I play mostly blitz and stick to a particular style (as black- stonewall +variations and as white just an f-pawn attacking style). It's pretty wild but I manage to surprise higher ranking players on occasion. I can see where patience and insight would be helpful but I could use a guiding hand.

My Games (username: matos305)

https://www.chess.com/live/game/2993096036?username=matos305

https://www.chess.com/live/game/2993081444?username=matos305

https://www.chess.com/live/game/2993071952?username=matos305

closed as too broad by Dag Oskar Madsen, Brian Towers, Glorfindel, Herb Wolfe, Phonon Aug 12 at 22:28

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    I think we need to have a debate on meta to decide what to do with people asking to analyse their games. Providing a competition game with the player's own reflexions and asking for qualified opinions is one thing, dropping links to some internet blitz games is another one. I mean, most often I don't even spend time analysing my own blitz games ! – Evargalo Aug 9 at 11:59
  • 3
    A link dump asking for analysis might be better suited for reddit. It would be helpful if you at least posted the PGN. – Herb Wolfe Aug 9 at 16:23
  • 4
    This is just too broad. If the OP asks specific questions like "I did X here, would Y have been better" that would be fine, but asking for a full game analysis is not. – Jan Doggen Aug 10 at 7:28
  • 1
    @Evargalo This meta question somewhat adresses that. It seems to be more about specific game moments (moves) than analyzing an entire game (the objection I posted here). – Jan Doggen Aug 10 at 7:32
  • 3
    Note that this question also suffers from having to go elsewhere to see what the issue is. For answers that definitely is a close reason on SE sites ('Not an answer' or 'Link-only answer'). For questions I suggest the same; the intention of SE sites is to be standalone Q&A repositories. – Jan Doggen Aug 10 at 7:34

Regarding the stonewall game:

White played the opening poorly and after 10. Nb3?! (unclear what that knight is doing here), black has a very comfortable position. However 10....a6 is just weakening the queenside without any need.

At this point, you really do want to play something active that will eventually free your cramped position. Both 10... b6 or 10....e5 look like decent options and should free your position.

Your idea with Ng4 (and certainly the knight sacrifice) looks overly optimistic to me. You are not going to mate on that side of the board easily against normal defense.


The Scotch game. Another inaccurate piece sacrifice. At least I would have expected Bxb2 to develop a piece.

After that plenty of tactical blunders from both sides. A computer analysis should be able to point these out. I focus on other mistakes that are hard to see with computers. If you are attacking, generally (and particularly if you are material down) you want to avoid simplifications and exchange of pieces. Moves like 12. Nxd4 or 18. Ne6 should therefore be checked carefully.


The Scandinavian:

By far the most normal of these three games. No attack going on. You should play this positionally and be concerned with not losing pawns and with positioning your pieces actively.

  1. Ne5 looks pseudoactive: the knight looks good there for a moment, but does not really threaten anything and will be challenged soon. Potentially more serious is that you exchange your light squared bishop and stay with the worse dark squared bishop.

  2. Qa4 would win a piece.

After 16. 0-0-0 0-0-0 would be a good time to assess the position and come up with a new plan. You are a pawn down and should at least try to position your pieces as active as possible. However within the next couple of moves, you position your pieces just to protect your own pawns, put your bishop on the poor square f4 (Be3 might have been better) and give black the open d file for the rook. Not surprisingly you lose more pawns and are just lucky at the end for black blundering a piece.


Always difficult to give an assessment based on a couple of games only. In your case I would recommend to be less optimistic in your attacks/sacrifices. Even if you end up winning now, against stronger opponents I doubt it works all that often.

Something to look out for could be piece activity and how to improve this. See what good/weak bishops are and how to get/prevent them, etc.