Crushing a 1900+ Weakling

???

The sacrifice was sound, unless you can point out a refutation.

I don't care, and nobody else does either now that it has been talked about on page 1 with that discussion. I need not say anymore. zzzzzzzzzzz

Of course black was winning, but that is like saying I was up a queen so my rook sacrifice for no compensation is sound because I am still winning. The sacrifice was unsound because of 20. Kc1 when you had given up a piece for two pawns, but you are still winning.

The engine only gave a very slight difference of 0.05-

I stopped looking at the game at move 10.

Chesscube is that some sports drink for chess players or

 a place where they test the  influence of chess on non chess players.

A cacophony of blunders!! Everybody has good days and bad days. No matter how much or whom you beat, having a humble attitude is the sign of a true winner!

This is chess.com and keep it real.

Nothing like whuppin your opponent that talk much smack before the game even started. And there is much smack on this site before the game and during the game. I felt it the first week i joined. As the guy was going on how was going to crush me and will be a GM one day. I won and all i heard was silence later. Then i just moved on ..... nothing said at all from me after the game ended.

Must be new. On some teams do you know how much smack talk is done after they beat a rival. Not to the opponent bout clearly about the opponent.

If a thread was started and called brag- a - lot it would have over 200 comments a day easy here. Half of it would be about how they got a player to fall for a trap!

6...Qg6 is an interesting move that causes some problems for white. I've chalked up a few wins with this move.

I have seen some of your statements about other players, and calling another player a weakling is a normal thing for you.

Shame on you.

Your play was in no way strong, and one blunder from your opponent does not make him a weakling - or you a super hero. Qe5 was only strong due to the response.

Keres won over Alekhine in Margate 1937 when Alekhine made a beginners blunder - and that did not make Alekhine a weakling.

If you will see, what a crushing wictory is, take a look at Tal - Larsen, Bled 1965 - it is somehow different from your perforance.

I guess that you will clame, that Larsen was to weak to understand things, as I have seen your statements.

Fixed.

Lol

+1

+2

hahahahahahaha post #33 is so true, classic yereslov, gotta love the critter.

That was NOT 1900 play, why with the insults, calling the guy a "weakling"? show some respect please.