Just got completely blown off the board by someone 400 points higher than me

I thought i played okay but he just tore me out and i kept asking how to get better at chess and he kept saying i will never get better its all about raw talent

He was just being a dick. Everyone can get better. Raw talent affects how fast you can improve, how much effort it takes, and (possibly) just how good you can eventually get.

7. e5 might not have been best, since it leaves d5 weak.

10. Bg5... If you are determined to attack him, did you consider 10. Ng5 instead, intending Qh5? If he plays 10. ... h6, you could just let him take it and recapture with the h-Pawn, opening the file for your Rook.

I think i am still happy with 7.e5. d5 may have been weakened but in exchange i get f6 square (since im about to attack) and i gain space and he is extremely under developed. I had planned Bc4 if he played Nd5. 

Your 10.Bg5 comment is absolutely genuis but i have a question. Was it the right time to attack or was i just being a noob

And there is your next goal. I am still a pathetic little patzer but if someone said that to me it would be my "Rocky" moment. (Que "Eye of the Tiger" in the background, video montage of me doing tactics, studying master games, playing on Chess.com, you get the picture....)

Work at it to take him down in the next 6 months to a year.

Well... your 7. e5 move creates a permanent organic weakness on d5 (the square can no longer be covered by White Pawns) so that move pretty well commits you to attacking. Following up 7. e5 with quiet play would just allow Black to manoever his Knights so as to get one on d5 and the other one supporting it. So the question "is it the right time to attack" should be asked BEFORE more 7, not before move 10.

Yeah, it's definitely not all raw talent.. Hard work makes the tortoise beat the hare ;) I should know XD

lol.  No.  Believe me he has played games 1000s time worse than the one you just lost.

As for the game, IMO you didn't respect the way black will generate his play.

So 7.e5 is a defining move.  As white is says very clearly, "I can generate play against your king, and further, the play you get from owning the d5 square / against my backward d pawn on the open file will not compensate you"  (which is one reason his 7...Nd7 was bizarre... 7...Nd5 is the only sane move in that position IMO).

Anyway, so unless you're an energetic attacker / familiar in attacking with this structure this can never work.  e.g. myself, I can't play this quite right, so to me I already feel like I've made a concession, but you may like these positions so that's kind of up to you.

The other idea was to just keep your big center vs his small center (small center is one where a pawn only on 3rd rank) and just say (to yourself) ok, my development will be better because I have more space, so lets just develop.  Earlier than that the move 6.d5 must be considered.  The knight has no sqaures, it must go back to b8!

Your position after 11...Rb8 is fine.  I'd play a3 to keep a knight off b4 and go for Bc2 Qd3 setup (common battery to attack the kingside in these formations).  Which by the way I think you were right, 8.Bc4 was not the diagonal the bishop wanted.

Then I think you're still fine until 17.Bc2... why this move.   OK lets go back to the idea of this position.  Your kingside pressure will balance your structural weakness and light square hole on d5... but now after two minor piece trades (esp. the important attacking light square bishop) you have no attack.  All that's left in the position is black's play.  The loss of the light square bishop only accentuates your d5 weakness too.

But black is nuts and plays 18.Nd5 (he's not so talented after all huh?).  This is a fantastic opportunity to take away all his trumps he would have used to make you suffer for 40 moves or until resignation.  Play 19.Nxd5, he has to recapture with a pawn, and poof, you're back in the game.

19.g4 actually just creates more kingside weaknesses that will probably become a nuisance later in the game for white.

Then at the end you drop some material, but that's just a formality.  Black was much better by move 20.  Why?  Again the only play that will ever exist in that position will be for black against your structure / some light square tenderness.

This guy was rated 1900 live standard?  To be honest that's hard for me to believe.  In this game his play was nowhere near that rating IMO.

The comment on talent was just being a jerk. But pushing e5 weakened d4 on a semi-open file. All other considerations notwithstanding, when you realize what that means, you will be a much better player.

Again, a lot of skill still comes from consistency and tactics. In amateur chess black can often get away with positions like those on move 9 -- although it seems pretty bad for black, the point is white can only exploit it with accurate moves.

Black's knights on c6 and b6 going nowhere; his horrible bishop on c8. Certainly these are not good things for black, but again, white still has to prove that he's going to create enough threats to mate or win material (i.e., just sitting around with space won't achieve anything until you can pile up concrete threats), and it requires accurate play. Black was able to get away with challenging his opponent to find these moves, and taking advantage of his opponent's blunders. Not spectacular, but this often works in amateur chess.

As a random tip, the bishop exchange with Bg5 just makes it easier for black to fit all of his pieces. Notice how around move 9 for example black's pieces are running into each other because of his lack of space. When you remove one of these pieces (e.g., after Bxe7 Qxe7 at some point) they are not bumping into each other quite as much, so this helps black's position breathe and function a bit better. Since white's pieces already have a lot more room the trade helps black more than white.

I think this is more than tactics... this is a positional kind of attack... you have to set it up with proper maneuvers or the threats/initiative will fizzle.  At least to my eye there is no tactic white missed.  What would have been hugely beneficial is having played over, say, 20 games of IQP or advanced french like structures where white will attack with many important ideas /maneuvers that would have applied to this game.

