CrazyOrange,
I will not criticize Nb5. But I will point out that your 14th was a mistake. Simply 14.Nxc7+ wins the queen and the game.
By the way, Hertan (I think he is a NM) wrote an interesting article about the Petrov variation you played. He called it the “The Daring Damiano”, and was published in Chess Life, (Feb., 1990),
It has been said that the person who wins a game of chess is the one who made the next to last mistake.
Not interested in playing against the Petroff's Defense, this little beauty resulted. No doubt my opponent helped, but analysis scored me at 100% best moves (12) and 99.76 CAPS.
Qf6 was horrible.
I get Qf6s and Qf3s in an awful lot of my games for some reason.
So why do so many players just automatically and perhaps even blindly, trust chess engines with evaluations? One does not learn as much as actually studying the game or analyzing a position.
Here's a miniature. Analyzed sans chess engines.
One thing I learned by looking at your game with computer analysis is that you are in terrible shape if black plays 8...Qxf7 instead of Kxf7?.
Qxf7 is Illegal in that position if you're refering to Barefootplayer's game.
Qxf7 is Illegal in that position if you're refering to Barefootplayer's game.
True. I missed e5. Engine says Kxf7 for black is winning for black. Engine says black starting to go wrong with Qxd4.
Yeah that is correct. Black can defend much better with 9.... Qf5!
In the KG its best for white not to play the Zany Gambits unless the time controls are very short. like Blitz.
tmodal66,
I think you are proving my point 
Just why is 9...Qf5 better than 9...Qd4? Does your engine tell you why?
Perhaps 9...Qf5 is better for defence, but why should Black just want to defend? What if it is possible for Black to win? Would not that be a better choice?
These are some things that engines cannot do.
Enjoy! =)
Barefoot, are you on crack? Any decent chess engine can attack and defend better than you or me.
Qf5 was the best move for black to win. And, yes, the engine gives a line that shows it, but just keep your head up your rear and tell the rest of us we are "blindly" trusting computer evaluations.
Barefoot, are you on crack? Any decent chess engine can attack and defend better than you or me.
Qf5 was the best move for black to win. And, yes, the engine gives a line that shows it, but just keep your head up your rear and tell the rest of us we are "blindly" trusting computer evaluations.
Your earlier analysis seemed like mostly just "Engine says" with no interpretation, whether you meant it this way. I think his point is that engine moves aren't always the best for humans to play, if they can't be interpreted without more engine analysis.
Engines can follow up a move with more engine moves. Humans can't, necessarily.
For me, the reason that ...Qf5 looks better than ...Qxd4 is that the queen on f6 is vulnerable to attack from the knight after Nc3. On f5, the queen is a little more stable in blocking the line. Couple of pieces up, Black doesn't need the pawn on d4 - should think defence first. Anyway, that's just what makes sense to me.
Barefoot, are you on crack? Any decent chess engine can attack and defend better than you or me.
Qf5 was the best move for black to win. And, yes, the engine gives a line that shows it, but just keep your head up your rear and tell the rest of us we are "blindly" trusting computer evaluations.
Your earlier analysis seemed like mostly just "Engine says" with no interpretation, whether you meant it this way. I think his point is that engine moves aren't always the best for humans to play, if they can't be interpreted without more engine analysis.
Engines can follow up a move with more engine moves. Humans can't, necessarily.
For me, the reason that ...Qf5 looks better than ...Qxd4 is that the queen on f6 is vulnerable to attack from the knight after Nc3. On f5, the queen is a little more stable in blocking the line. Couple of pieces up, Black doesn't need the pawn on d4 - should think defence first. Anyway, that's just what makes sense to me.
Yes, you are right. Black already had a winning game, but got greedy and Barefoot beat him. i think most people would agree with this.
What started this side-thread is Barefoot saying: So why do so many players just automatically and perhaps even blindly, trust chess engines with evaluations? One does not learn as much as actually studying the game or analyzing a position.
I'm not attacking his game. If he wants to post it, no problem. Also, if he wants to not use a computer to analyze his games, that's OK, too.
But, don't act like your analysis is more righteous because you did it yourself. Chances are, it is more flawed.
Barefoot, are you on crack? Any decent chess engine can attack and defend better than you or me.
Qf5 was the best move for black to win. And, yes, the engine gives a line that shows it, but just keep your head up your rear and tell the rest of us we are "blindly" trusting computer evaluations.
Your earlier analysis seemed like mostly just "Engine says" with no interpretation, whether you meant it this way. I think his point is that engine moves aren't always the best for humans to play, if they can't be interpreted without more engine analysis.
Engines can follow up a move with more engine moves. Humans can't, necessarily.
For me, the reason that ...Qf5 looks better than ...Qxd4 is that the queen on f6 is vulnerable to attack from the knight after Nc3. On f5, the queen is a little more stable in blocking the line. Couple of pieces up, Black doesn't need the pawn on d4 - should think defence first. Anyway, that's just what makes sense to me.
Yes, you are right. Black already had a winning game, but got greedy and Barefoot beat him. i think most people would agree with this.
What started this side-thread is Barefoot saying: So why do so many players just automatically and perhaps even blindly, trust chess engines with evaluations? One does not learn as much as actually studying the game or analyzing a position.
I'm not attacking his game. If he wants to post it, no problem. Also, if he wants to not use a computer to analyze his games, that's OK, too.
But, don't act like your analysis is more righteous because you did it yourself. Chances are, it is more flawed.
You're right, particularly about how the game went. But, I would argue that both engine evaluations and human explanation are both key components of good analysis. Neither one is valuable learning material without the other.
Human analysis is often flawed. But engine evaluations only tell us what they see as the objectively best moves in a position. They don't tell us the themes. They don't explain the different ideas White has that it blocks. They don't know how difficult the ensuing lines will be for a human to analyse in a real game situation. The key point in my mind is this: you can't learn to play like a computer does. Computers don't understand chess at all.
I think this recently-written article is well worth a read:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/should-we-trust-computers
The title is a bit provocative, but it makes some good points.
I agree. You need to do your own analysis, too. After all, the computer won't be playing the game for you.
But that wasn't what he was arguing.
So here is why the Queen is better on f5 in that line.
Ask yourself. What is White's Trumps in the position?
We see that White Has a Safer King, Better and More Logical Development and the Initiative, and is threatening to win Black's Queen on the Next move. So what to do.
Only two moves make sense for Black Qxd4+ and Qf5.
Why Well lets look at what each move does
Good one Ziryab!