|
Main
Date: 24 Apr 2007 18:57:35
From: Zero
Subject: why did i lose?
|
i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend. i've been reading those silman books: white: me (1307) black: 2004 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7 14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 18. Nf5 Qd7 19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3 Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38. Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1 white: me (1307) black: 2125 1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6 6. exd5 cxd5 7. Bb5+ Nc6 8. d4 Bd6 9. Qg4 Qf6 10. Be3 Ne7 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Nf5 13. g4 Nfxd4 14. Bxd4 Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4 16. Bd3 e5 17. f3 Bb4 18. Nb5 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 a6 20. Nc3 Bxc3 21. bxc3 Rac8 22. h4 Rxc3 23. g5 Rfc8 24. h5 Qxg5 25. Qf2 h6 26. Rg1 Qxh5 27. Qe3 g6 28. Kb2 Kg7 29. Qe1 b5 30. Rh1 Qxf3 31. Rf1 Qh5 32. Be2 Rxc2+ 33. Kb1 Qxe2 {White resigns} 0-1 white: 2101 black: me (1307) 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Qe2 c6 7. Bb3 Bg4 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. O-O Kh8 13. Rad1 Qe7 14. Bg5 h6 15. Bh4 g5 16. Bg3 Rad8 17. Qe3 b6 18. f3 Nh5 19. Bh2 f5 20. exf5 Rxf5 21. g4 Rf4 22. gxh5 Rh4 23. Kg2 Rxh5 24. Ne4 Nf6 25. Rxd8+ Qxd8 26. Qd3 Qxd3 27. cxd3 Nxe4 28. fxe4 Rh4 29. Rf5 g4 30. hxg4 Rxg4+ 31. Kf3 Rh4 32. Bxe5 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Rh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. Re8+ Kg7 37. e5 a5 38. e6 Kf6 39. Rf8+ Ke7 40. Rf7+ Ke8 41. Rb7 b5 42. e7 a4 43. Bd1 Rxa2 44. Bh5# {Black checkmated} 1-0
|
|
|
Date: 09 May 2007 13:51:31
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
What a lovely topic!!! (said a S&M chess player). On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > i played the following games in an open tournament > over the weekend. i've been reading those silman books: They are grossly overrated. Read world champions, the supergrandmasters or study their games. Here are my stories. 1A. I agreed to use my opponents broken 1.B chess clock. He was fair. Whenever his half of the clock was not going, as it should after my punching the clock, he would shake his clock and do other mysterious expert clock maker operations. Nevertheless, it was stressful on me, and he was losing less time than he was suppossed to. I almost won on time but with the seconds before his flag has fallen he won. I told my friend,a strong expert, this tournament story, and he asked me to show him the game. Just after a few moves, still in the opening he stopped me and got into a deep think. You have to develope this knoght, he said. I had many reasons (read: excuses) why I was procrastinating about the damn knight but he was not listening. Finally he came up with a solution as impressive as those best combinations, very deep. And all this just to develope a piece when all the tiime there were many things to do on the board. He had his priorities and an ability to solve a problem, to achieve a goal. Since then I understood that the principle of developing pieces is more than just: oh, I can do thgs or I can do that. One has to fight creatively to get ahead (or at least not behind) in development, one should find ways. It's not merely question of not being distracted by other moves. When I remember and play for the development on a higher level than I get enjoyable games. E.g. when a piece in the opening (as opposed later in the game) is attacked, then instead of moving it away one should look for a developing move which keeps the material or which pressures the opponent. *** 1B. I watched my senior master friend playing 3m games on ICC. He still found time to comment for me on the games. His pawn was attacked. He didn't bother to defend a key pawn. He told me: if he takes it, I recover the material with a gain in development. This is worth about half a move. I should get something out of it. *** 2. I played a tornament organizer, a chess master, who said that during the past year he lost more games than other chess masters played on the total. I lost the opening (a relatively new variation of Grunfeld), but somehow I was agressive. People have surrounded our board. I was doing great but I lost. It turned out that for several moves I could checkmate him but I was blind to the fact that my own pawn h7 was missing, hence the rook on h8 was controlling the h file, hence his king in the open, on the g file was lost. Oh, well. Next week or a couple of weeks, after the same opening he gets up from the board, goes to his private quarters, eats his dinner, quietly talks to his wife, etc., he is not concerned about the game. After the game he tells me: after I locked your bishop in with my pawns I was like a piece up, the game played by itself. I would win even if I didn't have this other pawn or two (which helped to make the game shorter), and he takes them off the chessboard. Well, that was another way how I was able to lose a game. Regards, Wlod
|
|
Date: 09 May 2007 07:42:49
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 18:57:35 -0700, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: >i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend. >i've been reading those silman books: > >white: me (1307) >black: 2004 >white: me (1307) >black: 2125 >white: 2101 >black: me (1307) What kind of weekend open tournament was it where you could lose at least two games and yet get fed to one more Expert ?
