superb game, nicely done! best i've gotten is one inaccuracy :(
A perfect game?
Sort:
Thx mott, appreciated. :)
I always wonder why it never gives exclams. I sacrificed a queen for the forced mate in two and it marked it as a blunder when Shredder and Rybka gave Mate in 2? Anyways, awesome game :)
no blunders - no? rly?
Dude, you played a 19 move game where your first 11 moves were book, and move number 12 by White was an awful blunder, followed by several more blunders, all "forcing" ones where you had no real alternatives. You might have played close to "perfectly", but under the circumstances, I don't think it's anything to celebrate over.
LaserZorin wrote:
Dude, you played a 19 move game where your first 11 moves were book, and move number 12 by White was an awful blunder, followed by several more blunders, all "forcing" ones where you had no real alternatives. You might have played close to "perfectly", but under the circumstances, I don't think it's anything to celebrate over.
True, but you might let me have my little moment of glory. :)
Umm... have you ever had a zero-error game according to the computer analysis? I'd love to see it.
@WK i'm sure that he has played a lot better games than you just played. If you really would've done no inaccuracies in, let's say, a 50-move game it is already telling of computer assistance. In a 19-move game, where most of the moves are straight from the book and the rest are white's blunders and your obvious responds, it really isn't nothing more than a normal game.
Either way, it's worth sharing!
Yes, it is.
WhiteKnight56 wrote:
LaserZorin wrote:
Dude, you played a 19 move game where your first 11 moves were book, and move number 12 by White was an awful blunder, followed by several more blunders, all "forcing" ones where you had no real alternatives. You might have played close to "perfectly", but under the circumstances, I don't think it's anything to celebrate over.
True, but you might let me have my little moment of glory. :)
Umm... have you ever had a zero-error game according to the computer analysis? I'd love to see it.
Honestly, it's fine to share average games, but the presentation here was so ridiculously grandoise and over-the-top (not just the title of the topic, but that opening post where you go on and on about how a chess engine didn't find any errors in your play), that I at least expected an interesting tactic, or some quality middlegame play.
Instead, it was 11 moves of book followed by 8 moves of horrible, forcing blunders by White. You can't hype up expectations so much only to share a game that would be ho-hum in a blitz setting.
You played fine, but when your opponent is awful, where's the "glory"? Be proud of wins over strong opponents, even if the resulting struggle is filled with errors by both sides.
Actually, I have played a "perfect" game in an OTB tournament where I was Black, and also won in 19 moves. There was a lot less book, (my opponent was rated about 2000 USCF and played Bird's opening) but it was also extremely short, with a few blunders by my opponent (nothing as blatant as in your game, but still pretty awful), and lots of forcing tactics. I don't have the scoresheet with me at my current place, but those are probably the only error-free games I have played.
I haven't analyzed any of them with a computer yet, but I know that my correspondence play on here is riddled with numerous blunders, and plenty of small inaccuracies just from analysis after the fact.
That being said, in the last month, I guess these two games featured relatively perfect play on my part;
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=42362585
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=42362589
In the first one, both players copied the moves of a Kasparov-Anand game, and while that meant a slight inaccuracy by White, it was fairly optimal for Black.
In the second one, I copied the book for the first 17 moves, and after that there was a simple forcing tactic.
Neither were games I consider the least impressive.
13 qxf3 ???????????????????????????????
LaserZorin wrote:
WhiteKnight56 wrote:
LaserZorin wrote:
Dude, you played a 19 move game where your first 11 moves were book, and move number 12 by White was an awful blunder, followed by several more blunders, all "forcing" ones where you had no real alternatives. You might have played close to "perfectly", but under the circumstances, I don't think it's anything to celebrate over.
True, but you might let me have my little moment of glory. :)
Umm... have you ever had a zero-error game according to the computer analysis? I'd love to see it.
Honestly, it's fine to share average games, but the presentation here was so ridiculously grandoise and over-the-top (not just the title of the topic, but that opening post where you go on and on about how a chess engine didn't find any errors in your play), that I at least expected an interesting tactic, or some quality middlegame play.
Instead, it was 11 moves of book followed by 8 moves of horrible, forcing blunders by White. You can't hype up expectations so much only to share a game that would be ho-hum in a blitz setting.
You played fine, but when your opponent is awful, where's the "glory"? Be proud of wins over strong opponents, even if the resulting struggle is filled with errors by both sides.
Actually, I have played a "perfect" game in an OTB tournament where I was Black, and also won in 19 moves. There was a lot less book, (my opponent was rated about 2000 USCF and played Bird's opening) but it was also extremely short, with a few blunders by my opponent (nothing as blatant as in your game, but still pretty awful), and lots of forcing tactics. I don't have the scoresheet with me at my current place, but those are probably the only error-free games I have played.
I haven't analyzed any of them with a computer yet, but I know that my correspondence play on here is riddled with numerous blunders, and plenty of small inaccuracies just from analysis after the fact.
That being said, in the last month, I guess these two games featured relatively perfect play on my part;
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=42362585
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=42362589
In the first one, both players copied the moves of a Kasparov-Anand game, and while that meant a slight inaccuracy by White, it was fairly optimal for Black.
In the second one, I copied the book for the first 17 moves, and after that there was a simple forcing tactic.
Neither were games I consider the least impressive.
A few things I didn't mention: firstly, this was a 10-minute blitz game. My first 11 moves may have been book, but I didn't know that at the time. Also, I'd resumed chess fairly recently after a twenty-odd-year hiatus, and my rating was only 1400-odd at the time. Finally I did see the Bb6... Nc7 attack coming, and that my counterattack Nxf3 would be much stronger. So I am pretty happy with this game.
Your point about accurate play not necessarily being particularly impressive is a good one though. I'd much rather watch Tal than Kramnik!
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
As this thread proves: haters gonna hate
malachi76 wrote:
You are a lot better than me. Its always telling me that Im messing up.
Your rating suggests otherwise but thanks. :)
Nice job ignoring white's "threats" and going after your own attack.
4qM0f0 wrote:
Nice job ignoring white's "threats" and going after your own attack.
Thank you. :)
I just won a short game I was pleased with and submitted it for Computer Analysis.
I was somewhat taken aback when the Chess.com analysis computer said I had made no inaccuracies, mistakes or blunders. Nada. Zip. I can't believe that. Here's the game, with the computer analysis included. Is the analysis software buggy or am I actually improving (my slipping rating says otherwise!)?
(Aside - how come I usually get plenty of "?!"'s, some "?"'s and a few "??"'s but *never* a "!" - has the software not heard of positive criticism?)