I don't really know how to "annotate" a game but I'll say I played Italian to evans gambit, on move 23 I forked the king and rook and captured the rook. I thought the rest of the game would be easy breezy just trade down until I could force checkmate. Move 25 I traded bishops to simplify, I didn't like his bishop controlling that much of the board anyways. Move 27 I moved my queen there to trade down and simplify. Then he chased knights around with the king for a few moves, again still just trying to trade down. Move 51 I sacked the queen because I thought it would be easy to just push a pawn up the board to promote to queen but it was hard not to stalemate and game was a draw. I have never been up +10 and had such a hard time finding checkmate or preventing stalemate in my fn life.
Why trade down when ahead? How does it help?
You don't have to be anywhere close to 2000 to win games like that. Trading down actually increases your material advantage when you are up material. This is because with each trade the value of that material advantage goes up due to less material on the board. This is best illustrated in the endgame. Being up a bishop or knight in the endgame is often an overwhelming advantage due to the lack of pieces left on the board. In the middle game that bishop or knight advantage is big, but not overwhelming because there are generally a lot more pieces on the board. The only trade I did not like is your move 51 sac of the queen (see my analysis of the endgame below). All your other trades that you wrote about above I thought were at least good trades.
I looked at that game, and you drew the game because you played the endgame pretty poorly. Not because you traded down to a completely winning endgame. You need to learn the principles of the endgame, and the endgame basics. Don't beat yourself up too much about the game though. I remember a game I played in a tournament where I was up by at least a full rook going into the endgame, and lost because I played the endgame so bad. It can happen to all of us. Also if you learn a lot from the game then it can turn a bad result into a positive one.
What to learn:
- First is the overkill mates (if you don't know them already, and I am thinking based on your rating you know at least some of them). This is two queens vs king, two rooks vs king, queen and rook vs king, king and queen vs king, king and rook vs king. You need to know all of these and be able to execute them in 30 secs or less consistently. That way you can close out won games.
- Endgame principles: You did not try to use your king earlier, and did not think to create multiple problems when that your opponent can't stop all at once. These are some of those principles that would have won you the game.
- Learning the basics of king and pawn endgames will help to. So things like opposition, and how to get it, and how to tell whether you or your opponent has it will help you play better. Also learning how to tell if your opponent's king (or your king if roles are reversed) can stop a pawn from queening will help immensely in endgames.
Here is my analysis of the endgame from that game:
Here are some resources that will help you improve in the endgame:
Principles of the endgame article
Two queens/ queen and rook/ two rooks vs king mate article
King and queen vs king mate article
Chess Vibes Endgame Course Playlist (Videos 1-8 would be good for you to watch (of course all of them are good content but you won't have to worry about more advanced endgames for a little bit). Videos 3 and 4 aren't completely necessary as I don't think I have every had to checkmate with two bishops or bishop and knight in an actual game so you can learn it if you want, but not necessary)
Chess Vibes Complete Endgame Book study playlist (Goes through Silman's Complete Endgame Course book which is a great book for learning endgames.)
Hope this helps.
Thanks man. I thought I was the worst at the middle game but maybe it is the endgame. I was a little tired that game and worried about running out of time, I played 15+10 tonight and it is easier for me.
Surprisingly, I know how to do all those mates pretty well most the time in puzzles and games if they are somewhat noticeable..........except for rook and king vs king. I know chessbrah's box method and have used it and also must not know it that well because I have went to draw chasing the king with a rook and king and felt like a moron subsequently.
Some endgames I get the king out but for some reason this game it was hard to see when and how to do it, some games it may just have to be a random king move.
Move 41 - I see what you are saying, i totally did not think of that. Maybe in a 15+10 I'd see it.
Move 48 - I see, cut off king. Not my best game.
Thanks for explaining opposition, first time I've heard of it. I have won endgames with the king behind but I do see king in front is better.
