I was better, then I was getting checkmated and didn't know what to do. What can I learn from this?

@kindaspongey said in #9:

What would Alientcp have done (as Black) after 1 Nf3 f5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bg5 g6 4 Bxf6 exf6 5 e3 d5 6 Nc3 a6 7 Qd2 Bg7 8 Bd3 O-O 9 h4 Re8 10 O-O-O Nc6 11 h5 Nb4 12 hxg6 ?

Nope. I wouldnt let the h pawn open the position. After h5, I would probably play g5

"After h5, I would probably play g5" * Yes, then it is equal, but he did play 11...Nb4?

There is a trend here: the defensive move 11...g5 would have held for black, but instead he played the losing attacking move 11...Nb4? with his knight.

Likewise the defensive move 20 Kb1 would have won for white, but instead he played the losing attacking move 20 Nhg7?? with his knight.

Attacking is fun, but do not forget to defend when necessary.

@Alientcp (starting with a quote of MusicGarlic) said in #4:

"I was better"
When? ...
@kindaspongey said in #5:
... From moves 12 to 18 ?

https://lichess.org/bf6lpgnR

@Alientcp said (apparently to MusicGarlic) in #7:
... Doesnt matter what the engine says. Its what you see on the board.
... Honestly, you had nothing. ...
@kindaspongey said in #9:
... What would Alientcp have done (as Black) after 1 Nf3 f5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bg5 g6 4 Bxf6 exf6 5 e3 d5 6 Nc3 a6 7 Qd2 Bg7 8 Bd3 O-O 9 h4 Re8 10 O-O-O Nc6 11 h5 Nb4 12 hxg6 ?
@Alientcp said in #11:
... Nope. I wouldnt let the h pawn open the position. After h5, I would probably play g5
So, Alientcp does not want to discuss the position that MusicGarlic had after 11...Nb4 ?

@kindaspongey said in #13:

So, Alientcp does not want to discuss the position that MusicGarlic had after 11...Nb4 ?

Why to discuss a variation he didnt see? If he doesnt see it, and moved something else, it didnt took advantage of anything.

He had the option to take. He didnt.

I mean, I can go back and start discussing about Bxf6, which for me is not the best of the moves. Or I can go to 18.- f3.
Didnt happened. It a waste of my time.

If he didnt see it, it wasnt any advantage, doesnt matter what it could have or should have, it matters what happened.

@Alientcp said in #4:

["I was better" - MusicGarlic]
When? ...
@kindaspongey said in #5:
... From moves 12 to 18 ?

https://lichess.org/bf6lpgnR

@Alientcp said (apparently to MusicGarlic) in #7:
... Doesnt matter what the engine says. Its what you see on the board.
... Honestly, you had nothing. ...
@kindaspongey said in #9:
... What would Alientcp have done (as Black) after 1 Nf3 f5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bg5 g6 4 Bxf6 exf6 5 e3 d5 6 Nc3 a6 7 Qd2 Bg7 8 Bd3 O-O 9 h4 Re8 10 O-O-O Nc6 11 h5 Nb4 12 hxg6 ?
@Alientcp said in #14:
... Why to discuss a variation he didnt see? ...
If one has an interest in knowing “when” MusicGarlic “was better”, it seems to me that it can become more difficult to perceive an answer if one refuses to discuss a specific position from the game. Fortunately, the rest of us can “see” the possibility of 12 hxg6 “on the board” after 11...Nb4. The machine does not seem to be reluctant to identify specifics about why it considers MusicGarlic to have had an ~“2.77” advantage after 11...Nb4.
@Alientcp said in #14:
... If he didnt see it, it wasnt any advantage, doesnt matter what it could have or should have, it matters what happened.
As I understand it, the standard practice is to identify advantages in positions without regard to what happened subsequently in a specific game.

@kindaspongey said in #15:

If one has an interest in knowing “when” MusicGarlic “was better”

You dont understand the point Im trying to make. Of course a lot of different things could have been done, and obviously studying what could have happen is what you have to do.

He is making a claim "I was better". But he says that based on what the engine says after, not what he saw in game. And despite the fact the engine says he was better, he still doesnt know why.

Obviously breaking with hxg6 will lead to an attack on the h file. But he doesnt see it, he moves the knight.

All Im saying is that he does not see the advantage, his play did not prove the advantage, therefore, the claim is incorrect as, he had nothing, no attack, no tactics, no sacrifices, no infiltration,

He should not be trusting the engine to say when he has an advantage or not. He should judge the position whether he sees anything or not. If he doesnt see a thing and there is no attack, then, there is no advantage.

We could talk all day and get into hundreds of variations, It does not matter what we find, it doesnt change the fact that he did not find anything to progress and his eval is incorrect because he found a brick wall.

Im just pointing out that he had no kind of pressure, showed him what pressure looks like and a couple of pointers so he can push forward with the attack. Im explaining that he had no attack and why that piece placement does not equate to an attack as he closed the position.

Im not trying to show him a winning line. Im trying to explain that he shouldnt trust the engine with the eval as he does not play like an engine, and he wont follow up like the engine would since he cant even prove he was better.
Im refuting his argument so he understands that his concept of advantage is incorrect so he can fix it.

Showing him a correct line wont fix his incorrect concept of advantage. Fixing that incorrect concept will be more useful for him on the long term. Thats why im not discussing alternate lines.

The game is quite specific, so the result is not important. He wont have a similar game where he can "apply the knowledge gained", so its useless to tell him the proper lines.

