We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

This was a cruel game, with mate in twelve moves. White played naturally but fell into a nasty trap against an unfamiliar opening, one of my favorites, a blast from the past known as Chigorin's Defense.

I'll need some help with this game. I felt quite lost during some phases and I don't know if I won because my opponent blundered:

Why didn't you play d5 first?

I think 3...Nf6 is more common in this variation. 

3...Bg4 is more passive. This opening is actually very solid.

This is even played at grandmaster level by bold players:

This was a short game against my opponent. 

My sacrifice was really bad, but I managed to pull through after he lost tempo moving his queen.

A much better game:

3. .. Nf6 invites cxd5. Maybe it's a book line, but I don't see a good continuation for Black. Do you?

Yes, Chigorin's is very solid, and I feel underplayed.

Bg4 puts pressure on the d-pawn, but Bf5 looks for a fork.

Comments added, as always

Bb4 really doesn't help black that much. Even if I messed up a tiny bit I would still have a better endgame.

The rest I agree with.

My mistake. It seems 3...e6 fixes all your issues.

What game are you commenting on?

At least you're not giving 17...Bb4 and exclamation mark.

The truth is that black should have resigned after the queen capture.

This is one of those positions where the knights simply dominate.

Hello, This is a game I played using online chess.

Annotated. 3 days per move if I remember.

I hope you enjoy it, comments, ideas and suggestions are welcomed and much appreciated.

I agree your opponent was too passive with all the curious one-square pawn moves. This may not be the best game to analyze because your opponent, even though rated higher, was playing at a lower level. Brains fluctuate in strength and it may be he was tired or otherwise indisposed.

8. Bg6+ was excellent, but I don't know why you retreated that bishop a move later. Unless Black is setting up a trap for it or attacking it, let it stay a thorn in Black's side.

Even the computer missed this sacrifice. 

After I entered it and tried different variations it all lead to a huge advantage.

The focal points are e6, d6, d7, f7, g8, and g7 depending on how black plays.

Here is my game with a nice knight sacrifice on f2:

Rybka spotted this in about two seconds. Kind of a bummer.

Talapia,

As I said the grob is not losing (white has a small advantage with the first move) but it is weakening and white loses the advantage of the first move if black plays intellgently he at the very least equalizes and has good chances of winning (at least equal to whites). 
in blitz yes anything works but blitz results should NEVER be considered a validation of anything. Its just fun. The discussion is if the opening is valid in a serious game and its not i white wants to try and play for an advantage.  Other players have studied the opening that are stronger than you or I. Multiple GMs give systems that are equalizing or give black a good game against the grob. (I really like Big book of busts for a template against these types of wacky openings) 

your idea that you are going to trick black and refute their study by playing something obscure is also flawed. White is the one wasting time as well. Black only needs to study 1 line that will equalize or challenge white. THis is just part of ANY opening repertiore and no different than studying for white playing c4 or d4 or anything else. Infact I often EXPECT crazy stuff at the amateur level because they have this mentality so your surprise value is diminshed.

As I have mentioned in multiple other posts the problem arises when your have invested a lot of energy and time into a system that will not lead to results later and the structures can not be applied to other mainline systems. Your invested time will lead to greater frustration later when your results drop and you need to start playing serious lines and have to start from scratch. 

Going over things with computers is misleading they show us how to hold things together tactically but in  away that makes no sense to humans. Players drift then the position degrades and they lose... and then poin t at the computer to say look I could have done "ok" if I played this... 

The highest level Grobber I'm aware of is IM Michael Basman, and he grobbed at the London Open. Look him up on Wikipedia. He wrote a book called "The Killer Grob," with many games against his peers that you might like to peruse (or not), which I have looked over briefly. His book is a bit terse for my taste, mostly a collection of games without as much explanation as I would prefer. I really liked Edward Lasker's style of writing.

At my level of play, which does not even come close to Master--and never will--I am perfectly safe playing Grob every game, and this has been proven by experience. If Grob didn't work for me, believe me, I'd forget it in a heartbeat. I've abandoned other openings, like the Brooklyn Defense. I seldom play the Latvian Gambit anymore, although it is nice to bring out once in a while for the sake of nostalgia. If White is not aware of the Latvian, then it can be a potent weapon for Black to seize the advantage. An older chessplayer's depth of knowledge can counter the higher calculating speed of youth to some extent.

Now if one is a serious player with pretentions of becoming a Master, then perhaps one had better pick and choose his openings with greater care than me. But if you go with the usual lines, then you also run the risk of encountering novelties or a player with greater depth of memory than yourself. Also, for me, boredom can be a problem when every game looks more or less the same. I can't watch Sicilians anymore because that was about all my brother ever played.

My brother used to sit in his room all day studying the openings. He can identify every major variation of every major and most of the minor openings. He hates the Grob, but I think it is mainly because there are no lines to study, no magazine articles about it, no endorsement from a big name. To me, that is a strength. I kind of like pioneering uncharted territory, even if it isn't the most fruitful territory. At least my lines are my own. I'm not copying any of Michael Basman's lines, to my knowledge, with the exception of 1. g4. I don't think he ever organized any lines, or he hasn't revealed them.

For whatever reasons, I get better results with the Grob than with many other openings, particularly in blitz where it can be devastating, and blitz is extremely popular online so I don't know how anyone can avoid playing it. It is about ten times easier to find an open blitz game than an open standard game online.

I confess that in 3-day per side games, for some reason I have not had any luck at all, so far, with the Grob. So it appears when Black is not under any time pressure, my resutls are not as good, and the reasons for that are not entirely clear to me, although it gives credence to your position. I think I buy the argument that 1. e4 is stronger than 1. g4, because the castling position remains uncompromised, control over the center is asserted, and the Queen can become active. You do not have to persuade me. I also buy the argument that 1. f3 is probably the worst first move White can play. Nevertheless, I play both 1. f3 and 1. g4 on a regular basis because I like the novelty of it, exploring different types of games. And at my level I really get about the same results as if I had played 1. e4, d4, or c4, the "big three" that all the GM's endorse. I couldn't beat a GM no matter what I played, let alone a Master.