Maybe amateur chess is all about tactics, but I think players can save themselves tons of grief by trying to follow the basic needs of the position / knowing some basic maneuvers common to a structure.

If this is too advanced and it should only be tactics, tactics, tactics, then IMO e5 was a bad move plain and simple.

Do not worry about ratings. I managed to get a crushing ending against a player 600 points higher and blundered my game away (I only managed to get a draw).

Ratings create a psychological barrier. The fact that he is 1900+ just means that he will play that much worse due to bias and underestimation.

Pushing e5 also prevents any ideas of a d5 break, and should be met by Nd5 probably. Bc4 is the wrong development, I would develop it to d3. Bg5 doesn't make sense, if you are looking to attack why try to trade the bishops? More pieces should mean a better attack (Ng5 and if h6 there are eventual ideas of a sacrifice on h6. The reason you finally lost was that you never castled.

I find it hard to believe your opponent's rating with the way he handled the opening and early middlegame.

I would put the Bishop on d3 to set up a Greek Gift sacrifice on h7 if Black castles with your idea of h4 followed by taking h7.

I also really dislike 7.e5.

Ok at move 7 your still winning and punishing Black. After that is premature attacks and lacking king safety. Bad placement of Queen.

At move 8.

Now if you looked not to give those knight tempo or a nice square to move you be up in advantage of using 2 pieces while opponent down 2 pieces. Plus they are isloted from the king side so point that Bishop at h7 and force him to either keep the king in the middle of the board or castle at the moment(more likely).

10. Bg5 your hoping. The #1 way playeres at any level lose games. Assuming your opponent will fall for your plan and not see the flaw in it. I am sure right after you made that move you knew it deep down inside. Well your opponent is 400 pts higher and know you did also. Remember this!  So he ignored it. 10 Be3 would have been better in a strande way. As it frees the Queen - very important and it can not be attacked. And can later serve as a king side attack. And with the Queen free to move the Rooks can try to gain files. So that move helps the Queen and 2 Rooks.

13. Ng5  if you wanted to go to Ne5 as an emergency square ok. You lost tempo here 14 Ne5 should have been played. When you gain some experience you can play King in the middle board. One goal could be to open the f-file later making f7 a target. would have been perfect if not for moving the h-pawn and R at f1 after you 0-0.

15. Qd3 was bad as now the knight is in the picture and disruptive then comes 16. Qe4 which gives black to many options to attack. A game breaker. Black has many pieces lacking mobility but you have no direction for your attack as your pieces are constantly changing position dictated by black.

You should have won! With some patience it would have been a nice game for you to post.

Wafflemaster: I'm assuming that on move 18 for example, white didn't have to collapse if he evaluated and anticipated black's potential concrete threats. It's simply really hard to lose when a person does that.

Strategy can guide tactics and so it shouldn't be ignored, especially general concepts, but I think to a greater extent, tactics guide strategy. In other words, a good strategy needs a good execution of that strategy, and that execution is tactical threats. And sadly, a lot of times you can, like black, wait around with passive moves like ...Rb8 until you are allowed a strong sequence of threats. Strategy has some importance, but tactics are somewhat more important because they are what make a strategy work, and often can win games in themselves (the opponent blunders).

That's why, at this level, a relatively bad strategic player like the black player here can still win even after committing so many sins. They don't have as much of an impact on the game as people think. There is a lot of work that goes into making use of positional advantages without miscalculating and allowing the opponent back into the game.

But of course we are talking in abstract terms, so it is probably hard for either of us to convince each other .

Yes.  It's a tremendous amount of work.  And very satisfying if you can pull it off :)

I think I see what you're saying.  In a sense tactics do trump strategy.  At a certain point though a player is tactically good enough that these ideas start to matter... but ok maybe my post wasn't on point. 

This is what makes chess worth playing to me though, the trade offs... my moves claim _____ and you're going to ______ to counter and we'll see whose right when one of us has to resign :)  I get excited and that's what I want to talk about.

e5 is not that bad of a move. It does create a hole on d5 (and yes, ...Nd5 is a better response to e5), but white has plenty of his own squares for his pieces too (e.g., e4). Despite one potential good piece on d5, most of black's pieces are rather clogged up, for example, the c8 bishop. d4 could be weak later, but until black frees up his pieces (which will be tough to do with all that space), he is a long way from putting pressure on it. All in all I wouldn't have excessive anxiety just because of the weak d5 square.

White certainly didn't have to play e5, but it is still a viable way to play I think.

I like playing the systems with an eventual e5, but it should be delayed IMO. Frequently if black doesn't castle quickly enough the d5 break is much stronger.

I tend to overvalue static weaknesses.  It's something I have to work on.  I feel like I'm giving endgame odds... if I can't make my attack work I'll automatically lose... which is not completely right but that's what I fear :p

I tend to undervalue temporary problems... like you say black's development is not easy, which can't be overlooked.

I'd take white after e5.  But more likely I'd be looking at 7.Be2/c4/b5 (not sure) Be7 8.0-0 0-0 and then maybe Bf4 with Rac1 and ask black how he's feeling about his position so far