|
|
Date: 05 May 2007 17:47:35
From: Zero
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
Everyone says that Silman is a great author. So that is why I cited him in my analysis. I am starting to think that alot of chess books written by American authors have a fancy cover and then a bunch of computer analysis. There really is no substance to them. On Apr 29, 5:46 am, "Arfur Million" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > Here is my analysis: > > > Game 1: > > > white: me (1307) > > black: 2004 > > > 1. e4 e5 > > > I played e4 because of Fischer. > > Fischer also played other first moves at the very top level, but e4 is a > good choice. > > > > > 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 > > > I am playing the vienna because Nigel Short played it and he played > > in > > the world championship so it must be good. > > The Vienna is certainly sound, but you should choose your opening to match > the positions that you (not Short or Fischer!) are comfortable playing, and > can learn from. > > > > > 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 > > > I think I played really well so far and I am doing what Silman says. > > I > > developed all my pieces and I control the center. > > I agree that you have a reasonable position out of the opening. In my > opinion the weakness of your horrible c pawns is outweighed by your two > bishops (Fritz, however, says that Black is better, so take your pick). > > > And I fianchetto my bishop just like Fischer does. > > When Fischer fianchettoed his bishop, he usually did it with the aggressive > intent of following up with f4. This would have been a much better plan to > follow in this game, since black had more weaknesses on the kingside than on > the queenside. In order to make this plan effective, it helps to have a rook > on the f file, and possibly another rook on the e or d files in order to > pressurise black's centre. > > > > > 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7 > > > Now i am going to attack the b-pawn. silman says that i should have a > > plan so that is my plan. > > It is usually good to follow a plan. Put this game in your mental > "database", so that if a similar position arises in a future game, it will > help you to decide if you should follow this plan again, or if you should > choose a different one. > > > > > 14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 > > > now i can't attack the b-pawn anymore. > > In fact, black could always defend his b-pawn easily, in this way. So you > have played three moves to put your rooks on a file to attack a pawn which > is easily defended. As the rooks aren't doing much else on the b file, this > must be a bad plan in this position. > > > > > 18. Nf5 Qd7 > > > I don't know where my knight should go. > > Your knight on h4 is doing a grand job by attacking the weaknesses on his > kingside (I thought ...h6 was a horrible move). It is a shame that the > knight doesn't have much support - from the absent rooks, for example > (imagine the rook still on f1, both defending the exposed f pawn and helping > to support you playing an aggressive f4). > > > > > 19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3 > > > I am removing the knight from g4 and also protecting my kingside by > > creating a fortress. > > Your position is significantly worse now. Your activity on the queenside > hasn't yielded any dividend, whereas black is exploiting his strengths (open > f file) and your weaknesses (c4). > > > > > Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 > > > I was able to make some trades. i sacrifice a pawn for active pieces > > which is my plan. > > But your pieces are less active than black's, and he is now material up. > > > > > 26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 > > > my rooks are active on the b file. but i decide to come up with a > > new > > plan and move them to the center. > > Probably a good idea, but the game is beyond repair now. > > > > > 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 > > Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38. > > Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1 > > > My position is not good anymore. I don't understand what my opponent > > "sees" which I did not "see". I did everything > > that was written in the book. > > I have not read Silman, but I doubt if he said that everything will work > first time. There is a learning curve, and if treat your losses as lessons > you will improve very rapidly. > > Regards, > Arfur
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2007 13:21:59
From: Ron
