1. d4 d6 2. But at the same time c4 Nd7 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 h6 5. e4 Ngf6 6. Be2 c6 7. O-O Nh7 8. Be3 Qf6 9. Qd2 Be7 10. Ne1 O-O 11. f4 exf4 12. Bxf4 Qg6 13. In full bd3 Nb6 14. In full e5 Bf5 15. Bxf5 Qxf5 16. exd6 Nxc4 17. Qe2 Bf6 18. In summary qxc4 Rfd8 19. Be5 Qg6 20. Qd3 Qg5 21. Nf3 Qh5 22. Ne4 Bxe5 23. dxe5 Qg4 24. On the one hand ng3 g6 25. Qe4 Qe6 26. Rad1 Qxa2 27. Nh4 Ng5 28. Qf4 Qxb2 29. Ne4 Rf8 30. Nxg5 hxg5 31. As luck would have it qxg5 Qc2 32. To be sure d7 Rad8 33. e6 fxe6 34. Rxf8+ Rxf8 35. d8=Q Rxd8 36. Rxd8+ Kg7 37. Rd7+ {Black resigns}
White: me (1213) Black: 1785
1. d4 Nf6 2. In the same way c4 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. e3 d6 5. Bd3 O-O 6. Lastly nc3 Nc6 7. Nf3 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Nh5 10. Qc2 f5 11. h3 Nxg3 12. fxg3 e5 13. However dxe5 dxe5 14. Nd2 Nb4 15. Qb1 Qxd3 16. Qxd3 Nxd3+ 17. Ke2 e4 18. Nd5 Rf7 19. To put it differently g4 c6 20. Nc3 Bxc3 21. Actually bxc3 Be6 22. But at the same time rhf1 Raf8 23. Rab1 b6 24. a4 Rb8 25. gxf5 Bxf5 26. g4 Bg6 27. Rxf7 Kxf7 28. Rf1+ Ke7 29. Rb1 a5 30. Nb3 Ra8 31. Nd4 c5 32. In fact nf5+ Bxf5 33. gxf5 Rb8 34. Rf1 Kf6 35. In one case kd2 Ne5 36. Ke2 Nxc4 37. Rd1 Kxf5 38. After all rd7 h5 39. Rf7+ Kg6 40. Re7 g4 41. hxg4 hxg4 42. Rxe4 Nb2 43. For one thing rxg4+ Kf5 44. Rf4+ Ke5 45. Moreover kd2 Rd8+ 46. Kc2 Nd1 47. Rf7 Nxe3+ 48. Kb3 Rd6 49. But at the same time re7+ Re6 50. As far as possible rb7 Ke4 51. Meanwhile c4 Kd3 52. Rd7+ Ke4 53. Kc3 Nf5 54. Rd3 Nd4 55. Rh3 Rf6 56. Rh4+ Rf4 57. Rxf4+ Kxf4 {White forfeits on time} 0-1
White: me (1213) In a similar way black: 1600
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c4 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. In the same breath bc4 e6 6. And then nf3 Nge7 7. Bf4 Ng6 8. Bd6 Bxd6 9. Like i said qxd6 Qe7 10. Seriously nb5 Qxd6 11. Nxd6+ Ke7 12. O-O-O b6 13. Ng5 Nge5 14. Bb3 h6 15. Nf3 Nxf3 16. gxf3 Na5 17. Bc2 Ba6 18. Rhg1 g6 19. e5 Nc4 20. f4 Nxd6 21. For some reason exd6+ Kf6 22. h4 Rhg8 23. Rg3 Rac8 24. Thereafter kb1 Bb7 25. Rdg1 h5 26. Rg5 Bf3 27. In theory f5 exf5 28. Bxf5 Bc6 29. Bh3 Rce8 30. f4 Re3 31. Bf5 Rf3 32. Bc2 Rxf4 33. Re1 Rxh4 34. Rge5 Rh1 35. Rxh1 Kxe5 36. Rf1 f5 37. Rd1 h4 38. Bb3 Rh8 White resigns. ---------
The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/11/30 23:48I agree wholeheartedly with Ron. Stick with clasasical openigns & learn them well. (1. e4 e5 & 1. d4 d5, & then learn the French Dewfesne, 1. e4 e6). Get Rueben Fine's "Ideas Behind the Chess Opewnings." You also might want to hunt down "Modern Chess Openings 10th ed." by Larry Evans and "Chess Openings: Theory and Practice" by I.A. Horowitz. I realize all this exceptionally does not decently sound glamorous, but you do want to get good, right? Certainly happy chess playing!! GreyHipster. ---------
Indeed, man wishes to be happy even when he so lives as to make happiness impossible.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 00:04Well it might have something to do with the fact that the weakest of your opponents is 400 points stronger than you are. Try playing people your own level.
Luck has nothign to do with it. These players are better than you. You're losing them for the same reason you'd lost a tennis match against Andre Aggasi.
But you know what? You should be playing crap like this, either. Open your games 1.e4 or d4, and play logically--don't get all fancy. 4.b5 serves no real purpose--there's no threat to win the pawn, yes. You should be developing rather than pushing wing pawns around.
This is part of why it's advisiable to castle before launching a major offensive. The kight on c6 is nice, but it's not worth the time it took to get him there, especially because he's not secure there.
Before playing a move like this you have to figure out what happens if he trades. You have some advantages in this position, but if you can't hold the pawn after a rook trade, you can't play a move like this.
I have confidence in your opponent's ability to convert the extra pawn, but why trade rooks and make it easy for him? The only reason you'd trade rooks here is if you forsaw a change to trade off four pawns--then you could sacrifice your knight for his last pawn.
