Of course you don't want to turn into a "pawngrabber" who simply grabs material without thinking of the consequences, but generally speaking, grabbing a material advantage is how games are won. 1. Taking the pawn is simply the best move available. Yes you may be forced to retreat your bishop, but a pawn is well worth that temporary setback. 2. An almost free knight, and you didn't take it? Come on...You're not under heavy attack, and a material advantage is a very good thing. 3. You need to drive that knight away first. I didn't play out the entire line, but leaving a knight on your king's doorstep when it can easily be forced to retreat is not good. And of course you're about to lose that pawn if you don't move it which will leave your K exposed. Hope that helped...
Why are these moves bad moves?
Oh, and since you are a diamond member with unlimited access to the Lessons, may I suggest that you do them? Playing is fun of course, but it needs to be balanced with study. The Lessons cover all the bases in a very methodical and logical way; they're really very well done. Good luck!
If you take the Pawn on move 9, you win a pawn. If you trade bishops you kust trade pieces and are even.
Which is better? Being up a pawn or being even?
If you take the Pawn on move 9, you win a pawn. If you trade bishops you kust trade pieces and are even.
Which is better? Being up a pawn or being even?
My thinking was that taking that piece might lose me my bishop sometime in the future anyways, because I was probably missing a tactic, so it seemed better to trade bishop for bishop vs bishop for pawn.
After spending some time analyzing the game in the engine, I guess I didn't need to worry about that, but it's *really* hard to tell if my opponent hung a piece or if they're just baiting me.
Mbzzmn, how would you assess the position after 11. Nxd5? Note anything you feel is relevant.
Slightly biased because now I "know" exd5 is the best move, but:
- My opponent is far more developed than me, with a queen in the center and pawn & knight in the center as well. They have a path to develop their rook rather easily by either Rd1 or O-O-O, though the latter is probably a bad option due to pawn structure. Their king is currently very exposed in the center with their pawns missing, though my lack of a dark squared bishop means I can't attack them quite as easily. If the b pawn can be removed, an attack via Qb5 might lead to something?
- Their knight can technically threaten check, but the square is defended by the queen currently. Ditto for the fork at b6; also, the a-pawn defends that nicely for now. Looking at this position now, while they have pieces up in my face, the knight can't attack anything, and the queen's options for movement are limited due to my knight + their pawn.
- Moves I'd assess:
1. Nb6 attacks both pawns and the queen; however, the queen can easily move to defend all three. I 'like' this move because I can assess what they might be forced to do next; in a game, I'd think about this for a bit.
2. exd5 captures a knight, but the queen takes the pawn back (so a net gain of only +1 for me) and now I have no pawns in the center, no presence on any rank beyond 7, minimal piece development, and their queen is sitting at my doorstep. Plus, now they have a passed pawn. Namely, e6 would likely start picking away at the pawns around my king. Seems bad all around.
3. Ne7 recaptures the pawn, equalizing things and letting me develop if they opt not to trade. If they DO opt to trade, I remove both knights and the queens from my front door, allowing me to develop more and hopefully build a better structure.
https://www.chessfriends.com/mobile?utm_campaign=US#72
On 1 Bxb4 it has so many points in favor compared to Bishop takes Bishop. 1. isolated white pawns on c2 and aw. 2. white has no king safety for 3 moves and commits to trying to castle kings side while trying to hold on to two isolated pawns. the white knight pin is bonus but I feel like the threats against the bishop are serious. your sense that you are on doing your development by retreating is mitigated by not only a free pawn but also the points above. in addition if you trade bishops youre trading your good free to threaten Bishop for not much
If you take the Pawn on move 9, you win a pawn. If you trade bishops you kust trade pieces and are even.
Which is better? Being up a pawn or being even?
My thinking was that taking that piece might lose me my bishop sometime in the future anyways, because I was probably missing a tactic, so it seemed better to trade bishop for bishop vs bishop for pawn.
After spending some time analyzing the game in the engine, I guess I didn't need to worry about that, but it's *really* hard to tell if my opponent hung a piece or if they're just baiting me.
Worrying about losing that bishop would only be through a discovered check. If there were a fork, then you could take the knight with check.
on 2. after you capture the knight with exd5 you are just winning. but even if white hadn't blundered what the computer is trying to tell you is that you're not under dangerous attack. after you castle white has no development. youre over valuing whites forward queen and under valuing your castle and king safety
General rule..
Trading a pawn for a minor piece is generally good.
It's good you noticed the Qa5 idea and that White's king is vulnerable in the centre, one of the key features of the position. But you shouldn't stop calculating when a line isn't showing as much promise as you were expecting. If you had calculated a couple of moves deeper you would have seen just how bad Nxd5 really was. And always look at forcing moves first: checks, captures etc. Now, I'm going to give my assessment so you can compare how you see the position to how I see it.
