Skilled players, please advice!

Yesterday I played my second OTB game. It was at my local clubs championship. The time controls were 90 min/30 moves + 30 min. I played black against a 1400 player. My own rating is 1300. I have made some comments in the game which I would like a good player to criticize. This was the most exhausting game I have ever played and even though I felt I had the upper hand during the later half of the game I simply couldn't find a way to finish it. The ending position is probably a dead draw but fortunately I won on time :)

The game was analysed with 'scid'

You played a pretty strong game with one or two exceptions! I would still fancy my chances of winning after move 55 as black, to be honest, all you really have to do is get your King forward aggressing his King's position and use your queen to get his rook via strange combo of checks etc. You can stop his rook from checking with your pawn, so he'd need two moves and that's not quick enough.  This is won for black imo.

Well, I don't know how "skilled" I am, but your position at the end looks won to me.  The queen is so strong in the endgame that you should be able to whittle his defenses down slowly.  Well played overall.  You only had a couple small errors.

Exchange the kingside pawns to give your King some room. Use your King and Queen to remove the Rook from the board. 50 ... g6 followed by g5 etc. He can't run with the queenside pawns because of your Queen.

You played a good game.

Now, rather than rely on your engine evaluation, I'd suggest you try to find improvements by yourself and discuss these ideas in this forum. This way you'll benefit from other players' insights and learn much more

regnskog

5. c6 is okay, you transposed the game into a Semi-Slav Defense. 

6. Qc7 is a bit premature. It's a good square for the Queen, but in general it's better to  develop the Bishops and castle.

White's opening moves of Nbd2 and Bd3 are intended to bring all of his minor pieces off the back ranks: this is the primary goal of any opening. Without the minor pieces, you can't successfully attack your opponent's position, or defend your King.

You don't have too much to fear by him play e4 because you can respond with dxe4 and you exchange pawns with a solid position with which to defend White's further attack.

7. Be7 is a fine play; nothing to worry about there. It's what I would have done.

As you can see from White's 10. Bf4, developing the Queen to c7 was premature. This gives White a chance to gain tempo.

Exchanging dark Bishops and pawns is good for you, just trading down and keeping the game even.

White's move 15. Bd3? is a mistake. He doesn't necessarily need to retreat the Bishop because it is defended. Moreover, the important part about this move is that this changes the entire game. White gives up the tempo he started with in the opening with this wasted move, and now it gives Black an even game with a chance to play the role of aggressor.

24. Bxc4? is a mistake by Black. Now Black is down a pawn, which is important because against two good players, this is often enough to decide the game.

30. Nd3?? is a blunder by Black. White should play 30. Rxc8! If Black plays 31. Rxc8, then White plays Qxd3! with a winning position. If Black plays 31. Nxe1, then White plays Rxd8+, Black of course plays Qxd8, and White finally plays Qxe1! with a winning position.

39. Nxa5?? by White is good enough to seal the game in Black's favor. There should be no reason why White should win the game from this position.

41. Kf7? by Black. Better is Qd2+ followed by Qxb2. Now White's a-pawn is almost as good as dead. The pawn count will soon be even, and with a 4 point lead, this game should be in the bag.

Note that K + Q vs. K + R should always result in a win not draw if played correctly.

Well played. But in order to improve, you must understand that this type of game is typical from players at the class level. Both White and Black give the other side multiple opportunities to win the game, and neither succeeds in taking advantage of the opportunity. Moreover, the constant lead changes (point swings) are a sign of uncertainty. Once you gain the lead, there should be no reason why you shouldn't keep that lead for the majority of the game. Once you're up material, even a pawn, or have a dominating position, the sign of a good player is that he or she will close the game out from that point on. Making mistakes that compromise the position when one is in the lead is a sign that more work needs to be done.

