Me vs. a 2248 rated player
Sort:
It was interesting. I'm pretty scrubby at the game, so I can't really speak from a technical point of view. But, if your opponent was ranked like he was, and you didn't get completely humiliated, I would say that's a mission accomplished! Then again, he may have just been sandbaggin' ya. Either way, Kudos.
I think that mabey this guy is making up the whole story and I am not rated but I will beat the pants off of any of you.
This is the most ridiculous story I heared so far, probably made up by a kid, wanting to boost his ego.
Why the hell, would you,the low-rated player against a *national master*(right..your imaginable friend)..get the disadvantage of 3 minutes, against the experienced master level player with 15 minutes, and still play like a beginner. There is no logic in that story, so I won't even comment on the game.
This game was terrible. I doubt this was real.
You guys are friends right? sometimes friends just let friends win.
This is ridiculous. There is no way a 2200+ would play like this. He is "nationally rated at 2248"? I guess the Mexican rating system is even more inflated than the USCF.
14...Qxc3? cedes Black's advantage. Much better was 14.Rxc3 Qe2 15.b6.
22...d4? is too hasty. Black doesn't want to create an isolated, passed pawn until his pieces are ready to walk it to its promotion square (or at least protect it). You could have immediately capitalized on this with 24.Nb3 d3 26.Nc5 d2 27.Rd1 and the d-pawn is lost.
29...Rd8?? - A horrible move... Rd8?? trades into a lost pawn endgame, while 29...Rxa5 trades into a drawn rook endgame.
If a 2250-level player were exhausted, he might overlook a few tactics. But some of the mistakes are ridiculous for his level. Someone fibbed about his rating or he let you win.
Cant believe the 2200 player played on with just his king versus k+q! ha Embaressing to say the least.
I think the "friend" is the one who had 3 minutes to 15 as this is the only way to explain such poor play on the part of a player over 2200, or he may have been PUI (playing under the influence) or all of the above. No strong player would exchange the healthy black b pawn for the sickling at c3. After 13 moves black is clearly better, if not clearly winning. White is saddled with 4 pawn islands and almost all his pawns are weak but especially the doubled,isolated pawns in the open c file.
The 2248 player is probably a 1500 strength rated player who has played against thousands of 900 rated players winning 99% artificially inflating his rating to that of master level when he is actually weak its like saying a doctor who killed 1000 babies by snaping there necks and vaccuuming them out in an abortion clinic is more of a killing machine than a commando who has killed 100 armed and trained soldiers. I would puy my money on the commando over an abortion clinic doctor if they were to fight to the death.
rutra23 wrote: You guys are friends right? sometimes friends just let friends win.
i totally agree..
I dont understand why a higher rated player would trade so many pieces. The chance of a draw gets bigger and I wouldnt want that against a player 700 lower.
I think his 29th move was the mistake. After exchanging rooks he has no chance of stopping your pawns.
I think you played well though, it was almost you two were both trying to play it safe and from your side thats reasonable
It's obvious that your opponent did not understand the position. He probably resigned, but you entered moves for him.
The 2248 person not only missed simple tactics, but also had very little skill with positional play. he traded off good pawns of his own for bad pawns of the other guy. this game and the ratings do not make sense to me.
In 27. Rd8 would have been better than Bxc4 for black, could probably have gotten the pawn to exchange then. Or, ignoring that, from 31. black could have move the pawn foward twice to switch it for a queen before the king caught and just in time to move back to d5 so that even if white moved up the pawn during that time instead of chasing with the king, the white pawn would die directly after being exchanged.
On top of that he contradicts himself by saying that ratings on chess-pages are not all what they imply, and thinks he's proving that by winning a game against a nationally rated player. So, does winning a nationally rated player over a real chess-board prove anything about correspondence chess ratings?...those 2 are two totally different things. Unless he's not trying to prove that the 2200 nationally rated is not as good as his rating implies... but that he with his correspondence chess-rating of 1400 is better then a 2200 nationally rated player, although his rating does not imply that.
Mar 26, 2008
0
#39
a.) Any player above 1600 (or maybe even lower) would know trading into the pawn endgame is completely losing. It boggles my mind to think a 2268 player would do it (even under time pressure.)
b.) The fact that the thread starter hasn't posted any replies defending the legitimacy of the game should be enough proof that the game is false.