kiss-up
How to beat a 2000 rated player
Sort:
4...Qc5 was odd ??
Ng4 with Nb4 was really weird, I guess he thought you'd let him win with 1 move threats... now he's waaaay out of position and white should win (or at least be very comfortable for a long long time).
14.g4 I don't understand.
15.Qe5 has no threat... he can just take the rook...
Then both sides make some tactical blunders as pfren points out and you end up on top.
Normally someone would say good game, but you post a game with a bunch of blunders in the analysis forum, call it brilliant (I guess because it was an upset) and expect people not to point out the blunders. Try showcase next time, it wasn't a clean game.
To try to pull this away from petty bickering. I really liked that game. I played similarly today, not with such a prestigious opponent of course, but I find that trading the queen for 3 pieces is not something many players expect!!! The queen is strong, but she's not as strong as three minor pieces working together.
C'mon, we like petty bickering!
Sep 21, 2012
0
#26
AndyClifton wrote:
No, you don't (unless you're smoking what I'm smoking). And quit being so touchy, ya damn commie.
Careful there Andy you are beginning to sound like Bobby F. 
Well, almost ignoring material, the real problem is black abruptly stops developing, and never does anything in the center. Moves like 11...g6 and 21...h6 should be immediately discarded... I mean like 100% invisible.
BTW 12.a3 seems to win the knight right away.
Yes, odd material imbalances are fun to play, even when you get more than enough material for them, it feels clever or whatever. I'm not being sarcastic, they're fun for me to play too. But call your game brilliant and you're going to catch some flack.
Dang, he's not being sarcastic...
@ wafflemaster I know you know who I am, that I have beaten more 2000 rated players than you could count, but as black the only thing I would have done differently was 16.Bxd1 instead of Qc5, besides that there were not many mistakes after I dominated the center, there was little choice to be made.@ Andy I would not have any self respect if I commented to you.
Hey great game and yeah that IMs comment werent very polite!
The best way to beat a 2000 rated player is to grab his hand when he starts to move his piece then proceed with an arm bar lock and wait for Big John Macarthy to stop the game via submission.(lol) That is if he taps out or the clock.
Nowadays, the reults of your games have everything to do with opening theory and memorization.If you don't have a decent position in middlegame you're done. There are some lines that go well into 30 moves, like The Ruy Lopez. Natural talent is secondary to training.
Sep 26, 2012
0
#33
pfren wrote: I find it hard to believe that a player rated about 2000 would ever play such a move as 4...Qc5, unless it either was a bullet game, or he was totally drunk.
The user name confirms your thoughts...
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.
How long it did it take you? You look old enough to be my grandfather. I even know not to bring my queen out early, unless there is somewhere safe I can place her or she is making a significant threat. He probably thought he could get away with it, being nearly 300 rating points higher than myself. by the way, Do you have to argue with everything I say. Being an Im does not give you a badge to be a prick.
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. [mod: watch your language please]
Thank you Hedgehog. I've been trying to explain that Qc5 was nothing more than an inaccuracy.
Mistake/inaccuracy depends on your perspective. I've seen Tarrasch describe the most innocent looking moves as fatal errors.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258210
Good God! There sure are a bunch of wilting lillies around here.
Poor me. A greek IM wrote some words on a message board. My feelings are so so hurt.
When an IM gives bums like us some harsh criticism the proper response is: "Thank you for your time, sir."
Scottrf wrote:
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.
High-caliber players just need to realize that we play a different game than them.
All games are won by that player which makes fewest mistakes, every game can be flawed in someway...the rational is to expand your foresight with every game (win or lose) and remain aware that, people were not created perfect so, inturn we may never reach "perfection"! Your insight to the game was obviously more so than that of your opponent, and for that I applaud you! Very nicely done bolshevikhellraiser!