My best advice is to keep doing what you're doing: playing good tournament games and analyzing your games to see what you could have done better. When you analyze the game, you need to find the exact point where you made a mistake and avoid that mistake again at all costs. And you need to be aware of the times when your opponent is handing you the game. And you need to be able to take it!

The only way to do that is via studying lots and lots of tactical puzzles. Good luck. And I hope these game annotations will be helpful :)

Thank you for this great reply! :)

I see now that Qc7 was very premature. And that maybe I was seeing some ghosts when playing Be7.

Though I have some questions about your comments which I would be very grateful if you could help me with :)

First there's 24. Bxc4 which you say costs a pawn, but I can't figure out how. Is there some hidden tactical motif I am missing here? And also, are you really sure that 39. Nxa5 is such a bad move, since your suggested 41. Qd2+ seems to yield nothing after ..Re2 when b2 is defended.

And you mentioned that both players give up the advantage multiple times. This I can agree with (thanks to your analysis) but I don't see how knowing that would've helped me in this game, since I of course didn't do so on purpose.

Again thanks for your time. I really appreciate people like you that help a fellow chess player :)

Anyone else noticing a trend of lower ranked players playing the opening quite well and the endgame in okay fashion, but totally missing the middlegame.  This game is nice that it has no blunders by black, but it lacks any sort of aestetic.

Why play chess if it is going to be as interesting as watching paint dry?  I understand not all chess games can be tactical masterpieces, but to make comments in this game about certain moves being passive...Made me laugh.  The whole game is passive.  There were no real threats, no double attacks, no pins, no discovered attacks...Just logical error free chess. 

So better than give us your "computer aided" analysis, why not look for chances in the game to create complication?  Key word "CREATE". 

Did you play well?  Of course you did.  Did you play inspired?  No.

Perfect example:

Move 5: c6 This is fine solid move. 

But...c5! is dynamic.

Move 8: Why castle there?  He's shown his hand by castling with kingside.  Why not h6 here and make him retreat that bishop or take your knight.  Who knows maybe you'll play for a queenside castle and start an attack up the kingside?

All the moves an both sides show an understanding of how to defend against threats, but a lack of understand on how to create threats.

You must play moves that force your opponent to make decisions! 

I really didn't like the computer analysis, and I wish people would start thinking for themselves instead of looking at +- 1.00 ....Who cares about a pawn?  I would have liked to have seen a pawn sack if it ment some activity in the game. 

Here is how I would have continued in a more dynamic fashion for Black:

I think I made my point.  Opening theory might be your expertise...but to me that game was played passively the whole way.  I didn't knock his play in the way of mistakes or blunders or even correctness...Just the lack of creativity and willingness to make a moves that are maybe not book (or best), but will create problems.

regnskog,

Thanks for reading the post. Very good of you to notice that 24. Bxc4 is not a mistake. I think when I was writing the post, I counted more White pawns than Black pawns, so I assumed turn 24 was a bad move for Black. But it turns out the pawn count was equal so nice play and good eyes :)

However, 39. Nxa5?? is a clear blunder. Before this move, White is barely maintaining equality: he is down a point because the pawn count is equal, but the Queen is stronger than Rook and Knight. And especially if Black responds 40. Qd2+ and 41. Qxb2, White is not left with very many options. He's down a full 3 points (the equivalent of a piece), and his Rook is tasked on defending his isolated a-pawn and his exposed King. He can't really attack your King successfully with just a Rook because it can hide among your pawns. Eventually, you'll push you King and pawns forward, and smother his position. And the rapid mobility of your Queen will eventually cause him to drop pawns and/or his Rook.

It's important to recognize where you lost or potentially lost the game. The mark of a skilled player is that he or she will not drop pieces in the middle game. It's really that simple and about the only thing that's separating players rated 1800-1900 from players rated 1300-1400. You need to be able to attack with and defend 1-2 move tactical combos with 100% accuracy. And you need to be able to see 3-4 move tactical shots on a regular basis. The ability to use your pieces to initiate these combos and defend against them are what separates Class A and B players from Class C and D players. By the same token, this is why you'll easily beat players rated 1000 because you'll see simple forks, pins, and back-rank mates that aren't obvious to them, but are blatantly 100% obvious to you.

