what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?

So the book I ordered probably covers the same ground as the Middlegame Essentials? That's cool, hate to buy two books that cover the same ground. :)

I'll search out those articles you mention... Peace

Good luck in tomorrow's game!

sure does. Book you bought is very serious, very much more detailed variant of the essentials book. Def no need to but the Essentials book when you have this one, as they are almost twins, just the one you bought is an older, more comprehensive twin. Chapter headings are almost the same, just the one you have has more examples, etc. I realize none of the reviews say that, but that's what it is. Book you bought is awesome. I never read it, O never read a chess book) but I see it in the library, beside the Essentials book. I'm about to crack open the essentials book today or tomorrow. 

Def look for Heisman's articles on hand waving. Here's the first. In a way, its an introduction to this awesome thread of ours!  http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman111.pdf

thanks jojojopo. I'm excited about it, especially that it will give me another game to post here! ok, I'm about to sign off, and go to the tactics trainer for the next fifteen minutes, until the game. 

my opponent this morning was no show also. two no shows in a row. wins by forfeit. not much to analyze. I'm going to review. 

...13 should have Rf6 defending e6

...30 Rc8 was blunder. I thought I was targetting Q, but now I see I was removing second defender off off twice attacked N. If I had left Rd8, I would not be down a piece. When I Rc8 I had not looked at the whole board, and had not seen the B lurking on g2

I made a quick review of your game. I didn't have time to review it all, but I give my impression and a few things that may (or not :P) be useful. But first, I want to ask you a question, what was the time control of the game?

And another thing, I read that you were "half-playing" that game, meaning that you didn't take it seriously (you said you were reading the forum while playing). I once heard the following: Do you imagine Kasparov (or any other World Champion) explaining a dubious move he made saying 'I wasn't really giving the game too much attention, I don't know why I played that'? I think that you do not have to allow yourself to play your games, any game, without your full atention and without trying your best. At least, if you don't want to be a casual player.

I hope this helps, at least give you something to think about!

yes, jojojopo. I was just angry, really, that I had a scheduled game last night, and the guy didn't show up. so I was really looking forward to this morning, and then I waited forty minutes. And he didn't show up. and so I went into this live game with a bad mindset. Yes, I should not play when I have this mindset, or any mindset other than wanting to win. what I really wanted to do this morning was swear at the opponent for not showing up. He ended messaging me an hour later saying he lost track of the time. At least last night the player messaged me saying he had a new job, and coulnd't make it, and cou;ldn't even reschedule.

but yes, this is hardly a game I gave my full attention to. but still, I believe there are probably things to learn from it. But we shouldn't put the same amt of energy into it as, say, the game I'm going to play at the chess club otb this Monday night. 

NOw I'm going to look at your notes. 

I didn't think of that! You could have tried to take with the h-pawn, castle long and then attack through the h-file.

@jojojopo  (and please, someone TELL me how to take jojojopo's annotations, make my own comment to his annotations in the pgn file, and then return that pgn file to the thread. I tried to do it and cou;dn't figure out how. Please someone walk me through it. jojojopo, how did you take my game, an dre-annotate it, and re-insert it into your post? That's what I want to do, and I tried, but couldn't. thnx). 

4. Bf5, oh No, that was just a typo. Of course. I meant 'not Bg4 because of h3'. Your suggestion of BxN is interesting. I hadn't thought of that as a bad bishop, in fact, my understanding is that outside of the pawn chain is precisely what makes it a 'good' bishop' if we must use such terms. So I wouldn't be rushing to get rid of it. I think of a bishop caught inside a pawn chain as a bad bishop, not this case. 

Your suggestion of 6...Ne4 is very interesting. I would have had to anticipate white's Nh4, and, still thinking maximally of 'knights on the rim are dim' I didn't even presume that white would make such a 'stupid' move as Nh4, putting his knight on the rim. So again, Jaglavak's diagnosis of maxim-blindedness, and Yaroslavl's admonitions to calculate any and every threat, no matter how improbable, is what's needed here.

 8. fxg. I don't think yet of backward pawns or hanging pawns; that's just not part of my repertoire yet.

Regarding fxg, I only thought of a silver lining to the loss of the bishop in a Rook on an half open f file.

Yes, I mention taking toard the centre in my annotation. I was aware of it during the game too. I decided that I wanted an open file for my rook, and saw it as the silver lining to exchanging off of the bishop.

again, not to belabour this, but nobody makes me follow maxims, and nobody makes me ignore maxims. I think Jaglavak is definitely onto something about his targetting maxim think, and I don't want to discuss this any more on this thread. If anybody disagrees, they should read Heisman on 'hand waving', which I provide links to several times in earlier posts, and if anyone wants to argue with Heisman about hand waving or with Jaglavak about maximspeak please do it elsewhere. 

My agreement in principle with Jaglavak is not the result of an coercion, of course. It is the result of an intellectual appraisal of his diagnosis as bullseye. 

The time control was, I believe, 45/45. 

11.dxe4 I'd really like to hear from Yaroslavl and Jaglavak and others about this issue of the center pawn contact. Yaroslavl can direct me to pertinent material on pawn structures, and Jaglavak can correct my thinking and my assumptions and my fears. I see center pawn contact as, as you say, something that I go into blind, or sort of with my eyes closed. 

Your suggestion of the line taking with the knight then 12.cxd5 Nxc3 etc. is interesting. The other of course, is text.

13...Qf6, yes I wrote something to that effect in a later post, I think I wrote Rf6. Which is better Rf6, or Qf6, or Qe7? I don't know yet. I imagine, seat of pants Rf6 or Qe7 is best. But I need to look at it with a board and not seat of pants.  

