Game review

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Nicky Chorley
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Game review

Post by Nicky Chorley » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:47 pm

If anyone would like to review one of my games again, here is an example from the Hammersmith rapid tournament (1/2 hour); a loss, naturally!

1.f4 d5 { Gets me a pawn in the centre, controlling e4 and c4. } 2.c4 Nf6 { Defends the pawn again, as well as developing a knight. } 3.Nf3 Nc6 { Develops the other knight, but maybe I should have played Bc5 instead? Probably allowing him to take the pawn was bad, as I had to move my f6 knight several times instead of developing. } 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxf4 6.d4 Ng6 7.Bc4 e6 { Considered Bg4 I think, but I didn't want my king to be prevented from castling, if he sacrificed the bishop. } 8.Ng5 Qf6 { Now I begin to get my queen stuck. Oops. } 9.e5 Qf5 10.Rf1 Nf4 11.Bxf4 Be7 12.Bd3 Qxf4 13.Rxf4 Bxg5 14.Rg4 h6 15.Rxg5 hxg5 16.h3 Nxd4 { Didn't see that the queen could fork. } 17.Qa4+ Ke7 18.Qxd4 Rd8 19.Qc5+ Ke8 20.Ke2 Rd5 21.Qxc7 { Black resigns. }

I guess I went against the "don't move each piece more than once in the opening" rule having to move my knight as much as I did. Getting the queen and light-squared bishop stuck were stupid :/.

I won't put the other game from last night up. I got pretty fed up near the end and threw my rooks away for nothing. I would have lost on time anyway, as I had to spend a lot of time thinking.

I get confused. I tried studying tactics and then had to put that down as I had too much other stuff to do. When I got time again, I decided to start reading "Logical Chess: Move by Move" in the hope that it would give me some kind of inkling as to how to play and what I should be aiming for with openings, etc. Maybe that's not the best choice. I'd rather stick with one book for the time being and read it all the way through and then move on to another.

Thanks!

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4818
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Game review

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:55 pm

OK, let's look at that.

Your opening 1...d5 is fine, putting a pawn on a good central square to cover e4. Having done that, you want to reinforce the pawn if it's attacked, and this means guarding it with a pawn; on move 2 or 3, the thematic followup is ...e6 or ...c6.

7...Bg4 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Ng5+ Ke8 10.Qxg4 Qxd4 is interesting, but there's no real need for you to do it - your extra pawn should give you a better position without mixing it up. 7...e6 looks fine.

Your next move, however, is a mistake: he's left a pawn en prise in the centre of the board; why not take it? After 8...Qxd4 you would have had a fine position with two extra pawns.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:21 pm

Nicky Chorley wrote: I guess I went against the "don't move each piece more than once in the opening" rule having to move my knight as much as I did. Getting the queen and light-squared bishop stuck were stupid :/.
As Jack suggests the thought process has to be "why is he giving up his d pawn? Given that the opening was a dodgy combination of the Birds and the Reti, it would be a reasonable hypothesis that your opponent only partly knows what he's doing, and it's probably just cheap tricks on the f file or getting Qh5 in. Your move .. Qf6 is probably one of the worse available moves given that he can immediately kick it with e5 and Rf1. If instead of taking on d4, you wanted a zero thought, do nothing in particular move, then Bb4+ and Be7 come to mind.

Nicky Chorley
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Nicky Chorley » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:56 pm

Thanks Jack and Roger.
IM Jack Rudd wrote:Having done that, you want to reinforce the pawn if it's attacked, and this means guarding it with a pawn; on move 2 or 3, the thematic followup is ...e6 or ...c6.
This seems (at least to me!) contradictory to what's given in "Logical Chess". The first game starts

