You just joined. You have no rating here. There is no basis for believing that you are an 1800.
Why don't you give your name and your opponent's names? Without names, dates, tournament locations, etc., this could be a win against your toaster.
Beating a (weak?!) master!
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Ciabatta_USA wrote:
Good for you. Dude first of all I think that you should calm down. As a serious chess player you are you shouldn't get annoyed over someone over the internet saying you are not a 1800, because that's childish. I think this guy doubted you because that master made some moves a 2300+ player would never make. But my guess is that you were playing in a blitz tournament and they couldn't think clearly, because that is not a masters play. Also welcome to the club!
notmtwain wrote:
You just joined. You have no rating here. There is no basis for believing that you are an 1800.
Why don't you give your name and your opponent's names? Without names, dates, tournament locations, etc., this could be a win against your toaster.
If you an issue with the way I presented my tournament game, don't post here. I'm not sure why you'd care enough to question whether or not I'm 1800. If you can't trust my word and respect my right to remain anonymous, you should find something more fulfilling to do with your time than poke through posts you don't even care about and accuse serious chess players like myself of lying about my opponent being a master. Maybe you ought to stop wasting your time and go study chess properly for once, instead of posting useless comments like this, and replying to my game analysis post by sending computer analysis when that was the one thing I specifically said not to post. And if it matters to you, I'll play some more blitz games on this website and reach 1900+ in blitz. Maybe 2350+ in tactics trainer as well, because those are things I've done under a different account name that I no longer use.
Ciabatta_USA wrote:
Here's a recent USCF tournament game of mine against a master (~2200). My rating is 1800. Questions/comments/criticism are also welcome.
I agree with your assessment that 5.g3 is dubious, the idea is not bad in and of itself but the knight on c3 is badly misplaced in that structure which is the source of a lot of his problems because d4 and e5 both collapsed as they frequently do in the French, of course. He needed to play d4 earlier and have his queen on f4 in my opinion, because the maintenance of the e5 pawn is of great importance. ...Qc7! is a good move I think, if you play ...a6 immediately it's not nearly as good because he can put rook on e1 of course. After white plays Kf1 I believe that black is clearly better. Nc5-a4 is a good maneuver, it's amusing that e4 is not a super effective square for the knight. I agree that Ba5-c7 is a better idea. As you showed, 16. Ng5 Qa7 17. Qh5 h6 is good for black- white's attack amounts to nothing, although I suppose he can retreat the knight to h3 then to f4 maybe and try to sac on h6 to weaken your position. The Nxb4-c2-xa1 idea is very nice, I think that it's just so clearly better for black that it's not worth looking at after that point to be truthful.
Nice game- out of curiosity was he an older guy with a 2200 floor? He didn't play exceptionally well for his rating, and you punished him for it.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Aug 14, 2017
0
#7
Actually, NMs or 2200s are very capable of playing this badly as white, especially if they aren't taking you that seriously, being an 1800. Especially someone with a 2200 floor, so I'm personally not too suspicious of the ratings.
Only a 2200 floor would play this badly, though. I know plenty of old guys with 2200 ratings who play 1800-2000 strength chess, if not worse. I can easily believe this is a real game.
Aug 15, 2017
0
#9
notmtwain wrote:
You just joined. You have no rating here. There is no basis for believing that you are an 1800.
Why don't you give your name and your opponent's names? Without names, dates, tournament locations, etc., this could be a win against your toaster.
A very aggressive language on your part. Why should he reveal his identity? He has asked the advice of others, not this verbal quarrel. Calm it down, dude. 
Resident_King wrote:
Ciabatta_USA wrote:
notmtwain wrote:
You just joined. You have no rating here. There is no basis for believing that you are an 1800.
Why don't you give your name and your opponent's names? Without names, dates, tournament locations, etc., this could be a win against your toaster.
If you an issue with the way I presented my tournament game, don't post here. I'm not sure why you'd care enough to question whether or not I'm 1800. If you can't trust my word and respect my right to remain anonymous, you should find something more fulfilling to do with your time than poke through posts you don't even care about and accuse serious chess players like myself of lying about my opponent being a master. Maybe you ought to stop wasting your time and go study chess properly for once, instead of posting useless comments like this, and replying to my game analysis post by sending computer analysis when that was the one thing I specifically said not to post. And if it matters to you, I'll play some more blitz games on this website and reach 1900+ in blitz. Maybe 2350+ in tactics trainer as well, because those are things I've done under a different account name that I no longer use.
Good for you. Dude first of all I think that you should calm down. As a serious chess player you are you shouldn't get annoyed over someone over the internet saying you are not a 1800, because that's childish. I think this guy doubted you because that master made some moves a 2300+ player would never make. But my guess is that you were playing in a blitz tournament and they couldn't think clearly, because that is not a masters play. Also welcome to the club!
Thanks Resident_King! You're right, I shouldn't be overly annoyed. I apologize for that but am still not satisfied with some of the aggressive posting my members here.
CoachGunnar, first of all thanks for the comments. My feeling throughout the game was that white's attack with Ng5/Qh5 would be slower than my queenside play, so I wasn't afraid. And I completely agree with what you said about ...Ne4 being surprisingly useless at whichever point in the game.
To clear everything up, this was not a blitz game. It was an OTB classical game and my opponent was an older guy, yes. I'm not sure if he's at his floor but he probably is considering that he's usually in the lower 2200's. Either on his floor or just a weak 2200.
Cherub_Enjel is right with what he said - they can play poorly like this, and I believe he did underestimate me. He defeated me as white not too long ago in an exchange Ruy Lopez.
What was the time control? Btw Ciabatta, didn't you IM John Bartholomew before?
ImNotBadUrBadNowiCri wrote:
What was the time control? Btw Ciabatta, didn't you IM John Bartholomew before?
What about IM Bartholomew? I've never played or met him. Please clarify, thanks.
lucaB2008 wrote:
did he resign?
Yes
Here's a recent USCF tournament game of mine against a master (~2200). My rating is 1800. Questions/comments/criticism are also welcome.