My immortal

Originally posted by Garnoth
You didn't get my point. You gave the encouragement part as a positive thing, but that's like saying e4 is better than d4 because there are more opening traps and even fool's mate.

I just saw that your knight was out of the game until the last 3 moves, which is not really part of your activity plan. Maybe Nxg5 would have been a way to include it into the ...[text shortened]... n your game or something, just had a little suggestion. Don't take these things to personal.

Nothing personal, just an explanation of my method. 🙂
Whether e4 or d4 is better, is simply part of your personality, which
must factor in just what you state; traps and positions of comfort.
We must factor ALL things that we possibly can while making
choices in a game. Especially psychological factors, factors of this nature
such as encouragement per pattern, can be very powerful. By
understanding a weaker move may suggest a future blunder, we
can negotiate which is more worthwhile in our play. Only in idealism is
this not a factor, or against machines.

I personally, wanted my pieces to be as active as possible, now activating
the Knight, is good. True. However, the activity of the Bishop is worth more.
Thats all.

My answers are meant to be educational, not defensive. If they are not,
then I am not doing what I seek too.

On h7, true it wasn't nearly active enough, however, I could not find a
plan for it which was worthwhile until that point. Once I did, I activated it.
There certainly may have been a better way, this is the nature of chess.

I much appreciate your comments, and especially criticism's. If I cannot
make any kind of informative answer, then your understanding is clearly
better, and as such will be adopted.

-GIN

Originally posted by Nowakowski
The knight is not "hung". Once the pawn becomes isolated, that gain of
material is forced. Their are no doubt mistakes, although I don't believe
anything would qualify as a "blunder" other than perhaps the Rook capture
which, if you analyze carefully, I may have already had an upperhand at this
point.

I didn't pretend the game was perfect. I eve ...[text shortened]... Qd3 Rxc4 19. Rc1 Bxc3
20. Rxc3 Bb5 21. Rcc1 Rxc1 22. Qxb5

Are you kidding? The knight was hung, pure and simple. The gain of material was anything but 'forced' and any schoolboy would have been able to see that. The pawn capture itself was a mistake, and the c-pawn would have done better and cramped your position on c5. It should have been advanced, not exchanged as in the game or simply let go like in hte analysis variation you quote.
Furthermore, in the analysis variation you quote, White's play is, yet again, pitifully weak. Why allow the Rook to capture on c4? What is the purpose? You're just trying to make your game look better by making it seem like White had no better options. He did have better options, in spades.
Also, just because 'mistakes happen' in the game of chess, does not mean that a game won by gross blunders is beautiful. I'm sorry to be so negative, but the fact that your opponent played badly is no reason to call your game immortal. An immortal game is one that, through whatever means, teaches us something deeper about the game. It's not a person winning a Queen, losing a piece, then losing a rook, and then being forced to give back the Queen in a way that speciously resembles Rubinstein's Immortal.