How to Defeat a Chess Expert...

Just to explain the difference between a mistake and a blunder: 16.Rfd1 was most probably a mistake, because it ignored the intention of black's move 15...a5 and allowed him to but some pressure on his queenside, thanks to the pin on the f1-a6 diagonal and tactical motifs on the e-file. At this point black seems to have at least some practical compensation.

Had white played 16.cxd5 instead, his position would have been between much better and winning: Extra pawn, better structure. Had white not made the inaccuracy/mistake to play 13.Bf3, and instead played 13.Nf3, his position would have been simply winning: Extra pawn, better pawn structure, thanks to the knight heading to d4 all his pieces on good squares.

Nowon the other hand, 7...e5 is a blunder, because it blunders a pawn for less than no compensation. Like the later 23.Rc1 is a blunder, because it blunders a rook for no compensation.

Hope that helps.

Simply said: When you didnt play the best move and a move that allows your opponent to get more advantage, even if it is low, you did a mistake.

Nah, it didn't help at all. I already knew I got compensation from my pawn sac with the lead in development. Instead of wasting my time with a move of the queen to protect the pawn like you suggested, I simply continued to develop at the cost of the pawn. I knew full well what it cost but also valued more what I got in return in the form of compensation. I don't think you realize that and are totally convinced that it was a blunder even when the grandmaster strength computer proved otherwise.

And that's okay. We can agree to disagree. Not everyone has to see it the same way.

But rest assured, I know full well the differences between inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders.

So, you're saying that you haven't lain low and you are a big man on campus when it comes to trolling threads...got it.

I'll give you one thing:  people are so oblivious here that it barely matters if you admit flat out that you are trolling instead of just accidently admitting it here.  They will argue on regardless because they are chess players, and dammitall, an unsound pawn sac cannot be allowed to stand!  

Makes me wonder why the trolls here go on...it can't be that rewarding.

There are still times when engines make errors. If a 5 year old child hears his parents using every curse word in the book and calls them on it, is the child wrong for doing so? Yes, an adult may hear what they say and take no issue with it. It is also undoubtable that the adult has superior understanding to that of the child. However, that doesn't mean the adults should be trusted 100% of the time over the child. Children also tend to be more pure-hearted at times than adults who tend to be more hateful and prejudiced.

The point is that just because the computer says you made no mistakes doesn't mean it's true.

Nah, I'm not saying anything that you're saying I'm saying. I'm only saying what I said I'm saying.

That's the great thing about being an individual. I alone decide what it is I say and not you.

I've often wondered why you guys go on too. Evidently you get something out of it, so more power to you.

No we can't. Simply because you are wrong and those who tell you that are right. And the move Qc2 aka Qc7 was played by the likes of Kasparov, while the move 7...e5 was played by someone who lacks the most basic of the basics of chess understanding and is unwilling to learn anything from advice and explanation by players who don't.

That's quite a leap there. Someone disagrees with you on a move and so they must automatically lack the most basic of the basics of chess understanding and is automatically unwilling to learn?

I know exactly why I made my move and it produced the result I required of it. That's good enough for me.

Remember this:

Unsolicited advice is worth no more than what is paid for it.

I didn't solicit your advice and knew you were wrong even before you typed it and proved it.

So if we can't agree to disagree, then that means you agree.

If we disagree, then it is agreed we disagree, so we agree on that too.

And I don't blame you for not accepting my challenge "masta" (and no, it's not just because I've won more games on here this week than you've ever played on this site in the history of your account. 

When a much, much stronger player deigns to give advice, the proper response is, "thank you, sir, for your time."

When I post a game to the showcase, the correct response is, "Thank you, sir!"

Anything else is just a blunder.

This is what I take issue with. If you post a game on an open forum, people have a right to analyze it, whether it's on the game analysis forum or game showcase forum. You decide to take it personally and chastise people who really just want to talk about the game. When these people respond appropriately, you simply keep up the shenanigans. It's as simple as there may be other viewpoints and other ways of looking at the position besides what you and the chess.com computer may see, but pride prevents you from discussing and understanding the game and leads you to hide behind such considerations as etiquette online. It's not bad etiquette to point out alternatives. It's not bad etiquette to suggest that there is something wrong with your viewpoints. If you post on an open forum, you bring whatever comes on yourself.

Pride is a bottomless pit and a cruel vice. I should know 

+1

Hmmm. The copywriting could do with a brush up Doug and the teamwork really needs some serious revision. Leading by example going well though. Congratulations on your lucky win.

I don't "agree to disgree" with a person who says that we are not a product of evolution, but that instead god burrowed dinosaur bones in the dirt for some fun reasons. I don't "agree to disgree" with a person who says that the moon consists of green cheese. And I certainly don't agree to disagree with a person who claims that giving away the e-pawn in the Queen's Indian Petrosian is a pawn sacrifice that offers serious compensation.

Anyway, instead of complaining that people do not praise your unconventional play, maybe you can explain us how you would have obtained any compensation after for instance 13.Nf3?

Sure, 13...Bd6

Are you serious? That certainly increases the positional advantage that white has in addition to the extra pawn. 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.cxd5 and then what? Good structure against bad structure, good bishop against bad bishop, 6 pawns against 5 pawns. Take white's b-pawn off the board and black has still a long and unpleasant fight for a draw before him.

Yes, you can defeat an Expert when he blunders a rook.  QED.

End of Story.

By the way, I think that after 13.Nf3 the only serious move is 13...c5, which at least activates the buried bishop. Of course white has a healthy extra pawn here too, but at least black's pieces are participating now.