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > Everyone says that Silman is a great author. So that is why I cited > him in my analysis. I am starting to think that alot of chess books > written by American authors have a fancy cover and then a bunch of > computer analysis. There really is no substance to them. I smell a troll. On the off-chance you're serious, however, the problem has nothing to do with the books you're reading, and everything to do with the fact that your thought process is extremely superficial. Playing chess well is hard. If you're not willing to work hard, you're going to lose a lot of games. -Ron
|
|
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:57:51
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend. > i've been reading those silman books: > > white: me (1307) > black: 2004 > > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 > Nf6 8. > Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7 > 14. > Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 18. Nf5 Qd7 19. Nh4 Ng4 > 20. > f3 > Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 > 26. > Bd3 > Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. > Kxg2 > Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38. > Rb2 > Ra3 > 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1 Passive play in the opening. You put your B on g2 then stuck a pawn on e4? Where will it go from there. Doubled c pawns are weak, you should have never allowed that --- Perhaps 6. dxc3 instead. Instead of playing for the B file, center your rooks and play for the center. After 23. Ng2 Qf7 the game is over - you have too many weaknesses, the Rooks on the B file hit nothing. And why play 25. Qxf3? Just play Be2 - after Qxe3 Nxe3 you'll have developed 2 peices and kept his rook back... Tempo! Pay attention! You should have resigned earlier. Is 4. g3 book? Looks rank. :)
|
|
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:43:21
From: Zero
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
Here is my analysis: Game 1: white: me (1307) black: 2004 1. e4 e5 I played e4 because of Fischer. 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 I am playing the vienna because Nigel Short played it and he played in the world championship so it must be good. 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 I think I played really well so far and I am doing what Silman says. I developed all my pieces and I control the center. And I fianchetto my bishop just like Fischer does. 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7 Now i am going to attack the b-pawn. silman says that i should have a plan so that is my plan. 14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 now i can't attack the b-pawn anymore. 18. Nf5 Qd7 I don't know where my knight should go. 19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3 I am removing the knight from g4 and also protecting my kingside by creating a fortress. Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 I was able to make some trades. i sacrifice a pawn for active pieces which is my plan. 26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 my rooks are active on the b file. but i decide to come up with a new plan and move them to the center. 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38. Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1 My position is not good anymore. I don't understand what my opponent "sees" which I did not "see". I did everything that was written in the book. white: me (1307) black: 2125 I played e4 again because fischer says so. 1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6 I saw that Fischer played this as white during the 1950s so it must be good against the Caro Kan't defense. I have two bishops so i am going to open the center like Silman says. 6. exd5 cxd5 7. Bb5+ Nc6 8. d4! I like this move a lot because he can't take d4 because of the pinned knight. I think this is a really good move since i also get the center. 8... Bd6 9. Qg4 Qf6 10. Be3 Ne7 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Nf5 I have now developed all of my pieces and so I am going to attack the kingside. I like tactics a lot and all the books say that low rated players should focus on tactics so that is what i am going to do. 13. g4!! Nfxd4 14. Bxd4 Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4 I made a brilliant Tal sacrifice. Tal always sacrificed his pieces and now I am going to attack attack attack!!! 16. Bd3 e5 17. f3 Bb4 18. Nb5 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 a6 20. Nc3 Bxc3 21. bxc3 Rac8 22. h4! Rxc3 23. g5! Rfc8 My kingside attack is very cool. He is like a Fischer attack that is played against the Dragon. 24. h5! Qxg5 25. Qf2 h6 26. Rg1 Qxh5 27. Qe3 g6 28. Kb2 Kg7 29. Qe1 b5 30. Rh1 Qxf3 31. Rf1 Qh5 32. Be2 Rxc2+ 33. Kb1 Qxe2 {White resigns} 0-1 I have a bad position now. I don't understand why I lost. i did what all the players do and also followed what the book says. white: 2101 black: me (1307) I am playing a king's indian setup since that is what fischer played. if fischer played it, it must be good. i want to be as good as fischer so i should just copy him and play his openings. 