Would you beat an FM?

P.S. I don't know why is the text in my comment centred. I can't change it.

What's your rating? (I am in the mid-2000s USCF; if you were playing an FM you're probably higher)

I find this position easy enough that the strength of opponent doesn't matter. Considering the Qf2+ fork would be pretty immediate under any circumstances. I think the only way I could plausibly avoid seeing Ng4+/Rh6+ was if I didn't reach the position after Kh2 (which would not be the case). (Kh1 Qxe1+ Kh2 Ng4+ being minutely faster to see, probably)

Of course, everyone chokes at times and given that I missed many quick (immediate) wins (less trivial than this position, but there were ... a lot of them) in this one game (FWIW, against someone maybe slightly weaker than your FM) I could totally imagine doing something like that. Just that in a given position of comparable triviality to this one I couldn't imagine it happening, but everything is possible.

An unfortunate thing that happens when playing higher-rated players is that your mental mindset might start being negative. Even something like "I know I'm probably going to lose, but I'm still going to try my best" can stop u from seeing a simple tactic.

@blitzcoper: My FIDE rating is about 2050. I can't compare FIDE to USCF but I guess we are probably similarly rated.

Seems I have chosen the wrong variantion in my puzzle. The variantion after Kh2 is a bit more difficult to find. After taking the rook with check black is completely winning. Ng4 is not even necessary. It's not my the first time to miss a trivial tactic and not the last time.

@Robert_New_Alekhine: Actually there was a connection with my mental mindset. Before we reached that position I was lost. Then I saw the move Ng4. It was actually a good move. Other moves (except Qf2 of course) lose but Ng4 drew. I found out that after Ng4 I get out of a lost position so I didn't take time to check if there were any even better moves. Ironically after Ng4 I threatened the same mate but it was not forced.

EDIT: I edited the diagram. Now it makes more sense

well, u were lost all during the game, so its justice after all...

Anybody can blunder and it seems that it happened to your opponent.

Indeed, i dont know why u proposed Kh1 instead of Kh2 which is the only human move...

Well yea-a , You played stronger, title opponent. You make sure you do good out of opening, then middle game, calculating many lines deeply, exchanging pieces, you played black - you feel presure, mindset is set to dont lose, be carefull, you got tired or close to time trouble, you see a good move after you escaped bad position, you survived, and you imidiately  played the move... you just don't think you could have won or whole game you swim in unknow waters..  It happened to all of us.  What you needed was a fresh look from a spectator point of view. You needed fresh mind to the board/position. I am below your rating and tactical rating, but solved this in half minute.. But IM's/GM's could blunder in simular positions too and it did happened before it will in future, we r all humans.

I would have found the solution to this one but not the solution to your puzzle regarding an otb game.

Mindset is always important. I always play for a win, White or Black and against any player, even a GM....  

why u gotta revive a dead thread

CheesyPuns

It is an interesting thread and gives hints why we all might find or miss tactics in our otb games.

 Tactics like this I (1453 Fide) sometimes find and sometimes miss, when I am  doing tadtics. Now I was too fast and missed in the first try and found it in the second.

Playing otb longchess is different. We dont know when there are strong tactics, and we get tired.  One day I played strong for two hours, and after that fell apart. Another day I played lazy for two hours, saved energy and played strong and winning after that.

I am sure I would have missed basic tactics against FMs because I would have gotten exhausted, and would probably have been outplayed before getting a tactical chance.

As a puzzle (black to play and win) yes it is obvious, so I looked for: check, check, mate.
I guess if you also know the arabian rook and knight mate, it rings a bell.
As for playing it real time, difficult to say, two pawns down, knight attacked, king exposed my head might drop and simply not see the game turning chance.
The knight is not so much attacked but providing interference from the queen's defence of the rook. 
Maybe that would be a clue.

really? i have found my experience to be the exact opposite. when a player is that much stronger than me, i dont fear losing since its the expected result and the rating loss minimal. my play actually becomes ferocious diving into complications without worry.

Yesterday I played a titled player first time in my life in chess.com blitz, it was an FM and I won against him.

A little while a go, I played an IM and lossed, but I could've won in a few easy steps that were remarkably like a puzzle I had just done. So I can very much sympathize with you

👍👍