Having annotated some of my better games here, it's probably high time to show a not-so good game. Before I provide the actual moves, let me show some snapshots from throughout the game.
After Black's eleventh move; White is slightly better.
After White's seventeenth move; Black is slightly better.
After Black's twenty-second move; Black is winning.
Okay, so what exactly happened here? In a matter of eleven moves I went from a comfortably better to lost.
mn-Q.Z.
Almonte 2016
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nd7 4.0-0 Ngf6 5.Re1 a6 6.Bf1 g6 7.c3 Bg7 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 0-0 10.a4 b6 11.Nc3 Bb7
Diagram 1:
\
12.Bd3
Not a horrible move, but the Bishop was doing fine on f1. The e4 point didn't really need any additional support, and the Bishop mostly turns out to be a target on d3. Instead, Zhigalko against Onischuk in Minsk 2005 played 12.h3 Rc8 13.Bf4, and went on to win.
12...e5 13.Be3
Immediately the problems with the Light Squared Bishop can be seen - 13.d5 is natural, but I thought 13...Nc5 was a little annoying. Still, I was happy with my position after 13.Be3 - I don't think I'd even as much as considered my opponent's reply:
13...exd4!
Accepting a not-really-weak isolated d6 pawn in exchange for pressure against e4. Besides, Black can play ...d5 soon anyways if she so desires, when the pawn looks far less weak.
14.Nxd4?!
14.Bxd4 makes more sense, that way 14...Nc5 doesn't gain a tempo against e4, because the Rook serves as an additional defender.
14...Nc5
Hitting e4 and d3 - White has to spend a turn saving his e-pawn, and meanwhile, Black has a very nice Knight on c5, and can take on d3 at the moment of his choosing.
15.Bg5
For some reason, I think I still thought I was fighting for the advantage, so I went for this "ambitious" move. Instead, the slightly more humble 15.f3 is probably a bit better, when after 15...Nxd3, I think Black is slightly for preference.
15...Qd7
Simply unpinning the Knight - you could maybe argue that something like 15...Re8 is more purposeful, but there's nothing wrong with my opponent's choice.
16.b4?!
This is another bizarrely optimistic choice - I'm compelling Black to make an exchange that's fairly desirable anyways, whilst weakening the Queenside panws, the c-file and the long diagonal.
16...Nxd3 17.Qxd3
Black has a Bishop pair comprised of two very strong Bishops, and nice squares for all her pieces. White has a space advantage which is easily challenged (...d5), and some very vulnerable squares.This leads us to...
Diagram 2:
17...Rac8
A simple move, and far from a bad one. Instead, the computer suggests immediately opening the position with 17...d5!, with an advantage to Black. 18.exd5 Nxd5 obviously favours Black's Bishops, while 18.e5 Ne4 also fails to keep the game closed.
18.Rac1?
This just misses a tactic. Instead, it's high time to secure the e4 point with 18.f3, with something resembling an acceptable game. 18...Qc7 gives Black annoying pressure down the c-file, though.
18...Rxc3!
A very nice tactic, based on the strength of both Bishops, White's weird refusal to play f2-f3, and the weaknesses left behind by b2-b4. In essence, it takes advantage of all White's mistakes leading up to this point.
19.Rxc3
19.Qxc3 walks into 19...Nxe4, forking the Queen and the Bishop.
19...Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Bxe4 21.Qxe4 Re8
This is the point - 22.Qb1 is forced, leaving the Knight hanging on d4.
22.Qb1 Bxd4
Reaching...
Diagram 3:
23.Rf3 Qxa4 24.g3 Qb5 25.Bf4 d5 26.Kg2 a5
0-1
Sometimes when you're playing a weaker opponent, you don't necessarily need to do anything all that special. Sometimes you make normal moves and your opponent self-destructs. Usually this advice is given slightly condescendingly by a stronger player (not that it's at all wrong on many occasions!), but in this case, I'm the dummy that self-destructed. Black did have to find one fantastic tactic in this game, but that aside, I created most of my problems all by myself from a completely normal position.
