Please help me analyze a wild game

This discussion around ChristianSoldier's "analysis" was bound to happen sooner than later. 

There are a selected few posters that people trust with game analysis.  And the vast majority of them are expert to master class players.

Jetfigher, game analysis (in any form) is not about telling the player in question what opening was played.  It’s not running the game through computer analysis and saying: “You should have played this move or that move”.

I once asked one of players I trust to help out with analysis, and there was a very obvious tactic that I missed.  Sure enough I would have seen it with the computer engine, but what the expert eye saw and pointed out to me, was that my Queen was positioned very closely to the King, and I had some other minor pieces covering critical squares around the king, which would have lead to a mate in 3.  THAT is the OBVIOUS difference.

 I see: “Duh, another tactic missed.  Need to work on tactics”. 

 What the expert saw and pointed out: “You have missed a very critical mating pattern that occurs regularly in games and you need to pay attention to that the next time it comes your way.  Be on the lookout for x and y especially if the pieces are placed like that and are covering squares a, b and c around the king”.

 Which of the two is more meaningful?  Players with ratings as low as ours doing game analysis is nothing short of a JOKE.

joeydvivre made my day :)

To improve in chess, you need to be endlessly willing to learn and look at your current understanding critically for errors.  It's not encouraging to see a newer player defend his position as "master of the ruy" and "maker of instructional videos"

Also, part of chess's appeal is that a game can have a fluid/complex flow of ideas.  If not in the game itself, then in the variations that may have been played.  This also makes it very difficult, as sometimes we're slow to re-evaluate how the position's needs have changed.

This is more or less the primarily difficulty a new player faces when trying to comment on a move.  Is e5 a strong square for a knight in the current position?  Usually their annotations are, in word, identical to what a master would say, except that they don't fit the position at all and are given at seemingly random times.

An expert once told me a story about playing an IM.  He said they entered a middlegame where he had a small edge because of his kingside play.  However the IM hadn't realized it yet and started maneuvering on the queenside incorrectly.  Now the expert had an even better position and continued his preparation for the attack while the IM continued to waste time with the wrong idea... his moves just weren't correct for the position.  Eight moves later, to the expert's shock, he realized his advantage was imaginary, and all the IM's moves were correct while he was the one who had been wasting time with the wrong idea.

A dramatic example of why this game is so entertaining to learn and play, and hopefully also a cautionary tale for those beginners who think their annotations are beyond reproach.

What is your accurate rating if I'm allowed to ask?

Hey I think you're being kind of unfair here.  Sure its not the most accurate videa in the world, but the guys only 1200 and you're making some unfair points yourself.  Firstly, regardless of how many games start with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3, 2. Nf3 is the most popular move by a wide margin, and I think its safe to say that Grand Prixs, Closed Sicillians and the like are "not normal Sicillians" (there is a reason they are called Anti-Sicillian's after all!)  Secondly, Bg4 is never an important pin in the open sicillian cause theres never any knight to pin, in lines where White refrains from d4 and Nxd4, for example some lines of the c3 sicillian and the Smith Morra gambit, Bg4 can become a very important tool.  4... g6 is a good move, and h3 generally sucks in the Dragon (yeah i know 6. h3 is a line, but its a sideline for a reason), as the h pawn usually wants to be on h4, and if you want to play f4 then Be2 is a far better way of stopping Ng4.  Ne5 looks like it loses a piece, so I'm assuming you meant Nd5.  Alright fine, Nd5 doesn't look like a good move at all, because of e6-d5, where White already might be semi screwed.  Nf6 isn't great cause it misses this of course.  The point I'm making, of course, is that the video isn't perfect, but then, none of us are anyway.  You're an expert level player, and you obviously have a vast amount of knowledge, but I get the feeling that you're only revealing a certain subset of what you know to humiliate this poor 1200.  I think this is unfair, and if you would like to discuss any of the points I've made, go right ahead.

In reply to (a) I would argue that an open sicillian would be generally considered as a "normal" sicillian.  The semantics are unclear, but c3, Nc3, and their ilk are generally called "anti sicillians", which implies that they are not "normal."  Nc3 is slightly more commital than Nf3 commital as you say, as it rules out Maroczys.  Regardless of the true definition of "normal Sicillians", the fact that we can even have this argument means that it's not too bad for a 1200 to use it in a video.  

