Annotated chess game

Not having the most experience in playing 1 e4, I played it anyway, since I want(ed) to learn it. And at the time that our game began, the rating difference was huge, meaning that I took too less care of a red fox rising... This game is a good example of underestimating my opponent. I knew that you should'nt do that, but nevertheless I did... admittedly, I have been playing too many games at the same time so just can't take the same care of all my games in reality.

The Sicilian... going after my throat...

I normally play e5 and decided to open with the Sicilian against my club member.

A most peculiar gambit, played presumably to take a lower rated player out of his comfort zone. Um, well, actually... no. The Gameknot members' database offers one example. A win to Black, yes, but by a route that skated very close to defeat.

Objectively a very bad move, but psychologically just a very good one! Although I continued to play caring about the quality of my moves, SOMEHOW I didn't as much as before since if the game would continue like this indeed it would lead to a quick win by me. However, as we know by heart know, it didn't go that way...

I'm thinking the opening book on GK or World showed this was higher rated than say Nc6 or g6 with next move of Bg7. It does hang and if taken, I do believe still this game wou;d of been a fast win for my opponent. Could I continue this same opening in future games and win, the answer is no. I did try this in some blitz games and they ended not in my favor.

I don't think I lost the game here yet. You had to make a lot of good moves to prove I am human, in contrast of my somewhat nice winning streak (+115 ultimately). It's even MORE of an achievement by you to win after this audacious pawn sacrifice! Like a Morphy you shall begin attacking and continue until the end of the games, sacrificing pawns and even a knight like a terrific red fox

Good move! Your Queen is nicely placed there (being a common place for her in many Sicilians), although that mainly is with pawns on a6 and e6. And, above all: you start attacking at once! There is only one another way to do that: 3... Nf6 4 e5 d5 but your move has it's charms: it's nice to keep your pawns flexible for some time.

I have recently been studying the flank pawn moves here too. But in this case Q is moved out, Nf6 would be attacked by your pawn, So I attack! e6 would of been a move to keep from the possible check by Bxf7 and forcing me to take back with my King.

In the database game, the bishop dropped back to b3. That would probably have been my choice as well. A good alternative would have been 4.d3, though White no doubt wants to push it to d4 some time soon.

Trying to develop all of my pieces as soon as possible, as I thought it is best to be not only ahead materially, but also positionally (= being ahead in development, having a solid position with no weak points, etc.). However afterwards I should admit that it really wasn't the most solid move at this moment. First, the defending of my bishop is illusory, since it will have to move soon out of that unsafe square anyway. Second, my Queen gives up the defence of the c2-pawn. Third, it is said (and with good reason) to develop your pieces first and only at last your queen. I had to realize that the defence of Bc4 wasn't that handy, but I thought it was nice to defend my undefended e4-pawn and didn't see any way for way to attack my Queen on e2 anytime soon.

White is playing chess the way you should xcept for this early Q move, But she is nicely placed xcept for the weakness of c2 as mentioned. I as white would of possibly moved e5 as it would then be protected by Nf3.

Come on: Black is being provocative. Playing risky chess to unbalance the game and create new problems. Perfectly acceptable and reasonable. And risky. But if one is prepared to take a risk, one is prepared (presumably) to abide the outcome.

I disagree, as ...a6 is almost a move you will make in the Sicilian, as it has many functions, like preparing b5, preventing the White bishops and knights from coming to the dangerous (for Black) b5-square, safeguarding your precious Queen's position on c7 (where it can - and often WILL - be attacked by a White knight on b5 or d5). Undoubtedly there are many other functions of the move ...a6 in the Sicilian, but since I am just an amateur in chess I don't know all nuances. However I hope you appreciate I mentioned a few benefits of the ''beginner-like'' looking move ...a6. While it is true that moves like a3,h3, a6, h6 are often made without good purpose by beginners, just as often it are good moves. But as I said above, in the Sicilian it most often IS a good move to make, if you made it consciously or unconsciously.

