Thanks for your reply! Here are my move choice reasons and comments on my opponent's moves:
5.Ne4 threatens Black's c5 pawn, that Black has probably wanted to exchange for White's d pawn which is safe for now. Chances are that 5.Ne4 may mess up Black's plans, and also gives White the initiative since Black has to reply to threats instead of develop strategically or go for an attack.
5...e6 leaves Black's light squared bishop trapped, because while White has the initiative and plays forcing moves and until Black doesn't move the pawn from e6 (White didn't allow that until 15.Be2, when he already had an advantage), Black can't play the bishop along c8-h3, while playing it at the queenside is pointless because of White's light sqare copntrol there (the a2-c4 pawn chain consequence). Black brought it into play at 18...Bc6, when he already had a bad position. That bishop took no part at the opening, where it could have pinned a knight or done something else to help. Also, Black could have developed his dark squared bishop to g7 to control d4 and e5 (the latter square was very important for White in the game), as well as the a1-h8 diagonal that White played his bishop along in the middlegame, so opening the a3-f8 diagonal was not necessary.
About the queen: I prefer to use the queen as a defensive piece, and for supporting attacks from the back ranks (for pairing in a queen-rook battery or with a bishop ahead, so that I can exchange the other piece if my opponent challenges the control of the file/diagonal), so I had no intention bo bring it into play before my other pieces unless necessary (as when I exchanged it to hinder Black's knight's development). Also, after 4...Nxd5 the d file was semi open, and having a rook / queen on it was useful.
6.d4: Yes, I wrote he should play ...Nc6. But I would play Bb6 then, pinning his knight, and then c4 would have been even more effective.
About 6...f5: It doesn't matter how good the opponent is. At a certain position, it's up to a move choice, and if the opponent doesn't choose well, his overall skill is not important. You have to consider the board position, not your opponent. "Who is your opponent tonight, tonight I am playing against the black pieces", as Rubinstein said.
Anyway But how could Black take the initiative after 6...f5?
8...Nc6: Yes, I wrote Black should have played that before he lost a pawn. But 9...Qa5? loses a knight for two pawns to 10.Bd2 Qxc5 11.cxd5 Qxd5.
9.c4: Yes, mistakes are part of chess. If there were no mistakes, all games would be drawn (since a mistake is move that worsens the position by definition, and if the position doesn't go worse for either player, the game is a draw). That's why exploiting enemy's mistakes is how chess players win. There's no other way. This is actually what's "normal" at chess, and that's what every win is based upon. As Bobby Fischer said, "That's what chess is all about. One day you give your opponent a lesson, the next day he gives you one".
9...Nf6: If 9...Nb4, then 10.Qxd8+ Nxd8+ 11.Nd4. If 11...e5, then 12.Bd2. There's nothing for White to worry about.
13.Nxf7: Black could not attack e5 with a piece in case of 13.f4 Nxe5 14.fxe5. Trying to reposition his knight by ...h6, ...Ng5 will result in doubled g pawns for Black after Bxg5, and White will have control over f6 too. That's why 13.f4 should also be considered as a candidate move (although I didn't play it). There are two reasons for not choosing the best move: the first is not looking at all candidate moves, the second is miscalculating the one you play, and both of them are equally important.
19.g4: My aim was to open the kingside (since ...f4? loses a pawn immediately). Then I would have been able to use my pieces more effectively, because ...fxg4, fxg4 would open lines for them. This is what happened after 23...fxg4 24.fxg4 and the resulting piece exchanges and tactical combinations.
two things, would some one analyse the fried liver game i posted, and how bout this one
8. c3 looks, at first glance, antipositional. You need to develop your pieces, attack. The c3 square is needed for your knight. Nc3 is much more natural. After ...Bd7 his knight on d5 was hanging for several moves, also.
how bout th edouble exclam move ,does it deserve those
I dunno. What's your rating? At the level of 800-1000 maybe. Above that it's a simple one move tactic.
For annotated games, consider reading my blog post. I think it's pretty good.
read the annotations on it
Yeah... it definitely just swallowed my entire post, including two annotated games, into nothingness when I hit submit...
One of my games from the Chicago Class Championship (class D). I will hopefully post another good one tomorrow:
Thanks in advance for any help!
Here's a game I played today. It was a King Pawn Game: Wayward Queen Attack.
Well done, Glex. I actually played the man that 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 was named after (as it is more commonly known as the Parham Attack now). Unfortunately I played him as White and thus did not get the position I enjoy against this opening (and ended up getting slaughtered since he's a master and I'm class D).
I have to ask, is Qf6 a common response? To me it seems inferior to Nc6 or even Nf6.
Your annotations seem pretty spot on to me. Nothing I can add.
This is a game I finished today. I was playing the Black side of a quite unorthodox opening that turned into a Traxler-like game:
I've already read them. So?
Hello , I share with you this game fully anotated
Yesterday I learned about the Bxh7 Greek Sacrifice...I googled a few websites, watched a few games with bxh7, and I said to myself "I'm going to use it soon."
"Soon" came 24 hours later. Lately my chess is getting better thanks to dpruess lesson of "Maximum effort".
So, off I went. I played three unrated 1 minute games to warm up and then bang!, an unawared player asking for a 2 minute rated game..."I have this Greek Gift plan I'm gonna use it, if I can..."
Greek Sacrifice here it goes...
Try the Greek Gift Sacrifice Yourself!
Thanks for reading
Comments are always greatly appreciated.
consider the implications of said move
Think I'll post a game, how do you get it into the correct format?
This seems like a pretty good idea. Actually, it reminds me of “Chess Study Hall”, a group that was created recently for the sole purpose of having its members help each other analyze their games for instructional purposes. Group activity has slowed down a bit of late though, as our members seem to be a bit busy lately. It’s not so much the commenting that takes up time, but the posting of a self-annotated game. If you have the time to post a self-annotated game and you’d like input on your game and your annotations, feel free to join. There aren’t as many voices in that forum as there are in this one, but there are a number of members (like myself) who feel more comfortable analyzing games in the group forum (rather than in this one).
By the way, I’m aware of some sort of rule related to groups, but I’m not quite sure of the details. In any event, if the paragraph above is deemed inappropriate in any way, shape, or form, please let me know and I’ll delete my post promptly.
I think people are misunderstanding the term "amateurs". Most of the people posting their games here are beginners who need basic instruction/lessions and shouldn't be playing LIve Chess because it isn't going to help them.
@jetfighter13: I haven't actually looked at all of your annotations, but I just wanted to make a bit of a point here. I personally don't like using exclamation points and question marks to denote the strength or weakness of moves. It's a purely subjective matter and depends on who's annotating. What one person thinks is brilliant may be deemed by a stronger player to be obvious (and unworthy of an exclamation point). I generally like to let the annotated comments speak for themselves. For example, when I think that I played a good move, I might annotate it with something like "I really like this move. It does x, y, and z." Then, there's no doubt as to what I think about the move. But if you annotate it as Ne4! (fictitious example), you might interpret it as one thing, but someone else might interpret it differently.
Sorry for the long-winded post. What I'm trying to say is that you have to be careful when you use annotative symbols. Make sure that you back them up with an appropriate comment or you risk confusing readers.
@theunderground702: Understanding problems aside, I DO think that the OP was referring to beginners in the first post. As for Live Chess, I would argue that it has some use, if it is at a slow time control. You're right though: Blitz and Bullet games aren't for beginners, and should be played in moderation even by more advanced players.