Vicariously-I (2200) vs Daybreak57 (1500) Game Analysis

                                                                       Game 2

This game was pretty sharp so it's not at all surprising that we both missed a lot of the engine lines.

To recap:

1) You don't want to allow the e-file to open up when your King is still on e1 and when there aren't any pieces in front of your King for protection.

2) In sharp positions piece activity and initiative are much more important than material. On move 15 I avoided taking the pawn on e5 because I realized that even though I win a pawn, my King would be very vulnerable to all of your active pieces. Going after my b-pawn starting on move 18 was a mistake because this wasted time and allowed me to accelerate my attack using the open b-file. When Kings are castled on opposite sides it's often a good idea to give up a pawn or 2 in order to open up lines towards your opponent's King.

Here's an interesting game that might give you some ideas in the future:

Thank you. Great chess being played here! Awesome game that second one!

Ok well I think "toxic mentality" is a bit much. I think he should be commended, not put down for figuring out what I want to do and trying to stop my ideas. Chess is a battle between pushing your own ideas and stopping your opponent's ideas. He just maybe doesn't have the experience to know when it's good and when it's not so good to react to your opponent.  Many players don't react to their opponent's ideas at all and just focus on their own ideas. This is also not good. It's about finding the right balance and you can get better at this over time.

Michael's Reply #6 was just what I was thinking. That balance of acting and reacting. When I react, my plans get put on hold for that particular move. When I act, I'm moving forward, a step closer to winning. But if my defense is not good, my opponent's ACT-ions checkmates me. I can't win by reacting all the time. The game will end in a draw or stalemate. Another factor is the one extra step tempo White gets by starting first. But as Magnus and Fabio has shown, playing white can be a disadvantage especially that double white game that the champ had to go through. I normally go for the Najdorf as Black with a white e4.

I'm now hooked on to the 3-pawned Samisch. I like the strong center with the 3-pawns advance but was struggling to find the proper solution to protect the King's pawn. So the secret is Nc3 and f3. Aha! I also like a pointed structure with d5 but that creates two holes. The standard attacking square for Black to attack seems to be b5. Defense should be Bc1 immobilizing the Black Knight's move to squares. Ok I'll try to remember that. Boy, that Konstantin vs Nikolai game got me hooked. Only one exchange in 30 moves! Jeez... Russian players!

Actually, on second thought, there need not be three pawns in the center. Two center pawns with a one square gap in between the pawns is enough to cover the four center squares ahead of it.

I must confess that I often do make passive moves in many of my games.  A long time ago someone told me my mentality for coming up with chess moves was bad.  This person, of course, was at around my rating and preferred a very different opening than one that might be called conventional.  I chalked it up to him not liking how I beat him even when he was using his gimmick opening, but I now look back and see that maybe perhaps there was a grain of truth to his assessment to my chess playing ability.  

I've been told before that one should strive to learn to defend actively rather than passively, however, I do not believe just telling me this will help.  I have to "practice" thinking actively when defending positions, and also in general.  I didn't like moving the rook to B1, though I picked the first move that came to my head, thus another bad habit I learned these past 18 years of playing chess only speed chess.

I said in another post that playing only speed chess has greatly improved my speed, however, at the same time, I am prone to missing tactics, strategical ideas, way to avoid a draw and win, etc.  Granted I know this was a 5-day game but I must admit I blitzed most of these moves out.  I need to start taking my time making moves in these 3-day games, and writing notes and use the analysis board more often.  

The lesson was helpful because when I realized I blundered away a pawn and saw your rook sac, I never considered the possibility of not taking it.  Why?  Because I thought merely that this exchange was good for me because you where sacing the exchange.  I never thought of considering if you were doing this on purpose.  In hindsight, I realize that of course, you had to be doing it on purpose because you did it, but I never considered not taking it nonetheless, which is another thing I should change.  I should always consider why someone is making an exchange sac.  I often do not consider good moves good.  When you moved your queen to b6 you won me over psychologically because, for whatever reason, thought it was a "bad move," for lack of a better term.  I never considered why you made that move, instead, I just let myself feel superior to you in the game, and it turns out that this move was the beginning of my demise, ironically.  I recall a game where I played OTB and I thought my opponent made a dumb move, and in turn, I lost the game because he was actually doing a cheapo to win a pawn and I let myself feel so high and mighty that I didn't bother to consider "why."  