It is true I am controlling the center, but I dare to call this move a mistake, as I really don't like (and am not good at) playing chess positions with great centers. I prefer playing solid positions which look not dangerous at all, but when my opponent overextends... I will take profit of it, which I am able to do just because of my careful and quiet play. Here, however, the ''good'' thing is that I ''take the center'', while the bad thing is that I ''have to defend my center'', as when it will be destroyed you probably will be instantly having the better game, at least the one easier to play. Giving your c4-pawn away so easily, you made me so audacious. Which is a good thing... for you!

You develop your knight on it's best square. Logical and good.

Yes, I've also develop my Queen's knight, just like you. But I think I just developed here, without any further thinking or checking. Hey, I am a pawn up and I have the center, what bad thing can happen to me here? In reality, I am already going further downhill here, as (most of all) I don't think about the usefulness of this move for my further game. Usually I don't do this. But usually I am not up a pawn so soon AND have ''such a great game'' after just a few moves. Here it shows that I not only heavily underestimated my opponent (that gave away a pawn without any visual benefit for him), but also overappreciated the ''greatness'' of my position. Still, it wasn't that terrible for me objectively until I blundered back a pawn. We will soon see how that would happen. Right now I see a lot of safer (and thus, better) moves for me here: c3, 0-0, a3 (as you prepared b5 by your last move, I can retreat my bishop to a2 because I prophylactically played a3). I didn't think of all these moves at all, unfortunately: having so many games this game was one of the most unimportant ones to me, being a pawn up, and having all I wanted positionally too. Besides, I don't make the most of my efforts in separate challenges: I tend to do especially well in tournaments, in games that have consequences. I remember me some scrabble games I lost that were just the same sort of games, while I did not lose any tournament games at all. So a conclusion I can already draw: attention is very important in a chess game! When you don't take care, or it doesn't matter you too much... well, chances are that you will lose just because of that. Willpower is a really important thing in chess. Which YOU was going to demonstrate to attack and demolish my center, defend against my threats on your king, and (you did this by) counterattack and demolish my king.

Thematic: a bishop on c4 in the Sicilian is often the target that permits rapid Q-side expansion from Black.

I often make prophylactic moves in my games. I think that is why I kept (and keep) winning so much of my games. Here I not only failed to do that; I even didn't take any notice of the ideas of your move. If I had done this, I would probably have been played a3, and with my knight still on b1 I am always able to play c3, being very solid. NORMALLY development is important. But if your opponent neglects its development, it's more often than not good to also make non-developmental moves. And why not? You're not that dangerous anyway with that few developed pieces, so as I have sort of all the time of the world to do what I am pleased to do, why not make my position as solid as possible? There is even one more reason to handle like this: as I am a full pawn up, chances are that I will win the game ultimately because of that. The only way to do wrong is by overextending and losing pawn(s), pieces and king. Having played solidly, all that terrible things that so soon happened to me in the games would'nt have happened to me for a long time, since you hadn't had things to attack. While now you was very, very fortunate: you had plenty of pawns and pieces which are asking for attacking them ... which you deliberately did. Of course, if you didn't attack at all, you most probably would'nt have won, even if I played like I did.

7.Bd3 was also worth thinking about.

Here I didn't like Bb3 nor Bd3. Because of my too-soon-made- last-move I was forced to make one of them. Lesson: don't play chess without thinking, as it will only harm the quality of your game(s). I wanted to keep my bishop (and not give it up for your knight), but it's already too late to do this without consequences. I had the feeling that the direct Na5 I would play Nd5, which looked nice to me.

... but one move later I really don't like either knight or bishop on c3 and b3, the knight soon being attacking by ...b4, the bishop by ...Na5. And even worse: 1. I couldn't do anything about it. 2. Both the knight and bishop haven't active purposes at all 3. My e4 pawn is going to be shaky, and if not that e4-pawn, than my c2-pawn, and if not my c2-pawn, my d4-pawn... At this point I didn't like my position anymore. But I still thought too much ''a pawn is a pawn''. That's another lesson: don't be too happy about some (in this case a material) advantage. Chess is so dynamic, the advantageous thing may evaporate soon or, worse, it may not take any significant role at all. Instead: DO think your opponent is able to destroy your position one way or another; find out how; and do something against it. In the game... well, I failed to do all of these things.

