Well played. You hung on by your finger nails.
He had notched up 0-1 in his mind, relaxed, you had one chance and was alert enough to take it.
Good post. Gives everybody hope and proves that it is not the player who makes the most blunders who losses. It is the player who makes the last blunder who losses.
Of course you do realise that chess is swings and roundabouts. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but soon you will lose a game that you should have won. Swings and roundabouts.
You played ok and deserve to win.True,he blundered,but blunders are part of the game.
You played ok and deserve to win.True,he blundered,but blunders are part of the game.
True enough. Every loss is due to some kind of blunder, relatively speaking. Some are big and obvious to most, while others may be minute and can be detected and exploited mostly by expert players. No matter - a loss is a loss whether due to blunder, time trouble, checkmate or resignation.
In preparing my privately tutored students for an exam in class, I always remind them that good intentions don't count, only what they write down as their answer. The class teacher will not call them in the middle of the night to ask what they intended.
BTW, forgive me for reviving this tired, old subject (most of you will probably not), but I see an interesting connection between this thread and those about resignation. If even a fairly strong player is apt to blunder, why should an average player ever resign? For in resigning, you assume your opponent will always find the correct continuation and not blunder!
as you probably relised by now most peole do not like when you asume you are going to loose even before playing the actual game. thats why the comments are so negiteve. who said a 1500 player cant beat a 2000? this game proves the point. your oppenent played way way better then you did that is for sure but he also made several mistakes therfor you won! if you will send the game to the computer anilizer here at chess.com you will get a well anilized 2500 leveld game. im sure the 2500 engines analisus will proove to you the follewing point- NEVER ASUME YOU ARE GOING TO LOOSE your opponent is going to make lats of mistkes and inacurisies also if he is a 2000+ player so get your confidence up and next time you post relize your oppenet is not kasparov :)
He had notched up 0-1 in his mind, relaxed, you had one chance and was alert enough to take it.
How do you know? Maybe he just got unlucky?
You didn't play the Scandanavian Defense.
@ruby Intentions do matter.
If you intended to win on time, while the 2000 player intended to win by strategy. And thus, he wasted time, and blundered and lost. The intention that made him think more for his moves and look for good moves, even with the loss, made him a better player. It taught him important lessons, like never let your guard down even when winning and to keep the king farther away.
And teachers who only look at right/wrong answers rather than looking at the intention, method, and thinking of the student---are just jerks and should quit teaching because they are identifiers of smart students not creators of smart students.
Same goes for coaching chess, those that identify students weaknesses and strengths and explain the logic, are better than those that keep beating their students and yelling at them that they made the wrong move.
I would be very proud if I won against someone rated at 2050!
That means that you have the potential to always play at that level if you keep on educating yourself and are persistent. I just played a 3-4 hour game against the Carlson bot (That's what prompted me to search about this scenario and I found your comment on Google) Of course it took him only around 2 minutes for all his moves! I was winning I believe (According to his mumbling and comments during the game) up to around the 25 the move, my end game needs a lot of learning, but I put up a nice fight and Chess.com rated me at 2050 for the game. I take it that eventually I will be able to defeat Carlson, at least in a 3hr game. That's if I work at it. Because it shows that I have the right feel for the game and I understand what needs to be done. So you too!
U missed free queen other than that good game
What you did right was you mindlessly shuffled while your opponent got impatient and over extended
You need to make an 2000 overextend alot of the time in order to win otherwise it can be difficult unless they hang a peice or square
What you did right was you mindlessly shuffled while your opponent got impatient and over extended
You need to make an 2000 overextend alot of the time in order to win otherwise it can be difficult unless they hang a peice or square
Honestly I would give OP props for patience and tenacity. A lot of players don't have it. That's also part of the reason why so many people suck balls at defense.
At the bottom line is that you defeated someone who was rated at 2000 so that means at times you are able to perform that way. It is like a sub .500 team in baseball beating a premium .650 team one day. It doesn't mean that the sub .500 team is suddenly considered having a .650 winning percentage. The rating is about consistency which reflects ability under ALL circumstances and across all ranges of challenges. Think of it this way. If you played another 10 games against him, I am not sure about the exact percentages. But he will probably win 8 out of 10 games. But what it does show is that you have the potential, with consistent work, to become a 2000 player.
This is chess not baseball elo and whatever ranking baseball has is completely different
Your rating is pretty high too though...
lol, 1600 is not "high".
It's high enough to feasibly beat a 2050 on occasion, albeit a rare one.
Im guessing your oppo got behind on the clock, a great win, well played, anyway centre counter / scandanavian / B01 players deserve to lose, the opening stinks.
>:)