I'm bookmarking this thread, not because I have any particular hard-on for Mateulose, but because I really appreciate hearing this kind of off-the-cuff analysis of why someone loses a game. It's not quite as formal as the kind of analysis they give you in the books, and so it's actually more educational in the long run, IMO.
What happens this game was I saw a player with a lower rating play a very bad opening and I wanted to punish him
I have found, myself, that whenever I "get mad" because, say, someone captured my queen, and try to "get even" in the very next move ("ha ha, that'll teach ya..."😉 etc.), I invariably screw up, move exactly the *wrong* piece, and the game turns into an immediate bloodbath, with me on the receiving end, running for cover and finding none, and winding up humiliatingly cornered.
Originally posted by ChessMomThat's a good point; psychological factors can be very important in chess. In my first month here, I suffered a terrible loss to a player rated about 150 points lower than me when I botched an opening and fell into a Knight fork and was done in about 12 moves; I was so angry that in the companion game I threw an unsound attack and missed an obvious rejoinder and lost a piece and that game, too!!
[b/]I'm bookmarking this thread, not because I have any particular hard-on for Mateulose, but because I really appreciate hearing this kind of off-the-cuff analysis of why someone loses a game. It's not quite as formal as the kind of analy ...[text shortened]... ver and finding none, and winding up humiliatingly cornered.
[/b]
And it's not enough to say "Oh, he's played an inferior opening, so I can do anything and win"; you have to identity WHY the moves were inferior and how to exploit the opportunities they present. Lastly, if you're going to choose a positional type of opening, you should play positionally unless you can obviously get a winning attack. And play the board, not your opponent, always assume yer opponent will make the strongest moves and be prepared to meet them.
Anyways, that game is just one of many COUNTLESS examples of why you SHOULDN'T BOTHER to study openings, nobody around my rating knows their openings anyways, and seeing that studying openings doesn't give me, say a peice up, while weird self created tactical openings sure can, I don't see what's the point behind knowing openings, because I get beat by players who are too lazy to learn them anyways. Positional chess study is just crap IMHO, he can do like 5 bad opening moves, and he's still very much in the game, and you do ONE mistake in the mid game, and it's loss. Considering such math, I don't see how it's feasable to study openings at all.
Originally posted by SbecspeledrXWhy you lose, "because I blunder", it's that simple, I blunder in superior positions, now if there is a magic pill to stop that, I'm all ears, but personally I am tired of ppl in bad positions having a lot of fight in them and whatever move I do seems to be a mistake, according to Silman, shouldn't it be the other way around?
What's the thread title again Mateulose?
Very interesting thread and something positive to come out of the posts by the protagonist of the chess forum.
It highlights the thing I would most like to learn about openings: when an opponent departs from a openings there should be a weakness created - can I learn to spot these weaknesses/ is it just down to experence/ just down to natural ability?
Plus I guess it is far more dangerous to depart from a standard opening as Black than White, do you agree?
This seems like fun. Thought I'd try one. Game 757999
mateulose - makiev
1. d4 e6
2. c4 d5
Standard Queen's Gambit Declined (transposition)
3. Nf3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Nc3 0-0
6. e3 h6
An slightly different move order than standard but this is a valid opening. (6. ... Nbd7 becomes the Orthodox QGD)
7. Bh4 Nbd7
Not the most common move but still playable.
8. cxd5 Nxd5
I have four games in my database at this point. In 3 of them 9. Bg3 is played (2.5-0.5) and in 1 9.Nxd5 is played (0-1).
9. Nxd5 exd5
(9. Bg3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 c5 11. Bd3 Qa5)
10. Bxe7 Qxe7
11. g4?
This is just bad. What does it aim? White at some point in the game should be looking to castle kingside. There is a tactical shot similar to this (push g4 if the knight on f6 (if there was one) takes then you skewer it to the g7 pawn) but it doesn't even come close to working in this position as Black has castled kingside and the Knight isn't on f6. This move loses almost a pawn (+0.34 -> -0.44) compared to 11. Bd3
11. ... Nf6
Black plays the correct response and gains the initiative as white has to defend the pawn.
12. g5 Ne4
The other alternative is better 12. h3. However neither response stops the knight outpost that black is going to gain. White has blundered to allow that but black shouldn't play it right away. 12. ... Qb4+ 13. Qd2 Qxd2 is much better for black, either response and black will win the pawn (13. Nxd2 hxg5 or 13. Kxd2 Ne4+ 14. Ke1 hxg5)
13. gxh6 Qb4+
Fritz suggests the very tactical 13. ... Bg5. The response has to be 14. Be2 otherwise white loses material. (13...Bg4 14.hxg7 (14.h7+ Kh8 15.a3 Ng5 16.Be2 Qe4 17.Nxg5 Qxh1+ 18.Kd2 Qxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Bxe2 20.Kxe2 Rae8) 14...Bxf3 15.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 16.Qxf3)
However 13. ... Qb4+ isn't a bad move in the situation.