So for this game, you were doing just fine till 30. Nd3?? You played this move because you thought this would be a good move, forking his two Rooks. Against a skilled player, this move would have proved to be fatal, so it's important to recognize that, and make a better move in future games with a position like this. We'd all lose to players like Anand and Kasparov, but the difference is, would you last 30 moves or 35 moves? The longer you can maintain the equality or the lead is what distinguishes you as a skilled player. 

immortalgame,

Yes, beginners tend to play the opening fairly well, the endgame okay, and the middle game not so well. That's because their understanding of tactical shots and positional play isn't very developed yet.

I really think it's unfair to call this game "uninspired". The goal of playing Black is to maintain equality, neutralize White's starting tempo, and then counterattack for the win. Yes, watching a world champion like Kasparov would yield a much more dynamic game, but these are Class C and Class D players respectively. 1400 is a long ways from 2800!

Both White and Black played a very respectable and enjoyable game for their skill level :)

The focal points in this game are 15. Bd3? by White because he loses tempo and this is one of the very subtle reasons why he lost.

30. Nd3?? by Black should cost him a piece, but instead White finds himself down a point.

39. Nxa5?? by White is a blunder as well. He was probably just tired and didn't see that the pawn was defended by the Queen.

White needs to study these three moves and improve them in his next game.

Black needs to look at turns 30 and fix 40. Kf7? as there were better options available that would have led to a faster win.

Brandon with all due respect:

Regnskog is not a 1300 player and his skill level by chess.com standards is above your own.

Highest: 1801 (11 Oct 2008) For Long (Which is most like OTB)

Current: 1779 in Correspondence out of over 200 games!!

While your highest has been no greater than 1700 in any match type.  He is a skilled player to be sure, but since he can now play a game with no relevant errors, he needs to learn how to play more dynamically.  This must be the next step or he will never grow as a chess player.

So to treat him like a 1300 would just be a lack of reading comprehension.  He said in the first line of the post, "Yesterday I played my second OTB game."

This is not a new player by any stretch of the imagination and therefore should be treated as such. 

You are kidding right?  My suggested moves are much more dynamic, than the moves played.  And a +1.00 advantage is not more than sufficient unless you are playing with a computer, and even then it isn't always sufficient as there is always opportunity to draw my repetition in a lot of games.

You analyse to much by use of computer manic.  I wasn't talking about explosive sacrificial play.  I was talking about dynamic play.  The player himself called out certain moves as "passive" in his annotation! 

All I'm saying is play for dynamic positions like Geller did against Fischer. 

I was not criticizing the opening I was criticizing how the opening was played in his hands.  For instance look at the Kraminik match with Anand below and see the same opening in the hands of someone looking to play dynamically.

I think I see what you're saying immortalgamer. And it kind of made me look upon that game of mine in a new light. I see I didn't really give my opponent much chance to go wrong. It's a kind of interesting idea actually because it has nothing to do with the chess board as such but I am still convinced that I would have fared much better if I had kept this in mind during the game.

Though I wonder, would you always recommend this "approach"? I.e would I really want to "create a dynamic position" against Kasparov :) I thought that maybe this strategy might best be put to use when yours and your opponents ratings don't differ by so many points.

You said many lower ranked players had trouble with the middle game. But is it really dynamic play that defines the middle game? I'd never thought about it like that. I tend to like Karpovs ideas of minimizing the risk. I.e I prefer to solidify my position as much as I can and then slowly start building up against a weakness rather that play for tactics (though this will probably change when I actually SEE the tactics) et c. I think I might be missing the concept here but would you consider Karpovs play to be 'boring' or undynamic as well :)?

