I just used Fritz to do a very thorough analysis/annotation of a blitz game (3 minutes + 10 seconds) I played last night. I'm a very weak player, low class D caliber, so my games aren't impressive, but I figured it would be an interesting perspective to counterbalance the GM level games in the "favorite games" thread. One nice thing about games between terrible players is that a single game can contain many very interesting tactical opportunities

This thread is primarily for other weak players. My goal is to give a well-annotated game that actually includes the kind of moves they are used to seeing (and making), with good enough analysis (thanks to Fritz) to be useful, but accessible enough analysis (thanks to being written by someone on their level) to make sense. I have no idea if I pulled it off or not, but if I did and this gets a good response, I'd be happy to analyze and post some more of my games and turn this into a bloggy thread, as it was a fun exercise and I learned a lot. That being said, I'd welcome comments from stronger players as well; perhaps you could help explain some of the concepts that went over my head

Clarifications on the formatting:
Fritz's evaluations are in red. All evaluations are absolute, so a negative number means black is ahead, and positive means white has the edge. I listed evaluations for EVERY SINGLE MOVE (until the very end) that Fritz didn't think was "best available", even if the margin was very close. Each inaccurate move (or blunder) has the evaluation of the move played listed on the same line, with Fritz's preferred move and its evaluation on the next line. Annotations in black are my own thoughts. I tried where possible to explain why Fritz's moves were better, though was of course limited by my own knowledge at times. Finally, the diagrams. I included three. The first one is simply the end of the opening phase prior to the first real blunder. The second two, however, are interesting tactical moments; I recommend you take a few minutes to look each of them over and try to find the proper move, before reading on with the analysis which will contain the answer. Enjoy!

[Event "rated blitz match"]
[Site "Free Internet Chess Server"]
[Date "2009.03.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "HotSocks"]
[Black "BobJoeJim"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D30"]
[WhiteElo "955"]
[BlackElo "1036"]
[Annotator "BobJoeJim/Fritz11"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "2009.??.??"]
[TimeControl "180+10"]

1. d4 d5
2. e3
My opponent leaves book on move 2, so we're now on equal footing since I know NOTHING about queen pawn openings.
2. ... Nf6
3. Nf3 e6 (0.22)
g6 (-0.05) is more accurate, depth 18
4. c4 Bd6
5. c5 (0.15)
Second best, behind Bd3 (0.20), depth 18
5. ... Be7
6. Nc3 O-O (0.06)
Less accurate than b6 (-0.10), depth 19
7. Ne5 (-0.28)
a3 maintains a (0.13) advantage, depth 18
7. ... Nbd7 (-0.04)
b6 is still better (-0.28), depth 18
8. f4 Nxe5 (0.04)
Fritz still prefers b6 by the slimmest of margins (0.01), depth 20
9. fxe5 Nd7
10. Bd3 f6
11. O-O (-0.49)
Biggest mistake by either player yet, Qh5 is dead even (0.00), depth 18
11. ... fxe5
12. Rxf8+ Qxf8 (-0.46)
Second best, behind Nxf8 (-0.58), depth 20 I have no idea why taking with the knight might be better... I'd rather have my queen on the open file than have my knight on the back rank myself. Either way, that's 12 moves with no true blunders, and not even that many inaccuracies. Here is the position after 12 moves:

