I'll defer to Frixxz. Even if you feel there's no hope, or even if there truly is no hope, play on so that you can learn how to finish that game.
Where was my mistake?
Sort:
Hi I tend to think that you had a completely lost game when you resigned, and yet you might have played on because it's one thing to be lost and another for the opponent to prove it.
I agree with another person that, early on in the game, you wasted three moves only to get rid of your best minor piece with the pawn structure as it was. It's good to get rid of a pair of pieces when you're cramped but there it's only good to get rid of the dark squared bishop if you can get your central pawns on dark squares and hold them.
The game looked quite even but you allowed your opponent to get what would become an advanced, supported, passed pawn. That's probably more than worth a pawn deficit.
Incidentally, I think Bc5 was probably bad. The best retreat after the natural Nb3 may be to e7. Retreating to a7 invites a future Be3 supported by white's queen, neutralising your piece or sometimes it may be possible for white to play around it and effectively ignore it. Bc5 in that position is OK if your opponent has already played Be3. Then you can often go d7-d6 and Ncd7, either supporting your f6 knight or maybe heading for c5 when there's a target.
I'm afraid I don't think the writers of modern openings books have much conception of how to teach positional play regarding the positional merits and demerits of individual moves. Openings books tend to be complilations of games together with a poor commentary. I prefer the old method giving a more methodical treatment. I haven't bought a chess book for decades.
Bc5 and Bb4 is actually correct,even though it doesn't look good.
If you follow the moves,you see that Black got a good opening position.
could have played 6. nc6 instead of 6.bc5. just judging by the database
No, Black got a passive opening position. But White played extremely passively when he should have been attacking and then inexplicably swapped off his best minor piece, his white squared bishop, when he should have kept it on. White played a lot of horribly quiet and pointless moves there. Ng5 after Black played h6 would have been interesting, with the intention of maybe getting to e4.
Anyway, you lost in the end because you didn't see the threat to win your pawn.
first, when he checked you with the dark squared bishop, bd2 was a bad move for, your bishop was an excellent bishop, you trapped the light squared bishop, instead of c4 I thought developing the minor pieces and get to safety, If you made the move nc3, it stops the bishop from actually preforming a check, but remember now he has the move bc5 I don't like moving my knights back to the same square so that the oppenents gain a tempo, so I would move my knight to... c1 which ALSO covers the square 'b4', after later or when I devolope at the right time, I bring my knight to a refreshed square.
Apr 14, 2014
0
#29
frrixz wrote:
I read this thread and then I ended up playing a game that reminded me of yours.
Did you look at 5. ... h5?
5 ... h5? Is this losing chess?
27. Rc7 is a very simple win for white.
Apr 15, 2014
0
#33
It's "Chess immediately after exams".
I thought White was already castled.
Ah.
Optimissed wrote:
Hi I tend to think that you had a completely lost game when you resigned, and yet you might have played on because it's one thing to be lost and another for the opponent to prove it.
Depends on your goal. If you are going for rating points, then you can play "hope chess" that your opponent will blunder -- but that does not teach any fundamentals for playing chess.
However, if you are looking to improve your chess, then move onto the next game. Analyze the game to see where you made mistakes and apply those lessons to the next game.
DefenceFox, I was black not white.
Not really, cdowis75. It's reasonable to assess whether your opponent is capable of converting his won game without error or if it's possible that he'll make an inaccurate move. It isn't so much about rating points but about having the creativity to be able to exploit weaknesses. If what you said was right then any sacrificial opening which is technically losing shouldn't be played. Yet we sometimes play them because we're playing the opponent and not the board.
I'm new to this site and I just played the first round of a tournament, against opponents of maximum rating 1700. I blundered in one game, losing a crucial pawn. My game was probably lost. I decided I had to take a risk and I tempted my opponent to sacrifice a piece for three more pawns and in the resulting complications I managed to force a draw. I won the other seven games quite easily and my final score was 7 1/2 rather than 7. I felt a greater sense of achievement drawing that game than winning the others.
I think most players know what I am talking about.
I am talking wasting my time with "hope chess" where I am hoping that he will blunder away his advantage. I'm not learning anything but merely trying to grab rating points.
It's a simple, forced win for White and the opponent looked as if he would know how to do it. Therefore, resigning was O.K.
I read this thread and then I ended up playing a game that reminded me of yours.
I thought I had lost but I kept playing...
Condude says to play on until the end until rating 1500; I'd say higher. I'm in a turn-based game now that I thought was lost, but after my opponent made a mistake I think I might win after all (We're both in the 1700's).
Sometimes even in a Q+K vs K endgame, you can pray your opponent will get hasty and stalemate you.