Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


My two first games on daily chess

  • #1

    Hi everybody,


    I have recently decided to try the daily chess and I am liking it because of the depth in which I can analyze the positions. I think is helping me to improve my chess greatly. I think I maybe also liking it because I have won my 2 first games (played at the same time) and I have rocket up from a rating of 800 to 1435. On any case as happy as I maybe with my winnings I am not deluded and I know that the only reason I won one of the games was because my opponent blundered at the endgame. Since I took so much time to analyze the positions I thought I could post them here, not so much to be told where I made the mistakes (the computer analysis does that) but what do you think of my way of approaching chess and my thinking process, which areas you think I should work on, etc...


    Thanks very much in advance


    On my first game I play black, it was against a nearly 1300 rated player




    The other game I played it against a 1370 rated player but I think he played much worse than the first one which was surprising. I think I pretty much destroyed him but the computer analysis still show mistakes and even a blunder on my side.


    Ok, I know it is a very long post, any feedback and suggestions are welcome, constructive if possible. Thanks very much in advance for your help.



  • #2

    For the first game, on move twenty three, you could have been backrow mated... Also, the second game, you pushed pawns rather than developing your pieces, and therefore weakened your pawn structure (e.g. if your pawns are on white squares, then what is protecting the dark squares). Those were good games though!

  • #3

    Thanks for your comments!!, I thought about the weakness on dark squares when I was looking at trading my dark square bishop in some lines and that worried me. It is part of the nature of the English opening though. Maybe it's one of its flaws.


    With respect to being backrow mated, I'm afraid you are wrong because 23.Rxe6+ was with check and that was the whole point of the previous move with the knight. Taking the knight with the pawn would discover the king so I could take the bishop with check. If I would have been that oblivious about being backrow mated I would have taken the bishop after 22.Rd7

  • #4



  • #5

    E5 is best response for E4. but this is Chess, do whatever you like. Also You are in a hurry to trade pieces and a lack of development in the position of black (whom is already behind 1 move at start) is very dangerous and self deprecating. Get your pieces on the board and form an attack based on the weaknesses you recognize on your opponents board. for example after you moved your Knight to the center of the board, instead of capturing the Knight, develop another Knight. This is very odd play for a 45|45 game as more time always allows for more plans and the more plans for each move you create the more chance at winning you have. basically make more plans than your enemy and win. I suppose we all struggle for perfection but nobody is, just have fun and doodle good strategies on the board and use all of your pieces and castle early and have your rooks facing each other on the back rank quickly too. Otherwise just keep having fun and over time you will improve

  • #6
    Hi, thanks for your thoughts. I don't agree that e5 is the best response to e4 but that is a matter of choice.

    Also, I don't feel that I'm in a rush for trading. It's in the nature of the Scandinavian variation of the Alekhine defense to trade horses because you create a weakness on white pawn structure and because the alternative is loosing a tempo on putting the knight to safety (the horse is vulnerable in the center of the board protected only by the queen and threated by the c3 white horse). Likewise, if white chooses to retake with the d pawn, trading queens would ruin your opponent castling giving you an adantage.

    I'm not sure what you mean with a lack if development as I actually developed at least as quick as my opponent if no more because he had to use a tempo to take his king out of a discovered check after I did 0-0-0.

    The game is 1 move per 3 days, not 45/45 and every move is thought very carefully.

    I do appreciate your opinion though.

    I would like however the opinion of a high rated player about strategic decisions and thought process please. I know this is a free forum and I rely on the goodwill of players to give or not advice, but I followed the "read before you post" instructions and made an effort to write down my thoughts on a genuine attempt to learn. It feels a bit disappointing to have so little feedback.

  • #7

    You will learn more when playing better opponents. Somebody who knows about the Marin books has a lot more knowledge than opponents played in these games. It is  normal for new players to a site who have some OTB or other experience, to go through a "slaughtering of the innocents" phase until after a lot more games find their level.

  • #8

    Thanks for the kind words, I don't feel I was so superior over my opponents though, especially over the first one. Remember, the fact that I know of (and own) the Mihail Marin's books doesn't mean that I know them. I haven't even managed to read them fully yet.


    Let me ask you a couple of direct questions if I may please


    I know that on my first game 14....f6 was a mistake but do you think that 26.....Bg6 was also a mistake and I should have considered 26.......fxg5 or do you think that trying to isolate the rook and bringing the bishop to the kingside was a good idea in this endgame?


    On the 2nd game, do you also think that I weakened myself on the dark squares or do you think that the opening was well managed?


    Thanks very much

  • #9

    26....fxg5 was more straightforward if playing for draw I suppose, I thought 18...Kd8 was more natural to use the king in the endgame, but software doesn't think much difference with kb8.

    In second game 8b3 didn't look very good or necessary a4 wasn't possible or acheiving much.

  • #10

    Thanks very much for looking into them, makes sense. 8b3 was in view of maybe developing my dark squared bishop to b2, not only because of a4. But I think you are right when you said it was unnecessary.



  • #11
    I think the first game was very nice, I felt bad looking at the second, not your fault though... keep playing, more likely your rating is bounded to raise for a while, then you'll find better opponents and you'll have morei nteresting games, in my opinion you're on the right way.


  • #12

    Wow, thanks very much for your analysis, it's really helpful and interesting. Especially because I was convinced that I did way better on my second game and that really wasn't the case, only my opponent didn't know how to take advantage of my mistakes.


    Thanks very much again, I really appreciate it.

  • #13
    GShelton wrote:

    Wow, thanks very much for your analysis, it's really helpful and interesting. Especially because I was convinced that I did way better on my second game and that really wasn't the case, only my opponent didn't know how to take advantage of my mistakes.


    Thanks very much again, I really appreciate it.


    I'm not sure If I understand exactly what you mean, by the way you say it it seems you think I intended that you played worst and your opponent failed to punish you, well what I meant is very close to the opposite... I meant that you didn't played the most accurate moves to punish him. 


    if your opponent plays poorely you will often play great games in this case at least 60% of the merit of your victory goes to your opponent...


    Honestly I liked the 2 games and I found interesting analyzing them, I think your way of thinking is on the right track and it seems that you're studying  so everything looks good, to really understand wht you study you'll need to put it into practice but to do that you'll need opponents at your level. it's more likely that it will be only at that point that other ideas and aspects of the game will make the difference.

    I'm looking forward too se you next games.


    P.S.: don't take my analysis too seriously, (although somentimes I used the engine to help me) it's meant to be a collection of ideas to be considered and evaluated, so I'm more focused on the thinking process rather than concrete lines. (for instance if I'm not wrong 7.g3 was the first choice of the engine...)


Online Now