Losing and losing

I've been losing more and more lately in both blitz and correspondence.  In this I'll just focus on correspondence.  This is my most recent loss.  I didn't lose a huge amount of material but he killed all counter-play and I'm really at a loss as to where I could have gained an advantage.  I'm not that great a player but I'm getting better and I hope that  a little insight might take me to that next level.

Once he was up 4 pawns (3 of them connected and unopposed!) his main goal basically should have been to trade off pieces as much as possible, because the more material that comes off, the stronger his pawns are (they'd march up the board no sweat against your king). I think your last hope would have been to try and pick off his weak c3 pawn, then avoid trading pieces while trying to blockade his pawns with king and bishops (he'd still have to make big mistakes for you to draw, but keep an eye out for nasty forks and pins you could use).

As for the losing material looks like just a lot of tactical oversight. You probably should put some time into tactics trainer or use a book with puzzles. Seems like several times you didn't take back when he took your pawns, without having any threat or attack as compensation? 4 pawns isn't huge material if you're going by a rigid point scale, but in this position where he has 3 connected passed pawns plus majority on the kingside, he's pretty much a piece up or more (he could lose the exchange or blunder a piece and still be in great shape). This is all my amateur analysis, hopefully other people can give you better, more specific stuff.

No I appreciate your thoughts.  I lost one or two pawns trying to win his bishop.  this seems to have backfired.  I lost a lot of tempo and a pawn or two trying to avoid the rook pin at f7.  Despite my tactical mistakes I feel like I was out of the game before I was really down a whole piece.  I guess my real question should be how should I have approached the middlegame differently to maybe capitalize on whatever advantages I might have had?  I felt like the opening went as well as any other.  Was there a better plan of attack than b5?  Was b5 premature? Was d5 wasted time?

I use the analysis board quite a bit.  Maybe not as much as I should have.  I get the idea about the pawns.  I don't think I'm in the habit of sacrificing a truckload of pawns.  I thought that it would pay off.  Clearly it didn't.  What attack would have yielded better results?

Anthony

I would say d5 was a premature advance, because you only had two defenders of the d5 square to his three attackers. One of the defenders was a knight under attack which he could exchange off as well, making your pawn at d5 even more indefensible. I guess that is one of the downsides to having your knight at d7 instead of c6, it blocks the queen from defending your d pawn. I think before playing d5 you should have played Nb6, harrassing his bishop and also strengthening d5 with two more defenders (queen and knight). Or play your b5 first before Nb6, then your light square bishop can sieze the long diagonal too. So yeah maybe too hasty an advance in the center.

That's awesome.  I totally get that.  Thanks man!

Anthony

Ok hey dude i just read your forum and well just wanted to say i know how that feels, get on a good virge of winning and then losing a bunch afterwards right! Well since i had the same feeling of that just thinking of giving you a hint! If you start losing a bunch of games just go slow on each move you do to make sure nothing can backfire on you, and usually on chess.com just try to keep your games under a amount of 10 to make it so you dont have differnt things you have to worry about!

And on the game you showed the main reason why you didnt do good, is moslty because you gave up your pawns just to try to catch the bishop, which you should never do, cause when you go on a full brute attack on something you forget ABOUT THE GAME and they come in easily, so when you do something, do it very carefully

One more thought:

There is definite value to knowing the "book move".  However the value doesn't come from knowing the move.  The real value doesn't even come from knowing what that move accomplishes.  The most value comes from knowing why every other move is not the best move.  When you know why every other move is not the best move, then you know how to take advantage of it.  Know what I mean?

For example, you say Bc4 is not best in this situation.  However, if you don't know why it isn't as good as the best move, then your opponent may be able to use it as well, or possibly even better than the book's "best move".

tonydal

Good point.  I never would have recommended a5, because of the threat of losing the b pawn.  You're right, though, that white would end up trading his bishop for two pawns and black having a pretty good attack.

as far as I know... AOD is a clan in vcmp..   just that...and I am a member too

Army of Darkness

i have to agree with Tony, 8... b5 was by far you best chance.

now let's look at your statement on d5:

"This is to try to force some action before he moves his kingside pawns down my throat. I felt that this was my best attack move because after he moves the bishop, I can trade pawns maybe get my knight to e4 somehow."

by this statement, you are implying that 1) you panicked, 2) you made the move without walking through the moves.

you have to lose you phobias.  you panicked for nothing as 9. h4 was really a nothing move, more of a bluff to divert your attention, since your attacking chances were much more clear and obvious.

before you sacrifice pawns, you should be positive you will get definite adequate compensation.  btw, 4 pawns is a huge amount of material in most cases.

from this, my best advice for your correspondence chess would be to take more time, bring out a real chess set, walk through your possible options.

also, DON'T PANIC!