14. Ke2??
The forced response was 14. Nd2 with half a pawn advantage to white. Either of the other moves loses on the spot as demonstrated.
14. ... Qxb2+ 0-1
White resigns in the face of various threats, a family fork, losing the queen outright or mates in 1 or 6.
Overall both players made mistakes however white made the final horrible error and this cost him the game. White allowed Black a huge advantage with the knight outpost and this in the end played a large part in his downfall.
My understanding of "why we study openings" is that it simply makes the opening simpler, speeds things up a bit, simplifies things, allowing you to get on with things, to the middle game, if you don't have to sit there and wrack your brain about every move you're going to make. Is this not so.
The opening also can give you some insight into what sort of player you're facing. If he goes "by the book" in his opening, then that tells you something, but if he plays like Fritz 8's "Drunkard" or "Moron", well, then, that tells you something else.
So far all I'm doing is playing computer chess, but after nearly a year, I'm starting to learn that I need to study openings *more*, because otherwise I'm just sort of floundering around, wondering "why did he play that". And then two moves later, I'm like, "Oh, *now* I see why he played that..." Usually involving loss of material, or forks, or other embarrassments.
The whole "why should I bother to study because I just lose anyway" mindset is puzzling to me. If it bothers you that you keep losing, why not do what about 200 years of experience have taught is the way to become a better player, and--study up on it?
If you were playing Sims2, you'd invest in a strategy guide, wouldn't you? And study up on it? Or backgammon, if you got tired of losing all the time?
Then why not do the same with chess?
Originally posted by mateuloseI swear I'm going to drag ya kicking and screaming into being a really good player if it kills me! Your no1 problem in chess is your attitude; chess is not strictly speaking a game (as it has no random elements) it is, as Mason put it: "a process of thought conditioned and limited by the Institutes and Rules of the Game. The judgments of thought are certified or visibly expressed upon the chessboard in movements of various forces". If you have no desire to be excellent at chess, by all means never study the openings or positional play just keep looking for "tactics" like ya did in this game.
Anyways, that game is just one of many COUNTLESS examples of why you SHOULDN'T BOTHER to study openings, nobody around my rating knows their openings anyways, and seeing that studying openings doesn't give me, say a peice up, while weird self created tactical openings sure can, I don't see what's the point behind knowing openings, because I get beat by ...[text shortened]... and it's loss. Considering such math, I don't see how it's feasable to study openings at all.
No self-created opening can give an opponent a piece up UNLESS you let them. If you're too lazy or stubborn to study openings themselves, at least know opening principles: develop, control the center, protect your King, beware of making early Queen sorties. You violated every one of these principles to play "tactics" here against an "inferior" opening and it got you a lost position in 8 moves!! Who's opening was inferior, Mateulose?? An experienced player with the proper chess atittude would have played as I outlined in my annotations, a line of play which would have given Black a positional advantage after only 7 moves. I will gladly accept that playing as Black against the weakest opponent on the site; the goal is to play well and win, not try to "punish" your opponent by ill-advised, premature attacks. I'll continue on with my analyses and hope that even if you find them worthless, perhaps other players will be able to have an open enough mind to learn something.
OK, Mateulose's 2nd to last loss this one to Chiili, a good player rated in the 1700's. It's esp. instructive as it shows a failure to understand the main points of an opening can lead to an immediately inferior game.
Mateulose Chiili
1 d4 d5
2 c4 e6
3 Nf3 Nf6
4 Bg5 c6
5 Nc3 Nbd7
6 e3 Qa5
This is the standard position (with a one move transposition) of the Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Variation which is a hundred year old opening. It is a Black response to White's 4 Bg5 and is an attempt to put pressure on White's queenside exploiting the absence of White's queenside bishop. The next move is very important to the game and Mateulose's failure to appreciate opening theory gets him in immediate trouble:
7 Qc2? Ne4
The "book" line is 7 Nd2 with the obvious purposes of first keeping the Black Knight out of e4 (which Mateulose's inferior move allows immediately) and preparing the advance of the f pawn after castling. The databases I use show a huge difference in White's probability of winning after these two alternate moves: the spread is 44% W, 19% B, 37% = after 7 Nd2 while after 7 Qc2? it's 16% W, 52% B, 32% =! Of course, those are mostly master and up games and at our level you don't generally lose in the opening, but even a cursory glance at the board shows that Ne4 attacking both the Knight at c3 and the Bishop at g5 is a pain. White's best move now is probably cxd5 followed by Bd3 pretty much forcing an exchange or retreat of the Knight, but Mateulose comes up with another (bad) idea:
8 a3? Bb4!
