Scotch 4 knights as black

Hello Chess.com community

I have finished a G30 which where I was Black in the 4 Knights Scotch. I have added my annotations and would appreciate if someone stronger than myself could look at this game and give some insight to what they see.

Thanks for your time and i look forward to your constructive comments.

HI Ken, I did some analysis on the game:

@ripachu - thanks so much for taking a look. I really appreciated your insights into the game as well. You are correct that there was some trading of pieces that defiantly weakened the position for white. This will be something that I have to keep in mind moving forward.

Some additional comments based off what you had to say:
Move 14 ... c5. I labled this ?! because this move removes control over the light square d5. I felt that it may be better to have that pawn controlling the square - detering white from jumping into d5 with their knight. I guess that a follow up with c7-c6 still keeps the square under control however.

15. Rad1 'right idea wrong rook' - I was looking at the pawn structure when I made this comment. The pawn chain is pointing queenside so I think it is better to transition your king rook over to the queenside - which is where the pawn chain is pointing whites play should be. Additionally I think white should be looking at a4 at some point and having the rook on a1 supports that. By removing the a rook white appears to have weakened both its defense and attack on the queenside.

Those where my thoughts. Again thanks for engaging with me on this game!

Hi,

nice to hear that my analysis was appreciated

To continue the discussion, c5 wasn't an inaccuracy in my opinion. Yes, you slightly weaken d5, but as you pointed out, it is always possible to play c7-c6 if needed. Even if that wasn't a possibility, c5 would still be a perfectly good move as the positives are much more important: you get more space, threaten c4 and make Bb7 a nice square for the bishop. You should remember that there (almost) never is a move that would have only upsides: to get something, you often must also give away something.

I agree with you that Rfd1 is probably slightly better, but I think that white had a sensible idea, nevertheless: put the rooks on d1 and e1 and push in the centre. So all in all the difference is not between a good move and a bad move, but between two good moves. With that being said, your idea for white is a good one, and probably an improvement.

If you compare the position after 6 f3 to the main lines after 6 nxc6 bc 7 bd3, you will notice that white loses the option of qf3, he weakens the g1 a7 diagonal, and doesn't seem to get anything good in return, since f3 isn't useful in any plan white normally plays in these structures. It would have been better to take with bxc6 though, in order to fight for the center with d5. Just some suggestions. I have played both sides of this opening though.

I think a good hueristic when playing 1... e5 is to capture ...dxc6 when playing the Ruy and to capture ... bxc6 when playing the 4... Nf6 Scotch. 

Looking at the opening 8..Qd4 looks like a good way to show the drawbacks of 6. f3. With 8..Qd4 black immediately prevents white from castling. Black can then strenthen his grip on the darksquares with 9..Bc5 and maybe while white is trying to solve his king safety issue  black will have time to move his knight somewhere and play f5 to open the position and attack.