I admit Qc5 was not the best move. He should have played Qh5 instaed of wasting a tempo. Now, it being hard to believe that a 2000 rated player would make such a move is not that inconceivable. In fact I have seen Gm's miss mates in one.That wasn't even a mistake, it was an inaccuracy. Even the top players make inaacuracies now and again. By the way, it was Correspondence Chess.
Qh5 immediately loses the Queen, 5.Qxh5 
Bigpoison, you can stop with mockery right now. My feelings are far from hurt. He is offfensive, rude, and rubs me the wrong way, and if I want to get this off my chest, it is well within my rights to do so. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you deal with it.
I think we can all agree Qh5 would be a blunder.
The Mensheviks weren't so tender.
Mistake/inaccuracy depends on your perspective. I've seen Tarrasch describe the most innocent looking moves as fatal errors.
GMs tend to talk like that..... but if you think about it..... at their level, it's true.
The size of a mistake is relative to the player. I edited my comment with the game:
Fantastic kingside attack.
Yup... to my friends who play chess casually, i am chess god. Almost every move I make can be an "inaccuracy," as analyzed by a GM or computer... and i will still win pretty easily.
it's average. I know it sounds crazy, because 99% of the worlds population isn't even anywhere near this level
Crazy/wrong.
lmao. wilting lillies. oh big posion, you're the elephant's eyebrows.
people really don't have an accurate mental conception of the levels in chess. I've stated it before. you have to realize that 2000-2200 is nothing. it's average. I know it sounds crazy, because 99% of the worlds population isn't even anywhere near this level, but it's all true. think of obtaining a 2000-2200 rating as analagous to achieving a 3.0-3.3 GPA in school. that's kind of what it is. most people don't have the time/money to devote to chess to even reach this level because of things like, well, school.
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
"Average" is not 99%+ percent of chess players.
In a world where everyone played chess several hours per day... ok, sure, MAYBE then the average skill would be that of what we see in a 2000 player.
It is, are you aware of the meaning of the word average?
@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
For the record a mistake is when you hang a peice, allow a mate without proper defense, or allowing a decisive advantage. An inaccuracy is when an inferior move is made, no material is lost, but a weakening in the structure has occured. It is funny that I am explaining this to an IM. You're the one who's full of sh*t. You misrable, bitter, arrogant, and patronizing dinosaur.
You are wrong on two points:
1. An inaccuracy can be an incorrect pawn sacrifice, material is still lost, but it is not a blunder.
2. 4. ... Qc5 is definitely a mistake because Black gives White a strong center and piece development, IMO a pretty decisive advantage. Black's play was very poor, undeserving of his rating.
Where in the world did you get those definitions?
@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
Well, with such scientific evidence at hand, you've clearly proven kenpo wrong.
I thought you were a Bolshevik, anyway? You oughta' be workin' rather than runnin' around with the intelligentsia.
@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
Well, with such scientific evidence at hand, you've clearly proven kenpo wrong.
I thought you were a Bolshevik, anyway? You oughta' be workin' rather than runnin' around with the intelligentsia.
*With such scientific evidence at hand, kenpo has clearly proven his theory correct.
No-one says that some of Tal's moves could not be refuted. That does not mean anyone says they are less than brilliant.
That an opponent must make an error - whether egregiously or for subtle reasons - to allow a winning combination goes without saying (unless you are Weaver Adams). That does not diminish the skill shown by the opponent who finds effective ways to exploit the error.
Contributions to threads like this which make chess points (refutations included) - without indulging in cheap ego-ridden shots - are welcome by all, OPs included. Sneering is welcome to few.
Be nice.
@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
Not to mention GPA doesn't mean all that much. Almost any idiot can get a 3.0 GPA. Do you realize how many dumb people have 4.0s, too?
It really doesn't take scientific evidence to make this observation. It is commomn sense, and I probably could prove it if I felt like it but have wasted enough time on your tomfoolery
@ kenpo I have to disagree with you my GPA is 3.8, and I've never been able to break 2100. It is much more challenging to reach 2200 than to score a 3.0-3.3 GPA.
Not to mention GPA doesn't mean all that much. Almost any idiot can get a 3.0 GPA. Do you realize how many dumb people have 4.0s, too?
An educated idiot is still an idiot?
In a world where everyone played chess several hours per day... ok, sure, MAYBE then the average skill would be that of what we see in a 2000 player.
exactly.
No, not exactly. In this world, 2000 is far from average. What sense is there in debating a population of players that doesn't exist?
Bigpoison, you can stop with mockery right now. My feelings are far from hurt. He is offfensive, rude, and rubs me the wrong way, and if I want to get this off my chest, it is well within my rights to do so. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you deal with it.
No. You are just oversensitive.
Mistake/inaccuracy depends on your perspective. I've seen Tarrasch describe the most innocent looking moves as fatal errors.
GMs tend to talk like that..... but if you think about it..... at their level, it's true.
The size of a mistake is relative to the player. I edited my comment with the game:
Fantastic kingside attack.