Ugh...frustrated. Tournament games with 1700+ players

These were 30 minute games that took place in our provincial chess championship. I've practiced constantly for weeks to hone my chess skills, since if I got first place I would take part in the national tournament for free. I think that my tournament rating should be a lot higher than it is right now, since my FICS blitz rating is over 1300 (and the ratings there are quite a bit lower than real ratings). These two players won first and second place in this tournament and were basically the only people there who posed a challenge. I felt like I could beat these guys but was just really unlucky :( It feels like they took all of my hard work away...

But anyways, here are the games. Comments?

they outplayed u in the 1st game after he recaptured 4Nxc3 D6 was better than e5

I believe that the quality of my overall play was better than theirs for the time used; my opponents had full control of the opening and were able to take advantage of that, while I had to spend extra time on unfamiliar territory. For example, it took just one move - 7. Qd5 in my first game - to severely damage my position, and that move required me many more thoughtful moves to regain my ground (and I managed to win a bishop as well). Since my opponent was familiar with the opening he did not have to think about his opening moves; they were recited from memory. Even then, he had only a few more seconds more than me in the end. What I hate most is that it doesn't matter how well you play; the only possibilities are winning and losing.

For the second game, if I had only thought longer about the rook check, I could have won. On the other hand, my opponent did not have to think about his moves; Rc8+ and Qxc8+ were the only reasonable moves in his position; he did not have to calculate the knightfork (and he told me he did not). I felt that the effectiveness of my time for my moves was at least at the level of his. After all, I had double of his time left.

And torre5, I've already said that e5 was a mistake. If it weren't for the moves that were played out, I would have chosen ...e6 instead.

They out played u in the opening phase so learn it more. Time controls are there for a reason! They used it more wisely then u did as u should, remember that if u used exactly the same amount of time they did ur play would have been less skilled also.

The 1st game looks like a draw if u had the time. 2nd game u was actually out played both in the opening and middle game or though u did put up good fight. keep working on your chess and u will get there.

P.S. They didn't get lucky beating you they outplayed you over all.

I remember losing a winning game on time to a 1700+ when i was 1200+  and i have won a game or 2 i was losing on the board because of the clock as well. It's all part of the tournament process. So u have to consider that while ur planning ur moves to keep an eye on ur clock and use it wisely. 

My advice, since you asked, is:

1) Get a book/DVD and learn a decent defense against the Smith Morra gambit.  Or don't play the Sicilian - try the French, Caro-Kann, Alekhine.  The Smith Morra, whatever the theory books say, is a fearsome weapon against lower rated players.

2) In the second game you made a comment that you avoided O-O because it was drawish.  But then you got attacked and allowed that nice Queen sac precisely because you had not castled.  Is there a moral to this story?

But it is great that you are posting these losses and trying to learn from them.  Best of luck in your chess!

In the first game, I actually had a potentially strong win but no time to make my moves at the end. The part at the end (around move 23) consisted of mostly random moves which did not matter and had much less thought in them since the only possible chance of winning was by on time. Check the move list for a possible crushing win. (I could have still won if I didn't blunder the e5 and g7 pawns. I could have played 32. ...Bh3 to swap bishops.)

Unfortunately I realized that all of the random moving in the world could not help my time, since in real chess, it also takes time to actually move the pieces and press the timer with the same hand, as opposed to being able to instantly move computer chess pieces

And no, the queen sac did not occur "precisely" because I castled. My king still had potential to be safe without the need to castle; again, if I played 23. ...Kg7 he would have no more attack, and his king would be open for easy attacks afterwards after 24. Rxb8 Rxb8 25. Nc4 Qd5.

And what do you mean if I used the exact amount of time they did my play would be less skilled? I had double my opponent's time in the second game.

And no way am I going to stop playing the sicilian because of the Smith-Morra gambit. I've learned from my mistakes =)

Just to give different advice that might not be so obvious - in the second game, 16... Bd7 drops a pawn for no compensation as far as I can see. Although your opponent gives it back a few moves later, just keep in mind that each pawn is a potential queen. It's important not to give them up for free.

steevmartuns, ...Bd7 is the only move that makes sense according to the plan. After ...Rb8, I gain a tempo on the bishop and capture of the d4 pawn comes right after.

here's a line you might want to try as black

I'm pretty sure that to stop 8. ...Ng4 white can play 9. Nb5 Qb8 10. h3.

