Annotated chess game

Usually in OTB games I play the Evans gambit, but that is way too sharp and wild for this game  

I prefer the Evans Gambit in OTB too, especially in quick games. I would not want to play it in CC. You need time pressure on Black to really make it work for you these days. Black can usually defend, if given enough time to find the correct line. The same thing is true about the Danish gambit. It is extremely sharp, often wild too (probably even more so than the Evans). Yet they're both good against the unprepared player in blitz games. **** As far as this line, I see that most often this line is won for black by strong players here at GK.

it is one thing for an expert to play this move, creating an imbalance against a lower rated opponent. it is risky for a much lower rated player to use 2 tempi to take a bishop in a more closed position, tempi white intends to use for a king side attack, as signaled by the h3 move. more solid is nf6 or h6, waiting.

Well 5...Na5 can be played, but I don't really like it. That Bishop can't run from the exchange anyway (well it can with Bb5, but not for long - and there is always Be6 if it "hides" on a2). But still I think development should come first.

...Maybe. But Na5 is Book. I see no harm in using a book move that proves to usually work in practice.

(Qe2, not Qd2)

Well now Black doesn't have a choice (Na5 has no other purpose anyway). The point of allowing the take on c4 is to rule the center. If White plays Nd5 in the future, that Knight will stay there until Black exchanges it and after cd5 the pawns are not doubled any more. If Black plays c6 to evict the Knight then d6 is going to be a sore point. *** Edit: lighttotheright - We are talking about different plans here. Move 6. Qe2 hardly commits (= lessens flexibility of) White, in fact it is a true non-commital move: 1. both castles are possible 2. Nb1 can go to either c3 or d2 (c3 is obviously better and in accordance with the plan I explained before) 3. Bc1 can go anywhere (b2, d2, e3, g5) -- Doubled b pawns usually turn out to be fairly inactive (and Bb3 costs a tempo). White does get the a file in that case, but I picked the setup that I think is more promising regarding midgame activity.

After a half hour of thinking, I fail to see the wisdom of Qe2. It is not a particularly bad move; but I see much better ones. Besides Nbd2 mentioned above...even 6. Bb3 appears better for white because the exchange allows white to improve his pawn position while opening a line for the rook. In this case, the doubled pawns on the b file would actually be an asset for white IMHO. I believe Bd5 and Bb5+ (some other choice moves) would have been better, one of which has been mentioned during an earlier move. Also, Why not O-O or even Nc3 instead? Qe2 only commits white, IMHO. **** You might be asking why 6. Bd5? ...c6 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 and now the black knight is trapped by the pawn structure. A simple pawn fork will regain the minor piece. **** Edit: Doubling the b pawns was not the point I was making as the strength of the combination. The point is that the rook would now be developed without having to move it. Also, rook pawns are not equal to other pawns. They only have one square that they can attack. By placing it on the b file, it now is basically doubled in power. With the rook being developed at the same time, this should give white an extra 1/2 point advantage in the position. That can often (not always) be enough to force a win for white.

white is preparing for a king side attack, this is another tempo I'd spend on another move. if instead 7...be6 (developing), 8 ng5 is no threat, because taking the bishop simply opens up the f file and defends d5, which counters white's strategy.

Well I didn't decide yet what to do (depends on the position of Kings). Certainly first I would play 8.Nc3 and then see what will happen. *** Edit: lighttotheright - Black has no advantage, the position is objectively completely equal. 7...h6 doesn't change the evaluation but makes kingside castling somewhat risky for Black.

In my judgement...before 7. ... h6, Black had a meaningful advantage against white. After 7. ... h6, the position is about equal. 7. h6 is not only unnecessary, it also starts to weaken the king side for black. King side pawns, when castling on that side is likely, should only be moved when absolutely necessary. Moving them prematurely invites trouble.****Edit: I respectfully disagree with you Marin. Anytime you move a major piece to a square that is not necessarily the best, it is a strong commitment of forces. Black does have a slight advantage. Whether black could have turned that advantage into a win is doubtful; but black should have been able to force a draw under best play. I'd like to point out that you are not forcing anything upon black when the move that is supposedly being forced is exactly what Black should want to do anyway. Black's first objective in the game is equalization. By playing Qe2, you gave black that 'on a silver platter'. Also, you gave the initiative to black. Again, Joanne did not know how to take advantage of that; but she could have had it. You stated that she was forced to take. No she wasn't. She could have easily delayed taking and played either 6. Ne7 or 6. Nf6...preparing to castle...or played a number of other moves. Granted, taking probably was best; but it was not forced.

as a result of these moves, white is better developed and continues to prepare for a king side attack.

I got rid of Bishop pair and have superb central control. Now I will in most cases castle queenside and play in the centre (Nd5 or c5) and on the kingside (probably with g4-g5 etc).

in this type of semi closed position, the active white knight is strong versus the bishop, and you have castled kingside while your opponent retains the option of keeping their king more centrally given the center stronghold. using tempi to exchange the remaining king knights leaving your king more vulnerable to a pawn storm seems too passive.

Dunno who is Wayne   anyway kingside castle was a bit risky IMHO. I am not sure about 16...Qf6 either. Black needs a good plan, and fast.

My apologies for the typo Marin. Wayne is apastpawn who is currently my coach. Joanne

Well if White plays Rf3 and Ng3 undisturbed, then it is going to be a long game for Black. But h5 can wait until Rf3 is played (that is a huge tempo). 18...Kg7; 19.Rf3, h5; 20.gh5, Rh8 looks better than the game continuation. If 21.Ng3 then 21...Bh3 maybe? If 21.Rg3 then 21...Kf8 and 22...Ke7 looks like a plan.

Did White overlook the threat to the f-pawn, or anticipate the threat but was unable to find an effective counter? I like Marin's suggestion of 18...Kg7, with reasonable counterplay.

The King on h file is pretty badly placed. This is why 18...Kg7 looks better than 18...h5 :I

bxp would have retained a playable game.

Well I looked at 24...Bf3; 25.c5, dc5; 26.Rd5 - I don't know if that is a good plan, it never came to that so I didn't really analyze deeply.

Maybe 24...Bxh3 25.c5!? Bg4 26.cxd6 cxd6 27.Rxd6 Bxh5 28.Rd7 Bf3 or simply 24...Bxh3 25.c5!? dxc5 26.Rd5 Rxh5 with the idea 27.Nxh5 Rg1ch 28.Kd2 Rxa1, but White looks able to retain at least a pawn surplus.

As I mentioned - the benchmark is 50% points scored vs. a strength level. It is inevitable that you will score a draw or a win against an expert, but after how many tries? If the strength difference is big then the learning curve is usually very slow (while the stronger player doesn't feel really challenged), so this is another reason why I don't recommend playing people far above (or under) your level.