My experience is that the ability to handle complicated dynamic positions is certainly a feature of high-level play.

I've rarely seen players in the 1500s (or even in the 1700s) sacrifice pawns for initiative in a defensive position, if only because when they're able to do this, they don't stay at that level for long.

The ability to set problems to your opponent is certainly the key to winning in chess, whatever your level (see the way Anand has just beaten Kramnik by bringing him on his territory of complicated double-edged middle-games).

At lower levels, where tactics is still the main weakness, it certainly pays off to be able to put pressure on your opponent and build some attack to make a tactical mistake more likely. Most strong players do that.

First off let me say that I'm happy you took my post as constructive.  It was meant as such.  When looking at that game, if you were to take the rating points and make them invisible, I would have guessed the ratings to be much higher.  So let's throw ratings out the window, as I know you have a strong understanding of the game, whether your ratings reflect this fact or not.  We can agree that you know how to play.

So the question is this:  What is lacking in your game?  What can improve? 

When looking at that game I saw a lack of dynamic play, but was the play good?  Yes it was.  I saw a lack of chess problems on the board.  Which says to me that the game was simple to navigate through. 

It is my position that a chess game should have complication.  This is not to say that simplification nessasarly means without complication.  Karpov's games are mistakenly taken as simple and uncomplicated.  This is an error of understanding.

Even Kramnik said of Karpov:

Karpov has beaten me in Linares - 94, in that tournament he scored 11 of 13. I had a worse ending, but there was nothing tragic about it. I was making normal moves but I do not understand why there appears a lost position. Even after the game I could not understand anything, though I was in the top ten. It was one of the few games after which I had a feeling that I`m a fool and understand nothing in chess! This is a rare thing to happen with high-level chess players, usually at least you understand the reason of a loss. This moment is difficult to describe, but there is something imperceptible, a kind of Karpov`s spirit. - Vladimir Kramnik

So striving for this type of play is fine with me, but understand that the genius of Karpov isn't even understood by Kramnik!!

The classical argument for static positional play is to use Karpov as an inspiration for this type of play.  However, I didn't see your play as anything like Karpov.  Karpov is an amazing tactition!!  He creates traps all over, which are so shrouded in mystery people don't even know they are traps until the game is over.  I didn't see any of this in this particular game.  So don't assume because Karpov plays for long term positional advantage that his game are without complication.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

If you are striving to be like Karpov, I have no problem with this at all.  Just don't use him as a crutch when you play simplistically without complication.  As his games are anything but.

Example Below:

As for the moves I suggested in your game.  No I do not recommend they are played every time...I was just trying to make a distinction between a passive vs. dynamic move.

Personally I didn't find the suggested more "dynamic" way of playing the opening very dynamic. After 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 there is no reason to play 3...e6 at all.

Black chould play 3...c5 4.BxN gxf6 with two bishops for bad structure, or 3...Ne4 4.Bf4 c5. Also don't know what all the talk about semi-slav was about, white never played c4. So there was no semi-slav, or any ideas very sem-slavish really in the game.

Can you agree though that the game on the whole was passive.  Your opinion would hold a lot of weight since you are the strongest player to post to this thread.

When playing against QP openings, were white avoids c4, I have had problems myself getting active play. So don't think it is so easy for black to achieve this. Of course it is a good idea to have this aim. The most helpful comments on the game, were the ones which pointed out the tactical mistakes. I think the OP will get more immediate improvement concentrating on this.

                  By mostly eliminating blunders have reached Fide 2000, which is only medicore club level. Then a long time ago, I knew need to improve my calculation ability to be able to play a more dynamic game. Kotov described his efforts to do this in his Play like or Think like books, which is basically to get very complicated positions from Tal, Alekhine games and try to calculate has much variations himself, comparing his efforts with the players published annotations. I never had the work effic to actually do this myself. For this or other reasons playing dynamic chess has not really happened for me yet.