A 1000-rated player completely outplayed me for most of the game, and I was able to escape with a draw. what suggestions do you have for improvements? Why do you think he suddenly played much better than his rating in this game (or did I play much worse than mine??). His rating actually went down this tournament-losing to an 800 the very next game.
How did I let someone rated 600 points lower outplay me?
Sort:
I kinda think you played down to his level somewhat, even if he played a pretty good game considering. Nxc6 certainly isn't a good move in these Sicilian positions, and Qd4 didn't make much sense either. It wasn't hard even for a 1000 player to find decent moves there. And then as you said you didn't take the free pawn when you had the chance.
You made a lot of Sicilian-specific positional errors:
5. Bc4 - This is usually a bad idea in the Sicilian. It does nothing and puts your bishop on the soon-to-be-open c-file, where it will be hanging. You also gave up the chance to get a Maroczy Bind with 5. c4.
6. Nxc6 - Another bad idea in the Sicilian. It does nothing, moves the same piece twice in the opening, and allows Black to move a pawn to the 6th rank to prepare for a freeing ...d5. 6. Nc3 is standard since it develops and protects your e4-pawn.
7. Qd4 - Does nothing, develops your queen too soon, and puts your queen in line with a discovered attack from Black's soon-to-be fianchettoed bishop.
There were other mistakes, but the pattern I see is that you didn't know the positional ideas in the Sicilian as well as your opponent. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about your opponent's rating: it could be he's actually much stronger than his rating and is rapidly on the way up with possibly only a provisional rating so far (I didn't check).
Yeah you played awful dude. But unlike what Sqod said Bc4 was fine.
sss100 wrote:
But unlike what Sqod said Bc4 was fine.
I'm not in the mood to get into the fine points of Bc4 in the Sicilian, especially since I don't get into that position myself as either White or Black, but here are some earlier threads on the topic, if anybody's interested.
()
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/2-bc4-against-the-sicilian2
()
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/what-do-you-think-is-the-most-boring-opening
()
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/e4-c5-bc4
()
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/sicilian-2bc42
()
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/how-to-respond-to-1-e4-c5-2-bc4
It's very simple, in the opening you spent 2 moves to develop each piece (or in the case of the queen, you guaranteed it would be 3 after moving back to d1) and you initiated every capture (except the first one on move 3).
Even playing as white, this put you behind in both development and space out of the opening.
Black was rated 1000, but development and simple threats are not too much to expect even from a 1000 rated player.
Why did you take the draw if you had a passed pawn?
@kaynight That's not a useful or particularly pleasant comment.
rm1280 wrote:
@kaynight That's not a useful or particularly pleasant comment.
Nothing he posts is useful.
It happens.
fryedk schreef:
Why did you take the draw if you had a passed pawn?
Aren't you the original poster of the thread?
Was it your game in fact? Or someone else's?
Because rating is just a number, and your rating is about to go diving.
become familiar with the maroczy bind. That pawn formation has been giving the sicilian player nightmares for over 100 years. 
Kamodo! It's hard to tell when someone isn't cheating these days. I agree that game was pretty good for a 1k player. But lets be honest how many noobs play on here trying to bump up their rating with a little software help. I was a solid 1300 for quiet a while then I got hit with 5 players back to back when anaylsed found that my opponent made 0 blunders and it was like that with 5 games and 3 different players. I am sorry but if you do not make a blunder at all in multiple games your rank should not be below 1k.
I always wonder when I hear this. I analyze a lot of my games. In about 2,000 games, I have maybe two games with essentially no mistakes (there are some, but they are small or don't change anything), and of course they are my best games. As for my opponents, I almost never look at a game where I they didn't give me some kind of chance.
Jajakilroy wrote:
Kamodo! It's hard to tell when someone isn't cheating these days. I agree that game was pretty good for a 1k player. But lets be honest how many noobs play on here trying to bump up their rating with a little software help. I was a solid 1300 for quiet a while then I got hit with 5 players back to back when anaylsed found that my opponent made 0 blunders and it was like that with 5 games and 3 different players. I am sorry but if you do not make a blunder at all in multiple games your rank should not be below 1k.
No way he was cheating because this way a real life game in a long-time control tournament. I think he only left the board once to check out a friend's game.
Once in a while Low rated plays 400 points higher and the same time higher rated opponent plays badly becouse he is relaxed etc. Usually the way to beat them is agressive play and they blunder or ultra defense and they blunder, becouse they do only 1 move attacks. But when you play in middle Making little threats and not defending well they feel in own waters specially if they know opening and as i said it's their lucky game and bad for you. Yow have to be always ready and play your best otb. I saw you lost you pawn center and moved your queen too much also f4 weaks your king... You 26 move is very bad. Maybe c3 instead.
fryedk wrote:
Jajakilroy wrote:
Kamodo! It's hard to tell when someone isn't cheating these days. I agree that game was pretty good for a 1k player. But lets be honest how many noobs play on here trying to bump up their rating with a little software help. I was a solid 1300 for quiet a while then I got hit with 5 players back to back when anaylsed found that my opponent made 0 blunders and it was like that with 5 games and 3 different players. I am sorry but if you do not make a blunder at all in multiple games your rank should not be below 1k.
No way he was cheating because this way a real life game in a long-time control tournament. I think he only left the board once to check out a friend's game.
Well, then just looks like luck wan't on your side you got chumped by a 1k player this happens too. Loose your ego and continue on.
DavidIreland3141 wrote:
Jajakilroy wrote:
Kamodo! It's hard to tell when someone isn't cheating these days. I agree that game was pretty good for a 1k player. But lets be honest how many noobs play on here trying to bump up their rating with a little software help. I was a solid 1300 for quiet a while then I got hit with 5 players back to back when anaylsed found that my opponent made 0 blunders and it was like that with 5 games and 3 different players. I am sorry but if you do not make a blunder at all in multiple games your rank should not be below 1k.
Be a little careful in your assumptions. Besides mistakes and blunders, Chess.com analysis shows inaccuracies - but only to the side making them. If your opponent made 10 inaccuracies (as far as the computer was concerned) - it wouldn't show you any of them in it's analysis -it would show them if to you opponent if he submitted the game for analysis.
Very true, and in my comment I didn't say that this guy was using I am just bringing up that this was a possibility and that it's a real problem.
RasputinTheMad wrote:
Komodo wouldn't miss 20...Qxg2+!. Case closed. This guy's real.
He did have a good game for a 1k player I agree. But, I was more about the possibility than the guilty verdict. We can't deny that it's not a problem. Just saying. Didn't think people would actually read my comment other then the poster.