Overrun

Today I played a game where I had the feeling of being in the defence from the very beginning - even though I gained material through the (imo not so dangerous) pawn sac of my oppenent, I was constantly on my feet trying to defend the many threats he threw at me - in vain. I know that I should have developed my Knight on b8 somehow, yet I failed to realise when and where during the game.

So I would really appreciate it if you could give me some feedback how I should have played to gain at least the shadow of counterplay.

Cheerio,

1.Nc3 - Dunst Opening. A logical but unusual opening move, developing a piece and pressuring the central light squares.

1...d4 - Immediately hinting at the space-gaining advance ...d5-d4.

2. e4 - White encourages ...d5-d4 while staking a claim to other central squares. The e2 square is opened for the Knight's retreat.

3...Bf5 - Out of Opening Book. Nd7 would have been in the Dunst Opening book opening.

10...c5 (Nbd7) and 13...Bc5 (Nc3) and 15...Kh8 (Nbd7), you fail to activate your Knight.  That would help.

16...Be7? Nxh5 is much better.

18...Rf8? Bg8 is better.

I am in no way an expert at analysis so you may want to skip this message!

It seemed to me that you lost your way after white played 13.Bb2. Your Bishop is preventing white's f Rook from moving to e1 and thus stopping it from helping in the eventual attack along the e file. I would have developed my b8 knight right at this point! 13. ... Nc6. Bc5, although it pins the pawn and seems strong, also seems to let white off and it is after this that the position starts to deteriorate. You end up playing tag with your bishop. 

As I say I'm by no means an expert analyser but this move seemed the turning point for me.

You aren't developing your pieces enough. After 14.Ne5, you should have played 14...Nbd7! inviting 15.Nxg6? fxg6 when your Rook is on a half-open file, your development is completed, and one of the attackers is down. When you are materially ahead, trade, trade, trade!

The doubled pawns in this case would not be a weakness because they would act as a shield for your King. As the e5-Knight was your biggest problem at that point, this was your best defence. 

Next time, remember: Chess, as a game of warfare, is a team game. All your pieces must participate!

It was not a blunder of mine, Catalyst. After 16.Bxe6+, what has White gained? Only his pawn back. If you are ahead in material and under attack, you can give some back if doing so will allow you to remain equal or ahead in material. In this case, giving back the pawn would cause White's assault to flop. Who cares if he checks you? White can't capture anything else, and just because his pieces are milling aimlessly around your position doesn't mean that he's going to break through. As I said before, your doubled pawns would act as a shield for your King, and White won't be able to break through.

Next time you think I'm blundering, maybe try to find some kind of mistake in my analysis? Not just something you don't like. I know many players are uncomfortable with doubled pawns, but that is only because they don't remember that old and proven rule: "A weakness is only a weakness if it can be attacked."

15.Nxg6? is still a blunder.

First of all, I don't judge someone by their rating; I think that is a form of bigotry. Second, I don't believe computer analysis can be applied to games because humans will never learn to think like computers, and even masters make mistakes. 

When I'm defending from an attack, my main concern is the safety of my King. if I have to restore material to insure this, then so be it. As I see it, what happens after I beat off the attack can't be any worse than checkmate. At least in my line, the King won't die as quickly. Indeed, allowing the attack in the first place was the real mistake, but that's another topic.

I'm a counter-attacking player, and as such I try to mobilize my forces in such a way that after the attack has been absorbed, (And it will be absorbed!) I can use my men to their maximum effectiveness. To tell you the truth, giving up the Bishop for the Knight and giving back the pawn brings me no joy, but what other line is good? Black simply MUST mobilize his forces. He can't afford to have his pieces on a8 and b8 remain helpless spectators. This would mean he is giving White what is known as "a dynamic material advantage" of a Rook and a Knight. What this means is that White has two more pieces at his disposal than his opponent, but only temporarily.

The move 11...cxb4?! was what caused the attack to progress in the first place, and was the only "real" mistake before the attack. I think you can agree with me on that.

But I was thinking ahead. if you don't play 14...Nd7, then you end up with a position similar to the one in the actual game; which was lost.

I would certainly have more counterplay possibilities after 14...Nd7 than after 14...Bh7. Bh7 is blatantly losing; at least I'm trying to do something after 14...Nd7. A bad plan is better than no plan at all. (Not saying that you have no plan :) )

Tony, there is a big difference between Karpov and a newbie and a 1500 player vs a 1700 player.

Catalyst, it is my belief that a player learns best when sticking to his style, and plays better for it. Although I admit that the line you showed is probably better than my idea, every fiber of my being says that keeping the Knight on the back-rank like that for so long is not only bad strategy, but contrary to chess theory and must therefore be punishable somehow.

Judging people by their ratings is bigotry?!  Please... Judging a person's chess ability/knowledge by their rating and/or title is NOT bigotry. As for the argument taking place here 14.... Bh7 is NOT clearly losing and is clearly better than 14....Nbd7 which is better for white after 15 Nxg6 fxg6 and taking on e6 with ch with either the Q or B.  In the given position black is a pawn up and in return white has a space advantage, a lead in development and a nice knight on e5, is it compensation for the pawn or not is what the game revolves around......maybe unclear is a fair assessment but after 14 .... Nbd7 and 15 Nxg6 fxg6 and taking on e6 white will have the two bishops and better pawn structure , a clear advantage for white

Well obviously after Bh7 the game is lost because of the attack that is allowed to build up, so no matter if the Fritz engine likes Bh7 better, Nbd7 is the more correct move because any high-level player will tell you that you have to develop your pieces! How do you think you're going to survive anything with only half your pieces? this is why Black lost in the first place, so at least I would be trying to win.

19. .. kxng7 would make for a lively ending for black i think. 22. .. would have to be nc6 to protect the rook. then make exchanges or develope your pieces in a hurry.  but am known for making stupid blunders .. so analyze my analysis. could be another one of those. Lol.

 Yes daniel, you should develop your pieces if your opponent doesnt have an immediate threat that delays you doing so..... and such is the case in the given position... white threatens to win the "minor exchange", destroy the black pawn structure AND win back the pawn !   Can you not see that?! Black has an extra pawn but will have to suffer for a few moves to hang on to that pawn.

So you say you are smarter then Fritz???

No, I'm saying that I'm willing to give up a few of my gains if doing so will help me survive the attack.

A lot has already been said, and I've no desire to jump into yet another "experienced/titled players try to sort out the whacky half-notions of a beginner only to find themselves berated and scorned" -- so here's my analysis:

Black, you fiddled while Rome burned. You've been chided for lack of development... which is one way to describe it... but I don't mind the lack of development so much as I mind the lack of purpose in the moves you did chose to make. I'm talking about moves such as: 13...Bc5   Was there an idea behind that move? To me it looks just a waste of a tempo.  Kh8, Be7... these moves don't accomplish anything positive that I can see.

I think you are waiting for your opponent to 'let up' -- he won't let up (if he's any good) until you force him to by finding some sort of counterattack.

The kind of passive chess you played here doesn't just lose games... it loses them in a dreary demoralizing sort of way. Strive for more active play, strive to make every move count... you'll win more, and win or lose you'll enjoy the effort more -- that's my experience, anyway.

Did black resign at this point?  It looks like black has a slight material advantage while white has a positional advantage.  It seems like this game is far from over, or am I missing something?

Any chance of a follow up from the OP?

What do you think of your answers so far?