# East Indian London central pawn exchange: game 1162

> East indian london central pawn exchange in game 1162: my actual decisions, two verified boards and the alternatives Stockfish preferred.

- URL: https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/journey/opening-lesson-game-1162/
- Updated: 2026-10-31
- Author: Ignacio Soler

My East Indian London central pawn exchange lost the engine advantage in game 1162 against jjpearce1986: Stockfish preferred advancing the d-pawn instead of my capture on d4. The game ended drawn after further chances for both sides.

## The recorded game

I played this game on **2024-12-05** as **Black**, using the Chess.com account **nacsol3**. The record lists **jjpearce1986 (1069)** as my opponent and **1083** 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 | 1162 |
| Opening | Indian Game East Indian London System, A48 |
| Result | draw (1/2-1/2) |
| My engine accuracy | 81.0% |
| My blunders / mistakes / inaccuracies | 6 / 2 / 5 |
| Original score | [Chess.com game](https://www.chess.com/game/live/121280942412) |

## East indian london central pawn exchange

I played Black with a recorded rating of 1083 against jjpearce1986 at 1069. The metadata calls the opening Indian Game East Indian London System. That long name is useful for finding the game, but my review question is simple: why did the engine prefer a central pawn advance over the exchange I chose?

My overall accuracy was 81.0 percent, with six blunders, two mistakes and five inaccuracies. An eighty-one percent summary and a draw might make the game look less urgent to review than a heavy loss. The individual positions tell a different story. There are opening decisions where I could have kept a better position, followed by later errors and a missed endgame opportunity.

## Position 1: the choice at move 10

My actual move was **10...Bf5**. The saved Stockfish assessment changed from **+0.53** before it to **+2.40** afterward. These values use White's perspective. The analysis classifies this position as opening and records **507 seconds** on my clock after the move; that reading cannot tell me what I was thinking.

> **Game 1162, Black to move on move 10**
> Position (FEN): `r1b2rk1/pp2ppbp/nq1p2p1/2p5/3PnB2/P1P1PN2/1PQ1BPPP/RN3RK1 b - - 5 10`
> Played: Bf5 — Bishop from c8 to f5
> Better: Qc6 — Queen from b6 to c6

The verified move descriptions are concrete: Bishop from c8 to f5; the preferred alternative is Queen from b6 to c6. The stored engine branch is **10...Qc6 11. c4**. 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.

## The bishop move came first

Before the central capture, I developed my bishop to f5 on move ten. The saved alternative was a queen move to c6. The evaluation changed in White's favor after my bishop move. Because I was Black, the positive number is unfavorable for my side; reading the signs correctly is essential when the story uses first person.

A developing move can look sensible in isolation. Here I want to compare it with the queen alternative rather than rely on the word development to justify it. The engine's short branch continues with White advancing the c-pawn. That is analysis of an alternative, not a move sequence that I played. I keep the real game and the candidate branch separate.

## Position 2: the choice at move 12

My actual move was **12...cxd4**. The saved Stockfish assessment changed from **-0.17** before it to **+2.89** afterward. These values use White's perspective. The analysis classifies this position as opening and records **462 seconds** on my clock after the move; that reading cannot tell me what I was thinking.

> **Game 1162, Black to move on move 12**
> Position (FEN): `r4rk1/pp2ppbp/n1qp2p1/2p2bN1/3PnB2/P1PBP3/1PQ2PPP/RN3RK1 b - - 9 12`
> Played: cxd4 — Pawn takes the pawn (d4)
> Better: d5 — Pawn from d6 to d5

The verified move descriptions are concrete: Pawn takes the pawn (d4); the preferred alternative is Pawn from d6 to d5. The stored engine branch is **12...d5 13. h3**. 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.

## Capture or advance in the center

At move twelve the engine preferred advancing my d-pawn to d5. I captured on d4 with the c-pawn instead. The saved evaluation changed from a small Black edge to a substantial White advantage. That is the specific central decision I want to understand, not a general ban on exchanging pawns.

The next key moment also contains a pawn capture by Black, and the engine again preferred a different move. That sequence makes it especially important to stop after each move and reassess. Once a pawn exchange changes the position, the next decision has a new board. I cannot carry a plan forward merely because it looked active a move earlier.

## The endgame is a separate part of the story

The eventual draw was not a direct consequence of the opening exchange alone. On move fifty-one, the saved turning point shows another missed chance: Stockfish preferred taking the rook on d1, while I captured the pawn on a5. The saved evaluation moved from -6.16 to equality. That later position is a conversion question in a rook ending, distinct from the central pawn choice shown here.

For the opening review I want to return to move twelve and compare the two pawn moves in full. I would ask what changes after the capture and what replies follow the advance, then use the board to check the answer. The draw gives me a reason to review the whole game, while the opening diagrams let me practice one bounded decision without claiming that it explains every later result.

## Where this sits in the journey

The adjacent rapid records put game 1161 at **1083**, this game at **1083**, and game 1163 at **1091**. Those are recorded ratings, not a forecast or evidence that one review caused improvement. The [weekly diary](/journey/week-2024-w49/) 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 1162?

I played black against jjpearce1986 (1069); the recorded result was draw.

### 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 48 (Dec 2024): my best accuracy and an endgame king walk](https://thechesscoach.netlify.app/journey/week-2024-w49.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)