In your Czech Benoni game, 12 h3 seems to be a big mistake -- wasting a tempo to encourage you to double up his pawns. Then your knight gravitates to a great outpost on f4 ( made possible by his doubled "f" pawns ). you grab his "h" pawn and make it count.
very nice, the way you conned him into invading your position with his R to g6. but then with B-g5 his Rook is trapped !
nicely done !
In your Czech Benoni game, 12 h3 seems to be a big mistake -- wasting a tempo to encourage you to double up his pawns. Then your knight gravitates to a great outpost on f4 ( made possible by his doubled "f" pawns ). you grab his "h" pawn and make it count.
very nice, the way you conned him into invading your position with his R to g6. but then with B-g5 his Rook is trapped !
nicely done !
Thanks. I assume he was hoping id move the bishop after h3 as bishops are usually better than knights, then he could strike with g4 and get a way better position, but other than that and the Rg6 blunder, the ending seem content with his play, which makes me happy, as I mainly won on my own merit, not his blunders.
"as I mainly won on my own merit, not his blunders."
correct. It is most satisfying to to win on our skills and not be handed the victory by poor opponent play. Keep playing ! smart maneuvering in chess involves good positional and tactical skills. Both aspects are needed to do well.
As I don't know how to annotate the game, I'll just talk about it down here. This is the worse of the two. I was black in a Giuoco Pianissimo. I make lots of inaccuracies, but no blunders and few mistakes. In the game I restricted my opponent on the kingside and center for much of them game, with nearly all play being on the Queenside for much of the game. Finally, my opponent blunders a pawn horribly, and I took advantage, winning the pawn and much more. After a lot of simplification we get into an endgame where I am up a bishop and 1 pawn I believe. He seemingly plays well until falling for mate.