Your game deeply annotated by a GM

Hi Petar,

It doesn't have to be totally complete so long as I get the gist of what I did wrong  I know of course roughly where I went wrong but still would be nice to have a more complete picture if possible,

Thanks in advance!

I would destroy you in bullet GM PArnaudov    

Hi GM Parnaudov !

Please, if you have time, analyse this:

Only a note, GM Parnaudov:

Do not say "Hi Jack" these days.

If you say it loud, in an airport in USA, you will be arrested, because the police will intepretate as an attempt of terrorism (HIJACK a plane or people).

https://www.chess.com/live/game/1595433779

<BulletProofJacker> you're a patzer. Leave the GM alone. 

I don't speak to Belgiums, dangerous country.

lol

Ok, i won't :(

Dear GM Arnaudov,

you annotated the game I posted, and posted it as #16 on the first page. 

Unfortunately, due to a bug, I can never see that game in that post - it keeps saying "loading"... no matter how many times I enter that page. 

Please post your annotations of my game newly. Many thanks!

Can you analyze this game?

Does the analysis in post #15 not load for you? I see issues with diagrams in quotes, but not that one.

Anyway, I'll repost the analysis here:

Thank you, Martin0 !!! :-)

Indeed - now I can see and follow the game analyzed by GM Arnaudov. I'm happy that you re-posted!!!! :-)

Before starting, again I'm grateful (really!!) to have my game personally annotated by a GM. This really doesn't happen every day!!!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I will post here my notes on the game and on GM Arnaudov's annotations:

Note 1) 7. c4 Bxe5! 8. de Nc6! is a theoretical variation which I really like and was ready to play. There are many pitfalls there for both players - but I'm prepared on it. 

It was played many times by GM Yussupow in the candidates matches - and I prepared some novelties, working with Stockfish. I feel like a fish in water in these positions - even though I concede the two bishops, the game assumes a more tactical character for both players, with positional considerations being a bit less important than concrete variations. 

2) Move 14 – my sacrifice vs. taking on f3.

This is one point in which I differ from an IM/GM – the pro is more experienced, looks at the position, and immediately says – “Ha! Bishop pair, position opens (after 14…exf3) – white mistake!” (with a Russian accent).

I still don’t have that much confidence in the abstract positional principle per se. I would calculate some variations – and indeed, in these variations that you posted, I personally wasn’t convinced that black was actually better. It seemed that white has play too… Moreover, these were not the only possible variations…

On the other hand, the sacrifice did look promising – and even Stockfish liked it.

I once read a recommendation by a strong player, who said – if you see a complex continuation that you like, and you can’t find a refutation – play it.

Of course – when the alternative is just equality.

Had I understood (which I still don’t really) that 14…exf3 is tangibly better for me, chances are that I would pick it over something which seemed to me unclear during the game.

3) Re. your suggestion 17. f4! – I suppose that you would answer …f5 with g4 and a pawn storm? Or have that as an option and simply keep developing, Bb2?

The extra piece can really tell – but I also have some ideas, such as …Rad8-d3, with a5-a4, maybe Bc5, pressure on the Ne3…

For me it is still difficult to evaluate, when both parties have plans which take numerous moves, which plan ultimately prevails. More experience is certainly needed.

4) Starting from move 17, you begin to show me that I should just get MOVING!

Funny – I sacrificed the piece for the pawns, and then for the rest of the game I just do nothing with the pawns! Very inconsistent. Indeed, pushing them would have put white under stress, and would be the true expression of the idea I created with the sacrifice on d4.

5) I like the idea of 24…f6 very much. I was probably afraid of the king’s exposure – but indeed, white has only one rook, not two – and it’s me who has a light squared bishop, not him. Additionally, I failed to perceive that my other bishop would be vulnerable on d6. It is defended by a pawn on c7, after all, not so?

But yes – the whole idea is that that pawn at some point finally MOVES, duh!

6) Yes – I was in time trouble when I blundered the piece on move 31. With your suggestion, 31…Rc2, ideas for white of sacrificing back a piece on b6 still come short, as there’s a THIRD extra pawn on the K-side… so black can press and press and press.

Overall, it’s a great privilege to witness the way of thinking of a great player, applied to the game of a good player (me).

You really did a very thorough job, pointing out the problems in the play of both sides with words and ideas, and without overburdening with variations. Your annotations are easy to follow and very instructive indeed. I’m very happy to have received this opportunity!!

Please analyze this game:

I know you were very busy..
Its been a while ive posted my game but I still check this thread everyday in a hope that my game is ready.

When will you analyze my game?

Be patient. It's free.

There's no problem if you say you cannot help analyzing my game.
I understand that you may be very busy. But at least tell me... so that I can stop waiting  
I am happy that you commented "nice game" seeing my posted game.
Hello sir? are you there? 

Hi, I was really quite busy this month and have no time for analyzes. I will comment your game today  and post it. Later I will try to comment all games until the end of next week