Wrong forum section, I think.
Can someone analyze this game?
Sort:
Oh, sorry.
Np. It happens. I'm actually leaving, but if you pm me the details I'll plug it in to fritz and email you the response.
I'm new to this site and to the forums, how do I pm the "details?"
The best approach is to play through the game again yourself and figure out where you and your opponent could have improved your play. Then you can post your analysis here and a stronger player can tell you if your analysis is correct, and highlight improvements you may have missed.
One piece of advice I have is to remember that in many cases, a single pawn is enough to win a game...there's no need to go for a quick kill all the time. Sometimes you risk overextending and leaving vulnerabilities that a more cunning player can exploit. 11. Nxd8 Rxb7 12. Nxb7 and there may not be any fancy checkmate on the cards, but you're simply a rook up and the win is easy.
Whoever it was you played, it seems that they were much weaker than you are. Try playing a game against a better opponent if you want more interesting annotations. I also notice that your play in that game makes me think you're more like a 1500-1600 than a 1250.
pantheid:
23. Qc5+ Kf6 24. Rxc8 Re7+ 25. Kf1
Fritz is analyizing the game, and I'll pm you it's exact output. It can be kinda cryptic, but maybe it will help.
Personally, I wouldn't have castled there at the end. Bring your king up to e7 or d7 and then bring your rook over. Your king is in no danger for need of castling, but in the endgame you what your king to come forward, and your rook will be in play in 2 moves whether you castle or not. After that, try to isolate his king away from his pawns with your rook, and then your king could simply march up and eat his pawns 1 by 1.
[COMMENT DELETED]
(1) pantheid (1197) - pesanab (1026) [C41]
Live Chess Chess.com, 31.08.2011
[Deep Rybka 4 SSE42 x64 (60m)]
C41: Philidor DefenceC41: Philidor Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 last book move last book move 0.56/16
4.Be2 0.53/17 exd4 0.55/19 5.Nxd4 0.55/19 Bxe2 0.54/18 6.Qxe2 0.54/16 Nd7 0.62/17
[6...Be7 7.Qb5+ Nd7 8.Qxb7 Ngf6 9.Nc6 Qc8 10.Qxc8+ Rxc8 11.Nc3 a6 12.0–0 Bd8 13.f4 0–0 14.e5 Ne8 15.Nd5 dxe5 16.Nde7+ Bxe7 17.Nxe7+ 1–0 (17) Oikonomopoulou,M-Nikolaraki,I Aghia Pelagia 2004]
7.Nc3 0.67/16 Ne5N 1.53/19
[7...c5 8.Nf3 Be7 9.0–0 Ngf6 10.Bf4 h6 11.Rad1 Qb6 12.b3 0–0 13.e5 dxe5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Bxe5 Rae8 16.Qd3 Rd8 17.Qb5 Rxd1 18.Rxd1 Qxb5 19.Nxb5 Ng4 20.Bb2 a6 21.Nc7 Rc8 22.Nd5 Balam Maldonado,E-Buenfil,I Merida 1997 1–0;
7...g6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.0–0–0 Ngf6 10.f3 a6 11.g4 Rc8 12.Bf4 Qe7 13.Rhe1 0–0 14.h4 b5 15.Qd2 Ne5 16.Bxe5 Qxe5 17.Nc6 Qe6 18.g5 Nh5 19.Nd5 Rfe8 20.c3 Qd7 21.Nd4 c5 22.Nc2 Balogh,E (2096)-Istvanovszky,K (2247) Salgatarjan 2003 ½–½ (42)]
8.Qb5+ 1.53/18 Nd7 1.65/16 9.Qxb7 1.69/16 Ngf6 3.23/14 10.Nc6 2.26/15
[Deep Rybka 4 SSE42 x64: 10.Ncb5 Rc8 11.b4 c5 12.Nc6 Rxc6 13.Qxc6 Qb6 14.Qxb6 axb6 15.bxc5 Nxc5 16.f3 Kd7 17.Bf4 d5 18.exd5 Nxd5 19.0–0–0 Kc6 20.Na7+ Kb7 21.Rxd5 Kxa7 22.Re1 Kb7 23.Kb2 Kc6 24.Red1 3.23/14 ]
10...Rb8 6.78/15 11.Qxa7 2.44/16
[Deep Rybka 4 SSE42 x64: 11.Nxd8 Rxb7 12.Nxb7 Ne5 13.Na5 Kd7 14.f4 Nc6 15.Nxc6 Kxc6 16.Be3 a6 17.Kf2 Be7 18.Kf3 Rb8 19.b3 h6 20.a4 Re8 21.e5 6.78/15 ]
11...Qc8 3.91/19 12.Nxb8 3.91/19 Nxb8 3.91/17 13.Nb5 3.89/15 Na6 7.46/14 14.Bf4 6.18/15 Nxe4 6.88/14 15.Rd1 3.37/14
[Deep Rybka 4 SSE42 x64: 15.Qxa6 Kd7 16.Qxc8+ Kxc8 17.0–0 Kd7 18.a4 g6 19.Be3 Be7 20.a5 Ra8 21.a6 c6 22.f3 Ng5 23.Nd4 c5 24.Nb5 Ne6 25.c4 Kc6 26.Rfd1 h5 6.88/14 ]
15...Ke7 8.10/14 16.Bxd6+ 7.60/14 Nxd6 9.01/15 17.Rxd6 9.01/14 Ke8 13.43/11 18.Rxa6 12.40/12 Bb4+ 13.54/14 19.c3 13.54/12 Bd6 17.50/14 20.Rxd6 17.50/14 Ke7 20.09/13 21.Rc6 18.97/12 Rd8 #10/13 22.Rxc7+ #10/12 Rd7 #11/12 23.Rxd7+ #12/15 Qxd7 #13/14 24.Qxd7+ #12/17 Kxd7 #14/13 25.0–0 #13/14
[25.0–0+– 25...Kc6 #13 22.87/14 ; 25.0–0+–]
1–0
Sep 1, 2011
0
#13
i wouldn't bother analyzing a ten-minute game. play longer stuff to improve.
Basically, if he wants to study the opening that he and his opponent played, he has 3 historical games that he can study and see how they deviated from how he played, and one of them was with relatively high rated players; thus he could perhaps learn how he could have played better.
The numbers after each move are the computer analysis. For example 3.9/14 means that white is up 3.9 pawns and the computer determined this at a depth of 14 ply (14 one side moves, technically 7 moves as white and black).
When it says Deep Rybka in brackets, that is when Rybka recommended a better move sequence than was played.
I think I played very well, but I want to see if I could have played better. It was ten minutes long, I played white.