But its a good example of how he evaluates the position incorrectly. So its more useful to point out why his eval is incorrect and what he should seek on his eval.

@MusicGarlic said:

I was better, then I was getting checkmated and didn't know what to do. What can I learn from this? ...
@Alientcp said (~35 hours ago) in #4:
"I was better"
When? ...
@kindaspongey said in #5:
... From moves 12 to 18 ?

https://lichess.org/bf6lpgnR

@Alientcp said (apparently to MusicGarlic) (~27 hours ago) in #7:
... Doesnt matter what the engine says. It’s what you see on the board.
... Honestly, you had nothing. ...
@kindaspongey said in #9:
... What would Alientcp have done (as Black) after 1 Nf3 f5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bg5 g6 4 Bxf6 exf6 5 e3 d5 6 Nc3 a6 7 Qd2 Bg7 8 Bd3 O-O 9 h4 Re8 10 O-O-O Nc6 11 h5 Nb4 12 hxg6 ?
@Alientcp said in #16:
... He is making a claim "I was better". But he says that based on what the engine says after, not what he saw in game.
As I understand it, the standard practice is to say who is better in a position without intending it to be any indication of what was perceived by the players at the time. For example, I think that Sulskis is believed to have been better in the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 Nxf7+ Kxf7 7 Qf3+ Ke6 8 Nc3 Nb4 9 a3 Nxc2+ 10 Kd1 Nxa1 11 Nxd5, even though Sulskis apparently did not know the right thing to do at the time.
@Alientcp said in #16:
And despite the fact the engine says he was better, he still doesnt know why.
If MusicGarlic doesn’t know why the machine refers to an ~”2.77” advantage after 11...Nb4, that would seem to me to be a reason to look at the details of what the machine says about it.
@Alientcp said in #16:
Obviously breaking with hxg6 will lead to an attack on the h file. ...
Perhaps, it would have been appropriate to say something about the existence of this possibility ~35 or ~27 hours ago instead of “Doesnt matter what the engine says“ and so on.
@Alientcp said in #16:
... All Im saying is that he does not see the advantage, his play did not prove the advantage, ...
Nevertheless, there seems to have been an advantageous option available.
@Alientcp said in #16:
therefore, the claim is incorrect as, he had nothing, no attack, no tactics, no sacrifices, no infiltration,
Apparently, MusicGarlic had the opportunity to break with 12 hxg6 leading to an attack on the h file.
@Alientcp said in #16:
He should not be trusting the engine to say when he has an advantage or not. He should judge the position whether he sees anything or not.
Some of us think that the machine can provide useful indications of positions that warrant additional attention after a game.
@Alientcp said in #16:
If he doesnt see a thing and there is no attack, then, there is no advantage.
I think that many would consider it to be a hint of a possible advantage to have an opportunity to break with 12 hxg6 leading to an attack on the h file.
@Alientcp said in #16:
We could talk all day and get into hundreds of variations, It does not matter what we find, it doesnt change the fact that he did not find anything to progress and his eval is incorrect because he found a brick wall.
Aren’t notations like

=
routinely used without any regard to what any individual did or didn’t find at the time?

@Alientcp said in #16:

Im just pointing out that he had no kind of pressure, showed him what pressure looks like and a couple of pointers so he can push forward with the attack. Im explaining that he had no attack and why that piece placement does not equate to an attack as he closed the position. ...
Apparently, MusicGarlic had the opportunity to break with 12 hxg6 leading to an attack on the h file.
@Alientcp said in #16:
... Im trying to explain that he shouldnt trust the engine with the eval as he does not play like an engine, and he wont follow up like the engine would since he cant even prove he was better.
Isn’t that a reason to examine what the machine says and see if there is something there to be learned?
@Alientcp said in #16:
Im refuting his argument so he understands that his concept of advantage is incorrect so he can fix it.
Showing him a correct line wont fix his incorrect concept of advantage. Fixing that incorrect concept will be more useful for him on the long term.
I think that many would consider it to be a hint of a possible advantage to have an opportunity to break with 12 hxg6 leading to an attack on the h file.
@Alientcp said in #16:
Thats why im not discussing alternate lines.
Didn’t you go beyond that to trying to discourage MusicGarlic from becoming aware of alternate lines (“Doesnt matter what the engine says“ and so on)?
@Alientcp said in #16:
The game is quite specific, so the result is not important. He wont have a similar game where he can "apply the knowledge gained", so it’s useless to tell him the proper lines.
You don’t think another game could involve an opportunity to break with a pawn exchange, leading to an attack on an open file?
@Alientcp said in #16:
But its a good example of how he evaluates the position incorrectly. So its more useful to point out why his eval is incorrect and what he should seek on his eval.
Some of us think that the machine can provide useful indications of positions that warrant additional attention after a game. Perhaps it could be helpful to a player to look at an example of a pawn exchange, leading to an attack on an open file?

"the position that MusicGarlic had after 11...Nb4 ?"
The position was winning for white after 11...Nb4? instead of 11...g5 and until 20 Nhg7?? instead of 20 Kb1.

@kindaspongey said in #17:
You can give him whatever advise you think it will be useful to him.

I gave him the advice that I think it will be useful to him.

I honestly dont care if you like or not what I said to him.
If he likes what I said, He will use it, If not, he wont.
If he likes what you said, he will use it, if not, he wont.
Up to him.