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6,

where 2. Nf3 is chosen as it develops with a threat and 2. ... Nc6 is chosen because it deals with the threat, as well as developing a knight. Why is it not the same (or at least similar) here? Sorry if this is a stupid question :/.
7...Bg4 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Ng5+ Ke8 10.Qxg4 Qxd4 is interesting, but there's no real need for you to do it - your extra pawn should give you a better position without mixing it up. 7...e6 looks fine.
Thanks. I don't think I really got deep into a line (in my head, I mean) when I was considering 7. ... Bg4.
Your next move, however, is a mistake: he's left a pawn en prise in the centre of the board; why not take it? After 8...Qxd4 you would have had a fine position with two extra pawns.
Oh. I think I thought something was going to happen on e6, with the knight and bishop attacking there. I thought he might end up sacrificing one of those pieces to cause trouble, so I thought I should put the queen there to defend it again (as well as seizing the open file). I think I was also worried about d5 causing trouble, but then I suppose 8. Qxd4 would have dealt with that pre-emptively!
Roger de Coverly wrote:As Jack suggests the thought process has to be "why is he giving up his d pawn? Given that the opening was a dodgy combination of the Birds and the Reti, it would be a reasonable hypothesis that your opponent only partly knows what he's doing, and it's probably just cheap tricks on the f file or getting Qh5 in. Your move .. Qf6 is probably one of the worse available moves given that he can immediately kick it with e5 and Rf1. If instead of taking on d4, you wanted a zero thought, do nothing in particular move, then Bb4+ and Be7 come to mind.
Thanks Roger. I suppose that's a reasonable hypothesis for someone who knows what they're doing, rather than someone who's still quite new to the game and doesn't know (m)any openings really :). I remember considering Bb4+ at some point during the game, but then didn't know where to go with it, as he'd probably have just played Nc3 (so as not to overload the bishop). I suppose I could have traded, but I don't know if that would have been wise.

There's a lot to learn about this game!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:22 pm

Nicky Chorley wrote: This seems (at least to me!) contradictory to what's given in "Logical Chess". The first game starts
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6,
where 2. Nf3 is chosen as it develops with a threat and 2. ... Nc6 is chosen because it deals with the threat, as well as developing a knight. Why is it not the same (or at least similar) here? Sorry if this is a stupid question :/.
If you wanted a logical principle, it would be that if your opponent attacks a pawn with a pawn, you either take it or defend with a pawn. Defending it with a knight or a bishop has the potential disadvantage that if they capture and then you recapture, that they can try to gain time by hitting the piece. So if you reply to 1 d4 with .. d5, it's better to meet 2 c4 with 2 .. c6 or 2 ..e6 (if you don't play 2 .. dxc4). If you try 2 .. Nf6, then they might take on d5, you take back with the Knight and they play e4 gaining time. Playing that way isn't totally wrong, just harder work because you have less choice of decent moves.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6, White would have to give up a piece to get your Knight to e5. Confusingly there's an opening (which isn't that respectable) that does exactly this. Namely 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nxe5. The idea is that after 4 .. Nxe5, the central pawns rush forwards with 5 d4.

James Coleman
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:11 pm

Re: Game review

Post by James Coleman » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:49 pm

Also after he played 17 Qa4+ you could simply have dropped your knight back to c6, saving it - though admittedly he should still win the position fairly comfortably.

Paul Cooksey

Re: Game review

Post by Paul Cooksey » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:56 pm

Nicky Chorley wrote:I decided to start reading "Logical Chess: Move by Move" (snip) Maybe that's not the best choice.
Logical Chess is regarded as a classic. It was one of my first chess books, and one of my favourites. It is a book loved more by strategists than tacticians. But the advice for inexperienced players is to learn a bit of everything before worrying about developing a style. So I suggest if you want to read one book at a time, stick with Logical Chess, then balance it up by something more tactical next.
Nicky Chorley wrote:This seems (at least to me!) contradictory to what's given in "Logical Chess". The first game starts1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6,where 2. Nf3 is chosen as it develops with a threat and 2. ... Nc6 is chosen because it deals with the threat, as well as developing a knight. Why is it not the same (or at least similar) here
An important difference is that in the position after Nc6 the threat is neutralised, Nxe5 loses material for almost no compensation. But in the game your opponent could take the pawn and gain time attacking your Knight. Protecting with a pawn would be much more solid, as Jack said.

I think Qf6 was the key moment in the game. Ng5 was a terrible move, giving away an important centre pawn. Did you seriously consider taking the pawn? I am wondering if losing a lot of games is making you overly cautious?

Simon Dixon
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Simon Dixon » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:18 pm

what I should be aiming for with openings
Where are all the coaches when you need them :P Anyway the idea of the opening is to develope all your pieces quickly, (that does not mean you must move as fast as possible) the idea is not to waste time on hair brained schemes like trying to attack with the first 2 pieces you develope.