I think White wanted to prevent or slow down ...b4. Advancing the a-pawn 2 squares would not have achieved this.

The move a4 provokes ...b4, rather than prevent it (which a3 did). So while appearing somewhat ''equal'', in reality the moves a3 and a4 are totally different from each other. Yes, every one little detail in chess can make a huge difference for the assessment of the whole position. And often it DOES make a (more or less) significant difference. Which is why we still play chess after hundreds of years: we can't grasp it, as there is always something (and very more than ''just something'') outside of our horizon. There are so many subtleties and nuances in chess, resulting in many different levels of chessplayers.

Good move. Probably the best one in this position, as your Queen's bishop will end up there anyway, it is best to keep the rest of your position as flexible as possible, while it's also a good thing to give your rook more freedom: especially c8 looks like a great square since it's always recommended to place your rook(s) on open or half-open squares. And thanks to your sacrificed pawn, you're having already some form of compensation for the material deficit, namely the half-open file, used by your Queen already, and soon by your Queen's rook too

Well, it's said: one should attack kings-being-in-the-center; opening up the position and attack the unsecure-placed-king. The only thing I should very much take care of it not to lose all of my center while not achieving my goal of attacking and demolishing my king. Which, by the way, was just what about was to happen in a few moves, due to a tactical oversight and underestimation of my opponent...

I like the look of 10.dxe6 dxe6 11.Be3 ... 12.0-0 or Rc1.

Too focused on the reservation of my bishop. However I just hadn't to retreat it to a2 in one move, instead of two. While for some moment I thought the ''knight on the rim is dim'', it will have a great outpost on c4. And b3 shuts out my bishop out of the game. If only I had retreated in one move instead of two, I could here have played dxe6 preserving the bishop. By the way I think the archduke is very right about 10 dxe6. If I had been thinking that my position was terrible here, I most surely would have seen and played such a move, but here I simply retreated my bishop to a2, as that's why I played a3. However, again: DON'T PLAY CHESS WITHOUT THINKING and DON'T UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT. While it is true that rating usually says something about the someone's strength, in this case redfoxrising was rising greatly, fenomenally, deliberately... and I would soon feel the pain getting bigger and bigger until finally I even got checkmated.

Developing and pressuring both the e4 and d5 pawns.

Even though I won this game playing black, I'm back today reviewing this annotation, and like I said in the beginning I was not explaining my attack, doing so lets others inside your game and your mindset, but adding simple comments like N is developed is more my style of the play by play announcer, Yes this move develops but with whites strong center, it was here or to the rin on h6 or e7 in front of my King, this is just move 10 and i'm near to full development. This move was the best place for my N.

Very tempting would have been 11.d6 Bxd6? 12.e5. Black would have had to accept the pawns wedged into his centre and played 11...Qc6 12.e5 Ne4, and by exchanges, perhaps, hope to reduce the effect of the bind.

Still I didn't really think (if at all) and just castled. Obviously I didn't noticed the resource d6 here at all. Only later I did, when I got to feel the heat of my opponent's pieces rising and rising and HAD TO think, as otherwise I would lose very very soon. Our Club Founder (tacticalabyss) says with very good reason to not play too many games, as it is just impossible to keep the quality of all of your games high. But you really have to admire the will power of redfoxrising, as it is really an achievement to rise from 1400-1500 to circa 1900 in such a short span of time! Notwithstanding the giving-away of the c4-pawn, I dare to say he played better than me by far during our whole game. I was the one that made several severe mistakes (he did make not even one, after that ...c4-move), and as I am finally analyzing and commenting our game, I come aware of many, many mistakes at almost every one of the moves I made. Something which is trully enlightning, as I felt irritated over losing. Now I see that it's not only that ''mistakes'' the engine showed to me some months ago, but also a great bunch of other things.

The 0-0 castle is usually made here and not many think further like Ion has commented. King safety is key... not looking ahead to see what I play next. what would you play as black? do you castle 0-0-0? How about development of the DSB? Or another move? Just to point out blunders Bc5 would allow a fork moving white to b4 how about Bd6? or e5? Use analyze the board or a real chess board for checking your moves.