Both players have ratings divisible by 5.
Please analyze this game everyone! What did you think? :)
Sort:
lol, a fact. But what did you think about the game? Where could white improve?
Well i am not expert but definetly what Smnkssn says is true. a point early in the beginning for me was 4. F4... my sense told me is opening a critical diagonal E1-H4 with an uncastle king.... Any thoughts on that?
Thanks for pointed it out.
Watching this game was painful as it is full of blunders.
None of the players paid enough attention to the centre otherwise simple wins like 7 or 8 fxe5 (even 8 Nxe5 looks nice) would have been played by white or avoided by black. White played a game on his own from 8 f5 on without thinking about the opponents moves/threats. 15... exf3 wins a second piece for black.
Best advice for both would be playing longer time controls.
Are you trying to teach the two players then Cherub?
Pins, doubled pawns, piece retreating, leaving things hanging.
It is a big list.
There are some great Bishop Opening games from 80 years ago, built on the idea of d4 and e5 and then go for mate with Queen, Knight and both Bishops against a castled king, but they all depend on the bishop staying on the a2-b8 diagonal.
The high school chess team I coached rode the Bishop's Opening to the county championship and 3rd in the state tournament. We found that 4.f4 was too early in general and also it doesn't tend to work well against an early ...c6 (as in this game) or ...Bc5 where we transposed into a Vienna Game. Otherwise, after f4, Black can roll in the center with ...d5, ...Bg4, and then gets good N outposts.
In this game, after Black's weaker 4th and 5th moves, it reaches a point similar to what we'd find in our games where Black made weak early moves and Black's pieces can be mostly sealed off from the K-side with f5! - which eventually happens here. That sets up an great situation for a K-side pawn charge so O-O was out: we almost always castled long, O-O-O, and charged as fast as practical with the g and h and then f pawns, with both White R's on the K-side.
I ran this past Stockfish 8 and it says White went from -0.06 to -0.71 with 4 f4 then, after Black made weak moves. White went from +1.33 to +0.30 with 6 O-O, so our experiences match up with Stockfish's evaluation that each move roughly loses the equivalent of a pawn!
10 Nxb5?? would be a losing move against good players. 10 Bb3 would have kept the game fairly equal.
15 c5?? is another bad move and it's a good example of how counterattacking when you're attacked can make things much worse than simple defense. Black should have played 15...exf3! and the game would have been over with decent play. White's 15th move shows the thinking was that White believed it could even up with 15...exf3 16 cxb6. But LOOK at the next move: Black could then play 16...fxg2+! and since that pawn's supported by the B at b7, White would lose the Rook, 17...gxf1(Q)+ on the next move and the net result is that Black gets a N, P, and R for a B.
But Black misses it all and plays 1...Bc7?? WOW!
Now White is playing too passively. Instead of retreating with 16 Ne1, a simple 15 dxe4 is called for. Eventually, the other problem with 15 c5?? - it leaves the B on b5 unprotected, comes to bear as the Black Q picks it off on move 19.
But, on move 20, Black tried to give the game away with 20...Rxd3 instead of pinning White R with 20...Qa4! White found the very good move 22 Rxc7! Stockfish felt White was only down -1,94 at this point. But on the very next move, that R goes pawn-hunting and overlooks that his other R is attacked twice and defended once, loses Q + R for Q, and Stockfish saw it -6.55. The game was all but over at this point.
If I've been harsh please note I want to make a point: stop giving away piece after piece and your game will improve drastically. This game reminds me of the beginning of the introduction to Dan Heisman's The World's Most Instructive Amateur Game Book:
"Well, Dan," Howard Stern's familiar bass voice intoned, "Now that I'm up to 1000, that's about it. I just can't seem to beat those 1100's."
"But Howard," I protested, "you're just giving them free pieces and they're taking some of them. They are giving you free pieces and you aren't taking as many of them. If you just stop giving them free pieces and take all of theirs, you'll beat them every game...basically, it's as easy as that!"
Four years later Stern was rated 1700 ICC (Internet) in standard games because he stopped giving away pieces!
Both sides in this game need to think more about safety and protect pieces.
