Please analyse this game for me

This is a game I played

pls analyse it for me :) Thank you in advance

4.Nbd2 is not a bad move, but it's committal for no reason. I like Bd3. The point is maybe the knight will get a chance to land on c3, which is a better square. Maybe its destiny is on d2, but by deciding early in the meantime you block the bishop.

5.c4 is not bad, but I'd rather break with my a pawn, which is really just as good but has the added benefit of getting the rook into the game.

9.e5 is not bad, but it opens so many light squares, really not a move worth looking at here when development is still an issue IMO. Maybe later it will be good, but all it does here is waste time, give your opponent more options (the light squares) and you fewer options (your structure is static).

10.Bd3 is bad though. This is a bad diagonal, and if the plan is Be4, it is a plan that wastes a lot of time, now black gets ahead in development. (It's also not a good file, remember bishops tend to block files, and here you'd rather a heavy piece have access to the d file).

Better was any move related to getting another piece off the back rank.

11.Be4 continues to waste time.

12.Nc4 lost the game, the end :p

Yeah, it was a very personal opinion type of analysis. Just something for the OP to think about.

I can even imagine that some GM may say "hey, Nbd2 is the best!"

Nonetheless, I believe what I wrote   Maybe my experience against the owens defense makes me bias here. In some lines black can use a move order to get white to put a knight on d2 where it's not as good as it would be on c3 while the bishop almost always wants d3.

But yes, the only uncontroversial criticism I gave should be for moves 10, 11, and 12. White played sensibly and had a very nice position until then.

Here I disagree a little more strongly.

I think b5 is a very nice square for the bishop. If it needs to retreat, I'd sooner put it on f1 than d3. I say b1-h7 is a bad diagonal because g6 is protected by two pawns, I feel like it has no scope. Plus it's clogging the d file.

But ok, Bd3 and Ne4 is white worse? No... he may even have a big advantage, but the moves don't make a lot of sense to me. It's just lucky black played weird stuff and is a pawn down.

I... I... I should... no.

1. d4

They'll never see it coming.

black had checkmate at move 29 Qxg4

Haha, yes, this is how I would describe myself (like to build a solid position and let my opponent bust his head against a rock trying to attack me).

Yes Bf1 has no scope on the f1-h3 diagonal :p but then I'd say the difference between d3 and f1 is that on f1 it's off the center files. I guess I'm just not concerned about e4 or the move Ne4. I'm more interested in what I might do with my a pawn some time in the future. (but wait, you don't like the b5 square? look, the bishop is hitting into black's camp).

Your point about the ideas for Nbd2 over Nc3 are interesting. I never considered it's more flexible in the sense that it may go to either side. I think those are very good points and I'll try to remember them when analyzing in the future :)

Oh, and as for b4, I don't mind. Especially early pawn moves across the mid board I think it just become a liability. You can pawn break it quickly or attack it quickly or use the squares it left behind. Yeah some positions it's ok, but it's almost never better than ok (I tend to think).

1NaturalDisaster thought so too.

But if 29...Qxg2?? notice white has 30.Qxf6 winning.

Ok...

Personally I think the pawn push to e5 was a little premature, but it's not as damning as these others are claiming. Nbd2 is fine because you backed it up with the push to c4.

Bd3 was pointless; the bishop wasn't under attack and you still have pieces to develop. I also wouldn't recommend trading your good bishop for his bad bishop (your pawns were on dark squares so you should keep your light-squared bishop and try to trade the other one off, vice versa for your opponent).

Nc4 ended your chances basically because of the simple pawn fork. I understand your desire to move the knight, but b3 was a better choice.

Rd1 was better than Nfd2 as it defends the weak d4 pawn. There's no rush to get your Queen into attacking as it has nothing to back it up yet anyway. Or possibly Bg5 to trade off your bad bishop for an active knight or your opponent's good bishop?

Why play Qh7+ (giving up a free knight) when you have Nd7 which can help you win back some of the monumental material you have lost?

f4 is a pretty desperate trap, and Black would probably still be winning... After Ne2+ and Nxf4, that's a free pawn.

Rf1 loses even more material, and you get nothing from it.

29. Qh4+ is the right move, although the game is pretty much unsalvagable by this point.

30. Qh6+ is ok, as was Qf2.

31. Kg1 allows Qxg2# but your opponent went for the smothered mate. Better was Qxg5+ and then Qxf4 (or Qg3 if you are desperate to avoid a queen trade)

After 29. Qh4+ (even though it is fine), Black can easily force even trades and you have nothing to fight back with.

In short, Nc4 was obviously your first big mistake, and your playing just got worse from there. Bd3 wasted time to offer up a trade that favoured your opponent.

I wouldn't take all of 1NaturalDistaster's suggestions too seriously; his rating is below yours, and he missed the fact that 20. ... Kxg7 is forced for Black to avoid Qh8#. He also called e4 'pointless', despite it being the statistically second best starting move (second to 1. d4 by a very small percentage). He also condemns Nbd2 in favour of Bd3, which is far more committal and cuts off defence of d4. He also claims Be4 to have been your 'worst' move (Qa4 was worse).