Let me just say I just got to the point where my competition has sort of jumped to the next level.  All of the sudden nobody really blunders anymore and now I really have to play perfectly to win.  This is a weird transition that I really want to make, but I don't have all the tools.  I've only been seriously playing for 2 months or so.  Ever since I joined this sight.  I agree with the Don't Panic.  It's just that I've lost playing Sicilian several times and it's always to a King side pawn storm.  I thank all of you.

Anthony

My advice would be to play a little against the computer here. Sure, playing against a computer is not the same thing as a human, but it does not make simple mistakes so you will have to rely on superior strategy to get an upper hand.

Yes 9.)d5? isnt  good ur 2 pieces against his 3 pieces covering that vital square isnt good odds and thats what created the great big hole in ur position u wasnt able to recover from. My advice is remember the simple maths of ur pieces and the squares they go too. Dont worry i make those mistakes too sometimes, so im learning the same lesson When i forget where the pieces go for both sides and what the count is for the squares i want and if they out number me or not....

wdygml wrote:

as far as I know... AOD is a clan in vcmp..   just that...and I am a member too

Army of Darkness

The AOD is just an acronym for my band's name.  It's "The Ambassadors of Discord."  Sorry for any confusion.

Anthony

I appreciate all of your thoughts.  This is a lot harder than I thought it would be.  You really have to swallow your pride to post these embarrasing moments.  Keep in mind that these people are far better than me to begin with.  I'm trying to compete at a higher and higher level. 

Tonydal I think you got right to what I want to know which is, "How do I procede out of the opening and into the middlegame with momentum and purpose?"  I think if I had better attack plans I might make another jump in my skill.  In this game much like the previous one I came out of the opening well.  I had options.  I think 17.g4 was my first mistake.  What would have been better?

12 Nf2, i thought this move a little unnecessary.  your statement:

"At this point I'm not really concerned about the queen so I like f2 better than f4 just because I don't want to move it again after g5."  is not valid since there is nothing protecting the g5 square.  why do you need to move your knight at all?  in any case, i don't think it was a bad move, especially since your opponent's move...

12... g6?!  was so bad.  that was just plain ugly, weakening his position so much and followed up by

14... Nc6?!  he blocks his oh so important bishop.

15 Bg5 nice attack!  followed by 16 e5  keep the pressure on!

unfortunately, 17 g4?! lost just about all your momentum.  now, don't you wish you knight was still at h3?  even worse, black's white square bishop is now a very serious threat.  you are very lucky that his knight is blocking it or else the game would be over.

the  much better 17 Ng4!  would have put anpther nail in his coffin threatening all sorts of disaster on your opponent.

19...Rab8 gives you more time to come up with an attack.  unfortunately, you found a very bad move...

20 Ng5???  it was good that you saw how bad Bg5 was, but this is almost as bad. besides giving up the exchange, you are opening up that very, VERY important diagonal for his white squared bishop. i liked Rf3 instead reapplying pressure you lost with your previous moves.

22. Be2?  is your final blunder.  you see how important that diagonal is now?

all in all you played very well!  you were crushing your much higher rated opponent up until g4.  even then you were winning until the exchange blunder and everyone blunders once in a while...

good game!

You guys rock!

I thought 20. Ng5 was a questionable move.  It's interesting to hear your analysis.  So I guess you guys didn't think that Nh3 was all that bad?  I wanted to move the piece again because it didn't have a lot of "outs" if it were attacked.  Was my concern over f2 too extreme?  I think 15. Bh6 is brilliant.  It causes all kinds of havoc and I can still pin the knight.  I guess when I think of an attack I need to think of a way to make it worse first.  Never really occured to me outside of setting traps.

Kamapuaa said,

"At this point I'm not really concerned about the queen so I like f2 better than f4 just because I don't want to move it again after g5."  is not valid since there is nothing protecting the g5 square.  why do you need to move your knight at all?  in any case, i don't think it was a bad move, especially since your opponent's move...

I don't understand what g5 having protection has to do with him pushing his pawn there and forcing me to move my knight again...  I'm sure that it makes perfect sense I just don't see it.

I must say the simplicity of your ideas is very stunning.  I guess I expect really complex traps and other things.  I think that rethinking my goals in any scenario to include adding attackers and adding intermediary steps that complicate the opponents ability to defend.

It is all greatly appreciated.

Anthony

On another guys profile I read a great quote.  It said, "You must resist the urge to be brilliant beyond reason."  I've been trying to take that to heart.  It's a complicated game but the ideas that win are simple.  Very strange and hard to reconcile in my brain.