!5.."somehow extending the game now that you are a pawn down...something of disgust and resentment and hopelessness and tiredness. Yes. And these 'psychological' factors are things I will have to also strengthen in order to become better. I imagine and hope I'm not alone in this!

Thanks, I'll put that on my Amazon list :) Appreciate the insight. I forget the thread, but another poster was touting the Averbach Chess Tactics book so it's funny I had ordered it before even reading this thread. Seems like a lot of people are finding that book useful.

yes, and I know it is mostly correct, I just thought that here might be one of the 'exceptions'. I thought I would definitely castle short, because of another incorrectly understood but nevertheless remembered maxim, that you attack to the side of the board your centre pawns are pointing, a Jeremy Silman maxim. However, in this case, the maxim was incorrectly remembered, (it involves locked centre pawns pointing, not any which centre pawns pointing) so I assumed that since my centre pawns were pointing to the queenside, I would want to castle short, and so I anticipated my king rook on f8 and a juicy half open file due to ...fxg. I don't think that was a serious error, however. I think that failing to protect the e pawn was a much more serious error, and one which I could have easily handled better. And the critical error which cost the game was the unforced blunder losing the knight. 

by the way, jojojopo, in case I didn't say it already, thanks :). I appreciated your notes, and your generosity. I followed every word you said, and every move you proposed. 

"Regarding fxg, I only thought of a silver lining to the loss of the bishop in a Rook on an half open f file"

But taking with the h pawn would have opened up the h file for your rook immediately without having to castle kingside to get the rook into play.... just a thought. When I play the London the opponent often goes after the "London Bishop" I usually back it up to g3, that way if they take I can retake with the h pawn and immediately open up the h file for my rook. If they then castle kingside the rook is in fine position.Once your opponent castled you would have had a rook starring down on h2. Get your Queen there and you've got a good chance at mate....

I think you might have been worried about castling kingside without the h pawn there.... but you don't have to castle kingside. If castling long is advantageous it's a prefectly acceptable move. Just my opinion, I'm no expert. Just learning myself. :) Peace

thanks, and peace. Yah, no I wrote above that I thought I 'had to' castle kingside because I was thinking I 'had to' mount an attack via the Q side, due to the incorrectly applied maxim of pawn pointing. 

And, as you point out, I was indeed thinking that taking with the h pawn would weaken the kingside castle...that was even more argument to fxg.

I guess all beginners have to at some point come to grips with the fact that their games are comedies of errors, comedies or ridiculous assumptions, ridiculous half truths, etc. 

I'm going to give this thread a trainload of ridiculous play. 

and then I'm going to kickyerass to kingdomcome.  

(about your game against dbequer) i think moving the King ''to participate'' was a mistake hhhahaha - in the move 30. u can see yourself why was it a mistake. btw your opening was weird although he let you in peace:D..

@somebodysson

(and please, someone TELL me how to take jojojopo's annotations, make my own comment to his annotations in the pgn file, and then return that pgn file to the thread. I tried to do it and cou;dn't figure out how. Please someone walk me through it. jojojopo, how did you take my game, an dre-annotate it, and re-insert it into your post? That's what I want to do, and I tried, but couldn't. thnx).

Click the button of the magnifying glass on the pgn viewer and it will open an analysis board with all the annotations loaded. Then you can do as you please with it. Or you could press the button at the right of the magnifying glass and download the pgn, and then modify it.

4. Bf5, oh No, that was just a typo. Of course. I meant 'not Bg4 because of h3'. Your suggestion of BxN is interesting. I hadn't thought of that as a bad bishop, in fact, my understanding is that outside of the pawn chain is precisely what makes it a 'good' bishop' if we must use such terms. So I wouldn't be rushing to get rid of it. I think of a bishop caught inside a pawn chain as a bad bishop, not this case. 

I still think that if the bishop does not have something useful to do (even if it is outside of the pawn chain) and it is going to be harrased by your oponent (since it does not have many squares to go, so that makes it a target) then you can at least trade it for another piece. It is more useful being traded than sitting on your back rank trapped, or as a source of play to your opponent. But I don't claim to have the final word on that (or on anything for that matter), so it'd be interesting to hear what the others say about this. I suppose that as you continue to play this opening and experiment, you are going to find an answer to this issue.

Respecting which pawn use to recapture, if fxg or hxg, I don't think it is a matter of maxims in this case, it is a matter of analizing the board and finding which move has what consequences and then choosing. But I must say that I like that you had a plan when you decided for fxg, unfortunately you didn't get a chance to pull it off, but that is something to start with (you may analize if that plan was viable now, so that if this position arises again in a future game you have more information to make better decisions). Now, after the facts, we can argue which move is better based on which reasons (specific reasons, justified by moves and plans, not abstract ideas), and there's a lot to be learned from that. I think that the recommendation of hxg is really good since it gives you a source of play (an activated rook aiming at h2) and a plan of attack, and is a position I would have liked to play myself (even if I wouldn't have thought of that on the board).

by the way, jojojopo, in case I didn't say it already, thanks :). I appreciated your notes, and your generosity. I followed every word you said, and every move you proposed. 

You are welcome! We are all learning here, from each other. :D

So I'm going to give a quick answer based on a quick not-even-analysis. So you were down three pawns on move 18. Why did you ask why you lost? Material is important, sometimes. Sometimes...

Castling in that position was not great for your opponent, as the king positions were bad. But I also wonder why someone would never castle...