I already know that ...e5 was a blunder :/

Are there any other mistakes I made?

In my first (and still only) tournament, which was five rounds, I entered unrated and won my first two games against a 1600 and an 1800. Because of my record, I got paired up with an expert (he was 2005 uscf). I left for lunch with a schedule that said that the third round would begin at 12:30. When I walked back in at 12:25, the third round had already begun and the TD (tournament director) told me that they had had to reschedule. I sat down with thirty-five minutes to my opponent's sixty and made my first move. It was a Smith-Morra just like your first game, but I played White. After some very exciting play, I managed to infiltrate his queenside with a knight sac and several moves later got a rook and a pawn for my efforts. Still down on time, I entered a completely won endgame and played too hastily, allowing my opponent to (very brightly, I might add) turn the game around. I lost, to my chagrin. When these things happen, don't let yourself become frustrated. Clocks are necessary in chess because we can't just have no time controls. And, while it is painful to lose on time from a won position, you have to learn to play the whole game, tournament rules and all. Best wishes for your future games and may your flag never fall!

That's how the devil would play it. - Black is worse, but no immediate threats.

Subrosian> He plays the Smith-Morra gambit, which I spent time thinking on whether to accept it or to find a counterattack (...Nf6 might have worked).

You chose one of the most memory-intensive defenses in chess, but didn't prepare beyond move two? It seems your opponent was the one who put in the hard work learning your opening, and reaped the dividends.

Of course, this doesn't mean you have to go crazy with openings. There are many alternate defenses that are not so memory-intensive.

Subrosian> it took just one move - 7. Qd5 in my first game - to severely damage...

Correct. At the Class D (1200-1399) level, tactics decide most games. And one tactical blow can be worth 30 reasonable positional moves.

Subrosian> I could not believe that a win so crudely achieved could be allowed

In the United States, the rules allow me to insist on a 5-second time-delay. My OTB games have never been decided by random movements or running out of time--consult your rulebook to see if there are similar provisions.

Subrosian> What I hate most is that it doesn't matter how well you play; the only possibilities are winning and losing.

There's also the draw, when you both play at about the same level.

Subrosian> His position continues to weaken

You outplayed him strategically and matched him in tactics... but he outplayed you in the opening and had better time-management. It can be frustrating when you play one of your best games and it's not quite enough because your opponent is simply that much better. At least you know what to work on now:

• Tactics - Examine CHECKS, MATE THREATS, and CAPTURES.
• Time management - Learn the rules with respect to time trouble; realize that clocks are an integral part of the game of chess.
• Openings - Choose a less memory-intensive opening and/or learn your opening lines a bit deeper than move two. You know, maybe 4-6 moves deep.
  

And don't fall into the bad habit of blaming luck for your losses.

It took me by surprise that both of my opponents played unusual openings, though. Normally my sicilian games go like this:

And I've played hundreds of sicilian games in blitz. Most people follow the mainline which is what I'm very familiar with.

Hmm...there's this rule that somewhat slipped my mind: if I have less than two minutes and the opponent is not playing to win by normal means, I can call an arbiter to claim for a draw.

But the arbiter who was adjudicating our tournament told us that it had to be a dead draw in order for the game to end as a draw (and the game didn't seem that dead) and I didn't think that my claim would be valid, since the moves in the game were not completely unreasonable.

Unfortunately, our games do not allow for 5 second increments. I checked the rules :/

The reason why I feel like I was unlucky is that I know that I have better tactical vision than them; for example I beat my second opponent in an earlier tournament with 1h:30min time controls after trapping his knight and winning his rook, and both of us only used 20 minutes for the whole game. These tournament games were far from my best; in fact, they were some of my worst games since the positions were so different from my usual games (I usually play the mainlines of the Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, Petrov's and QGA).

Subrosian> And I've played hundreds of sicilian games in blitz. Most people follow the mainline which is what I'm very familiar with.

Ahh, that makes sense. I've noticed the same thing... my OTB opponents tend to play different lines than my blitz opponents. For example, I was surprised in a recent tournament to play two Old Indians and two Stonewalls. Believe it or not, I had never encountered these in hundreds of online games.

The past couple months I've been revitalizing my opening repertoire and making a serious study of Watson's three-volume Mastering Chess Openings.