|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
ANNOTATED GAME
Let's play chess
e2010 (1617) vs. ragozin (1663)
Annotated by: ragozin (1965)
Chess opening: Ruy Lopez (C65), Berlin defence, 4.O-O
e2010 (1617) vs. ragozin (1663)
Annotated by: ragozin (1965)
Chess opening: Ruy Lopez (C65), Berlin defence, 4.O-O
 Interactive |
• |  Show all comments |
• | All annotated games | • | View chessboard as: |
| |||||
|
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 |
Berlin Defense | ||||
| 1 comment | |||||
|
4. O-O a6 5. Ba4 b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 7. c3 d6 |
? Oops, the correct move-order would be 7 ... Be7 and then 8 ... d6. This allows a position reminiscent of the Two Knights defense. | ||||
| | |||||
|
8. Ng5 |
Here it comes! | ||||
| | |||||
|
8... d5 |
Forced. | ||||
| | |||||
|
9. exd5 Na5 10. d6 Qxd6 |
Now that I annotate this game I see that I should have played 10 ... Nxb3 11. Qxb3 Bd5, and I win the pawn back with approximate equality. But in the game I was only looking for counterplay along the h1-a8 diagonal. | ||||
| 2 comments | |||||
|
11. Nxf7 Qc6 |
Threatening mate. | ||||
| | |||||
|
12. f3 |
Forced. 12. Qf3 is bad because of 12 ... Qxf3 13. gxf3 Nxb3. | ||||
| | |||||
|
12... Nxb3 |
To remove a defender of the d4-square. | ||||
| | |||||
|
13. Qxb3 Bc5+ 14. d4 exd4 15. Nxh8 |
I'm behind a rook, and with no opportunity to make material equal, I would normally give up, but my bishops-queen force looks dangerous enough to play on for a while. | ||||
| | |||||
|
15... d3+ |
Of course this is much better than 15 ... dxc3+ when I will lose my pawn and rendering it possible for his knight to come to its most natural spot. | ||||
| | |||||
|
16. Kh1 O-O-O |
Before I continue with my attack, I must first remove my king from danger and activate my last piece. | ||||
| | |||||
|
17. Nf7 Re8 18. Bf4 |
While it's hard to criticize such a natural developing move, I've got a feeling that this bishop move, along with his next move, gave me additional possibilities. The bishop should have stayed on the c1-h6 diagonal. | ||||
| | |||||
|
18... Ng4 |
The knight cannot be captured because of mate on g2. The knight eyes some important squares and is threatening to win the exchange or the f4-bishop (after 20 ... Nf2+ 21. Kg1 Nh3++. Note that only his dark-squared bishop and f1-rook are performing defensive duties, while I've more or less got both my bishops, queen, rook and knight in the action. A 2-5 advantage! | ||||
| | |||||
|
19. Bg3 |
Not that good. While it's natural and probably his intention when he played 18, Bf4, this bishop move lets e3 fall completely under my control. A simple h3 would have sufficed, not losing contact with the e3-square. | ||||
| | |||||
|
19... Ne3 |
Winning the exchange. The rook on f1 is attacked, and when it moves, the rook on a1 is lost. See: 20. Re1 Nc2 21. Rxe8+ Qxe8, and the a1-rook is doomed since it hopelessly blocked. I don't even lose my knight since it can comfortably hop back to c2. | ||||
| | |||||
|
20. Nd2 |
The best. White acknowledges the lost exchange but now he's still a knight up while my attacking changes have diminished with the removal of material and accumulation of White's forces nearer his king. | ||||
| | |||||
|
20... Nxf1 21. Rxf1 Be3 |
I should probably give up, but this move has got some sting to it. The knight should not centralize itself, no matter how natural it is. | ||||
| | |||||
|
22. Ne4 |
? | ||||
| | |||||
|
22... Rxe4 |
Returning the exchange! | ||||
| | |||||
|
23. fxe4 |
?? Material was still equal at this point, and White should simply accept the loss of the knight. | ||||
| 1 comment | |||||
| |||||