to be more careful about avoiding a queen trade in the endgame. Always remember, the pure king and pawn ending is the easiest to win and the toughest to draw, so Black was anxious to trade queens and you're not. I don't know if you can hold the Q and P ending, but the K and P endgame was hopeless
Re: 23. c4, what was better at that point?
After the knights came off, my goal was to try to trade off the rooks, because of the death grip they had on the d-file, and try to hold the Q+Pawn endgame. I was very aware that I couldn't afford to trade the queens, which is is why I resigned when he "forked" my king and queen at the end.
chessicstudent wrote:
cloudychocolate wrote:
Your move 29. Qe1 was a mistake; it let black take an important endgame pawn. Qc1 would have been better.
Hm. I must be missing something. 29. Qc1 meets ...Rxf2#, no? I think I'm just losing a pawn here no matter what.
True. I didn't notice. Sorry, my mistake. Though as others have said, your pawn structure on the left was weak because the pawns weren't supporting each other. On move 4, Qb3 or Bd2 would have probably been better. Moving your pawn a1 let black have an extra move to bring his pieces out as well. Qb3 seems pretty good to me.
Welcome to the big leagues. Try to enjoy it the ride once in a while along the way.
15. Rec1 led to a bad exchange
u should have kept bishop pair till the end evn at the cost of a pawn.
KingGS007 wrote:
u should have kept bishop pair till the end evn at the cost of a pawn.
I kind of felt like I should have sac'd a pawn at some point, but was never sure when.
u should have saced ur c4 pawn to keep ur bishop pair tht was a bttr plan u were at least going to have an equal end game
McNastyMac wrote:
Without entering into many details (which some people already did and way better than I could), the pieces exchanges were clearly beneficial for your opponent, and a couple of them really damaged your pawn structure. Moreover, you let your opponent get the open file without even questioning it (that kind of annoyed me a little, specially since you hadn't much counterplay on any wing)!I suggest trying to find better squares for your pieces, specially some targets, a clear example is the dark squared bishop doing nothing and the queen wondering around in the endgame, while your opponent activates his king.
Very interesting analysis. I'd be interested in knowing how you would have gone about contesting the open file. I saw that happening, but felt like I was too tied down to the defense of my pawns to do anything about it.
The simplest answer without much detail is you were outplayed positionally. McNastyMac offers useful information on it. Maheshroks and Markgravitygood mentions 15. Rec1 as the wrong rook. If you had played 15. Rac1, you could have followed with 17. Nf3 to defend your pawns. Your pieces would not be tied down as they were.
Edit: 17. Nf3, not move 16.
I'd say you lost because early on you began reacting to his moves instead of trying to play your moves. He played well to create weaknesses in your position (particularly pawn structure) and he had much better piece activity. This ultimately allowed him to win a pawn and go straight into a winning endgame. Whenever you feel yourself reacting to your opponent's move, you have to try as hard as you can to find an alternative that accomplishes your goals. (Of course sometimes defensive moves are necessary, but when you completely give up the initiative, defeat is only a matter of time, especially as you climb the rating ladder.)
rmurray wrote:
.....you were beaten? by someone who understood the puzzle better than you. isn't that how chess works? silly question. the answer is in your own mind. if you are too lazy to figure out your own mistakes.....chess will confound you .....forever.....till the day you die......and then it will confound you ....in ....hell..... cause that's where you'll go ......
chess hell..... where all lazy chess players go to sit around with a bunch of chess loser's and ......whine......all day and night long....into infinity.....till hell freezes over.....like in outer space....where hell has frozen over.....forever..... chess hell.
....maybe that's actually the chess.com forum bs----chess hell.
hey....you're already there.
um.... what.... are you.... talking about?
