We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

KageLord: Yes, 2...Qf6 is not a common response to the Parham attack. Usually 2...Nc6 followed by 3...g6 are played (often with 2.Bc4). A typical line could be:

pauix: Interesting game. Your opponent didn't have a good plan, because he could have omitted the pawn moves if he was going for the Fried Liver Attack or some similar variation. You got ahead in development, therefore you had a good counterattack

eaglejorge:  The Greek Gift is also known as The Classic Bishop Sacrifice  White exploits his kingside space control by using his pieces to attack before Black can reorganize and defend. Allowing the sacrifice is itself considered to be a mistake by Black, if White has prepared the requirements for it to be successful.

I want to add something about using signs such as ?, !, etc. as supplement to  moves in the annotoation. There are different conventional rules of using them, that, although not required to follow, can make move sign annotation more objective (for example, the Nunn Convention), or at least can be taken into account even if not used. Otherwise, sign usage is dependent on the annotator's view. In both cases, it is not very good to have more than 1-2 !! or ?? moves or more than 3-4 ! or ? moves, because the difference between move evaluation becomes unclear, and the reader doesn't know what to pay attention to. The main purpose of those signs is to mark significant moments in the game, and unless the game is very sharp or carelessly played, there shouldn't be many of them.

About the word "amateur": it can refer both to chess skill development degree (beginner, amateur, club level, etc.), or about a player's general approach to chess. "Amateur" could be also understood as "a person who doesn't professionally play chess, earns his living otherwise, plays chess only for fun and therefore can afford spending less time on studying it". Anyway, improving at chess usually requires studying it, but there is much difference in the way a professional and an amateur would annotate the same game, even if they are equally skilled. Professional annotation would omit much of the explanations (especially those of "book" moves that have already been studied and are considered by the general opinion to lead to equality) and use established (even if rare) terms, so it would be not very educational. I think that from a thoroughly annotated game, even a game including mistakes (that have been pointed out, of course, explained why they are incorrect and how the opponent can exploit them), a general chess fan can learn much more than from exploring a game with non-detailed annotation, even if it contains no significant errors. That's because it will teach a way of reasoning instead of giving a correct, but particular, move choice.

I played another Parham Attack today. It was short, but it managed to include many themes that are distinctive to those games. Here it is:

Nice game, but I feel that black has no apparent weakness if he played 6...Bg7 and 7...0-0, with a setup similar to the King's Indian Defense. Anyways, you always made a good use of his mistakes, well done!

Yes, he could have hurried up with the ...0-0. He could have played 5...Bg7, 6...0-0 and he would have had a better game maybe (although it's not good to castle very early), unless he allows a kingside attack. But I think his main mistake was the light square bishop exchange. If he hadn't done it, he would have had much less trouble, and if he had castled but had made the exchange, he would've come up with a similar to this game's situation

We can have some game. You'll probably win since you're much higher rated, but it will at least be interesting to play

Against 1.e4 I usually play 1...c6, 1...Nf6, 1...g6, or 1...c5 (in order of preference ). I play all of them relatively equally well, and I prefer to alternate them so that I can play different pawn structures (my opponents also have different replies), and not to get very used to a single one while neglecting others. This way I can see different White's strategies too that my opponents play.

I will try to analyze your game and post it

I think 18. Kh2 was to give an extra defender to the pawns, and kind of a waiting move because he had finished development and hadn't got a clear target.

A game I just played. I get quickly a strong attack and checkmate.

Comments and help are very appreciated.

This is a game I played earlier today:

Any feedback is much appreciated!

Thanks,

Jason

Thanks for your analysis! I didn't notice 11. Qh5+ was even a better move. I missed the moves to gain the most material, so I think I was quite lucky he couldn't find the best response to my checks. Did I play other incorrect moves you think? (I never went to a chess club or something)

Good analysis. I think you'd better develloped your bishop to d3 immediately. Now it took you 2 extra moves to get on that diagonal. For the rest, nice game and well found draw by repitition.

hmm... well played but I think Bc4 was a slight positional blunder.  You should have played c4 and d5 to open up the d-file and take andvantage of the weak d6 square.

You played very good Jason. But I think rather than rook sacrifice you could have possibly moved f4 to challenge black pawn because black queen was not on king side and there was no immediate possibility of king side attack and queen side was closed at that moment.

Even though black could have advanced the pawn still it would provide white more space to play with.

These are just my thoughts and I'm an amateur so sorry if I am missing something.

