Hi,
Looking for some insight on how to go about analysing that game especially
mistake at 13. Nc6??
then blunder at 16. f5??
--
(my take on these, although I have no idea)
mistake at 13. Nc6??
Basically idea was to make an outpost, is the mistake giving the opponent dark bishop too much space?
is it something else?
then blunder at 16. f5??
my idea on this one was that I could develop my pawn, while creating a light square weaknesses in front of my king, as in the end of the exchange the opponent white square bishop would have disappeared and I would have developed my rook, so it would have been fine (though I miscalculated and he did exchange rooks). is the best move (bishop exchange) because it gives super synergy to my knights and the only solutions is to calculate deep enough, or is there some positional considerations that can help?
--
how could I go next games and avoid making these kind of mistake? is there a way to systematically find a good analysis of this kind of moves afterwards (other than just learning the move), ie. some tools that would help or a specific way to think about it?
Thanks,
All Hail Lichess!
Im on phone so only sf10. I think Problem is if you don’t remove his outpost he controls lots of squares in your territory.
He can even be super annoying with B after pawn trade and chase your Queen away. As a rule of thumb if opponent occupies squares near your king or on your side of the board and you can trade 1vs1 without other downsides, just take it before the lack of space comes to haunt you.
On 16 you fork the pawn and the N from the other square, he defends the pawn, you take the annoying outpost, that’s all. Similar to #13.
All hail lichess!
Hi!
ohh, got it for move 13.
Regarding 16. f5??, you meant I fork the pawn and the B, he defends by taking the pawn and I thus leave my annoying outpost by taking back with the knight?
Thanks for the analysis, makes a lot of sense!
Oh I was on the wrong move # 15
Not sure why trading the Bishop is so important I guess you trade an undeveloped piece against one that is near your king and connect the rooks on your back rank
I have no idea what's wrong with 13... Nc6. At any rate, it certainly doesn't rate a ?? (and btw your 16th move didn't either). Maybe there's something with 14 Ba3...but I doubt it.
As for your 16th move, 16... Bxg4 17 Qxg4 Nc2 (with the idea of Ne3) looks like it wins the exchange.
And incidentally, 14 Bh5 looks like a hang to me.
Understanding computer analysis is pretty hard, especially when it's less than a blunder; at least the blunders are usually about winning a piece, but mistakes are more nebulous. Computers play better than humans and they don't explain themselves. Learn what you can from them, don't sweat what you can't.
I think 13 is considered a mistake because white's d5 knight is controlling a lot of the squares your queen would want to move to, while your c6 knight isn't doing much. Your knight is worse, so it's better to trade it. There might also be some merit to making them compress their pawns into two files instead of three. Maybe.
The computer's reasoning for 16 is listed in the analysis; as you can see, it's a complicated mess of moves that ends with your rook pointed at their king and queen. The problem it has with your f5 move is listed under white's move 17, mostly seems to be about the white rook opening up and attacking the position again. But notice it still has you being a pawn up after all that, it's not costing you the game.
13. ... Nc6 is a mistake because exchanging removes an annoying enemy Knight which is present in your camp.
16. ... f4 is blunder because of Bg7 X-ray to Bb2, and Ra1. See how you can take advantage of it. You played Nc6 with a purpose, but then what else you did for your Bg7 ?
@nuKs Well, it's better to trade your knight with opponent's strong knight in the centre else you let it control major squares in your camp that troubles you.
And for the 16 move, it's better to exchange the Bishops since you are having positional advantage and you are also up by 2 pawns. So, it's better to do exchanges when one up in advantage in order to simplify the position and proceed to an easy endgame.
Always remember not to depend on Stockfish too much. It can calculate deep into a game at a particular depth while we humans can't. So, a bad move from engine's perspective need not to be bad move from human's perspective.
@MrPushwood Yeah, Bh5 makes us look it as hanging piece but Stockfish says that to capture it is a mistake.
Thanks everyone for your feedback, that's what I love about these positions, so much stuff to learn.
I took time to analyse things again, based on your answers.
Good catch for 13., everyone seems to be pretty much on the same page. I actually thought at first getting the enemy to double its central pawns in this situation was actually a disadvantage for me so I did avoid it, as it seems easier to keep this 2+1 structure connected together for white than it is with three adjacent pawns, might have been the reverse as well. In any case I didn't thought that white's knight was more problematic than mine so definitely seems to be my mistake indeed. (I didn't go as far as checking with the analysis for this one)
- I figured you're talking about different potential variations after moves 16. Bxg4,
one that take white's g3 knight in the end (with different sub-variations), the knight moves from g3 just before being taken, if knight goes to e2 it is defended by white's queen at first but then the queen can be kicked out with pawns.
one that take white's g2 bishop, black's knight clears the way for both bishops while being able to put a check at the same time, in order to gain a tempo and prevent the bishop from leaving.
one weird line that exchanges black's bishop with white's a1 rook at some point, black's knight clears the way for both bishops by going to an empty case but attacked by white's g2 pawn while being able to put a check at the same time in order to gain a tempo and prevent the bishop from leaving, then white's bishop is taken but black's knight is directly taken back so the exchange is equivalent, but black finally manage to exchange his bishop against white's a1 rook after a few more moves with some bishop and queen coordination (I didn't completely check out how/if the rook got trapped or if it was exchanged due to something else).
also it does make sense to simplify in this situation indeed.
- further thinking about 16. f5, building up on your answers:
I think my original c8 bishop was actually the better one in this situation (controlling more space, more flexible) as the opponent one is completely clunked by its own pawns which I am blocking with my own pawns/pieces (but then, I do want to open up the center in this case so this might be the reverse indeed).
so in the end the issue I had with 16. f5 seems to be I did lose a tempo making that move, thus the opponent got the time to take my e4 pawn, I could indeed no longer do e5xf4 (pawn takes pawn) in order to open up the bishop diagonal while putting pressure on the g3 knight at the same time, which would have been the winning tactic one way or another.
While looking agressive, I wonder if it's just not way too passive of a move, because I already have my other e5 pawn under attack when I do it.