Analyze with me- #1

Something I see often in my students is whenever I decide to review one of their games and I ask them upon reviewing " What went wrong here"? . Analyze the game and show me what you feel was your downfall in this game? They will always give some generic answer like "OH, sir I blundered this tactic"> Or they will do what I absolutely despise, they will insta-click on lichess computer analysis click on the blunders in the game review and look at what the engines suggested was the best line and say "Sir, in this position I should have played this instead". Chess computers were certainly the greatest gift to modern chess players but in recent years players have gotten accustomed to our AI overlords babysitting us on our niche mistakes and providing us with precise solutions of our problems. What has been lost in all this is the art of self analysis. Even grandmasters sit at the board and talk out a position before going back to their rooms. Taking a look at the whole game yourself and puzzling out where you went wrong and what you could do better and only then using the engine to either confirm your thought process or change it. Following this system will help you figure out crucial mistakes you make in your perception and view of the position when calculating and strive towards changing it all on your own.

So, I've decided to start this series where I will share one of my games which I feel has instructive value they will be a mix colors or results (win, loss or draw). They will be 10+0 rapid games so that they have some relative quality. Look at the game on your own first without the engine. Then look at my thoughts and see how much they mirror your thoughts and whether I have covered something in my analysis that you have missed. If you saw something when you analyzed that I did not mention please put it in the comments as it could be useful in helping me improve personally as well. Then, we will take a look at what the engine has to say regarding areas where we made mistakes and what it thought was the best line. I KNOW, this sounds like long and tedious work just for one game. But, trust me doing deep analysis for even one game a day like this can be very useful. Here's the game:

My thoughts

Opening:
We're starting off with a very safe win. In fact, the blunder in this game was made in the opening. Nonetheless, I will be honest I wasn't the happiest with the way I was converting the middlegame and endgame as well. But, if we get into this opening. It was a pretty standard queen's gambit declined exchange structure in which I do have some experience playing and since I am not master level I do tend to invite Nimzo's with 3.Nc3 for sharper positions. He went for Nbd7 which is one of the setups I am used to seeing called the Cambridge springs variation. Of course the pawn in the center is not hanging due to the well known trap. Opponent goes for the typical placement of the pieces with bishop on b4 and queen on a5 but I'm Fairly sure that's wrong considering the move order I chose putting the knight on e2 instead of f3 and castling on time since the e4 square is not available for the knight as it would be a free pawn and the knight would be defending the bishop from the queen on a5 capturing it. It was probably preferrable to him to leave the queen and bishop on the original squares, castle and then play Re8 and Nf8, Ne6. Then he moved his bishop back and let me get 2 tempe developing my pawns and I felt for certain I had the positional advantage. As for the winning tactic, it was nothing superb but I have seen similar things in the part with the bishop on d6 and queen on c7 putting pressure on my dark square bishop but I use the knight pin to trade of the pieces creating doubled pawns on the b-file.

Middlegame:
Now after winning the exchange I started to feel a little unsure on how to proceed. I felt it was right to trade knight for bishop just on the principle of trading when up but maybe it was preferrable to save to help deal with those later on menacing knights. You also stat seeing a lot of useless maneuvering with my bishop on f3 then to d3 as clearly I was no longer sure where to put the pieces. I should have figured out faster that the bishop belongs on d3 and according to me rooks on a1 and b1 supporting the pawns and attacking the queenside structure to break through was the right plan which I just wasn't able to figure out in the game. I was too obsessed with trading and figuring out how to deal with his knights that I did not focus enough on this. I then put the queen on c4 (move 27) knowing it was going to be attacked just so I could trade off one of his knights. I think that was bad since my queen got attacked anyway and I lost one of my active pieces. Finally, then after all of this nonsense jumping around I play the move b4 and and get the structure I need for the endgame. The knight is still casually placed on e4 and putting pressure on the f2 pawn with the queen making one of my rooks passive. And this became such an annoyance I sacked the exchange back on f1 to get into a simpler endgame. I'm sure I could have been more patient but I believe that this was the best practical decision trading the pieces and getting into a two pawn up endgame.

Endgame:
I'm typically decent in endgames but I did make this rook endgame a lot harder than was necessary. The sequence from move 46 to move 55 was super uncomfortable and I felt for sure that I had messed up and blundered some kind of draw with allowing his king and rook on such active squares. But after 55.Ke6 56.f4 I felt incredibly comfortable again and then the rest of the game went smoothly according to me.

Now here's the computer analysis,

So according to the computer I only really made 2 inaccuracies which was the bishop trade (just suggests Qc2) and also sacking the exchange back was unnecessary apparently(I can just Rd1 Ne4 and then Rc2 defending the f2 pawn). It seems to agree with me that the bishop trade was bad but doesn't highlight the uselessness of some of my moves like Qc4 and then Bf3, e2 and then d3 because it does the not affect it's evaluation enough. Oh and for personal satisfaction on move 50.d5 was better I was worried about Rc5 but then d6 and then that f4 move is what I really missed in game leading to that somewhat choppy finish with black's active pieces.

Anyway I hope that this article has been of use to you. If you caught something in your personal analysis that I skipped over please write about it in the forum. This concept can only work with support from your side. If this post ends up getting some love, I would be happy to convert this into a regular series where we explore and analyze different types of games and openings. In fact I even have an insane game with black (that I win but the quality is incredibly mind numbing) that I would be happy to share with you guys. So, we will progress based on the reception and interest this article generates.

P.S- I do provide chess coaching at affordable prices. Those interested can DM me here on lichess .