Thanks for chessvibes links too, I've seen some of his stuff and it's good.
Which is a more certain win... seven pieces against five, or two pieces against none?
In both cases, you are two pieces ahead... but in the first case the opponent still has five pieces to cause trouble with. In the second case, he doesn't.
I tend to think in terms of percentages. When all the pieces and pawns on the board using the generally accepted base values (remember a pieces value can change depending on position - e.g. a pawn on the seventh rank about to queen is way more valuable than a pawn on the second rank) pawn=1 , knight + bishop =3 each, rook =5 queen = 9....So all pieces on the board is 39 - if you are a pawn up that's 1/39 advantage (or about 2.5%) if you have a no pieces and 2 pawns and are a pawn up thats 1/2 (50%) advantage...I don't do these calculations when playing as the position is an important consideration - what use is the pawn up if you are about to be checkmated? but it is a way of understanding the concept of simplifying to accentuate your material advantage.
I think AlphaTeam hit the nail on the head saying my endgame mistakes are basically what blew the game and less so the trades I made. I would say with a material advantage and I trade down I do win 75% of the time from there but in reality if I was better that should be a 100% winning position.
Good point Robin that a material advantage is no big deal if you are about to get checkmated. I think at my level it's so much about blunders which are really so easy to make, rarely do I have a 40 move game without a blunder in a 10+0 game. I really don't see how most people play 5+0 or 3+2......to me that would just be an epic blunderfest.
AlphaTeam I will go through your post several times to try and get all that to sink in, that was a lot of info thanks again.
One explanation I have heard is that when you trade down, you simplify the position. Fewer pieces mean less to think about, meaning that it’s easier for you to convert your position into a win and avoid mistakes.
For the exact same reason Colin Morikawa hit a 3 wood off the tee on number 18 at the ATT championship today.
When you have the advantage, when you are the most likely to win, increase your odds of winning rather than take chances. The people that were chasing him hit driver, because they were forced to take chances. For Colin, it was worth millions of dollars. For a casual game of chess, it might just be the satisfaction of winning, but the principle is still the same.
In other words, what Grayson said.
You don't have to be anywhere close to 2000 to win games like that. Trading down actually increases your material advantage when you are up material. This is because with each trade the value of that material advantage goes up due to less material on the board. This is best illustrated in the endgame. Being up a bishop or knight in the endgame is often an overwhelming advantage due to the lack of pieces left on the board. In the middle game that bishop or knight advantage is big, but not overwhelming because there are generally a lot more pieces on the board. The only trade I did not like is your move 51 sac of the queen (see my analysis of the endgame below). All your other trades that you wrote about above I thought were at least good trades.
I looked at that game, and you drew the game because you played the endgame pretty poorly. Not because you traded down to a completely winning endgame. You need to learn the principles of the endgame, and the endgame basics. Don't beat yourself up too much about the game though. I remember a game I played in a tournament where I was up by at least a full rook going into the endgame, and lost because I played the endgame so bad. It can happen to all of us. Also if you learn a lot from the game then it can turn a bad result into a positive one.
What to learn:
- First is the overkill mates (if you don't know them already, and I am thinking based on your rating you know at least some of them). This is two queens vs king, two rooks vs king, queen and rook vs king, king and queen vs king, king and rook vs king. You need to know all of these and be able to execute them in 30 secs or less consistently. That way you can close out won games.
- Endgame principles: You did not try to use your king earlier, and did not think to create multiple problems when that your opponent can't stop all at once. These are some of those principles that would have won you the game.
- Learning the basics of king and pawn endgames will help to. So things like opposition, and how to get it, and how to tell whether you or your opponent has it will help you play better. Also learning how to tell if your opponent's king (or your king if roles are reversed) can stop a pawn from queening will help immensely in endgames.
