Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| invincible1 3/16/2004 04:09:09 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: analyze my gameMessage: Hi Everyone, I visit GK related forum from time to time, but not this one.. I was wondering how this place is like. If I post one/two of my past games here, will there be people who would be willing to provide me with some analysis/comments? Not detailed, but with respect to a few particular moves....? Often I am not sure where I go wrong.. or what moves might be better.. and worst.. even when told that a certain move is better than another, I often fail to see why! :-( Well, one way to understanding this is realy analyze deep and by brute force almost, like how a system would perhaps do.. but what I am more interested in is being able to understand how better players as compared to me can spot better moves than me sometimes with the same amount of analysis... but just superior intuitive, positional understanding. invincible1 PS: Oh yeah, before someone starts insulting me agin, I am by no means close to invincible! LOL! |
| migchess20 3/16/2004 09:19:37 [ report this post ] | analyze game Message: Hi Friend: Put a game that you have played and I will do some comments. So long |
| error 3/16/2004 20:25:27 [ report this post ] | You can Message: Go ahead and post one, they usually get a number of good analyzers. |
| invincible1 3/17/2004 01:02:36 [ report this post ] | here is the game Message: W: dominickmazotta B: invincible1 I am not sure if Bf3 could have been better than Be6 on move 14 for me. I was just trying nimzowich opening in a few games... but the big mistake I made was trying it against someone like Dominick.. He crushed me in most of our games, and now I am back to sicilian. Not that it makes a big difference, lol! Anyway, this is one game I drew against him... but maybe he had an edge throughout.. So perhaps I missed some better moves... Any comments will be appreciated. 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 e4 8. Ne5 Nxe5 9. dxe5 Ne7 10. Qxd5 Nxd5 11. Bd2 Bf5 12. g4 Bxg4 13. Rg1 h5 14. h3 Be6 15. Rxg7 O-O-O 16. O-O-O Rd-g8 17. Rg2 c6 18. c4 Nb6 19. b3 Nd7 20. Bc3 Nc5 21. Rxg8+ Rxg8 22. Bd4 Nd7 23. Kd2 c5 24. Bc3 Rg5 25. Ke3 Nxe5 26. Kxe4 Nd7 27. Re1 Rg1 28. Be2 Rxe1 29. Bxe1 Bxh3 30. Kf4 Kd8 31. Bxh5 Ke7 32. Bc3 b6 33. Be2 f6 34. Bd3 Be6 35. Ke4 a5 36. f4 Nb8 37. Bb2 Nc6 38. f5 Bf7 39. Be2 a4 40. Bd1 1/2 - 1/2. |
| invincible1 3/17/2004 01:07:59 [ report this post ] | two miniatures. Message: Here are two quick games... I had (and perhaps still have) faith in this opening exchange sacrifice. I had even asked cyrano, and then he said black has some play after the sacrifice.. So I decided to try it out... First game went W:dominickmazzotta B:invincible1 1.e4 Nc62.d4 d53.exd5 Qxd54.Nf3 Bg45.Nc3 Bxf36.Nxd5 Bxd17.Nxc7+ Kd78.Nxa8 Bxc29.d5 Ne510.Be3 Nf611.Bb5+ 1-0. Now after this loss, I realised 7.....Kd8 is better and should give black some compensation... So I decided to try it out also against himin our very next game... 1.e4 Nc62.d4 d53.exd5 Qxd54.Nf3 Bg45.Nc3 Bxf36.Nxd5 Bxd17.Nxc7+ Kd88.Nxa8 Bxc29.d5 Nd410.Be3 e511.dxe6 e.p. Nxe612.Bb5 Bb4+13.Ke2 Nf614.Ra-c1 Be415.Rh-d1+ Ke716.Nc7 a617.Nxe6 1-0 Result - the same! :-( Just that I lasted 6 moves longer, lol! Anyway, these two games where long back and I don't play Nimzowich opening anymore. It was just few (maybe 8-10 games) in which I tried it during that period. |