Black's position is solid without any weaknesses and their king is safely castled. White has pawn weaknesses on the queenside, an overextended pawn in the centre, an unprotected queen that can be attacked by Black's minor pieces, a vulnerable uncastled king, and has just captured a pawn protected by another pawn with his knight (the only developed minor piece he has.) Unless White has a knockout blow, Black has to be doing really well.
Now I would start calculating moves starting with the most obvious. 11...exd5 Always pay attention to how the structure changes after all pawn moves/captures. Notice how after exd5 this opens the e-file for your rook that you have developed via castling. It also unblocks the c8-h3 diagonal for your light squared bishop. So, 11...exd5 12. Qxd5 Nxe5 (one of the most obvious captures) Now White only has one pawn for the piece, no minor pieces in the game, and has opened up the e-file for us leading directly to their king. Also his queen is under attack. If he refuses the queen trade by playing Qxe5 then Re8 (that e-file comes back to bite him.) If he plays some random queen move then still Re8 threatening discovered checks with the knight. But yeah, after the original assessment of the position the rest is just calculating lines. You would have had lots of fun options after 12. Qxd5.
If you work on your calculation skills by solving tactics and spend some time assessing positions arising from the opening based on the "opening principles" you will see a major improvement in your game.
Since the engine is clearly not wrong, and I am, I need some help understanding why these were bad moves.
I assume you saw the problems with the moves you made after.
If you take the Pawn on move 9, you win a pawn. If you trade bishops you kust trade pieces and are even.
Which is better? Being up a pawn or being even?
My thinking was that taking that piece might lose me my bishop sometime in the future anyways, because I was probably missing a tactic, so it seemed better to trade bishop for bishop vs bishop for pawn.
After spending some time analyzing the game in the engine, I guess I didn't need to worry about that, but it's *really* hard to tell if my opponent hung a piece or if they're just baiting me.
Make it your goal that every game you lose is to your opponent, and not to yourself. Don't worry about falling for tactics you can't see, for all you know you aren't seeing a tactic that will wreck the move you just now chose to make instead. It is very hard to defeat plays you can't see. Not to mention, even if they exist and you missed it, who's to say your opponent saw it and uses it themselves? You will miss tactics, and that is fine. Even if it's there and your opponent can use it, better to fall for the tactic anyways so you do see it in action and learn the pattern that continually avoid tactics that may not even exist. If you think there's something look deeper into the position until you find it, and if you don't, just trust yourself. You don't want to be losing games to your own thoughts creating attacks for your opponent that don't exist and yet suck up your resources.
In short, focus on what you know, it's ok to lose to what you don't.
There's a saying in poker that 'scared money never wins." And this is true in chess as well. While you don't want to be careless, or too greedy, your basic mindset should be to take material unless you have a good reason not to. And I mean a good reason based on some concrete calculation, not vague fears. If you are constantly looking for ways to take your opponents material to and attack his pieces--and his king--you will be a much more successful player and you will have more fun. You can't get better playing scared.
On move 9, taking the pawn is free and comes with a pin on the knight which suggests that the loss of tempo is not going to be a problem. That said, trading bishops as you did simplifies the position which may be better at your level.
Your move 11 is a clear mistake. You should take the knight and be a piece up. White would not have a passed pawn; the pawn on e5 is not passed because if it moves forward, it can be taken by your pawn on f7. Unsupported queens are only a threat if you leave pieces hanging; in this case, white is going to have to bring additional pieces into play for an attack, giving you a chance to position your pieces better or mount an attack on their center pawn.
Prior to move 17, your move 16 was not recommended by the engine because it is a fork; it is recommended because it is a free pawn. The pawn on a2 is not free because it gives up your h7 pawn, as you saw in the game. If you want to take something, taking the bishop is better as in open positions like this, bishops tend to be better than knights.
I think you are over assessing and overlooking the situations. Just grab the free material. The pawn I seen why you didn’t take, but there was a free knight. I would say your second error is the most important one, as you rejected a free piece.
We are dealing with some very different situations here.
Situation 1: On move 9, take the pawn or not? Yes there are some disadvantages of taking it loses 2 tempi in the process, as the opening poster pointed out. The computer likes the material, of course, but it values it as less than a full pawn because of the disadvantages.
Situation 2: Not taking th free piece with 11. exd5, but instead giving up a piece with Nxe5 is a huge error. There is no saving grace to it, this was pure miscalculation. The most bizarre thing is that the opening poster does not seem to realize even in the analysis that one line wins a piece and the other does not. Weird. Avoiding those blunders should be the number 1 priority.
Situation 3: this is complicated. But the crux of it is that in that position you are up a pawn and better. The Nxa2 line gives back the material and eventually in the end the position is equal.
For a beginner player. I'd say only situation 2 is important. The others are small things and/or complicated. 11. - Nxe5 however is a blunder even at beginner level. It is easy to understand and easy to avoid.
Since the engine is clearly not wrong, and I am, I need some help understanding why these were bad moves.