If he's not trolling, then you are a much better player than him based on his input. It was mainly small mistakes that lost you this game, just falling for tactical tricks.

I have not looked at the whole game but noticed your  move 9. e5?

 You should not move a pawn twice in the opening unless you have a very good reason. 

I notice a lot of commentator skip over this move but it is a fundamental mistake. In the game position it opens up lines for Black.

Those who do not understand 9. e5 is a fundamental mistake need to work on their opening principles.

hayabusahayaate16

I have read Nimzowitsch.  You are simply wrong. Nothing in your quote from Nimzowitsch indicates that move is correct.
 

First, 4. Bd3 is a better move than 4. Nbd2 for the reasons already given plus White's Bishop on c1 is blocked after 4. Nbd2. 

Sorry, but I do have a clue if 9. e5 is bad or not. You saying differently does not make you right.  The move 9. e5 is not a terrible move in this position as already White is probably winning.

9. e5 violates the basic rule in the opening that you should not move a Pawn twice in the opening unless it is attacking something such as in the Alekhine Opening where 1. e4  Nf6  2. e5 attacks the Knight--or when it is an exchange such as 1. e4  e5  2. d4 exd4.

Just moving e4 to e5 is almost always not the best move.

Why did I pick out that move when there were so many other worse moves?  The reason is I see players make such moves quite often and I wanted to try and show or give opening principles as to why it is a not so good a move.

Incidently the two ratings of 1600 on my account are not mine. My son played some games on my account and thus those two low ratings. I did not know until after that he had done this and chess.com will not erase those ratings. Actually I have a correspondence rating [inactive now] of over 2500 and have met the requirements to be a USCF master. So, your statements indicating I am just using "dogma" or I do not know what I am doing are wrong.  You should not throw out such statements.

hayabusahayate 16  Telling someone that they are using "dogma" and that they do not know what they are doing is somewhat aggressive and especially when you are totally wrong.

Do you really think I do not know what I am doing?

Do you think now you can admit  you were wrong in some of your statements?

It is fine to move a Pawn after it is attacked such as your example.

It is also fine to move a Pawn to attack a piece such as in the Alekhine.

In the game the Pawn on e4 was not attacked and moving the Pawn did not attack a piece.

You are using a strawman tactic. I explained when to move a pawn in the opening twice and when not to move a Pawn in the opening twice.

You are using the term "dogmatic" again.  I carefully explained when it is correct to move a Pawn twice and when it is not correct. 

The move 4. Nbd2 is not a terrible move but actually 4. Bd3 is more flexible as 4. Nbd2 blocks the Bishop on c1 and Bd3 is good as White can 0-0 than much sooner and White can follow up 4. Bd3 with Qe2 or Re1 and build up his position.   

"dogmatic" means inclined to make statements which are always true. I did not do this. I gave exceptions [exceptions which happen often] to the rule of not moving a Pawn twice in the opening.

You seem to be a person who cannot or is not willing to learn from players who are better than you. You wish to stick to some assumptions in your head even after it has been carefully explained why you are incorrect. So who is being "dogmatic"?

OMG NOOOOOOOOOO I HAD THE BLACK PIECES I WON THE GAMEEEEE. YOU CAN CHECK MY RECORD I WON THAT GAME DAMNIT I MUST HAVE TYPED THE NAMES IN THE WTONG PLACES

CHECK THIS OUT http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/please-analyse-this-game-for-me-2

Since every one seems to be starting their focus of the line at move 4 with the move 4.Nbd2.

I figured I would spicy up the conversation lol and say what if I don't like the move 3.Nf3 that proceeds the 4.Nbd2 move lol.

What if I added chaos to the line and played the move's

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.Be3    after black reply's with 3...Bb7 I will respond with 4.f3   Shutting down his LSB. I will than fold my arms and say a Yoda Quote.

What do you have to say about that?

Here you are using "strawman". "Strawman" is a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents what his opponent is saying.

I did not say "Do not move pawns twice in the opening."

I said "You should not move a pawn twice in the opening unless you have a very good reason."

Then, later I gave some very good reasons why you should or could move a pawn twice in the opening.

These reasons included if the pawn attacks a piece such as in the Alekhine 1. e4  Nf6  2. e5  this is ok as the pawn is attacking the knight.

Another example I gave:  1. e4  e5  2. d4  exd4   Here the move exd4 is ok because that pawn was attacked.  ok to move a pawn via capture in such situations.

 Here is another time ok to move a pawn twice in the opening:

1. d4  Nf6  2. c4  c5   Now it is ok to move 3. d5 as the pawn on d4 was attacked. 

So you are using "strawman" When you say that I was trying to just say not to move a pawn twice in the opening.  Using "strawman" which means to misrepresent your opponent's argument is not cool. And this is exactly  what you have been doing. 

hayabusahayate 16

You are not being honest. I did not say: "you should not move a pawn twice in the opening."

I said: You should not move a pawn twice in the opening unless you have a very good reason."

You keep leaving out half of my sentence.  This changes the meaning of my sentence and is the logical fallacy called "strawman" where someone misrepresents what his opponent is saying.