Game Analysis #1: Beginner's Luck
I would like to do an analysis of my very first recorded online game and how awful I was at playing chess before. I learned how to play the game when I was 4 years old, but only to the extent that I knew how to move the pieces and when the game was over, checkmate. But I didn't know exactly how to win the game through strategy.
At the time I played this game, I hadn't played chess in a long time, except when I would bring my chess board to school and play with my friends during our free time, but I had no training and no concept of strategy. I had watched some videos of chess but I didn't really take studying chess seriously back then, I just wanted to have fun.
So here is the first online game I had that was recorded, there were others but I believe the PGN was not saved in the database, but this game is not far from how I played the first time. I played white.
To start this off, all the moves were natural developing moves, except for Nh6 which is an unusual placement for the knight especially in a modern defense, but all seems fine at this point. My opponent is ready to fianchetto his bishop while I can castle and occupy the center. But I made a little inaccuracy.
5. d5?! was an inaccuracy because it wasn't called for. There was no need to advance the pawn and this creates a lot of holes behind the pawns which my opponent can target. A better move would have been simply to castle and develop my pieces with Nc3 or even Be3, Bf4, or Bg5. Another inaccurate move was 6. c3?! because it completely ignores development. Too many pawn moves in the beginning can make it easy for my opponent to chip away at my structure and create weaknesses. Basically, I created weaknesses for him to target.
As if the streak of wanton disregard for chess principles was not enough, I continued with more dubious moves with 7. Bxh6 when there was no need to eliminate the knight because it wasn't threat nor was it a wise idea to exchange my dark-squared bishop for his knight because there was much potential for my dark-squared bishop considering my pawns are placed on light squares and my dark squares need protection. And at the end of this sequence, another superfluous move 9. Bb3. Perhaps I thought it would be good to reposition my bishop somewhere else, maybe on c2 but whatever my thoughts were on the matter, my development was still stagnant.
Finally, the last few moves have been decent and somewhat logical - developing pieces and defending the weaknesses of my position. One move, 12. a4 was inaccurate because it was doing nothing to contribute to the current position, nonetheless, I was able to reroute some of my pieces to good squares and I was close to finishing my development as well as my opponent. In any case, my opponent's last move 13...e6 was inaccurate, perhaps the first he made in this game, and I should have capitalized on it but as we shall see, I missed an opportunity to at least gain the upper hand.
Now that I have a passed e-pawn, it should have been instinct to actually use that pawn to my advantage, and I know that now but back then, I didn't care that it would have been to my benefit to protect that pawn and maintain it until the end game where it will a great asset, even a game changer, powerful enough to turn the tides to my side. Instead, I made a few inaccuracies again and I lost the pawn in the end but the structure has changed.
At this point, we were somewhat equal except for the imbalance between the knight and bishop but here I could have consolidated my position, instead I made another irrelevant move, 22. a5 which was not really doing anything significant since my opponent can disregard the flanks and focus on the center which he did. The only move that I did not like from my opponent was 24... Qe3+ exchanging the queens because he had the upper hand and he needed to rack up the pressure so the queens should have stayed on the board. One thing I realized was that I could have trapped his queen though with 24. Rfe1, I would have given up my two rooks for the queen but I think there was a fighting chance for me there considering that the position was semi-closed. Nevertheless, in the end, one blunder cost him the game as he didn't notice that my bishop was attacking his rook and so I got a free rook and my opponent forfeited the game.
I would consider this beginner's luck because I could not have won the game if my opponent had made the best moves under the circumstances. I was already at a disadvantage and my position was starting to crumble. There were so many beginner mistakes I made and so many callous moves that had no cohesive plan in mind and that was one of the things I needed to change to get better. At this point, I had no idea about the principles of chess that helped one play better, all I knew was I needed to give checkmate and to avoid it as much as I can but I didn't know how. Over the years, I discovered how to play good chess but there was much more toil and failure before that happened.
Here is the analysis of the game:
 |
| Final position, 1-0 |
At the time I played this game, I hadn't played chess in a long time, except when I would bring my chess board to school and play with my friends during our free time, but I had no training and no concept of strategy. I had watched some videos of chess but I didn't really take studying chess seriously back then, I just wanted to have fun.
So here is the first online game I had that was recorded, there were others but I believe the PGN was not saved in the database, but this game is not far from how I played the first time. I played white.
To start this off, all the moves were natural developing moves, except for Nh6 which is an unusual placement for the knight especially in a modern defense, but all seems fine at this point. My opponent is ready to fianchetto his bishop while I can castle and occupy the center. But I made a little inaccuracy.
5. d5?! was an inaccuracy because it wasn't called for. There was no need to advance the pawn and this creates a lot of holes behind the pawns which my opponent can target. A better move would have been simply to castle and develop my pieces with Nc3 or even Be3, Bf4, or Bg5. Another inaccurate move was 6. c3?! because it completely ignores development. Too many pawn moves in the beginning can make it easy for my opponent to chip away at my structure and create weaknesses. Basically, I created weaknesses for him to target.
As if the streak of wanton disregard for chess principles was not enough, I continued with more dubious moves with 7. Bxh6 when there was no need to eliminate the knight because it wasn't threat nor was it a wise idea to exchange my dark-squared bishop for his knight because there was much potential for my dark-squared bishop considering my pawns are placed on light squares and my dark squares need protection. And at the end of this sequence, another superfluous move 9. Bb3. Perhaps I thought it would be good to reposition my bishop somewhere else, maybe on c2 but whatever my thoughts were on the matter, my development was still stagnant.
Finally, the last few moves have been decent and somewhat logical - developing pieces and defending the weaknesses of my position. One move, 12. a4 was inaccurate because it was doing nothing to contribute to the current position, nonetheless, I was able to reroute some of my pieces to good squares and I was close to finishing my development as well as my opponent. In any case, my opponent's last move 13...e6 was inaccurate, perhaps the first he made in this game, and I should have capitalized on it but as we shall see, I missed an opportunity to at least gain the upper hand.
Now that I have a passed e-pawn, it should have been instinct to actually use that pawn to my advantage, and I know that now but back then, I didn't care that it would have been to my benefit to protect that pawn and maintain it until the end game where it will a great asset, even a game changer, powerful enough to turn the tides to my side. Instead, I made a few inaccuracies again and I lost the pawn in the end but the structure has changed.
At this point, we were somewhat equal except for the imbalance between the knight and bishop but here I could have consolidated my position, instead I made another irrelevant move, 22. a5 which was not really doing anything significant since my opponent can disregard the flanks and focus on the center which he did. The only move that I did not like from my opponent was 24... Qe3+ exchanging the queens because he had the upper hand and he needed to rack up the pressure so the queens should have stayed on the board. One thing I realized was that I could have trapped his queen though with 24. Rfe1, I would have given up my two rooks for the queen but I think there was a fighting chance for me there considering that the position was semi-closed. Nevertheless, in the end, one blunder cost him the game as he didn't notice that my bishop was attacking his rook and so I got a free rook and my opponent forfeited the game.
I would consider this beginner's luck because I could not have won the game if my opponent had made the best moves under the circumstances. I was already at a disadvantage and my position was starting to crumble. There were so many beginner mistakes I made and so many callous moves that had no cohesive plan in mind and that was one of the things I needed to change to get better. At this point, I had no idea about the principles of chess that helped one play better, all I knew was I needed to give checkmate and to avoid it as much as I can but I didn't know how. Over the years, I discovered how to play good chess but there was much more toil and failure before that happened.
Here is the analysis of the game:
Comments
Post a Comment