Annotated chess game

A large chunk of the above passage was copied from Wikipedia.

I know =) i guess you also nuntar get your chess from wikipedia! lol

Hugo has a long history of copying from Wikipedia without naming where it came from. Usually he goes for around 20 pages, so count yourselves lucky!  . And, Hugo, nuntar may well get chess from Wikipedia but he doesn't copy it word for word.

White is playing for kingside expansion, but this will give him a lag in development.

Although this violates Lasker's principle of, more flexibly, "developing knights before bishops".

Can't see that it matters here. The motivation is that the knight has one main square it can go to while the bishop has two, three or four depending on how you count. But in this position, it's already clear where the bishop belongs -- it has no business on b4 when White shows no signs of wanting to develop his knights; on d6 it would be blocked and would block the pawn; on e7 it would do nothing but attack a well-defended pawn.

Given that the bishop is after g2, what was the point of playing h4? This opens up a hole on g4; if ...Ng4, .f3 chases the knight away but seriously weakens White's pawn-structure.

I played h4 for the fun of trying something new. Remember the Sainsbury's slogan 'try something new today!'.

Oh dear. 5...Bg4 6.Ne2 saves the queen in this position.

So does 6. Bf3 (and 6. Nf3 saves the queen but loses the knight).

NOW ...Bg4! DOES win the queen.

Frankly, with all due respect to your analysis of the type of position, it really no longer matters once you're a queen behind.

Two question marks to your previous move rather than two exclamation marks to this move would be more appropriate.

I agree, but it's far too exposed to castle into. In fact, White's last move turns it into a weakness, especially if Black castles queenside, in which case there is no reason for White's kingside pawns to be advanced.

There are only two alternatives in this position; one is to resign immediately; the other is to try and advance the kingside pawns, in which case the king should certainly not be castled behind them.

From 2 weeks ago i vowed NEVER TO RESIGN!!! mwuhuhuhhuhuhuhu!

Ahh, what the heck. You're a queen down, might as well make up the piece. Ever watch soccer (football to most of the world)? When a team is down by a couple goals, they invariably bring the goalie up to around midfield, the fullbacks too. Instead of having 7 offensive players trying to score, they suddenly have 11. That goalie surely doesn't belong up there, but they're going to lose anyway, maybe he can help get them back in the game. Think of your king now as your goalie. Move him up to midfield behind your strikers (pawns) as you engage the opponent's kingside. What have you got to lose?

He is a good Fulham fan according to his profile page, I think he knows that. I also think that what you said applies to Fulham more often than not   (no offense, just joking)

It's not an exchange!! Exchanges are equal. [EDIT]: OK, my mistake.

I disagree. Is a bishop exactly equivalent to a knight? Rook to two minor pieces? Two rooks to queen? All of these are possible exchanges. What makes 7... Bxd1 not an exchange is that White did not CHOOSE to trade the queen for a bishop, but lost it due to a trap.

If all exchanges are equal how does win the exchange? Or lose the exchange? Nuntar is right.

Yes you can! 10.Na3.

Oh ye.... :0