Yes, 4. ... d5 (with the idea of replying to 5. fxe5 with 5. ... Nxe4) looks a lot stronger than the move actually played.
4. ... Bd6 only makes strategic sense in the context of 5. (or soon afterwards) ... Bc7 and ... d5.
First of of, playing 4...Bd6 without moving the d-pawn is to be discouraged in most cases, because the development of the bishop on c8 would be hindered or at least delayed.
What i think will have the better position, instead of playing 7. Nc3, he could play 7. d4 ed4 8. e5! or 7. d4 ef4 8. e5! and same with 7. d4 Ne4 8. fe5 Bc7 9. Re1 and the black knight on e4 is now in great danger. For example 9...d5 10. ed6 Bd6 11. Nbd2 wins the knight.
The knight sacrifice with 10. Nb5 is not necessary as it would give black the advantage. Simply 10. Bb3 should be better.
15....ef3 16. cb6 fg2 wins easily.
I think it would be interesting to hear why white played 4.f4.
It is important to hear the explaination.
Make sure you condem the appropriate thing!
Sometimes players have good natural instincts.
The move 4.f4 is a bad move.
However, if the player playing white was to say the reason he played 4.f4 was because he felt like he needed to pressure the e5 pawn.
Than I would say that player has good instincts.
His idea & feeling are correct.
The problem is he didn't find the best method in hitting e5.
In this situation, You want to condem the move 4.f4.
You don't want to condem the idea.
The idea is correct!
White should have played 4.Nf3 which hits e5.
It is an alternative move which follows his line of thinking.
He might have over looked the alternative move or continuation.
It happens all the time.
Especially with players who are still trying to get familar with the pieces.
Nxb5 is really bad because it's not a tactical error but demonstrates a very clear lack of understanding. There's no reason why any sacrifice like this should work in the position.
The other moment I really stopped was move 15 when black retreated his bishop instead of playing exf3. Knowing 1200s I strongly suspect he didn't calculate exf3 really, even though that's something that must be looked at, obviously.
Thanks for the comments - more are welcome!
I posted this game because someone who wanted the game analyzed, with advice, didn't know how to post it. Please be nice 
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
I think it would be interesting to hear why white played 4.f4.
It is important to hear the explaination.
Make sure you condem the appropriate thing!
Sometimes players have good natural instincts.
The move 4.f4 is a bad move.
However, if the player playing white was to say the reason he played 4.f4 was because he felt like he needed to pressure the e5 pawn.
Than I would say that player has good instincts.
His idea & feeling are correct.
The problem is he didn't find the best method in hitting e5.
In this situation, You want to condem the move 4.f4.
You don't want to condem the idea.
The idea is correct!
White should have played 4.Nf3 which hits e5.
It is an alternative move which follows his line of thinking.
He might have over looked the alternative move or continuation.
It happens all the time.
Especially with players who are still trying to get familar with the pieces.
Excellent points!
When I mentioned the high school chess club I coached found 4 f4 was a bad move, we didn't initially know it: we found that out by weeks of about 20 OTB-USCF-tournament players analyzing the Bishop's Opening. That was in the '90's before Kasparov played it, when it had been unpopular for 60 years and it was almost impossible to find books on it - and chess on the Internet was nothing then.
I don't know if f4 here was aimed at e5. Our purpose for getting f4 in as early as practical - and to play f5 to seal-off the K-side from most of Black's pieces- was part of a plan that accomplished three things:
1) By playing 2 Bc4, we wanted to throw-off opening-move memorizers: almost no one had been looking at the Bishop's opening 1930's.
2) We wanted to get a K-side attack and were inspired by both the K's Gambit and the Vienna Game, where Nc3 is played before Nf6 for the purpose of possibly getting in f4 at the right moment.
3) For players OTB at the 900-1300 level, which was most of our opposition, they don't have a strategical plan and basically move pieces around waiting for a mistake and getting in f4 and castling O-O-O, if practical, gave us an edge in that our players knew where they wanted to go in the middle game within the first 10 moves.
Game could have continue but clock expired! From an OK American chess player from Ohio.
How do you think both sides did in this game? What suggestions would you make for both white and black, and how do you think they could've improved? Thanks!