Get all the pieces out, that includes Rooks, with a view to control and occupy the centre, always avoid captures during this phase of the game if you can, unless you are going to win material for free, as they tend to help the opponents developement. If a piece is threatened, defend it and so on, the main idea is to build up pressure, when you have all your pieces working, let the carnage begin.

Nicky Chorley
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Nicky Chorley » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:15 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:If you wanted a logical principle, it would be that if your opponent attacks a pawn with a pawn, you either take it or defend with a pawn. Defending it with a knight or a bishop has the potential disadvantage that if they capture and then you recapture, that they can try to gain time by hitting the piece. So if you reply to 1 d4 with .. d5, it's better to meet 2 c4 with 2 .. c6 or 2 ..e6 (if you don't play 2 .. dxc4). If you try 2 .. Nf6, then they might take on d5, you take back with the Knight and they play e4 gaining time. Playing that way isn't totally wrong, just harder work because you have less choice of decent moves.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6, White would have to give up a piece to get your Knight to e5. Confusingly there's an opening (which isn't that respectable) that does exactly this. Namely 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nxe5. The idea is that after 4 .. Nxe5, the central pawns rush forwards with 5 d4.
Makes sense, thanks! I suppose that last bit about the central pawns rushing forwards is what happened in my game. I do remember thinking, "how did he get control of the centre?!". Oops.

Nicky Chorley
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Nicky Chorley » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:18 pm

James Coleman wrote:Also after he played 17 Qa4+ you could simply have dropped your knight back to c6, saving it - though admittedly he should still win the position fairly comfortably.
Right you are. I don't know why I didn't see that. Probably because I'd given up hope by that point!
Paul Cooksey wrote:Logical Chess is regarded as a classic. It was one of my first chess books, and one of my favourites. It is a book loved more by strategists than tacticians. But the advice for inexperienced players is to learn a bit of everything before worrying about developing a style. So I suggest if you want to read one book at a time, stick with Logical Chess, then balance it up by something more tactical next.
I may have a go at doing a bit of both, or at least doing tactics stuff online. We'll see what time permits!
An important difference is that in the position after Nc6 the threat is neutralised, Nxe5 loses material for almost no compensation. But in the game your opponent could take the pawn and gain time attacking your Knight. Protecting with a pawn would be much more solid, as Jack said.
Thanks, that echoes what Roger said too, I think :).
I think Qf6 was the key moment in the game. Ng5 was a terrible move, giving away an important centre pawn. Did you seriously consider taking the pawn? I am wondering if losing a lot of games is making you overly cautious?
I don't remember now. It was definitely considered, but I thought that knight was going to be dangerous on g5.

Nicky Chorley
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Nicky Chorley » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Simon Dixon wrote:Where are all the coaches when you need them :P Anyway the idea of the opening is to develope all your pieces quickly, (that does not mean you must move as fast as possible) the idea is not to waste time on hair brained schemes like trying to attack with the first 2 pieces you develope.

Get all the pieces out, that includes Rooks, with a view to control and occupy the centre, always avoid captures during this phase of the game if you can, unless you are going to win material for free, as they tend to help the opponents developement. If a piece is threatened, defend it and so on, the main idea is to build up pressure, when you have all your pieces working, let the carnage begin.
That's generally what I try to do, though evidently fail quite miserably :). I do often end up with rooks stuck on their original squares. Avoid captures - I'll try to remember that, too. Thanks!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:47 pm

Nicky Chorley wrote:I don't remember now. It was definitely considered, but I thought that knight was going to be dangerous on g5.
That's the case. The point perhaps is that tactical play involves you hitting the opponent harder than he hits you. So the knight on g5 is a nebulous threat to e6, f7 and h7, whilst Qxd4 wins another pawn and puts a powerful piece in the centre of the board.

Nicky Chorley
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Game review

Post by Nicky Chorley » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:55 pm

Thanks for that Roger. "Hit them harder than they hit you" is something I'll be trying to remember :D.

William Metcalfe
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Darlington

Re: Game review

Post by William Metcalfe » Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:05 am

You do not have to learn openings by book at the level you are currently playing at it is more important to learn the general principles and ideas in the opening you have choosen to play
I am speaking here for myself and not the NCCU which i am now president of