Given the ratings of the players, I think this is about as cleanly played of an opening as you can hope for, especially in a blitz game. Of course now it's time for the mistakes to commence!
13. e4? (-2.05, depth 17)
Qc2 (-0.54), depth 20 And now black has a huge advantage.
13. ... exd4
14. Nb5 Nxc5 (-1.68)
dxe4 is a stronger continuation (-2.13), depth 19 I was grabbing a free pawn, attacking his bishop, and beginning to create an escape route for my c8 bishop. None of that is anywhere near as valuable as passed pawns on the d and e files would have been though.
15. Nxc7? (-2.98)
exd5 is the only playable move here (-1.67), depth 18 After exd5, black can't get as strong of a pawn center. Nxc7 grabs a free pawn, but loses. After 15. ... dxe4, black has three pawns alone in the middle of the board, and should win easily. The rook on a8 is not hanging, because after Nxd3 the pawns are impossible to overcome (e.g. 15... dxe4 16. Nxa8 Nxd3 17. Qe2 Bd7 18. Bd2 e3 19. Qxd3Qf2+ 20. Kh1 Bc6 21. Qf1 Qxd2 22. Qg1 e2 23. Nc7 d3 24. Nxe6 e1=Q 25. Rxe1Bxg2+ 26. Qxg2 Qxe1+ 27. Qg1 d2 28. Kg2 Qe2+ 29. Kg3 Bd6+ 30. Kh4 Qxe6 31. Qd4 Qh6+ 32. Kg4 d1=Q+ 33. Qxd1 Qf4+ 34. Kh3 Qxh2+ 35. Kg4 Qf4+ 36. Kh3 Qg3#). Unfortunately... I didn't notice that, and so I played the "safe" move instead
15. ... Rb8? (-1.63)
At least it's the second best move, and still a convincing edge, but dxe4 evaluates at (-2.96), depth 20
16. exd5 exd5 (-1.00, depth 17)
e5 (-1.67), depth 18 Once again, a chance for the two passed center pawns. My line leaves me with just the one. I'm still ahead here, but after two weak moves in a row I'll now have to work a lot harder for it.
17. Nxd5 Bd6
18. b3? (-3.29, depth 17)
Best is bc2 (-0.92), depth 18 This blunder opens up an interesting tactical combination. Black has one move that is much better than any other option: here is the position:

18. ... Bf5? (-2.47)
Second best, but Be6 is the key move that I missed (-3.49), depth 20 The centralized bishop pair leads to too many threats in too many different directions for white to maintain a solid defense. Eventually a piece drops: (18... Be6 19. Nb4 Qf7 20. Bg5 Rf8 21. Qc2 Qh5 22. h4 Nxd3 23. Nxd3 h6 24. Re1 Qg4 25. Qe2 Qxe2 26. Rxe2 Bf5 27. Be7 Bxe7 28. Rxe7 Bxd3)
19. Bc4 (-2.51)
Better is Bf1 (-2.28) according to Fritz, depth 18 Not as effective of a threat as it looks to be.
19. ... Kh8? (-1.46)
b5 diffuses the bishop much more effectively (-2.89), depth 18 I was nervous about the discovered check, but after b5 it isn't a threat since the bishop is under fire and will be forced to move away. If he attempts a double check with, say, Nd7+, I can just move the king away, and with both the knight and bishop under fire he's forced to trade off the knight to avoid losing a piece. I would be happy to trade here.
20. Qxd4 (-4.14, depth 17)
The best continuation would be b4 (-1.45), depth 17 Snapping off the undefended passed pawn seems obvious, but doesn't work if I'm paying attention.

20. ... Re8?? (-0.76)
Several moves give me a winning edge here, but this isn't one of them. Best is Nd3 (-3.85), depth 18 Nd3 threatens Bc4 winning the queen. After 21. Qh4, the continuation is 21. ... Be5 22. Rb1 b5 and the bishop is lost (23. Bxd3 Bxd3 and the rook is forked against the threat of Qf1#). The move I actually played took an easily won game and turned it into a close struggle... briefly.
21. Bh6?? (-5.79)
Ba3 or Bf4 each evaluate at (-0.57), depth 18 The g7 pawn is now pinned against everything, but this time I actually see the refutation!
21. ... Be5
22. Bxg7+?? (-14.29, depth 16)
Qf2 is still lost (-6.05), depth 18, but still nowhere near *as* bad
22. ... Bxg7 (-10.81)
Qxg7 (-15.63), depth 19 Taking with the queen dominates the diagonal, and sets up the chance to double with the rook on the g file. Clearly better, but it's not like I should have any trouble after taking with the bishop either, and we both had under 20 seconds on our clocks by this point (granted, with a 10 second increment, but still).
23. Qd1 Bxa1 (-5.45, depth 15)
Ne4 (-10.81) is best, depth 17 I snap off the rook without thinking, but pressing the action on the king side gives a much stronger attack. Even so, the finish is academic. I will no longer bother showing small inaccuracies and second best moves.
24. Qxa1+ Qg7
25. Qxg7+ Kxg7
26. Nf4 Re4
27. Nh5+ Kh6 (-5.48)
Kg6 (-6.44), depth 20 Fritz has h6 as almost a pawn worse than h6, but I didn't want my king on a white square when my rook and bishop already were, and a knight was in the vicinity. Plus there was a white square bishop and the danger of a pinned rook. Better to minimize my chances to blunder away the win, imo.
28. Ng3 Re5
29. a4 Ne4
30. Nxf5+ Rxf5
31. Be6 Re5
32. Bc8? (-11.13, depth 19)
Bg4 (-6.47), depth 18 Drops the bishop to Rc5 (with a mate threat)... but I don't notice.
32. ... b6?
Misses the free bishop. Still leaves me an easily won game though.
33. b4 Nd6
34. Bg4 Re4
35. Bf5?
Again he drops the bishop, this time even more blatantly.
35. ... Rxb4 {HotSocks resigns} 0-1
And again I don't notice, but he finally throws in the towel anyway.