| migchess20 3/18/2004 16:50:41 [ report this post ] | Analisis Game Message: Hi Invincible1 I send you an�lisis game, It was a similar game Dominik - Invincible [B00] 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 Okey with theory 4.Nf3 e5 [4...Bg4 5.Nc3 Qf5 6.Be3 (6.Bd3 Bxf3 7.Bxf5 Bxd1 8.Kxd1 Nxd4) 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qxf3 8.gxf3 e6 Black with advantage ligth] 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 e4 Van der Weil - Reiderman 1998 8.Ne5 Nxe5 9.dxe5 Ne7 10.Qxd5 Nxd5 11.Bd2 Bf5 Plinio Pazos - Julio Granda 1996 [11...Be6 12.Rd1 Rd8 13.Be2 Nb6; 11...Bg4 12.h3 Be6 13.Rd1 Rd8 14.a3 f6 Both Be6 and Bg4 are best compared with Bf5; 11...Be6 12.0-0-0 f5 13.Be2 a6] 12.g4N Bxg4 13.Rg1 h5 14.h3 Be6 15.Rxg7 0-0-0 [15...Kf8 16.Rg1 f5 17.Be2 h4] 16.0-0-0 Rdg8 17.Rg2 c6 18.c4 Nb6 19.b3 Nd7 20.Bc3 Nc5 [20...h4 21.Bd4 c5 22.Bc3 Re8 23.Rg5] 21.Rxg8+ Rxg8 22.Bd4 Nd7 23.Kd2 c5 24.Bc3 Rg5 25.Ke3 Nxe5 26.Kxe4 Nd7 [26...Ng6 27.Bd2 Bf5+ 28.Kd5 Be6+] 27.Re1 Rg1 28.Be2 Rxe1 29.Bxe1 Bxh3 30.Kf4 Kd8 31.Bxh5 Ke7 [31...Be6 32.Bc3 Ke7 33.Bf3 b6] 32.Bc3 b6 33.Be2 f6 34.Bd3 Be6 35.Ke4 a5 36.f4 Nb8 37.Bb2 Nc6 [37...f5+ 38.Ke3 Nc6 39.Bc3 Kd6 40.a3 Bc8] 38.f5 Bf7 39.Be2 a4 40.Bd1 A similar game �-� dominick - invicible1 [B00] 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Nc3 Bxf3 [5...Qf5 6.d5 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qxf3 8.gxf3 Nd4 9.Nb5 Nxc2+ 10.Kd1=] 6.Nxd5 Bxd1 7.Nxc7+ Kd7 8.Nxa8 Bxc2 9.d5 Ne5 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Bb5+ 1-0 In the other miniature you could also 5�.Qf5� So long |
| anaxagoras 3/19/2004 19:04:38 [ report this post ] | Message: I haven't done any thorough analysis, but I did enter your game into chess base and a superficial inspection suggests it was extremely even the whole way through. Yes, white had a slight edge through a lot of it, but did not have any big opportunities. |
| caldazar 3/20/2004 01:21:02 [ report this post ] | Message: In dominickmazotta-invincible1,White didn't really have much of an edge overall. The problem for White in these types of positions is that although he has the two bishops, he doesn't have a useful way to gain piece activity so the minor pieces usually never get a chance to show their strength. You sort of allowed White some piece activity that you really didn't need to permit, although whether White had enough activity to win is debatable. 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 {This is no try for an advantage. 3. e5 or 3. Nc3 at least gives White something to work with.} 3... Qxd5 4. Nf3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 e4 8. Ne5 Nxe5 9. dxe5 Ne7 10. Qxd5 Nxd5 11. Bd2 Bf5 {The bishop is not especially well-placed here, although I suppose it does defend e4 which in turn limits White's options in developing the light-squared bishop. 11... Be6 seems more natural to me.} 12. g4 Bxg4 {Okay, I suppose, but I don't care much for this. Depriving White's pieces of activity while keeping one's own pieces active is more typical of the way this type of position is usually handled. I prefer 12... Bg6 (12... Be6 can be met by 13. Bg2).} 13. Rg1 h5 14. h3 Be6 {14... Bf3 is fine too. Both bishop positions have their merits in the form of activity and I don't personally see that one post is necessarily better than the other; they merely apply pressure in different ways. One point in favor of 14... Bf3 might be that it prevents a rook from coming to d1, though. On the other hand, on e6, the bishop does control d5 and f7 quite economically.} 15. Rxg7 O-O-O 16. O-O-O Rdg8 17. Rg2 {Hoping for 17... Rxg2 18. Bxg2 f5 19. exf6 Nxf6 which would be a step in the right direction, although even in this case White still wouldn't have any real advantage yet.} 17... c6 {I don't care for this move, which can only hurt the light-squared bishops prospects. Perhaps 17... h4 instead to fix the White pawn on a light square, although to be fair, Black doesn't have much in the way of an active plan; he is simply holding a very solid position.