Here is my analysis of the endgame from that game:
Here are some resources that will help you improve in the endgame:
Principles of the endgame article
Two queens/ queen and rook/ two rooks vs king mate article
King and queen vs king mate article
Chess Vibes Endgame Course Playlist (Videos 1-8 would be good for you to watch (of course all of them are good content but you won't have to worry about more advanced endgames for a little bit). Videos 3 and 4 aren't completely necessary as I don't think I have every had to checkmate with two bishops or bishop and knight in an actual game so you can learn it if you want, but not necessary)
Chess Vibes Complete Endgame Book study playlist (Goes through Silman's Complete Endgame Course book which is a great book for learning endgames.)
Hope this helps.
What a great explanation!!!
For the exact same reason Colin Morikawa hit a 3 wood off the tee on number 18 at the ATT championship today.
When you have the advantage, when you are the most likely to win, increase your odds of winning rather than take chances. The people that were chasing him hit driver, because they were forced to take chances. For Colin, it was worth millions of dollars. For a casual game of chess, it might just be the satisfaction of winning, but the principle is still the same.
In other words, what Grayson said.
right but the point that may be lost on you is for a beginner these advantages are not significant, ahead in development, ahead on material, etc. the game can still be very easily lost or go to draw, I still think unless you've played for years these things are advantages but don't necessarily decide the game and I've seen it time and time again
when ahead in material you aim to trade pieces but usually not too many pawns. This lowers your opponents chances to checkmate or gobble up your pieces drastically reducing your losing chances,while not decreasing your winning chances.
When behind in material and there is nothing to compensate for it, you aim to trade pawns but not pieces. The idea is to try to hold on, until the endgame when you may be able to salvage things by sacrificing a minor piece for pawns and they dont have enough material to force a win , OR you a reach a theoretical position like many equal material endgames being only 1 pawn down but know you can hold it.
If you throw all your pieces out of the window, it’s not the fault of trading down strategy. In your game, instead of your final move Nd6 ???????? you could play Kf6 Kh7 Kf7 Kh6 g8Q Kh5 Nf6 Kh4 Qg4 checkmate.
Speaking about trading down, generally less pieces opponent has, less threats he can generate.
I personally prefer to keep pieces on the board and use my extra piece to attack.
I don’t know if what I do is a good idea but I don’t move any pieces except the queen and the bishop until the endgame and for some reason it always works. I usually don’t like trading pieces for no reason unless the other piece has a lot of value in the game.
Chess 4396, what do you mean by saying that your chess “always works”? You got rated 100 by game review in 2 consecutive games which is worst rating possible. You got 0.7 accuracy which is definitely negative world record. You are breaking all chess principles which exist. I think that if I would coached chimpanzee for 45 minutes it would be playing better chess than you.
For the exact same reason Colin Morikawa hit a 3 wood off the tee on number 18 at the ATT championship today.
When you have the advantage, when you are the most likely to win, increase your odds of winning rather than take chances. The people that were chasing him hit driver, because they were forced to take chances. For Colin, it was worth millions of dollars. For a casual game of chess, it might just be the satisfaction of winning, but the principle is still the same.
In other words, what Grayson said.
right but the point that may be lost on you is for a beginner these advantages are not significant, ahead in development, ahead on material, etc. the game can still be very easily lost or go to draw, I still think unless you've played for years these things are advantages but don't necessarily decide the game and I've seen it time and time again
Advantages help, regardless of skill level. An advantage probably helps a skilled player more than a beginner, but I'm not aware of any circumstances where an advantage should not be capitalized on.
I would think a beginner might need to capitalize on advantages even MORE than a skilled player, because with fewer pieces, there are fewer chances of making a mistake and just overall less to think about.
I am a noob and not a very good chess player but everyone says it is good to trade down with a lead but half the time I do that it backfires and it seems like I am better of just playing normally and not trying to trade pieces with a lead. Is this a more advanced strategy? Like for people who are rated 2000 and played for years or why does it always seem to backfire?
https://www.chess.com/game/live/164696707374?move=0