# Indian Game pawn pushes lose advantage: game 1142

> Indian game pawn pushes lose advantage in game 1142: two verified positions from my rapid game against mikaellaurio, with actual moves and engine alternatives.

- URL: https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/journey/collapse-game-1142/
- Updated: 2026-10-31
- Author: Ignacio Soler

In my game 1142, Indian Game pawn pushes lose advantage at several middlegame moments: my f-pawn and g-pawn moves both reduced the engine evaluation. I lost to mikaellaurio after recovering chances from an earlier opening error.

## The recorded game

I played this game on **2024-11-21** as **White**, using the Chess.com account **nacsol3**. The record lists **mikaellaurio (1148)** as my opponent and **1113** as my rating. This was rapid chess: the time control was 600 seconds, ten minutes without increment. The game belongs to the rapid sequence used for the [From 631 to 1385 journey](/journey/).

| Detail | Saved record |
|---|---|
| Game | 1142 |
| Opening | Indian Game, A45 |
| Result | loss (0-1) |
| My engine accuracy | 73.6% |
| My blunders / mistakes / inaccuracies | 12 / 0 / 4 |
| Original score | [Chess.com game](https://www.chess.com/game/live/125949611377) |

## Indian game pawn pushes lose advantage

I use the word collapse for the missed opportunities in this game, not for a claim that I was winning continuously. The opening already contained a serious queen-capture mistake. Later, the saved analysis again gave White favorable positions. The sequence matters because each recovery created a fresh decision instead of repairing the moves I had already played.

The complete game has twelve blunders for my side and no moves in the middle category labeled mistake. That does not mean that all my other decisions were equally good. It means that the stored classification put the significant losses in a particular bucket. The diagrams and the before-and-after evaluations tell me much more than that count alone.

## Position 1: the choice at move 24

My actual move was **24.f3**. The saved Stockfish assessment changed from **+4.29** before it to **+0.95** afterward. These values use White's perspective. The analysis classifies this position as middlegame and records **304 seconds** on my clock after the move; that reading cannot tell me what I was thinking.

> **Game 1142, White to move on move 24**
> Position (FEN): `r2q1rk1/5pp1/2b1p2p/Pp1pB3/1PnPn3/1NP1P2P/2Q2PPN/R4RK1 w - - 5 24`
> Played: f3 — Pawn from f2 to f3; attacks the knight (e4)
> Better: Nf3 — Knight from h2 to f3

The verified move descriptions are concrete: Pawn from f2 to f3; attacks the knight (e4); the preferred alternative is Knight from h2 to f3. The stored engine branch is **24. Nf3 g5 25. Bh2 f6 26. Nfd2**. I read that branch as a calculation to compare with my decision, not as a quotation of the actual continuation. The original game link above is the source for the moves that were played.

## Move twenty-four: compare a pawn with a knight

My f-pawn move is the first focus here. The engine preferred a knight move in the same position. Both can be described as trying to change the position near my pieces, but only the calculation tells me which one preserves more of the advantage. The saved score fell sharply after the pawn move while remaining positive for White.

That remaining positive value is easy to overlook in a story about losing a winning position. I did not move directly from a decisive advantage to a forced loss in this one step. I gave up much of what the engine liked. The later moves still mattered. This is why I want the review to name the actual change rather than attach the final result to every earlier error.

## Position 2: the choice at move 33

My actual move was **33.g4**. The saved Stockfish assessment changed from **+1.19** before it to **-0.88** afterward. These values use White's perspective. The analysis classifies this position as middlegame and records **197 seconds** on my clock after the move; that reading cannot tell me what I was thinking.

> **Game 1142, White to move on move 33**
> Position (FEN): `r2q1rk1/3b3n/4p3/PpNp1pp1/1P1P4/2P1BPP1/5Q1N/5RK1 w - - 2 33`
> Played: g4 — Pawn from g3 to g4
> Better: Qd2 — Queen from f2 to d2

The verified move descriptions are concrete: Pawn from g3 to g4; the preferred alternative is Queen from f2 to d2. The stored engine branch is **33. Qd2 Rf7**. I read that branch as a calculation to compare with my decision, not as a quotation of the actual continuation. The original game link above is the source for the moves that were played.

## Move thirty-three: another pawn, another calculation

On move thirty-three I pushed the g-pawn. Stockfish preferred moving the queen to d2, and the saved evaluation changed sign after my choice. That is a different comparison from the earlier f-pawn decision. It would be misleading to say that the same tactic repeated when the alternatives and piece arrangement were different.

The common practical question is whether I have compared a pawn push with a piece move before committing. A pawn cannot simply move backward to restore its previous square. That makes the decision worth examining, but it does not prove that pawn pushes are generally wrong. In other parts of this same game the preferred move is itself a pawn advance. I need the local evidence.

## Keeping the conversion review separate

The [opening review of game 1142](/journey/opening-lesson-game-1142/) concentrates on the queen capture at move eleven. This article begins later because the middlegame has its own training value. An opening mistake does not give me a reason to stop calculating after the opponent gives me another chance.

The final score is a loss, yet the middle of the game includes several positive White evaluations. I can acknowledge both without inventing a feeling of comfort, frustration or panic. The clocks record seconds, not emotions. My review task is to compare the pawn pushes with the engine's piece moves, explain the best reply after each and then return to the actual score to see how the game continued.

## Where this sits in the journey

The adjacent rapid records put game 1141 at **1121**, this game at **1113**, and game 1143 at **1105**. Those are recorded ratings, not a forecast or evidence that one review caused improvement. The [weekly diary](/journey/week-2024-w47/) gives the surrounding games and results.

For a broader method, I use the [beginner game-review guide](/guides/how-to-analyze-chess-games-as-a-beginner/) and the [guide to reading Stockfish analysis](/guides/how-to-read-stockfish-analysis/). They explain how to move from a numerical swing to a question I can answer at the board. I can also review a finished game through [Chess Coach in Claude or ChatGPT](/connect/), keeping the actual score and suggested alternatives visible together.

## FAQ

### What was the result of game 1142?

I played white against mikaellaurio (1148); the recorded result was loss.

### Are the green-arrow moves part of the game?

They are engine alternatives. The red arrows show my actual choices; the suggested branches were not necessarily played.

### What do positive and negative evaluations mean?

The values are from White’s perspective: positive favors White and negative favors Black. They are engine assessments, not guaranteed results.

## Related

- [From 631 to 1385: my chess journey in 2,117 games](https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/journey.md)
- [Week 46 (Nov 2024): a new peak of 1159, then seven losses](https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/journey/week-2024-w47.md)
- [How to analyze chess games as a beginner (6 steps)](https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/guides/how-to-analyze-chess-games-as-a-beginner.md)
- [How to read Stockfish analysis (and why it says blunder)](https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/guides/how-to-read-stockfish-analysis.md)