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Qe2 c6 7. Bb3 Bg4 8. h3 Bxf3 The books says that in closed positions, you should keep knights. so I traded off this bishop. 9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. O-O Kh8!! It is a great move. I have seen GMs play it. My friend told me in the sicilian, they play Kh1 as white. Even that dude Anand played Kh1 against Kasparov several times in their 1995 match. I played Kh8 because it a nice deep move. I was trying to psyche out my opponent. These guys are very high rated but I think they might get too over-confident. It must of worked because afterwards, my opponent thought for over 10 minutes before making his next move. Thank you Anand, Thank you Kasparov! 13. Rad1 Qe7 14.Bg5 h6! 15. Bh4 g5! Now the bishop is on g3. Fischer did this alot in his king's indian games so it must be good. 16. Bg3 Rad8 17. Qe3 b6 18. f3 Nh5 i have developed all of my pieces and now i need a plan. i am going to open up a kingside attack since that is you do like fischer would. so that is my plan. 19. Bh2 f5 20. exf5 Rxf5 I missed the next move. 21. g4 Rf4 22. gxh5 Rh4 23. Kg2 Rxh5 24. Ne4 Nf6 25. Rxd8+ Qxd8 26. Qd3 Qxd3 27. cxd3 Nxe4 I still have some chances. Maybe I can swindle him. 28. fxe4 Rh4 29. Rf5 g4 30. hxg4 Rxg4+ 31. Kf3 Rh4 32. Bxe5 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Rh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. Re8+ Kg7 37. e5 a5 38. e6 Kf6 39. Rf8+ Ke7 40. Rf7+ Ke8 41. Rb7 b5 42. e7 a4 43. Bd1 Rxa2 44. Bh5# {Black checkmated} 1-0 I don't understand what this guy did differently. I just developed my pieces and made a plan like all the chess books say.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 12:46:14
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Here is my analysis: > > Game 1: > > white: me (1307) > black: 2004 > > > 1. e4 e5 > > I played e4 because of Fischer. Fischer also played other first moves at the very top level, but e4 is a good choice. > > 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 > > I am playing the vienna because Nigel Short played it and he played > in > the world championship so it must be good. The Vienna is certainly sound, but you should choose your opening to match the positions that you (not Short or Fischer!) are comfortable playing, and can learn from. > > 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 > > I think I played really well so far and I am doing what Silman says. > I > developed all my pieces and I control the center. I agree that you have a reasonable position out of the opening. In my opinion the weakness of your horrible c pawns is outweighed by your two bishops (Fritz, however, says that Black is better, so take your pick). > And I fianchetto my bishop just like Fischer does. When Fischer fianchettoed his bishop, he usually did it with the aggressive intent of following up with f4. This would have been a much better plan to follow in this game, since black had more weaknesses on the kingside than on the queenside. In order to make this plan effective, it helps to have a rook on the f file, and possibly another rook on the e or d files in order to pressurise black's centre. > > 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7 > > Now i am going to attack the b-pawn. silman says that i should have a > plan so that is my plan. It is usually good to follow a plan. Put this game in your mental "database", so that if a similar position arises in a future game, it will help you to decide if you should follow this plan again, or if you should choose a different one. > > 14. Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 > > now i can't attack the b-pawn anymore. In fact, black could always defend his b-pawn easily, in this way. So you have played three moves to put your rooks on a file to attack a pawn which is easily defended. As the rooks aren't doing much else on the b file, this must be a bad plan in this position. > > 18. Nf5 Qd7 > > I don't know where my knight should go. Your knight on h4 is doing a grand job by attacking the weaknesses on his kingside (I thought ...h6 was a horrible move). It is a shame that the knight doesn't have much support - from the absent rooks, for example (imagine the rook still on f1, both defending the exposed f pawn and helping to support you playing an aggressive f4). > > 19. Nh4 Ng4 20. f3 > > I am removing the knight from g4 and also protecting my kingside by > creating a fortress. Your position is significantly worse now. Your activity on the queenside hasn't yielded any dividend, whereas black is exploiting his strengths (open f file) and your weaknesses (c4). > > Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 > > I was able to make some trades. i sacrifice a pawn for active pieces > which is my plan. But your pieces are less active than black's, and he is now material up. > > 26. Bd3 Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 > > my rooks are active on the b file. but i decide to come up with a > new > plan and move them to the center. Probably a good idea, but the game is beyond repair now. > > 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. Kxg2 Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 > Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38. > Rb2 Ra3 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1 > > My position is not good anymore. I don't understand what my opponent > "sees" which I did not "see". I did everything > that was written in the book. > > I have not read Silman, but I doubt if he said that everything will work first time. There is a learning curve, and if treat your losses as lessons you will improve very rapidly. Regards, Arfur
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:58:10
From: Ron
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > Here is my analysis: The reason why you're losing is because your analysis is very shallow. You need to train yourself to see deeper. You need to study more master games, and, in addition to reading Silman you need to UNDERSTAND him. But I suspect he's a little too sophisticated for you right now. Study Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch and Alekhine. Work on your tactics. Play through a couple of hundred master games. And dig deeper, when you're playing. -Ron
|
|
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:29:12
From: Ron
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend. > i've been reading those silman books: Why don't you start by analyzing the games yourself and telling us what you think you did wrong. > white: me (1307) > black: 2004 > > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 d6 5. Bg2 Bxc3 6. bxc3 f5 7. d3 > Nf6 8. > Qe2 O-O 9. O-O fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Rb1 Rb8 13. Be3 Qe7 > 14. > Rb2 Be6 15. Qd3 h6 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Rfb1 b6 18. Nf5 Qd7 19. Nh4 Ng4 > 20. > f3 > Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Na5 22. Bf1 g5 23. Ng2 Qf7 24. a3 Qxf3 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 > 26. > Bd3 > Rbf8 27. Rb4 c5 28. R4b2 Bh3 29. Re1 c4 30. Be2 Rxc3 31. Ra2 Bxg2 32. > Kxg2 > Nc6 33. Bd1 Nd4 34. a4 Nc6 35. Bg4 a5 36. Bf5+ Kg7 37. Re2 Nb4 38. > Rb2 > Ra3 > 39. Rd2 Rd8 {White resigns} 0-1 > > > white: me (1307) > black: 2125 > > 1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 e6 6. exd5 cxd5 7. > Bb5+ Nc6 > 8. d4 Bd6 9. Qg4 Qf6 10. Be3 Ne7 11. O-O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Nf5 13. g4 > Nfxd4 > 14. > Bxd4 Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Qxd4 16. Bd3 e5 17. f3 Bb4 18. Nb5 Qf4+ 19. Kb1 a6 > 20. > Nc3 Bxc3 21. bxc3 Rac8 22. h4 Rxc3 23. g5 Rfc8 24. h5 Qxg5 25. Qf2 h6 > 26. > Rg1 Qxh5 27. Qe3 g6 28. Kb2 Kg7 29. Qe1 b5 30. Rh1 Qxf3 31. Rf1 Qh5 > 32. > Be2 > Rxc2+ 33. Kb1 Qxe2 {White resigns} 0-1 > > > white: 2101 > black: me (1307) > > 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Qe2 c6 7. Bb3 > Bg4 > 8. > h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. O-O Kh8 13. Rad1 > Qe7 > 14. > Bg5 h6 15. Bh4 g5 16. Bg3 Rad8 17. Qe3 b6 18. f3 Nh5 19. Bh2 f5 20. > exf5 > Rxf5 21. g4 Rf4 22. gxh5 Rh4 23. Kg2 Rxh5 24. Ne4 Nf6 25. Rxd8+ Qxd8 > 26. Qd3 > Qxd3 27. cxd3 Nxe4 28. fxe4 Rh4 29. Rf5 g4 30. hxg4 Rxg4+ 31. Kf3 Rh4 > 32. > Bxe5 Rh3+ 33. Ke2 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Rh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. Re8+ Kg7 37. e5 > a5 38. > e6 Kf6 39. Rf8+ Ke7 40. Rf7+ Ke8 41. Rb7 b5 42. e7 a4 43. Bd1 Rxa2 > 44. > Bh5# > {Black checkmated} > 1-0
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:52:25
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
En/na Ron ha escrit: > In article <[email protected]>, > Zero <[email protected]> wrote: > >>i played the following games in an open tournament over the weekend. >>i've been reading those silman books: > > Why don't you start by analyzing the games yourself and telling us what > you think you did wrong. Excellent advice, ... analyzing in first place yourself people are able to help you more to improve. AT
|
|
Date: 25 Apr 2007 03:38:05
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: why did i lose?
|
> white: me (1307) > black: 2004 I'll go with "rating differential." -- Ray Gordon, Author Price And Probability (The Value Handicapper's Bible) http://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html Would someone PLEASE become Ashlee Schull's new #1 fan? She deserves better.
|
|