Overall this game had a very well played opening (given the players' strengths), and as you would expect a very sloppy middle game. I think there were a few very interesting tactical themes that came up in the post-mortem though (even if they were missed over the board). In the end, I'm happy enough with how I played, given what the time controls were. I need to start seeing those tactics better though, I could have won this game a lot quicker and more impressively. I missed a few major positional tactics early, after that center blew up I should have been all over it with my passed pawns and bishop pair, instead of flailing around on the edges quite so much.

Great thread. Just a little insight from my part - you asked why 12.. Nxf8 is better than Qx. Here are my thoughts - first off all, your argument that you would better have a queen in an open file is quite incorrect here. As long as white has a rook, your queen will only be threatened in that open file and you will waste time for retreat (it's not immediate, but after white develops, they'll play Rf1 and take that file from you). Secondly, your night on d7 is standing in the way of it's pieces and doesn't really do anything here. On f8, it defends the pawn on h7 immediately so that you dont have to waste tempo later, and creates a threat of e4, followed by Ng6, c6 and a breakthrough with e5, which will open your bishop on c8.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have to make one comment.

Don't take opening advice from Fritz. There is nothing wrong with e6, and no human being alive knows whether or not g6 is better in that position.

This is a very good point, and one I meant to address in the OP but forgot to. For the sake of completeness of the analysis, I tried to include every spot where Fritz felt there was a better move than the one actually played, no matter how close it was. There's a distinct reason, though, why I didn't comment on the small perceived inaccuracies during the opening. I know that isn't where Fritz shines, and there wasn't much to say about those evaluations. Maybe the move Fritz offered is sharper in a couple of spots, and maybe not, either way it had nothing to do with who won the game in the end.

If I do another game, I'm not sure how I should handle this. On the one hand, I could just accept any move that is within some margin (maybe 0.20) or so of Fritz's "best" move as fine, and not include computer annotations for those. On the other hand, when I list the evaluation as 1.6, then 5 moves later I list it as 2.1, I like being to see whether that just happened from deeper analysis, after making the best move five times and recalculating from deeper into the chain, or whether it happened because of a couple small inaccuracies (in Fritz's opinion) adding up. In order to tell know which of these it is, I have to include everything that Fritz dislikes even a little bit. On the other hand, knowing that it thinks move 4 is (0.15) instead of (0.20) means nothing and is distracting... so I'm not sure what a better way to present it is...

About 3. .. e6

This is an interesting move. But it's also a complex move. You have to really see the pros, cons and idea behind it or it can lead to bad things for you. The major downside is that your light squared bishop is terrible after e6. It has no real future while that pawn's there. So that leads to the pros of e6. The idea behind e6 is actually to prepare an e5 break! Black would like to play c6, Bd6, Qc7, o-o, Re8 and then e5. Black can put so much support on the e5 square that it's actually quite tough for white to stop this idea and after it's carried out, the light squared bishop comes to life - along with the rest of black's position!

But this idea is a little subtle if you're not used to it. If you were just going for straight forward development then I think you should really play 3. .. Bg4. Sometimes this can be risky as b7 can become weak, but as white has played very passively in the opening - he has no way to make anything of it here.

