It's games like these that convince me it's not about winning or losing. A battle

to the very finish.

Nice game. I love your comments.

why thank you

great game a very long game as wel ;)

"White should have lost"

This statement implies that black deserves to win. But if black can't find the win, why does he deserve to win?

You have some great commentary.  I particularly enjoyed the homage to einstein, who I believe has the smiley commentary copyright protected(watch out for legal action!).

long game, but nice i suppose, good job kid

 

 Black had a winning position at the end... =)  I love the Bird, I guess that you know Danielsen's videos on youtube onewho_dies ? Otherwise, you should watch them, he gives some really strong advices on how to play the white stonewall.

Onewho_dies... I think you've got the wrong name... you looked cold stiff dead here, but your opponent couldn't bury you. 

You obviously had fun... which is the point isn't it, so good for you, and *sigh* congrats on the draw.  I'm sighing because I think truth and justice were actually with your opponent -- you gave away a Knight for nothing, and that's a sin which in my mind should cost you the game... but your opponent couldn't capitalize, and he played his endgame very innaccurately... which is a sure-fire recipe for turning a won game into a draw... so I guess your truth & justice trumped his.  

24.rc1

Black pure and simple blundered while trying to promote his pawn. 

The rule of thumb (all such rules in chess have exceptions) -- Rooks belong behind pawns when promoting, Kings in front. 

In this position 68...Kxd4 your comment is 'time for some serious endgame thinking' -- actually, white is completely helpless.  You should be able to recognize this position as an easy win for black.  His king is exactly where he wants it. Directly In front of the pawn.   You play 69.f5... and black plays ...Kc4?  What? Why is he retreating from your king? Can your king hurt him in some way? He should have simple played 69.e3, and now he can close his eyes and push the e pawn to promotion, you cannot possibly stop it.

You should study endgames! If you want some serious endgame thinking, try this:

Here the king and pawn are one square further advanced than in your game at move 68. --

 

the answer is no.

De-Lar wrote: Loomis wrote:

"White should have lost"

This statement implies that black deserves to win. But if black can't find the win, why does he deserve to win?

---

 Did I say black deserved to win?  Did I imply that black deserved to win? No to both accounts.  What i said is that white should have lost. 

 

The op already said it wasn't about winning or losing, i just pointed out the flawed endgame by black.

 

What should i have said? "this is the correct endgame play" - does that imply that black deserved to win? 

 

if so how about "Black should have won" - does that imply that black deserved to win?

 

if so how about "blacks endgame was flawed" - does that imply that black deserved to win?

 

if so how about "White capitalized on blacks mistakes" - does that imply that black deserved to win?

 

if so how about "loomis be quiet and stop trying to pick a fight!"  There it is, well said if i do say so myself! 

---

 My God, Loomis.  What did you do to De-Lar to make him so miffed at you??

Well "White should've won," the problem is White was not aware of it...

ADK

"White Could have lost" works.

Cute commentary :-)