208 ( +1 | -1 ) Analysis During A Game In another thread mercy, lroycroft and me were talking about the usefullness of an analysis during a game for training purposes. Below is my posting on the thread:
"I think that above was a great offer from mercy. I believe that there are questions that even a highly rated players need to be answered during a game. An answer from a (strong) player involved in the game is supposed to be better than post-analysis by spectators.
One of my self-training topics is training myself for positional understandings: I want to get over chess blindness. The only way to master this is to prove the assumptions or the "hypothesis". In a game between fvcwoodpusher (1948) and me (1600) on board #874817, I am to make my 12th move. In this position I think everyone agree that I have a positional advantage (first assumption). Well, in fact I had "successfully" transferred the slight positional advantage into a tactical position (another training topic). The point I want to talk about is what I have calculated after the next 6 moves. I have a judgement (hypothesis) about the position in the next 6 moves (if White replied exactly as I expected), which is a bit in the corridor of "chess blindness". The only way I have to validate the soundness of the judgement is to prove it. In fact it will be better if I can have anyone to tell me their judgements about the next 6 move position!
So you see? I didn't make "blunders" (yet). Everything were just like I had expected. So it is absolutely about whether I had been EXPECTING THE RIGHT THINGS! Knowing what to expect (or a good understanding of positions) is what I want to master in my training."
And below is everything I have in mind during the game...
1. e4 c5 I believe that Sicilian is a very sound defense. From my experience using this defense since my childhood, I know that this is a dificult defense to master (it requires considerable amount of skill!). In my level, I knew that I would win more games playing 1. e4 e5, but I prefer to get rid off the obstacles instead of merely using "bad" defenses for short-term advantage. 2. Nc3 Nc6 Well, Najdorf is the only variant I know so far, but OK, I know the idea of this defense. 3. f4 e6 Like every other openings, the first moves are about having a better control over centre squares, initiated by pawns. 4. Nf3 Ng-e7 I need a good backup for d5 thrust 5. g3 d5! (That's it) 6. Bg2? dxe4! White should have maintained the equality in centre squares domination with d3, so that pawn exchange benefits White in the form of stronger centre pawns. White's last move left him with a weak d-pawn (or d-file), something I will utilize for my benefit. 7. Nxe Nf5! While protecting c-pawn, the Knight maintained a control over d4 square. White's d-pawn will never be allowed to advance to this square! 8. 0-0 Hmm. I can play save with securing my King to the K-side (0-0) and force White to fight on the Q-side where I have an advantage from White's previous mistake, but this is not the aim of my training, so let me formulate a plan here. I want to attack the King (initiated with h5), but I have to maintain a flexibility, where for any kind of development, I will be one step ahead than White. Qb6 is a good move in that it wins a tempo by threatening the King, it maintains a control over the d4 square, it is in a flexible position for a battle in the Q-side or an attack to White's King on K-side (this is the primary goal, namely to have a sufficient backup when an attack is initiated with h5!), it frees the back rank for 0-0-0 possibility, and may be (usually not possible) to switch the Queen laterally to h6. What I need to see next is the consequences. White's Q-side pawns attack on the Queen is weak as long as my King has not castled to the Q-side (0-0-0). The real threat is when White can force to put his dark Bishop at e3, aiming to my Queen. So let's see if the Knight on d5 is sufficiently protecting this e3 square... 9. g4 is not dangerous, but gives me a chance to attack on the K-side with sufficient tempo before White has time to utilize e3 square. So let's do it. 8. ... Qb6! Besides, it seemed not wise to prematurely decide what to do with the (dark) Bishop. It has to be flexible to reply to the possibility of White fianchettoing the bishop (9. b3) or 9. c3. 