Vote Chess proves that rating matters!.
Sort:
perhaps it does matter, we should need to play other couple of games at least in order to claim a tendency
Yeah, that was a question in which you didn't need empirical evidence to conclude that the higher rated players would win (see: basic concept of a rating system). I really wish they hadn't organized that game.
18.Bxa7 pawn capture was meaningless.Black compensates pawn with 20... Nxh3+.And 22. Be3 opens the a-file for the black rook. White's pawn structure is far from providing effective defense after 15. g4.
well usualy someone brings in a game with a little of their own analysis... but if you want to know where the game went wrong... it was 34 gxf5 white gave up the f5 square, doubled the pawns, and gave black a passed pawn... the game was draw-able up until that point... f3 would have secured the draw. as it wouldn't give up f5. or leave them with a passed pawn on the kingside.
The worst move however was f4... giving them yet another passer which proved fatal for white...
and then Bb6, brining the bishop away from the king and defence against the two passed pawns...
gxf5 is why white lost, f4 and Bb6 just allowed black a quicker win...
As a vote chess game had proven, rating does matter. In "Does rating matter?", under 1800 (white) lost. Collective votes called the shots, and now let's see where the voting went wrong!
Basically analyse the same way you would any other game.