After 4.Nxe4, this is the Caro formation which arises from the French Defense and some other openings. The d and e files are semi-open; Black has exchanged his d pawn for White's e pawn; White has a 4th rank pawn on the d file, and Black has no 5th rank pawn.

There are different possible game plans for White. If Black plays passively (he doesn't prepare a ...c5 or an ...e5 break), the easiest plan for White is a kingside attack, because he is not challenged for center control and can use the e5 square as an outpost - relocating a rook with Re1-e5 (possibly h5 too), placing a knight at e5. The other rook can be lifted and placed along the h file. A good pawn break is h4-h5.

White can also prepare a d4-d5 break with g3, Bg2, rooks at d1 and e1, queen and bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal.

Black can establish counterplay with a ...c5 or an ...e5 pawn break. That can lead to opening the center and giving more opportunities to Black.

In the game you played, you used the Re1-e5-h5 and Re1-h3 rook lifts, and the h4-h5 pawn push, which are all a part of the kingside attack strategy. Your kingside attack was not enough effective for you to win, because you had exchanged many pieces before it, and started it relatively late (at the 20.Rxe5 position the two knights pairs and dark squared bishops pair had been exchanged while you hadn't made an attack yet), so you had difficulty to exploit your kingside space advantage. At the Caro formation, Black's piece play is often blocked by his pawns, especially his light squared bishop, and if White manages to tie them to defending the center or the queenside (by making Black defend against a possible d5 push for example), he can use his space advantage to launch kingside pawn pushes without allowing many piece exchanges. You could have played c4, Nc3 and Bd3 early, castle kingside and bring rooks to the d and e files. Then if a d5 break would have resulted in a good position for you, you could play it, otherwise lift the rooks and play a h pawn push. Of course, it depends on what Black would have played as a response.

Anyway, you had a better than Black's game until the 29th move (that's because he didn't initiate any counterplay). After 28...Qc7, Black had a bad light squared bishop (a common feature in the Caro that he didn't manage to cope with), while material was equal, he had a kingside pawn majority, and you - a queenside one. Black had a worse position, because of his bad bishop that couldn't have supported a pawn push (since all but your a pawn were on dark squares), while you could have prepared f4-f5 by, for example, f4, Qf3, g4 and then f5. You would have got an open e file at least, and maybe an even bigger kingside liquidation, and you should have a better game after that. In case Black had repositioned his bishop to guard f5 (or has organised another prevention), you could have prepared a c4 push by b3 and Bd3, which would also have allowed you to maintain the f5 push threat, and Black wouldn't have been able to defend both. Anyway, a draw is probably not a bad result too, because many pawn exchanges could have freed Black's bishop and improved his position. But he wouldn't have been able to prepare them himself from the 28...Qc7 position, so he didn't have good winning chances.

What implications?  I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.  You asked me if it deserved the double exclam you gave it.  I'm saying at the level of 800-1000, maybe one exclam.  Above that it's a simple one move tactic and really, IMO, shouldn't be getting an exclam.  Sorry to burst your bubble. 

what do you all think about this game

in a diagram please

White's game was literally full of mistakes, beginning with 2.a4? that loosens control over the b4 square and has no clear purpose so early in the game, but lets Black take the initiative instead. 9.Nxd5?? is pointless and losing material. From White's 11th to his 23rd move all were either pointless, leading to a worse position or a simple waste of time (his queen's rook and light squared bishop travels) while his king was under pressure. 24.Rg2, 25.Qxf3, 26.Rbg1, 27.Rxg2 were all forced and were leading to a forced checkmate that Black missed by 27.Rh7?! instead of 27.Rxh2! Kxh2 28.Rh8+ Kg1 29. Qd1+ Be1 30.Qxe1#.

On the other hand, Black could have also performed better. 6.g6?! and 7.Bg7?! resulted in a blocked dark squared bishop for Black, while he could have deployed it to b4 (that had been weakened by 2.a4?) to keep it in play. 8.0-0-0? was dangerous, having in mind that White had both of his bishops (and one move later his queen too) attacking the queenside, and that White had an advanced a pawn that he could have successfully used in an attack against Black's king, starting with 9.a5! instead of the strange 9.Nxd5?, then b4-b5 and bringing his king's rook to the queenside too. (Also, Black's king's bishop would hinder his rooks' play at the kingside, which was one more reason for Black not to castle queenside in addition to compromising his king safety.) That didn't happen though, as White went for a hardly explainable fourteen move streak instead, that led to his loss.

Here's my analysis of KageLord's game:

some one analyse this one, has a queen sac ( a horid one at that) and it features a histerical mate i won it of course, but should have lost. This Game is King Lenny Approved