We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

Qb3 is even faster.great game

Very nice games, very well played and also very well annotated.

In the first game, I was at first wondering how would you make use of your dark squared bishop, and I liked how well you managed to do so with the e3-e4 break and Be3, allowing the bishop to play along the g1-h7 diagonal, including the winning skewer 28.Bb6. You had very good coordination between pawn structure and pieces' play in general, and that is something that inevitably brings success, especially with the proper exploitation of your opponent's strategical weaknesses.

In the second game I liked the way you created your attacking chances by opening the appropriate lines for your pieces and developing quickly, also with sacrificing a non-important side pawn for better development. Your attack was inevitable with such a positional advantage you created, while your opponent didn't manage to have any compensation in the pawn won.

In the game you lost, I think 29...fxe5 was the major mistake, because it weakened g5. As you said, 29...dxe5 would have been better. It would have guarded g5 witn one more pawn, and would have also allowed your queenside pieces to take part in the game, because the pawn on d6 was blocking the 6th rank for your queen and queen's rook to defend g6 or to relocate to the kingside. A rook exchange after 29...dxe5 would also have allowed you to bring your queen's rook to a more active position on the open d file. About this game, I think you could have also tried 35...Rh8 instead of 35...Nf6, so that you would have had f6 free to play Bf6 at some point, especially to block a possible rook check along the f file after a rook lift (with your queen on e8 and a knight on h7), while the knight on h7 would have been one more defender of g5.

In the last game, you managed to put an end to White's attack and to counterattack in such a way that he was unable to defend. Your opponent exchanged his active pieces too early, and you also managed to win material while you kept a solid pawn structure against White's weakened one. So at one point of the game White had no obvious way to make progress, and had to defend instead, with a worse position and being behind in material.

Congratulations both about the games and about sharing your in-game thoughts with the annotation which I think is even much more valuable than showing the games by themselves. I have enjoyed them and I have learnt much in the same time.

For your second game, I feel that you should have been more aggressive against black's passive opening.  Also, you traded the dark square bishop prematurely. You should have waited until black committed to castling king's side before making the trade in order to exploit the weak dark squares around his king (which was probably what you were thinking when you went for the trade).  If he castles queen's side, you should probably avoid the trade all together since you have a space advantage.

Hey, here is another for your consideration

Very enjoyable, and one of my first attempts at notating my games.

I prefer the French now, but I used to play the Caro-Kann quite a bit (who knows, might take it up again someday).  This is an old loss of mine.  The Panov-Botvinnik Attack's a real pain for any Kann player and well...I blundered here, I blundered there

@joejoe

1. I disagree with your comment that black should have played 1.e5, since the pawn can simply be taken by your knight.  Black needs to defend the e5 square before making a two square advance of his e-pawn.

2. Again, I disagree with your suggestion that 2.e5 would have been better for black, since the square is still undefended and attacked by your knight.  Also, black's 2.Nf6 is completely fine. It was a developing move.

3. I don't get what you mean by "but it is really too late for him to take control of these squares," referring to the 3.Nc6 move by black.  That's a good place to develop the knight and attacks the e5 square, which is a potential outpost for the white knight on f3.  The only down side is that it blocks the c-pawn from advancing and influencing the center.

etc.  It seems like you annotated every single move of the game.  I wish I were as patient.

i notice i did make a few bad annotations, it was late so i missed a few moves. i also didnt annotate the variations, which i am not sure are actually correct, i believe one left the black queen hanging at one point(like i said i was tired.) ill try making more when i have another good game. also the reason i annotated every move is because it was like a 20 move game.

Annotating every single move seems a little overly-detailed.  Some moves are perfectly self-explanatory, no?

I wasn't condemning the fact that you annotated every move.  Regardless of whether your annotations were sound or dubious, it shows that you put a lot of thought into the game.  I was just making fun of myself for how I only commented on the first few before running out of gas.

@joseph

After your move 17.Rae8, White could have responded 18.Qxe8.

Thanks, Kens_Mom.  I didn't see that in the game or afterwards.  I guess that is why we have this forum- so we can see all the mistakes we made in the games and where we could have done better.

 I actually think it is far better for us lower ranked people to try to explain every move. How many low ranked people don't know why moves in openings are made outside of "That is the next move in the opening".

By annotating every single move he is 1) forcing himself to think about every move and why he made it, followed by if it was correct 2) it allows other people to show him where his thinking is flawed. If some basic/early moves are explained wrong or show a bad line of reasoning, those corrections could improve his abilities significantly.

Also I don't think it is safe to assume many moves are self-explaintory to lower rating players. I know there are times I'm looking through games and see unannotated moves and all I can really think about it is "certainly doesn't seem bad" but at the same time I may not know why it was made or why it was a good choice there.

I actually wish this site had a few move by move fully annotated master games as learning tools.

I can see where you're coming from.  Still, some people probably won't relish the whole idea of being "spoonfed" since it has the probability to cause them to feel like idiots when they're having the obvious (at least the obvious to them) explained at length.

Here is a game of mine where some improvements can be made.

one idea that comes to mind is that on move 16 instead of castling, moving the king to d2 instead. This probably is viable seeing as the queens are off the board and further simplification likely. This moves the king closer to the center for the endgame and achieves the same purpose for the rook as would castling.

Also allowing rook penetration on the 7th rank was definitely one of the reasons you lost. (note that a king on c2 would have prevented this and allowed you to challenge blacks control of the only open file.

At move 34 you had a draw with a perpetual cycle of checks as trying to retreat the king to safety gives white a win.

Looking at it you are correct as 16. Kd2 forces the Knight to give ground either at e5 swapping and resulting in a weak pawn of by retreating to allow the Bishop to hit at a4. Also the checks were what I posed in my annotation on move 34 but failed to see the perpetual eventually. thank you for bringing up both valid points there.

Another game by me :)

FORMERLY SCANDI17.

In this game, if you already saw it, I feel Black's move that killed him is Qg6 as this allows me to fix up my pawn structure. If he exchanged instead of playing Qg6, I think he would be able to exploit my isolated pawn in endgame and go on to win. Even at that point where he exchanges, I feel I dont have much attacking options as his pawn structure is quite solid whereas Qg6 allows me to fix up my pawn structure and give me counterplay. 

Oh well, that's my game. Look out for more in the future! :)