9. c3 (hmm I prefer this "useless" move than the b3) Bd7! I'm continuing to maintain a flexibility to secure the King to the Q-side (0-0-0). The bishop is to prepare to replace the Knight on c6 (in case the Knight will be exchanged) and to control over White domination on the h1-a8 diagonal. This is workable whether I will have to do 0-0-0 or not. 10. d3?! I'm wondering what White has in mind! I'm not gonna let his dark bishop to go out to e3! d2 is absolutely worse than b2 for the bishop, and of course, White should find a productive move order to put a pressure on e-file (mainly with the Rook), with bishop backup on b2 (fianchetto) 10. ... Be7! Sticking to the plan, this move prepares the back rank for 0-0 possibility, prepares a8-Rook fast access to h-file or g-file, backups pawn attack (h-g-f-pawns), and guards h4 square for the Knight. 11. Qe2! Hehehe so this is how White would put a pressure on the e-file and "hoping" to be able to post the bishop on e3. But my King is flexibly secured (0-0, 0-0-0, or stays on the center), and I believe that I have successfully maintained a "one step ahead" winning tempo for all possibilities. 11. ... h5! Now I'm waiting for White important reply. The h5 is hopefully the initiator of the attack on White King, but I still have the possibility to divert to other strategies with 0-0. 12. Ne5 Before exchanging the Knight, let me think of other possibility to give away the d7 bishop with the preliminary idea of winning some tempo. I can start to attack with the pawns. Exchanging the bishop at d7 (KxNd7) will speed up Rook access to g-file or h-file. Now the consequences. The King becomes vulnerable (?). If I didn't start with 12. ... h4, with 13. h4 my Rooks will be helpless on h-file or g-file (But wait! I may be able to tactically exchange my Knight with g-pawn and h-pawn!) With the absence of my light bishop, White's light bishop becomes more powerfull. It dominates not only h1-a8 critical diagonal, but also (in the case of he is allowed to do 13. h4) h3-c8 diagonal, aiming directly to my King! Seems stupid but I like the idea. This is the situation or position I'm trying to train myself to be familiar with. But before continuing with that, let me look at the "normal" line (12. ... NxN)...
(12) ... NxN (13) fxN h4! (intuitively hoping a g4 reply) (14) g4 h3! Now if White decided to give away his light bishop, my bishop will happily take over the critical h1-a8 diagonal! (15) Bh1 c4+! I'm preventing him to make a very good move (Be3!) (16) d4 Nxd! (17) cxN Qxd4+! (18) Nf2 or others and so on Two pawns for a Knight! What can I say with this position? I'm trying to improve my positional judgement skill, so let me think what I see and let me learn the hard way to become a chess expert by improving this topical skill...
My King cannot be more vulnerable than White's King (uh oh, frankly I doubt it). I can utilize all the heavy pieces in the battle (with a8-Rook being the hardest). I can maintaine a "2-pawns-vs-1-Knight". I can avoid (?!) White forcing me to exchange a bishop, leaving me with his dangerous bishop pair. So what's the point?! My h-pawn is not weak because it is on the area where I aim all the other pieces, it is the "treasure" I want to protect for the endgame (Queen promotion) White has 2 weak pawns as a target for "3-pawns-vs-1-Knight" plan (g-pawn and e-pawn). Both King is so vulnerable such that exchanging the pieces for the expected endgame seems so easy.
Well I don't think that this plan is good enough, but I'm looking forward to learning many things from what going to happen...
30 ( +1 | -1 ) Interesting that each of your moves has a ! after it.
I'm not sure what you want out of this thread--no one can post a comment on your game or analysis without breaking GK rules. The suggestion in the other thread was to discuss the game with your opponent, which isn't really the same (IMO).
69 ( +1 | -1 ) Hehehe... the "!" is to show that the move has been thought of or based on clear objective. It has nothing to do with conventional meaning, it is how I have been writing my private games analysis for easy understanding (not a public oriented analysis) and learning purposes.
If I think I could benefit from such self-analysis from stronger players like you (of your own games so that I know how strong players think), which I surely don't have, then why weaker players than me could not benefit from my self-analysis? At least for comparison.