On the same theme of struggling to make your pieces active 8. .. Nxe5 is another interesting spot. I'm assuming you were just thinking that wow, that knight's annoying and I can get rid of it. But you could have taken the chance to give yourself an annoying knight as well! By playing 8. .. Ne4! Now let's assume white thinks like you did and decides to get rid of it. After 8. .. Ne4 9. Nxe4 dxe4 10. Qc2 (or whatever) you play f5. And now suddenly it's white's bishops who are terribly passive. His dark bishop is hemmed in by white's own pawns, and your pawns are taking away all potential from white's light squared bishop!

You can even use this same theme of piece activity after your 8. .. Nxe5 9. fxe5 and now instead of Nd7 (which is somewhat passive and restricts your poor light bishop even more), you have Ne4. You put your knight right up there in white's position, getting piece activity. And if white tries to win a pawn by playing 10. Nxe4 dxe4 11. Qc2 you have Bd7! Now if white plays 12. Qxe4? then you have Bc6 13. Qc2 and Bh4+! Now white can't play g3 due to your crazy strong bishop on c6 so his king's forced to go take a walk. Suddenly your pieces are all very active and white's king is insecure and his pieces are terrible.

So yeah, the general theme being piece activity. Every move you make - you should always be looking at your pieces and your opponent's pieces. Does it restrict your opponent's activity, does it give your pieces more activity? This is a constant struggle in every phase of the game but it's extremely important in the opening.

Valid point, Dire. My point wasn't that e6 is better or even as good as g6, it was that Fritz has no idea which is better or why. In fact I'm almost positive that Fritz doesn't like e6 because it temporarily decreases Black's mobility.

Nah, not talking about fritz's stuff. My discussing e6 was just a coincidence. I think you hadn't posted before I started writing that novel. Yeah I agree with you completely about fritz/opening stuff though.

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation!

With Nxe5 I wasn't actually thinking so much that the knight was annoying, but more that my pawn on e6 was annoying I felt like his pawn chain was stronger than mine (a feeling I almost always have in those stupid queen pawn openings, hehe), so I wanted to break the middle open and then worry about getting my pieces active. Nxe5, Nd7, f6 was the best plan I could come up with for that in the 20-30 seconds I took to think about it. I didn't really think to look for ways to activate my pieces within the existing pawn structure... and looking over your recommendations it looks like I should have. Thanks for the comments!

Oh, in that case, good analysis of the pros and cons of ...e6, Dire. I agree that it's sort of funny that ...e6 prepares ...e5. Though it can also be played like a French or a Tarrasch (if White plays c4) with the intention of playing ...c5.

Hay,

Thanks for the post, I enjoyed it. I'm not so good myself and all those advanced tactics make my head spin and make me feel like im a completely imcompetent chess player. This post shows that i'm not the only one who doesn't have an answer to all moves. Looking forward for more.

Just in case you didn't think I sucked that much in the last game, here's another game of mine where I play as if I'm a 700 or so.

[Event "rated blitz match"]
[Site "Free Internet Chess Server"]
[Date "2009.03.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "BobJoeJim"]
[Black "dcbri"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B21"]
[WhiteElo "1108"]
[BlackElo "1243"]
[Annotator "Pruce-Zimmerman,Tai"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[EventDate "2009.??.??"]
[TimeControl "300"]

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. c3 - I don't know why I got it into my head that I needed to prepare for the d4 push that is standard here.
3. ... Nf6
4. d4 cxd4 (0.10); Nxe4 (-0.01), depth 17 - Would be an interesting alternative.
5. Qxd4 (-0.46); Bd3 (0.10), depth 18 - Protecting the e pawn is the best option here, or I could get away with cxd4 (theoretically if I was going to play c3, this should have been the point, right?) I try to take d and protect e at the same time though, ignoring the dangers of bringing the queen out early...
5. ... Nc6
6. Qa4 Bd7
7. Nbd2 (-0.49); Be2 (-0.35), depth 17 - Blocks in the dark squared bishop; not the best way to prevent Nxe4.
7. ... g6
8. Bb5 (-0.72); Qc2 (-0.34), depth 17 - Discretion is the better part of valor. I can't win the battle for the diagonal, so I shouldn't be trying.
8. ... Bg7
9. O-O O-O
10. Nd4 (-0.99); Rd1 (-0.57), depth 16 - Continuing to fight for the diagonal I can't win.
10. ... a6
11. Bxc6 (-1.13); Bd3 (-1.02), depth 18 - I still have a chance to retreat, but at this point going ahead with the unprofitable exchange isn't much worse, I'm too committed.
11. ... bxc6
12. Nxc6? (-3.14); Nf3 (-1.08), depth 17 - I thought I had won the pawn, but this move fails miserably. Here is the position, take a moment to see if you can figure out why:

(black to move)
12. ... Qe8! And the knight drops.
13. Qc4 (-4.11); Nxe7+ (-3.25), depth 18 - At least I could get a pawn back with this. For some reason though, I didn't realize the knight was double attacked, and I thought this "protected" it.
13. ... Bxc6
14. Nf3 (-5.65); Qe2 (-4.13), depth 17 - Not noticing the second attacker, I remove my second defender from e4 and drop a pawn... and worse.
14. ... Bxe4 (-4.81); Bb5 (-5.96), depth 17 - Snapping off the hung pawn isn't actually his best option, when he could skewer the queen against the rook.
15. g4?? (-9.77); Re1 (-4.78), depth 15 - My "plan" here is g4, g5, and Qxe4 after the knight has to move. It's not a good plan
15. ... Bxf3 {BobJoeJim resigns} 0-1

the key to using computers well is to figure out when they are giving you useful advice and when you can afford to ignore it.

Definitely true. I'm curious, how do you think I'm doing on that front so far ITT?

I didn't think you'd even tried! I thought you consciously decided to pay equal heed to every improvement Fritz suggested.

I didn't read your second game yet though.

Comments in red are Fritz's analysis. I include one of those every single time the move played isn't "best" according to the computer. Comments in black are my own. I attempt to comment on all the actual mistakes and meaningful improvements Fritz offers. A red comment with no black follow-up is one that I ignored

3. c3: this is not bad at all. It's a bit unusual, but it's a move that makes fine sense. You open the diagonal for your queen, and can play the typical d4 break, but without giving away your valuable central pawn!

4. d4: This move is the bad one. You need to see that your e4 pawn is actually already protected (do you see how?), so natural development is best. You could just play Be2. Even Bc4 is possible with the little tactic of 4. Bc4 Nxe4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Qxe4 (although I think black has an advantage in that position). Even the very straight forward Qc2 is fine.

You don't want to start responding to your opponent's moves, but a pawn is a pawn and you really don't want to just give one away without some pretty good compensation.

5. Qxd4: You got it here. Bringing out the queen is just not good here. You're giving black a clear advantage with no real compensation. I think d4 doesn't given you nearly enough for the pawn, but at the same time - after Qxd4 black has an incredibly easy advantage with you having almost no counterplay. This kind of goes back to what I said about your last game. Piece activity. Black will have it, you won't after Qxd4. And it's really one of the most important things in any position.

And the rest you already chastised yourself enough for!

Just get your pieces out there working for you and you'll be crushing 1000 guys so hard. Seriously, go watch some blitz games between the strongest guys on your server. The thing you'll notice is that in almost all of their games is that their piece's get out in the center, fast - even in openings like the sicilian where black often forgoes normal development for quite a few moves.

Heh, do 1000 basic tactical exercises and you'll be crushing 1000 guys hard.

I've done 550 exercises on chesstempo.com in the past couple weeks. I'm rated 1626 in standard (177 correct, 109 failed) and 1704 in blitz (145 correct, 121 failed). I know there's room for improvement, and I should keep plugging away there, but I also feel like my tactics *should* already be good enough to be killing 1000 guys consistently. I seem to have a lot of trouble applying it OTB though. It's a lot harder when I don't get told ahead of time which positions I need to look for a tactic in.

The point of tactics isn't to do them once and hope you learned something. You really have to do the same set of themed problems over and over and over and over again until you literally are not even thinking when you solve the problems. It's all about subconscious pattern learning. It'll get to the point that when there is some sort of fundamental tactic in your games, you'll see it as naturally as a regular piece's move.

And it's not even just the tactics, but about board vision and starting to see the board as a whole instead of as just a bunch of disparate moves.

Here's a goal. Next game you play, make it your goal to put every single piece you have in the center. Ignore every other thing you know about chess and just do that. Playing against a 1000 you'll find that that this should be more than enough to win and he'll drop material shortly thereafter. BUT do not go pawn grabbing or get otherwise distracted before every single one of your pieces is in the center.