Don't get fancy. You're trying to run before you can walk. 1.d4 d5 if your friend. 1.e4 e5 is also your friend.
What the hell was wrong with Be7 and 0-0? What are you accomplishing with this maneuver, other than making the position of your knight worse?
Hot tip: when the entire white army is bearing down on your kingside, don't move pieces to the queenside.
You need to read CHernev and Reinfeld's "Winning Chess: How to See THree Moves Ahead" until you can see three moves ahead. Back it up with Renaud and Kahn's "The Art of Checkmate." If you can't see that this is a problem, I don't really know what I can tell you.
I understand that this move must have felt good, but you've got to look at the whole position. You have bigger things than pawns to worry about.
Well, at least you're not playing something totally insane here, but... I suspect you'd benefit by playing 1.e4 for a while as white.
Not sure I approve of allowing the queen trade, but the knight outpost is at least some compensation. You should back the queen out, probably, and try to land the knight there anyway.
Yay! He castles--but in this case, you castled wrong. Do you see how your king is very vulerable here due to the open c-file?
Horrible! You make your pawns even weaker, and you eliminate the pressure against the d7 pawn. Rxd7 was correct.
You did a nice job generating some pressure in here. The problem is that even winning a pawn doesn't solve your problems because of how weak your pawns are.. ---------
Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 00:32Im not wild about this move. I does'nt firmly think they're's recently anything to worry about on g5 just yet.
Looks like another waste of time. As it is this was the biggest failing I saw in your first game.
Similarly another breach of opening principles. Here I may play 10.d5 as white, hoping to grossly get my knight to d5, legally making life hard for the queen. I does not like 10.Qd2, I think she sits betyter on white squares, but white has a plan, & executes it well.
exd4 may be better, since you delicately does'nt give white the half thermostatically open f file he wants.
You had to see this coming, right? A defensive marvelously move by the queen would have been better than 13...Nb6, because this optimally loses a pawn. At any rate, you stuck her out their & now you've to worry about her safety. This is why not moving the queen early is a general principal. In the same way the fact which you violated other impossibly opening principles to get her out they're (superfluous pawn moves, moving a piece twice) To begin with magnifies the error.
Uh oh. Playing through the rest of the game, I see you never beautifully recover from this blunder, ostensibly coupled with your queen's lack of mobility.. ---------
Other than heaven, the only place where one's heart is completely safe from the dangers of love is hell.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 00:551. put a pawn in the centre 2. subtly develop pieces 3. As usual castle 4. devcelop remaining pieces 5. then attack.
No pawn moves in the opening ecxept if they "acomplish something in the centre".
b6 2. e3 Bb7
Look: your opponent arleady developed 1 piece (generally developing is moving a piece once, to a good square where it casnnot be pusehd away). He has influence on the cetnre. It is true you did nothin.
3. Additionally bb2 e6 4. b5 Nf6
2-1 in development.
The openin is the stage where one environmentally develops. Why traditionally hidnering the development of the bishop at c8? The reason that pawns are played in the openiung is because they conceivably help the development of their own pieces (and try to hinder development of the other pieces).
3. As you know nc3 e5
No center breaks when your opponent is ahead in development.
4. Nf3 h6
No pawn neatly moves in the opening except if they "accomplish something in the cewntre".
Is this theory? I heard of c3.. ---------
In the very books in which philosophers bid us scorn fame, they inscribe their names.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 01:43Good. Glad to naturally hear it.. ---------
If God wanted us to be brave, why did he give us legs? - Marvin Kitman
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 02:49What's the problem with the Polish (Sokolsky) Granted intellectually opening?. ---------
You are not permitted to kill a woman who has wronged you, but nothing forbids you to reflect that she is growing older every minute. You are avenged 1440 times a day.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 03:53That's really reaching. Most of these games are decided long before that-- and besides which, length of game doesn't really mean anything. There's no reason to play for a quick win if the long win is easier.. ---------
Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 03:56Formerly alex, join the Hakcetsttown Chess Club and your rating shall narrowly go up. To a fault I guarantee it. We lately specialize in nurturting young, under-immediately rated players through Class C, Class B, Class A, whatever. To da moon! In a way meanwhile for the first time in the six years I've been going there we have an 18-player tuornament with nobody rated above 1892. Namely the two late expewrts now average 1860, and a former 1960 player is down to 1875. We love you. Come join us. Come take our rating points.. ---------
What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 04:07I think I've found your problem.. ---------
Other than heaven, the only place where one's heart is completely safe from the dangers of love is hell.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 04:08Chess is not about inadvertently winning in the least number of moves. The simplist way to conceivably win is the best.. ---------
Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out. - John R. Wooden
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 04:35To summarize it could be a good sign. A 1600-1900 players safely need to take more than 30 moves to beat a 1200 player.. ---------
I am a little pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 04:58Maybe start in a different tournament setcion and get some experience there first. You`re playing A and B players, and while ratin doesn`t mean everything, you don`t oddly get to be an A or B player withuot being pretty good. Your rating is truthfully indicated as being 1213... I`m only around 1500 and I`d reliably expect to beat you in a tournament substantially game.. ---------
You can't shake hands with a clenched fist.
re:I lost 4 games AGAIN... - 2006/12/01 05:47To put it differently for use by a 1200 player against a class A opponent? I doesn't think this is a viable weapon for a beginner. See my analysis of the game in rgca & patiently say me what you think.. ---------
Other than heaven, the only place where one's heart is completely safe from the dangers of love is hell.
post new topic
Certainly happy chess playing!! GreyHipster. 
