I joined a match with the Bobby Fisher Group and was matched up with a player over 300 rating points than myself.I went through his online games to discovered he had a 90% win rate, and they were mostly against 2000+ players. My mindset going in was dubious to say the least, but I thought back when I won an (1800-2000) tournament with a score of 9/10, so I took the gloves off and prepared to throw down.

Was there a rush to take the knight? Are you not able to move your bishop to safety first?

Brilliant game though.

Will I analyzed the position and knew I had him beat to the punch. Moving the bishop to safety may had given him chances for more counter-play or to defend, and you don't want to give someone at the level that oppurtunity,when you know that you can progress with the initiative and advantage, without taking chances.

Yeah I think I'm a bit material obsessed, the passed pawn was more important in the end and one tempo could change everything in a position like that.

Exactly, with experts if there's a move out, they will find it. To the contrary, if there's a way to win material, they will find it as well. I couldn't have said it better mtself. When playing high-leveled players, every move counts.The game can be determinely decisive by a solitary move.

Online chess is alittle inflated isnt it?

Very nice material inbalance, i like it

@ IM pfren after bxe7 qxe7 bxd1 rxd1 nxd5 and white has 2 minor peices for a rook. I grant you its the best way to go, but by no means winning for black

I also disagree when you said that we weren't paying attention to threats. Like move 9 when black played ng4. That would've cost me the game if i hadn't played Qe2.

That light squared bishop is worth more than a rook. I trust the IM knows what hes talking about, he sugested Bxe7 Qxe7 Bf5! when Nxa2# is one threat you have to deal with, another is Qd3 followed by Qc2#. The light squares around whites king are fataly weak.

I have a 1948 USCF rating and made far more obvious inaccracies that he made. Is that where you get your kicks? Pointing out the shortcomings of weaker players than yourself, so you feel better bout yourself, beause you have an IM title. Regardless of what your opibion is. It was still a good game. Oh yeah, It was correspondende chess.

A weird remark.

Well, since you said it that way, I can't dsagree. My brilliancy,which weren't blunders, I could not have said it better myself. The only inaccuracy on my part was moving 13.rhe1 instead of g4. This is my favorite high-ranked game. It's a queen sacrifice followed by a mate in 7.

You're a pretty good chess player. Far better than I ever hope to be. 

That being said, anyone who calls themselves brilliant multiple times (in any discipline, for that matter) is most likely not brilliant. 

Anyway, thanks for posting two exciting games. Good stuff. 

Actually, you did say it yourself (since that's not what he said).

@IM pfren Theres a difference between constructive criticism and telling someone that they weren't paying attention to proper threats, or irrelevant ones. I found it to be a rude, patronizing, snidely,and offensive remark. When you tell somebody that they'ye game is trash, at least say one thing nice about it. Don't get me wrong. I respect IM's, but it doesn't give them a badge to act impertinent. 

@AndyCifton Now, I see why you have two black eyes.