Game Analysis Links Right Here

Hello Everyone. I can analyze your games and you can post your game links right here.

Hello! I'd be interested in having some feedback about this game. Although I won, it seems I gave away a decisive advantage more than once and it was only thanks to the merciful bot that I was able to get it back and finish

I ran the analysis at depth 30 and saw where the engine thinks I played the wrong moves and also where I apparently played 4 "critical moves". 

But now I'm interested in getting a "human" feedback

Thank you in advance for taking the time

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/71505692671?tab=review
i absolutely crashed the early game, but i feel like the middle game was kinda  bad, my friends say i played this like a GM.

Hello again, I analyzed my game more in-depth and I annotate the best I could. I would be really happy to get more feedback on my thinking

@werpodi Thanks for your comments! Appreciated. Believe it or not, I didn't think twice before playing Bxg2. However, I get what you're saying: even though it is the best move, in the end it did create opportunities for white to threaten my King with that open file. And if the bot had castled Queen side it would have been much worse too

I have one serious remark about your analysis. About move 12 (Bd6) you say that the engine prefers Nbd7. I don't see that. At various depths the engine puts your Bd6 to 1st or 2nd place (right now it is 2nd as I look at it), but anyway, the difference is tiny.

The point is that you should look at the evaluation numbers, not just the ranking of the moves. There are positions where the top 6 moves are all pretty much equal to each other. There are other positions where the best move wins and the second-best move loses.

Another remark: it is better to analyze a game that you lost, rather than one you won. You can learn more from your own mistakes, and less from the mistakes of a random bot.

Hi magipi, thank you for your response.

I ran the in-depth analysis (depth 30) and it did say 12 .... Nbd7 was better than 12... Bd6. For some reason, it is not allowing me to re-run the analysis at that depth right now, but I'm looking at the live evaluation with maximum depth set at 25 (1' 30"), and it does say Nbd7 is -0.64 while Bd6 is -0.40. Not a big difference, you're right, which is why I didn't dwell on it too much. I just thought it was interesting to have feedback on my choice, regardless of the engine evaluation, because it was a conscious choice to exchange bishop rather than develop the Knight at that point, and I want to know what people think about it. I'd say that it is even more interesting given that none of the two options is a mistake, but more a strategic choice.

As far as your last remark goes, I disagree. I mean: it would be definitely true if I were focusing on the good moves I made and the victory or the opponent's mistakes, but I think you can agree that my analysis actually focuses on what I did wrong, how I lost a conspicuous advantage and risked losing the game, and how at times I misunderstood the position to the point that I didn't even recognize my advantage at times and possibly I didn't attack the way I should have. I think there is value in that.

Here is my game would love to hear what you think https://www.chess.com/live/game/71937194093.

Great Game. Very proud of your win. As a 300, you have so much of potential and I think you can get to 1300 easily. A tip I have for you is don't play the King's Gambit. That's an opening you shouldn't be playing until you get to 1800+. It is a highly theoretical opening and the opening can tend to get losing positions if it is not played properly. Overall though great job.

P.S- If you want me to teach you about the King's Gambit, feel free to DM me, and I will be glad to explain you about it

Hi, @Quincey78  I just saw your game.  That was a beautifully rendered game and excellently played. You did amazing and you should be very proud of your games. I saw your game annotations as well. Although, I wouldn't really recommend the ragozin. I feel like you can play the Grunfeld and you have the potential to apply the theories behind it. Why I don't like the Ragozin is you can lose the Bishops at the beginning itself and white can have a slight advantage. One thing I felt you shouldn't have done in the game was to capture the g2 pawn with your bishop. That allowed the rook to g1 and give constant pressure on the black king..

I felt that you should have put your knight on d5 because you had good control of the center. Also if White started an attack, you could have played c5 in the future and had a much better position. 

Overall great game. You played amazingly. Very sorry for reading the post late, I didn't see the comments. You should feel very proud of yourself

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/73747321387?tab=review

Can you tell me if I did well?

Not every day we see so many blunders in a single game. Wow. Just wow.

What do you mean by "blunders"?

Really bad mistakes.

You played pretty well, although you can improve a lot.  I recommend you start with openings such as the Italian Game and Fried Liver Attack. If you want me to show you how it works, feel free to reach out to me. Also learning a gambit will throw your opponents off at this level. There are many such as Blackburne Shilling Gambit, Tennison Gambit, etc. I wouldn't recommend the Queen's Gambit though. In your game, you definitely had many chances to take free pieces from your opponents, but also start thinking about how they can attack you and how you can counter that. Overall though, good job.

Appreciated, Thank you. And yes, I would love to learn some new things, so if you're free at the moment, are you down to teach me?

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/95833954778?tab=review

guys hello