} 18. c4 Nb6 19. b3 Nd7 20. Bc3 Nc5 {Black probably needs to concede the g-file and bring the rook to d8 if he wants to succeed with this plan, although even then 20... Rd8 21. Rg7 Nc5 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. Kc2 Nd3 24. f3 doesn't look particularly promising.} 21. Rxg8+ Rxg8 22. Bd4 Nd7 23. Kd2 c5 24. Bc3 Rg525. Ke3 Nxe5 26. Kxe4 Nd7 {White still doesn't have a good square for his light-squared bishop.} 27.Re1 Rg1 28. Be2 Rxe1 29. Bxe1 Bxh3 30. Kf4 Kd8 {After 30... Bg4 31. Bxg4 hxg4 32. Bc3 Kc7 33. Kxg4, there isn't much left to play for.} 31. Bxh5 Ke7 32. Bc3 {White can claim this diagonal any time. 32. Bf3 first.} 32... b6 {32... Bg2 robs White of control over the long diagonal.} 33. Be2 {33. Bf3. Even with both of his bishops on such fine posts, however, it's questionable whether White has enough activity to win.} 33... f6 34. Bd3 Be6 35. Ke4 {Black's configuration of pieces keeps White from penetrating with his king.} 35... a5 36. f4 Nb8 37. Bb2 Nc6 38. f5 Bf7 39. Be2 a4 40. Bd1 1/2-1/2 |
| christian1974 3/20/2004 03:42:51 [ report this post ] | Gambit Message: After 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3 exd5 Qxd5 it is true that Nf3 promises white very little. However 4 Nc3!? Qxd4 5 Qe2 is an interesting pawn sac which gives white, in my opinion, good play. He can always play Be3 hitting the queen again and has ideas of Nb5 floating around. With quick devolement and an easy game i think white has reasonable combensation here. |
| invincible1 3/20/2004 12:04:20 [ report this post ] | thanks a lot! Message: Thanks a lot everyone! I shall get back on this thread within a day or two! Right now sudden urgent problems. But thank you everyone and i shall surely look at all this and get back as soon as I can. |
| caldazar 3/20/2004 13:09:21 [ report this post ] | 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qxd4 5. Qe2 Message: Hmm... interesting; Black certainly does lose quite a bit of time with his queen. On the other hand, while it does facilitate Rd1 or O-O-O, e2 is not exactly an ideal post for the queen either. 5... a6 raises a few eyebrows but it does directly confront a part of White's idea. (4... e5 is tempting, but it might be more trouble than it's worth in the end). Then 6. Be3 Qb4 7. O-O-O Nf6 8. Nf3 Bd7 (or perhaps 8... Bg4; this seems a bit more risky, though). I'm not sure White really has enough for the pawn so I wouldn't want to venture this in a correspondence game, but over-the-board I would think White would have fairly good practical chances. White's attack, such as it is, does not come particularly fast (after White's initial burst in the opening) so Black has time to play slowly to get his development in order, carefully reducing White's activity bit-by-bit. |
| ccmcacollister 3/20/2004 20:25:50 [ report this post ] | Invincible-1 Message: I've got an ongoing with premiumSteve. So now only to say; without even setting a board I can see, you play a lot more interesting Nimzovich than i do! If you ever get a chance to see his games, Alex Dunne often plays the Nimzovich. And has written interesting things on it i'm sure. His opening deseratiions on Leisure Linc on a number of openings were fabulous, I thought. I wonder if it is still in existance under the newer identity of USA Today Sports Center, (or some newer name?) And if still partly Chess related? (& still expensive?) |
| invincible1 3/21/2004 21:30:05 [ report this post ] | Thanks Message: Thanks everyone! Went through all the analysis slowly! Really helped... And thanks caldazar for the comments also.. It helps a great deal to know the reason behind suggesting some moves. I especially liked your comment about playing Bf3 before Bc3 to occupy the diagonal etc... Thanks everyone! |
Post a reply to this message: |