In reply to (b), I was responding to your statement that no sicillians have Bg4 as an important pin.  Generally, when White plays Nf3, he will follow up with d4, so the pin becomes moot.  However, if white has no intention of playing d4, as this guy might not, then h3 becomes a reasonable move to stop Bg4.  The problem then lies with the reluctance to play d4, which limits the play of White, rather than the h3 move.  

In reply to (c), completely agreed, h3 hardly strikes fear in the hearts of any dragoneers.  Not a horrible move but pretty unambitious.  I will admit Grandmasters have been known to play it, but then, some GM has tried almost every variation.

For (e)  the video is hardly made for someone of your strength, and so you won't benefit much from it.  You might feel that it is idiotic, but possibly others will find it useful in a way, even if it is not completely accurate.  I have read books by GM's which have recommended refuted Queen sacrifices, but still gained much knowledge from the books.  Constructive critisim would be good for the video maker, of course.  

But, ChristianSoldier007, you also should recognize something important:

your analysys lacks!

So, if I could give you advice - find out what it is to have plan in chess game.

Try to understand me, to have plan it is to put your pieces on squares, where they will work together for one purpose. And NOT to have plan means, your pieces are random, without one thought that links them.

It's very nice that you can put your heart in analysing games. But try to evolve your skills (and rating) to back up your words. It's common way.

both sides have commited blunders

On a lighter note, there was a time where I myself stood at the top of the chess mountain. 

Then one faithful day, some lettuce grower who calls himself AndyClifton stepped on my turf.  Fueled by my hatred for lettuce I leaped into battle with the spirited farmer.

Needless to say, the battle was short-lived and as I lied on the ground bleeding, the farmer pointed out to me that I had been standing on the wrong mountain all along...

And to me that means they are not good teachers. I am by no means a master level player but I am an excellent teacher/coach. (coaching is different than teaching, teaching you try to relate ideas an concepts, coaching also involves mental and other aspects of a game.)

One way of teaching is to have players of equal level work together . As one player learns something other players are forced to share an incorporate it. The concepts are not ideal or prefect but they are easier to learn and assimilate than perfectly played GM games. 
trying to emulate players of a GM level is just not possible. This is why most opening study fails. Players get to point X and someone deviates and then the reason for the previous moves are lost because the player lacks certain skill sets. learning complex endgames are irrelevent when  your making big tactical mistakes every 5 moves. Of course creating positions where these are more likely to happen is another point. 

I am a strong advocate of learning what is level appropriate: Silman's endgame course follows this same concept. Opening books like starting out: xxxxx are very good at this in that the provide a basic plans players should know. Not 1 plan but MULTIPLE plans. Why I dislike it when I see people play closed siclians etc because they are afraid of theory. if you are 1200 and play a 1200 player you  can learn level appropirate knowledge. if they beat you because of an opening trick so what? you learn something! avoiding things that player-A knows just maintains the gap in your knowledge base. Doesn't it make more sense to learn what player-A knows in the sicilian at least on some basic level, incorporate that into yout game rather than avoid it entirely. 

I vaguely remember the occurrence as being more like this...

Exactly true. If you yourself don't know the rules of chess how can you teach them. Reading polgers blog on the world championship match it was interesting to follow as she predicted the moves to be made by anand and gelfand. A lower ranked player and especially a poor player would not be able to know the reasoning behind the moves.

Hey, for the last time, I am not a clown, I am a Becostumed American!

See what you have done!  Now he's angry!

And somebody on another thread just called me the stuff of nightmares!  Little do they know, this one is really the stuff of nightmares:

I on the other hand am a nice, flute-loving mayor with a soft, sort of Jimmy Carter accent.

Hey!  I am the Original poster in this thread and have watched Christian Soldier's video on "You Tube" and thought it was great! 

You all can see the video Christian Soldier posted and his trenchant analysis here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3aYYfxbKU&feature=youtu.be

To be honest, at first I was kind of wary of this video, considering all the negative comments in this thread.  But having since seen the video in its entirety, I have now watched it repeatedly for the last four hours.  I have started to take reams of notes on heretofore unconsidered aspects of the game and now feel fully armed to break a 2200+ rating by the time I start my latest tournament. 

Thanks!