Lost in Space

Here's a game I recently lost, I believe, largely due to some mis-play on my part that resulted in me finding myself more hemmed in than I think I've ever been before.  My opponent, with some astute manouvering (made possible by his spacial advantage) quickly posed an irrefutable threat that prompted my resignation.  Any help understanding what I could have done better to avoid such a bind would be much appreciated.

Here is the game:

I think the problem may have been not getting your king to safety. You were forced to use your bishops to defend, and they never seemed to find the ideal squares. Your rooks also never got into the action because of not being able to castle. Your pieces never had a chance to group and coordinate.

There is another principle that may have helped. Trade when you're cramped. You seemed to want to protect your bishop pair when it may have been better to allow a trade. 

5. ... Be7 would've allowed you to castle.

Not sure, but it seems like move 9. ... Ke8 would've saved you a move.

10. ... Nh6 may seem like a bad move, but if white traded and gave you doubled pawns on the h-file you'd have a semi-open g-file for your rook to attack. Instead you played 10. ... Ne7 which blocked off your bishop which blocks off your rook.

good game. your approach was reasonable and intelligent, but as your muscles atrophied you took less risks, displaying a caution your opponent exploited nicely.

(and the title of this thread is rather clever)

my initial reaction as i watched the game was that 5... Nd6 wasn't the best idea (as i guess littleman pointed out). 5... d5 (or d6, a6) would have been better--you wouldn't have "lost your castling priveleges later" (white wouldn't have been able to 7. dxe5).

also, perhaps you should have taken his bishop with your b-pawn instead of your d-pawn (move 6)? i'm really not sure, that's not a rhetorical question. it just seems like you're willingly sacrificing your later ability to control the center of the board if you willingly give up one of your centered pawns.

in the next group of moves (7-11 or so) white exploited these two--gosh, they're not even blunders, they're just kind of weaker-than-possible moves--items very nicely. you did what you were made to do.

11... Ke8. i'm not absolutely convinced you needed to break the pin right then--i think this sacrificed a little sliver of tempo that you could have used. something pawn-related, maybe h5? -attacking white's undefended g4.

your knight pin was well-conceived (i was surprised that white saw fit to bring the king into it right then), but you didn't follow through with it as i thought you would. after 14. h3, why not 14... Nh4+? you put the king in check, forcing either:

15. Nxh4  Bxd1 (you lose a knight, he loses a rook and his knight is placed on the edge)

or, the slightly less sophisticated (for white):

15. Kg3   Bxf3
16. Kxh4 Bxd1  (you lose a knight, he loses rook & knight & his king is placed in the open)

this might sound weird given your positional issues at this point in the game, but you might have brought out your darkbishop a little too early (move eighteen). you could have instead done g6, preparing a fianchetto maybe. i dunno.

and i think you mentioned somewhere in there that you wanted to play Bb4, but i'm not convinced that that was as confrontational as you wanted it to be. maybe i'm just too much of a modernist, but the fianchetto would have had much more offensive muscle behind it, attacking the e-pawn, knight, and a-rook simultaneously. but i could be wrong. judge me.

after that, all hell broke loose. i wept for you. may your children remember you fondly.

. 

i hope some of my comments were semi-lucid and maybe even (gasp!) helpful. good game!

Thanks -- I looked at 14... Nh4+ but rejected it because of:

15. Kg3 Bxf3

16. Rd3

and the exchange is even as I'm forced to retreat either my Bishop or Knight at the expense of the other.  In hindsight I suppose this is where I ended up anyway, and after allowing my opponent to make an extra move.