lichess.org
Donate

Analysed my own game. Comments?

A tournament OTB game I played as black vs a 1810. I just finished analysing it, explaining what I thought to be the most critical moves. After analysing I checked with Stockfish, which suprisingly said black was ok if not better most of the game, but it felt really uncomfortable to play.

I'm not used to analysing my own games, do you agree with my analysis? Anything I could improve upon?



Just so you know, you have your study set to private.
I think you should have used the d4 square by placing the knight in the e6 square.the two passed pawns are not so dangerous in the midlegame, were there were many pieces.in move 21 the knight could have gone to d7, so after 21b4,the c5 pawn is covered and you can take the a3 pawn.Also you could redirect your knight from the d7 square to b8-c6-d4.is only a suggestion
don't trade queens- or pieces, try to start out with a better beginning that doesn't get your pawn killed. Pawns are crucial to developing your power in a game. Check their king more often so it doesn't have a chance to be a strong piece in the game. You could have watched your bishop as well.
Your biggest mistake was playing c5 on move 19. You created a stonewall formation against no pawns! You never want to remove your flexibility like that. U want to be able to play d5 in the future. You also create a weakness by creating a stonewall. Honestly if you could learn one thing from this game it should be that.
Sounds logical, but my opponent actually commented on that move after the game, and said it was good because it shut out his bishop... So I don't know what to believe
I don't think 19...c5 is a "mistake" (you are in some sense "keeping the position closed" when you have a knight and your opponent has a bishop, and the weakened d5 square isn't available to White's bishop), but I agree that the resulting position is not comfortable to play. Your d6 pawn is backwards, and your pawns can no longer move: without a pawn on c6, the pawn break d6-d5 is not readily available. I'd be interested to know, when you played c5, did you have an active plan in mind? Or were you just trying to defend against (what you perceived as) threats? Usually active counterplay is better than passive defence.

In my opinion, 19...d5 is better, at least from a human perspective. Black is now threatening to take the e-pawn next move, so 20.exd5 cxd5 is forced. Now Black has two central pawns and White has two flank pawns, and the position looks about equal. Maybe White still has a slightly easier time because he has a Bishop against the Knight; but this variation seems preferable to the game continuation as Black's pawns in the centre are now free to move, and can therefore be a source of counterplay.
Hi biscuit, that sounds more appropriate. I don't know why I didn't consider ...d5. I guess I thought the pawn duo would become weak and too hard to defend. I agree that could have been a good source of counterplay. When I played ...c5, I just wanted to stop his counterplay and lock in his bishop, basically. So passive defense I guess.
@Notonline: Lots of people wouldn't even consider ...d5 because they see that their c6 pawn is attacked and they don't actually realize that ...d5 would defend the c6 pawn (by getting the d-pawn out of the way of the Queen). Instead they make a choice between moving the pawn or moving another piece (like a Rook) to defend the pawn. Perhaps this was a reason? Just a thought.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.