So, my biggest problem is not considering why the last move was made, and instead, at times, feeling superior when I think my opponent made a "dumb move."  I once played another correspondence game, where I felt, I was playing better chess because my opponent was making what I thought to be "simple" moves, easy to parry, but it turned out after all the exchanges he was ahead.   

I need to limit my speed chess, and start processing the why behind my opponents moves after every move.  I need to make that a habit.  It's hard sometimes because I am sometimes just mindlessly playing the opening (especially in correspondence chess) and then all of a sudden, bam there is a tactic and I lose!

So yeah, this analysis of my game was helpful.  I don't normally play this opening, I just wanted to see what you would do against a person who pushes a lot of pawns, and now I see.  I learned a while back that it is often better to preserve the pawn tension and now I see that is still the case, even in this opening, or in the Pirc.  I don't know why I thought I had to take the knight on b4, I was just so scared of a knight of b4 because someone told me a knight on b4 was a valuable asset, however, I doubted that at first because what if I can make it to where there are no pieces being attacked by the knight?  I see now that I was correct, and that stronger player was possibly wrong.  I don't know why I listened.  Interestingly enough after he told me about a knight on b4 is a great asset "all the time..." he changed his name and deleted all his passed forum topics.  Weird reason to hide.  I guess he thought I was a troll, and wanted to be "protected?"  I don't know... but anyway I thought it was weird and a stupid thing to do.  Okay back to the topic!  I must learn to defend actively when possible.  I do recall a game I played over in a video, and in the video he showed how a greedy pawn grab like that could be a bad idea, and here I go I have a position like that and I fail to remember ideas like "trying to trap the queen when they try and take the b pawn."  So another problem is I am not using all of the knowledge I have about chess.  One guy I know of in the forums always says that getting good at chess is not about gaining knowledge it's about gaining skills, and skills are the ability to use that knowledge base that you have.  In other words, if you don't practice what you know you won't really "know" it, and you will eventually forget it.

In my defense, I am not so familiar with your style of play.  I'd like to see how in our next game your game will resemble a person I used to play against on a regular basis who chose your opening 1 Nf3 most of the time.  I guess you can play the Reti or the Catalan, and I have an idea about those openings.  Okay, I may have some idea, but, I will say that sometimes I have no idea what to do when someone opts to play the way you play as black and as white.  So I ask, how would I go about improving this aspect of my chess growth?  Should I just study master games in that position?  Thanks for the game btw, I will enjoy studying it.  I'm going to download this one and put it in my files.

All and I the biggest takeaway from this is to learn to defend more actively rather than passively, and a second takeaway is to just develop the habit of looking at why my opponent made his last move, with every move, and not feel all superior when I think my opponent made a dumb move.  9 times out of ten when I think my opponent made a dumb move (I thought your sacing the exchange was a dumb move and felt initially that had I of moved my king out of the way of the discovery instead of moving my knight back and forth, I had a chance, but apparently, I did not.  Thank you, I would have never seen all of this had you not of taken the time to analyze this game for me. 

I'm going to devote more and more time each day to chess because I want to improve!  After we play 4 more games including the one we are playing now I will post the 5 games in my blog.  Your welcome to see what I have to say about my analysis of the positions prior to what you told me if you want.  Again, I can't thank you enough.  I expect to learn a lot from you about people who chose to play the way you play.

@ezani

I don't know if I would recommend playing the Sämisch. I think at your level you should work on more classical chess development. You can give it a try if it's something that really interests you but it's an opening where you can get into trouble if you don't know what you're doing.

@Daybreak57

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes I think you would improve faster if you limit speed chess and focus more on long time control games. Correspondence games are very good for improving because you can take as much time as you want to really think things through and apply what you've learned. I've mostly played correspondence chess and I always take my time when I'm not sure about the position. That's how I've improved. Another great way to improve is using a chess database. You can see how masters play certain positions and how the game develops. You can learn new ideas this way. 

Thanks for the advice, Michael Holm!

Game 2 has been added.