free web tracker Super Friends: Analyze This

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Analyze This

Mike_maxted recently lost this match against nranil1, and sent me the following message:

"I wonder if we could publish the game on the SF site and see if anyone can suggest where I went wrong?"

Take a look at the game, and share any insights you have.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that it was around move 15 when the knight was moved to d1. This gave the opening for the black bishop to move to b5 which led to the decision to trade bishops which wasn't really necessary. Move 27 could still have gained you some material. Instead of moving your Queen to a6 you should have taken the knight with your rook at e2. Your back row would still have been protected by your knight and your queen would have stayed in good position to attack the rook.

5:52 PM  
Blogger lethal_mutant said...

Very early on, I think. 3. e5 puts white in a somewhat passive line of play, but the real problems start with 8. 0-0, which allows black to create a passed pawn that gives worries for the rest of the game. 8. Bf4 doesn't look good either, because of 8. ...Bb4+, 9. Nc3 Qa5. So I think 9. exf6 is best. If he retakes with the Queen you can menace it with Bg5 and gain a tempo while developing a piece.

10:06 PM  
Blogger daleman said...

i didn't like move 9. i don't think you should have traded knights. it opens up his light colored bishop, and opens the oppurtunity for a pawn promotion. which in the end finished you. i think that was your biggest error.

10:52 PM  
Blogger mike maxted said...

Thank you for the time that you took to analyse this position!
Anonymous, I agree 15 Ne2 or Bd3 could have been better but 27. RXN doesn't work because of Qa1+ and mate in 3.
To Daleman and leathal_mutant I accept that this might not have been your choice of opening but I was in book until move 11 and I felt very comfortable.
I think this goes to show that a good player can develop a winning advantage without you noticing.


11:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home