Analysis Please

Laskersnephew

You played pretty well--almost to the end. Unfortunately, "almost" doesn't count in chess. Were you short of time at the end? Because you seemed to lose the thread of the game.

 

BoboTheFlyingSheep67
Laskersnephew wrote:

You played pretty well--almost to the end. Unfortunately, "almost" doesn't count in chess. Were you short of time at the end? Because you seemed to lose the thread of the game.

 

thanks so much for the analysis!! And yeah, I was low on time

Scottrf

I would have played 15. Bc3 then probably 16. Qe2 to get out of any potential pins/discoveries and castle queenside.

You're a rook and pawns up, just get to safety before playing moves like a4. 

Then all you need to do is simplify; take even trades.

There's no need at all to try to be clever and look for best moves.

BoboTheFlyingSheep67
Puggy321_v2 wrote:

why cant you analyze yourself

 

I did. Want others' opinions tho, because it is easier to improve if other people share different strategies and plans they had - maybe I could implement it in my rapid tournamnet on Saturday!

Aizen89

My pleasure, Bobo.  

 

Puggy321_v2: Because the fact of the matter is that it helps to get input from other players who are more experienced.  When I was 1100-1200 strength, I wasn't able to analyze the same way I can now.  Even when I was like 1600 or so, it was different.  You see the board differently and understand things differently.  Bobo did the right thing in asking for others to help.  Sometimes, even despite being rated 2000 on here now, I do the same.  A 2200 sees the board differently than I do and that helps.  You'll learn all of this in time if you stay with chess long enough.

BoboTheFlyingSheep67
Aizen89 wrote:

My pleasure, Bobo.  

 

Puggy321_v2: Because the fact of the matter is that it helps to get input from other players who are more experienced.  When I was 1100-1200 strength, I wasn't able to analyze the same way I can now.  Even when I was like 1600 or so, it was different.  You see the board differently and understand things differently.  Bobo did the right think in asking for others to help.  Sometimes, even despite being rated 2000 on here now, I do the same.  A 2200 sees the board differently than I do and that helps.  You'll learn all of this in time if you stay with chess long enough.

well said

Optimissed

Hi, obviously white's better at move five because black just took two moves to play a slightly dubious move. It's a pity your N is at c3, which blocks the c-pawn. I don't like 3. Nc3 and I would play d4 instead, with the option of c3 later.

Never mind .... it's just a case of finding how to beat black. At move five, white has an obvious move that should be looked at. It's a kind of Vienna and maybe white's pawn should be on e3 but never mind. After Bc4 you are immediately threatening f7, so black might play 5. ...Nf6 but he can also play  e takes d, after which, if you capture on d4 with the Q, black can develop the N to c3 with tempo. You have 5. Be3 as a possibility, but that seems too defensive and the B might be needed somewhere else. So maybe 5. de was a good plan but if you capture on f3 with the Q, you're ahead in development and also you have the bishop pair, which is good.

Following the game itself, white manages to lose from a rook and two pawns up, which should be impossible. White started to go wrong with 15. Bd4. What was wrong with Bf6, with gain of tempo on the R, preparing to castle long by moving the Q to e2. But you started to attack before completing your development. When you have a won game, don't put it in jeopardy!