Game analysis

Main

Date: 22 Sep 2005 04:38:10
From:
Subject: Game analysis

Hi,
I feel this game best reflects my current chess understanding -
control the centre then attack the king. I am hoping someone could
point out the tactical and strategic mistakes I made. And whether this
style of play could get me to master strength (an ambition of mine).
Do I need to play a more postional style against pawn weaknesses to get
to that level?

I am playing black by the way.

Thanks
Adam Godwin

1.d4 Nc6 2.e3 f6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nd2 Bg7 5.b3 e5 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Bb2 d6 8.Bb5
a6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.h3 Bb7 11.Ne4 h6 12.o-o Ne7 13.Nh2 o-o 14.c4 Nf5
15.Ng4 Qe7 16.a4 Rd8 17.Qc2 Re8 18.Ba3 Qe6 19.Rd1 Kh8 20.c5 d5 21.Nd2
h5 22.Nh2 Rd7 23.Nf3 Bf6 24.e4 Bc8 25.exf5 gxf5 26.Re1 e4 27.Nh2 Rg7
28.Bb2 Rg8 29.g3 f4 30.Bxf6 Qxf6 31.Nxe4 dxe4 32.Rxe4 fxg3 33.Ng4 hxg4
34.hxg4 Bxg4 35.Rd2 gxf2+ 36.Rxf2 Be2+ 37.Kh1 Rh7+ 38.Rh2 Qf1++

Date: 26 Sep 2005 05:28:03
From:
Subject: Re: Game analysis

I had a look through my game again:
+ I think 20.c5 was a mistake - giving me a better hold in the centre.
+ I think 16.f4 would of prevented my plans of dominating the centre.
+ I think the knight sacrifice achieved what I wanted it to - a
stronger centre and complications against the king.

Date: 23 Sep 2005 19:13:41
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Game analysis

> Hi,
> I feel this game best reflects my current chess understanding -

so sorry to hear that!

Date: 23 Sep 2005 09:52:23
From:
Subject: Re: Game analysis

lol yeah... sorry about that... i think thats all for them

Date: 22 Sep 2005 11:53:05
From:
Subject: Re: Game analysis

I think your right about the "dilly-dallying" out of the opening. I
was aiming for a long term hold over of the centre - but I guess I was
being too slow about it. So slow that an opponent could bypass the
centre by going via the wings before I've even established it.

The general plan from moves 14-25 was to support the centre for
further expansion, but allowing my pieces to swing to the king side
when needed. Unfortuantly Ne4 was preventing the d5 break due to Nc5.

I wasn't to keen on moving my pawn to c5 early on as I felt it could
become a weakness as the c-file could be opened - allowing to much
counter play on the queenside.

Sorry - 16. ...Rad8 17. ...Rfe8 and 23. ...Nhf3.

Thanks for the feedback - I'm going to have a think about how I can be
more efficient in my occupation of the centre.

Date: 22 Sep 2005 23:53:33
From: e4thenNc3
Subject: Re: Game analysis

hi I haven't set up my chess pieces and done this exercise yet bu
sounds
nice!
but for my personal experiences, I don't sacrifice pawns. I hav
learned that
keeping more pawns help you alot all throughout the game.
However it is right that it is important to control the center wit
pawns or knight.
And it is better to advance pawns and knight on 5~7 rank cause tha
threatens king's base very much.
I prefer keeping pawns and knights rather than sacrifices

--
e4thenNc3

Date: 22 Sep 2005 18:00:42
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Game analysis

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

> Hi,
> I feel this game best reflects my current chess understanding -
> control the centre then attack the king. I am hoping someone could
> point out the tactical and strategic mistakes I made. And whether this
> style of play could get me to master strength (an ambition of mine).
> Do I need to play a more postional style against pawn weaknesses to get
> to that level?

First of all, let's start with the good. The way you conduct the
attack starting with the N sacrifice on f5 to open the g-file is very
impressive. You should be very happy with the way you conducted the
attack, although white's defense isn't particualrly impresive (he seems
all too willing to just throw material back at you for now reason. Nf1
rather than Nxe4 gives him a much better chance to defend, and if he has
to he can still throw off some material to blunt your intiative. Instead
he gives you material equality AND an attack. I believe your position is
won even against better defense, however.)

