I thought I was winning, opponent ragequit, stockfish says 0.0

Ok so I have a few questions about this game, because I have no idea what stockfish is on about

The big question is why is the endposition equal (evaluation=0 at depth 23), but I don't understand the rest of the evaluations either. The things I thought were blunders, like 14. Be and 17. Bxc5 were good, and the things I thought were good were blunders.

Well I guess the reason the position is equal is because black will get the knight, so will have two pieces extra and bishop pair vs whites rook and two pawns, so that mystery is solved. But I'd still appreciate if the rest of stockfish's analyses could be explained.

I would like to help but I am unsure what moves you thought were good? I don't consider Bxc5 all that good. It's probably just tactically sound based on the fact the computer can get out of the mess. Be3 IS a good move. The position is obvious that most developing moves even ones that seem to sac a pawn are good because the black pieces are badly placed. An example is the uncastled king and the queen being on the same file. Might be difficult to extract them from the center fast enough to stop an attack.

I hated 15. g4. In practical sense it doesn't seem to fit anything unless you're trying to stop the pawns from moving, but your position at the time you played 15. g4, you could have simply gone for piece activation in the center. 15. Nd3 for example would have been cool. And potentially looking at moving the bishop on e3 with threats on the e5 pawn.

12. Na2 I thought was bad.

At the end I have no idea the weird complexities that was going on. And I don't mean I don't understand the game. I mean in order to explain the engine analysis we would have to sit down and example all of the possibilities and that could get weird. From the sounds of your replies you just need to know why previous moves were bad? 15. g4 neglects the center and opens the king. You want to let him work to get at your king even in these positions. 12. Na2? It takes the knight out of the center. And it could have been better served on c3. If your only intent was to question the bishop, that is two or three moves to make a bishop move from a bad position to a better one. So you are wasting time in a better position to make his position better. 9. dxe5 is taking away tension when you should be increasing the tension.

Do you understand the theory of attack and the theory of tension? And think about that. I am not asking if you "heard of it".. I am asking if you examined it in depth?

Was there any other moves you are questioning?

BlackSalt, so if I understand you correctly, the reason stockfish keeps insisting black play Nf6 is to block Nd5?

MeWantCookieMobile really appreciate your in-depth reply, for Na2 my thinking was that all squares the knight could go to were blocked by black pawns and b4 attacking the weak c6 pawn seemed a good idea. I guess you are right that all it ended up accomplishing was moving the bishop to a better square. I guess engine wanted Ne2 to eventually put it on the nice g3 spot, where it can jump to the weak f5 and h5 squares?

Regarding g4 I thought the knight on e4 was hard to remove and scary so I thought I should block g4 hxg4 h5. I think the reason stockfish hates it is because c5 is so strong and it has to be preempted.

I'm starting to think the reason Bxc5 is good is because it clears the line from my rook to the queen&king and if the knight recaptures than it starts to become a big issue for black, but I still don't understand why it's so important the other knight should capture on e5. Simply because the knight remaining on d3 is easier to attack in some lines?

I have not even heard about the theory of attack and theory of tension.

". I guess engine wanted Ne2 to eventually put it on the nice g3 spot, where it can jump to the weak f5 and h5 squares?"

That is a possibility. You're opponent was playing rather poorly. I mean you can say that the average 1500 doesn't understand why this kind of play is bad, but I have trained some people to get to 1500 and when I did they understood why it was bad to play in that fashion.

"Regarding g4 I thought the knight on e4 was hard to remove and scary so I thought I should block g4 hxg4 h5. I think the reason stockfish hates it is because c5 is so strong and it has to be preempted."

Stockfish hates it because it can probably crunch out an attack. I hate it because it opens your castled king position. c5 is "Strong" only because you are not focusing well on the center. You had more potential there.

"I have not even heard about the theory of attack and theory of tension."

The theory of attack is basically one of steinitz laws of chess where if you can attack you're obligated to attack. So what you should be doing is studying tactics. And I don't mean like just tactical puzzles. Those show the tools for attacking. A tactical operation involves several moves. And forks, pins, skewers, or double attacks are simply tools inside a single tactic. Something else that should be studied as well are things like initiative and pawn breaks. One of the things you can notice in your game. You had a huge advantage in development. So you by the law of attack should simply use that to your advantage. Look for moves that promote the development ideas your opponent thinks he's doing right might be an example. The deeper you go in the attack law the better you become at most everything.

Tension is a positional idea that is actually meant to determine how to understand exchanging. In essence you don't want to release the tension unless you obtain something tangible out of it. And the person that releases the tension first loses an advantage. In your case you didn't get anything out of it. And you could argue that your opponent got some relief in the center by your exchanging the pawn. For example.. In your game if you didn't play 7. h3 and you played 7. a4 you might have noticed d4 later would be stronger. Even if he played 8. .. b4, with your reply being Ne2 and Ng3. And then you can play d4 without h3. It's always better to play as much as you can in the center. his moves really only created weaknesses. And if you look close you will notice that is what actually killed him even if the game according to stockfish was technically equal. In my opinion the only real reason you were equal was the weakness of your king and some of your weakening pawn moves. Other than that you were dominating most of the game.

An exact 0.0 over multiple moves usually means that Stockfish thinks the game is a forced draw.

In this case though, if one follows its main line with that 0.0 evaluation (or let SF calculate long enough on the 19th move), the score eventually tips back in Black's favor (around -1.0).

Forget about the computer analysis at this position. The complexity is too high for 1500 players and in next few moves the game will go downhill for one of the side. The unbalance is very interesting but only if GM are playing. For your, my level, one of the side will blunder very soon. By the way, the computer says slight edge for white.