What did I do wrong in the opening here?
Sort:
4.e5 looks like the difference,maybe Nxd4 was the way to go
Wow, you like sharp lines! How about 7.Bf4 Nc6 8.Qc3 when the pawn has an extra defender (the bishop) which is hard to chase away? I assume you know 3.Nxe5 is the most common way to play the position but you wanted something sharper.
How about 7.Bf4 Nc6 8.Qc3
Thanks for the input. I am also thinking that this might have been a better move too. At that time I was worried that Black would respond with g5. Also, I was hoping to play f4 at certain point, so did not want to block the "f" pawn. In the hindsight, 7. Bf4 seems to be a better move.
I assume you know 3.Nxe5 is the most common way to play the position
Yes. However, I did not like this line because it seems to give way to too many draws. In addition, I like to place a pawn in the 5th row. If I could have played f4, it would have given me a strong presence in the middle.
ancientpistol wrote: 4.e5 looks like the difference,maybe Nxd4 was the way to go
Wanted to avoid the regular opening, because I am just re-learning openings and was afraid that my opponent would know too many traps in the main line...
Both 3Nxe5 and 3d4 (steinitz) are pretty common against Petroff, just a matter of taste. I didnt see anything wrong with your opening, you were equal in the opening imo, and started to go wrong later.
ketchuplover wrote: 47.Bxg2
Yes. That would have been better. Thanks for the input.
Nov 26, 2007
0
#8
14. Bxe5 dxe5 15. Rxd8 Kxd8 16. Rd1+ <--develops the other rook to a more active square but surrenders the two bishops. His knight is probably strong enough to be worth it though. Also, once the black bishops got traded off, it was imperative that you play h4 and g3 (good bishop, bad bishop). That bishop ate up your pawns. b3= wrong color! a3 or c3 is better. In that same vein, 19. Rd4 to "hold the f pawn", better was 19. h4. 21. b4 is better than the game move, for the same reason. It fixes his pawns on the wrong color. Back that up with a3 if necessary. Yes, this creates holes for his knight, but you have one too. You could have traded them off it needed and been left w/ the good bishop.
14. Bxe5 dxe5 15. Rxd8 Kxd8 16. Rd1+
Yes. This would have been better. Since I was a pawn down, I did not want to exchange pieces. However, in this case, it probably would have made sense. The lesson I learned is that it is important to nuetralize the pieces that are controlling a vast area of the board early on, even if it involves Bishop to Knight excahnge. Otherwise, they are going to cause problems later on in the game.
Also, once the black bishops got traded off, it was imperative that you play h4 and g3 (good bishop, bad bishop).
This is another good suggestion. I went back and looked at my other games and found out that I am more worried about restricting other people's pieces than nullifying the opponent's bishop. Will keep this in mind in the future.
Thanks for the feedback!
This is a game I played with Blasco, one of the better players here. I thought I had an advantage here in the opening, but it turned out to be a loss of pawn for me, which ultimately ended up costing me the game. Any suggestions on what I could have done better: in the opening, in the middle game, and in the end game? Thanks in advance for all critiques and suggestions...