The ability to sacrifice for an attack is one of the most important
skills in chess.

That being said, your play up to that point reveals a certain amount of,
shall we say, naivitee. In particular, 2. ... f6 is NOT a productive
move, and you really should have been looking to activate your Bb7 by
expanding in the center rather than let black lock it away by playing c5
himself. After you play ...c5, at almost any point between moves 13 and
20, your bishop would have become very powerful.

You did a good job, however, of recognizing that it was a weak peace a
redeploying it.

I felt like there was a lot of dilly-dallying once you were out of the
opening. You didn't really seem like you had a plan from moves 14-25.

As for your larger question, it's really unanswerable. There are
definitely things here to like and be encouraged by; your opponent here
is not very strong, but you beat him in convincing fashion. You will
need more positional subtlety to become a master, but that shouldn't
come to the exclusion of your aggressive style. Simply, you'll need
better positional skills to get to a point where you can favorably set
off the fireworks.

As always, however, it's hard to judge somebody from a win. Your
opponent wasn't your equal here. Why don't you post what you consider to
be a hard-fought loss. A stronger player would take advantage of what
looks to me like somewhat passive time-wasting once you're out of the
opening, as well as your questionable opening moves.

I'd strongly recommend Silman's "How to Reassess Your Chess" which I
think will help address the planning issue.

> I am playing black by the way.
>
> Thanks
> Adam Godwin
>
> 1.d4 Nc6 2.e3 f6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nd2 Bg7 5.b3 e5 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Bb2 d6 8.Bb5
> a6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.h3 Bb7 11.Ne4 h6 12.o-o Ne7 13.Nh2 o-o 14.c4 Nf5
> 15.Ng4 Qe7 16.a4 Rd8 17.Qc2 Re8 18.Ba3 Qe6 19.Rd1 Kh8 20.c5 d5 21.Nd2
> h5 22.Nh2 Rd7 23.Nf3 Bf6 24.e4 Bc8 25.exf5 gxf5 26.Re1 e4 27.Nh2 Rg7
> 28.Bb2 Rg8 29.g3 f4 30.Bxf6 Qxf6 31.Nxe4 dxe4 32.Rxe4 fxg3 33.Ng4 hxg4
> 34.hxg4 Bxg4 35.Rd2 gxf2+ 36.Rxf2 Be2+ 37.Kh1 Rh7+ 38.Rh2 Qf1++

Date: 22 Sep 2005 18:06:57
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Game analysis

Incidentally I had to make some educated guesses about some of your rook
moves (I assumed 16. ... Rad8 and 17. ... Rfe8).

-Ron

Date: 23 Sep 2005 16:43:01
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Game analysis

En/na Ron ha escrit:
> Incidentally I had to make some educated guesses about some of your rook
> moves (I assumed 16. ... Rad8 and 17. ... Rfe8).
>
> -Ron

and other guesses are: 4.Nbd2, 19.Rad1, 23.Nhf3, 26.Rfe1
AT

-------------- original post ---------
I am playing black by the way.

Thanks
Adam Godwin

1.d4 Nc6 2.e3 f6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nd2 Bg7 5.b3 e5 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Bb2 d6 8.Bb5
a6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.h3 Bb7 11.Ne4 h6 12.o-o Ne7 13.Nh2 o-o 14.c4 Nf5
15.Ng4 Qe7 16.a4 Rd8 17.Qc2 Re8 18.Ba3 Qe6 19.Rd1 Kh8 20.c5 d5 21.Nd2
h5 22.Nh2 Rd7 23.Nf3 Bf6 24.e4 Bc8 25.exf5 gxf5 26.Re1 e4 27.Nh2 Rg7
28.Bb2 Rg8 29.g3 f4 30.Bxf6 Qxf6 31.Nxe4 dxe4 32.Rxe4 fxg3 33.Ng4 hxg4
34.hxg4 Bxg4 35.Rd2 gxf2+ 36.Rxf2 Be2+ 37.Kh1 Rh7+ 38.Rh2 Qf1++