BTW, someone is looking forward to have a game with me for the idea, I just don't know yet how to do the communication effectively.
36 ( +1 | -1 ) And of course, like I said before, it would be better if I could have others opinions on the 18th move position. But one thing I know for sure is that I will learn more by doing it instead of avoiding to do it after somebody says for example "Hey! That's wrong. In a such open battle, pawns are not worth a heavy piece!"
19 ( +1 | -1 ) WellI can't offer that kind of opinion in an ongoing game. I could analyze it after the game is over, if you'd like, or possibly if my opinion would no longer be relevant to the current game.
46 ( +1 | -1 ) analyzing during gameSorry, I have not read through all the posts here. But just after looking at the title I want to comment that analyzing during the game is certainly very helpful. More than just helpful, I think it is GREAT FUN! I hope you agree with me mercy ? I really enjoy all our discussions! And I must thank you. Without our games, GK wouldn't be half as much fun! ;-)
96 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifix,That is nice if you would analyze it after the game is over. So, I'm thinking of changing the objective from training purpose into winning the game? But then I'm afraid to loose great things I expect to learn! Besides, what I have done so far is weird (the two bishops on e7 and d7 for example). But okay, I'll play for fun, for training, for winning (ambitious plan, huh?)
Hmmm... it's for sure that I will offer my game for analysis once I have a serious game with strong players. Currently I need a lot of games in a blitz style. It's getting dificult to find such games from players above 1600 now. I resigned one of my game hoping to have a fast game, but after one move he left :( It is also dificult for me to refresh my memory when my opponent left in the middle of a "complex" calculation for pieces exchange.
If anyone of you interested in a quick game, not necessarily a blitz, but start and finish at the same day, please message me...
3 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifix,If you don't mind, now you can analyze my game...
119 ( +1 | -1 ) Interestingwhat happened to your plan of h4 and h3?
I don't think 6. Bg2 is a mistake, but probably 5. g3 is bad (5. Bb5). I also don't think 10. d3 is bad; the bishop doesn't really do much on b2. I don't really think you have a positional advantage in the position after the 12th move, rather it's probably about equal (White can generally get away with more than Black can).
Ultimately Black doesn't have anywhere near enough piece support to make the attack work. Just the pawn on h3 and the Queen can't engineer a mating attack by themselves, and in most positions a piece is almost always stronger than two pawns. I think the best response for White is probably 18. Qf2 Qxe5 19. Qxf7+ Kd8 20. Be3 Rh4 21. Qf3 Bc6 22. Rad1+ Kc8 23. Rd4. Then if 23... Bc5 24. Rfd1 is strong. White could play 18. Nf2 as well but it probably gives Black too much of a free hand.
Ultimately Black should try to attack on the Queenside, since he has more space there, while White should attack on the Kingside. A good plan would be to take advantage of the weak d3 pawn, perhaps with Bb5 and Rd8 or 0-0-0. ...h5 is a good prophylactic move as it cements the knight on f5, and ...f6 is thematic, but it needs to be prepared. I think you just need more development and piece support.
101 ( +1 | -1 ) I haven't yet learnt your analysis, but I'm agree with you that I should try to attack on the Queenside, like I have mentioned before. In a "normal" game I would have done that, but in the game I want to learn something about attacking the King.
I don't know what happened with the previous "training" plan. I just wanted to include "winning" as part of the objective (but still attacking the King) so I decided to change the plan a bit. In fact I wanted to castle (0-0-0) but suddenly I thought "Hey, I don't want him to get rid off his bad bishop with Bg5 (or maybe Bf4), why not just do the f6 first before the 0-0-0". I didn't analyze the continuation more than 2 moves ahead (didn't even think exf was possible). I was terribly ill (still a bit now), such that I didn't find something strange with all my moves that day, except that I thought I was winning in "all" my games but found out the contrary on that day after making some moves.
Thanks for the analysis, I will learn your analysis later this afternoon...