Mateulose probably played a3 to prevent the pin and perhaps prepare the advance of the b pawn, but now finds he can't take the Bishop anyway as his Rook at a1 is unprotected. He's quickly getting himself into big trouble and he needs to break the pin with Rc1 even though this loses a pawn after 9 Rc1 Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 Qxa3. Instead he tries for "tactics" again:
9 Bd3? Bxc3+
10 bxc3
Now, 10 ........ Nxg5 11 Nxg5 dxc4 wins a piece for Chiili and Mateulose is pretty much out of it before he even gets out of the opening! But again, he catches a break:
10 ...... Qxc3?
11 Qxc3 Nxc3
Mateulose has now escaped the worst and though he's down a pawn, he's actually better developed. There's a number of possible moves here, but I would simply play O-O, bringing my King to safety and developing my Rook. Again, Mateulose can't be bothered with such nonsense and decides to leave his King in the middle of the board:
12 Kd2? Ne4+
13 Bxe4 dxe4
14 Ne1 f6
15 Bh4 b6
16 Nc2 a5
17 a4 Ba6
18 Na3 O-O
19 Bg3 Rac8
20 Rab1 Rfd8
21 Ke2 c5
There are a couple of moves I'm not crazy about here (I don't see the point of 17 a4 and I'm not sure the King is better situated at e2 than d2) but Mateulose has reached a reasonable, if somewhat inferior position. To me, his biggest problems are that he has not developed his Rook and his Knight is tied up defending the c-pawn, when if it could get to the weak square b5 it would have a strong post and block the Bishop. Rhc1 solves both these problems at once. Instead, Mateulose makes an immediate losing move:
22 dxc5? Nxc5
One of the most reliable rules in chess is that the opening up of a closed position favors the better developed side. Here Black is clearly better developed, so Mateulose should be trying to keep the position closed. Note also that his violation of a POSITIONAL rule leads immediately to winning TACTICS by his opponent. Now he cannot avoid loss of his a-pawn which leaves him two pawns down in a lousy position. His best of a bad lot move is again, Rhc1 developing his Rook and defending an isolated pawn, but AGAIN he miscalculates and goes "tactical":
23 Rxb6?? Nxa4!
Now he is lost; he lose nothing less than the exchange (and he's already down material) in any continuation I see. Instead he walks into an obvious mate:
24 Rxa6??? Nxc3
Resigns
Mate follows with the Rook going to d1. I'll summarize what Mateulose did wrong in the next post.
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is an interesting game which highlights the two things Mateulose says aren't important: opening theory and positional factors. He didn't know (or understand) the importance of preventing a Black Knight from getting to e4 in the Cambridge Springs variation and got into immediate trouble. And he failed to effectively develop all his pieces: he never castled and in a 25 move game he had a rook which never moved! Contrast that Chiilis effective deployment of his Bishop on a diagonal striking into the heart of White' position, his Knights in strong center posts and his rooks are potentially open files.
OK, Mateulose's 2nd to last loss this one to Chiili, a good player rated in the 1700's. It's esp. instructive as it shows a failure to understand the main points of an opening can lead to an immediately inferior game.
Mateulose Chiili
1 d4 d5
2 c4 e6
3 Nf3 Nf6
4 Bg5 c6
5 Nc3 Nbd7
6 e3 Qa ...[text shortened]... ollows with the Rook going to d1. I'll summarize what Mateulose did wrong in the next post.
The sudden end in a game where Mateulose was in a somewhat inferior, but not critical position, derived from his allowing the position to be opened when he wasn't developed. There's an obvious lesson here: if you're ahead in development, try to open the game and attack; an undeveloped opponent will have weak points open to attack and/or occupation. And if you're undeveloped: DEVELOP or at the very least, try to avoid the opening of a position until you are. The strength of a piece in chess derives from its mobility; a rook on an open file, a bishop on an unblocked diagonal or a centrally posted Knight are all at their maximum strength. A rook sitting at its home square while you're getting mated, as happened in this game, is a sad, but common sight in games of people at our levels.
Originally posted by mateuloseYou're right. Openings should only be studied sparingly just to prevent five move losses. Other than that, the most important thing a novice player (Any player less than a Master) should do is study tactics tactics and more tactics. Leave the opening novelties to Garry and Vishy, I think players of our abilities should just work on learning tactics.
Anyways, that game is just one of many COUNTLESS examples of why you SHOULDN'T BOTHER to study openings, nobody around my rating knows their openings anyways, and seeing that studying openings doesn't give me, say a peice up, while weir ...[text shortened]... ch math, I don't see how it's feasable to study openings at all.
EDIT: Although, I will say that positional chess is very important an inextricably linked to tactics. i.e. my Nxe6 move (Sorry, I'm really happy with that one!) exposed strategic weakness in Mateulose's game. Tactics might be most important but strategy and position is not to be ignored.
Originally posted by philidovOOPS, sorry about that! Thanks for the kudo though.
Just in case other people wondered, this is game Game 772278
Nice read BTW, thanks.