GM Blunders twice in a match againsnt an 1400

fruitcakes101 wrote:
Cruiseylee78 wrote:

Tornado has just copied and pasted that from a prev comment lol. And its incorrect as Fruitcakes explained. Dear oh dear.  People dont try and look more than 1 move ahead.  ;)

Dear oh dear.... whats wrong with Qf5 NxB defends queen???? queen takes queen, Knight finishes queen trade???

I think this deserves a dear oh dear oh dear oh dear lol. I agree wwith you and you still dont get it. Oh dear lol.


I only see one blunder, and a very one sided game.

Not that GMs take online games as seriously as the games they earn their titles with...

Anyway as others pointed out you woudln't be a piece up or anything, it'd be an endgame and very hard to win considering the rating difference.


Here, having a slight advantage, I played 23...Rxc3?? and suddenly realized with horror that I lose a piece for nothing by simple means. At first I considered resigning on the spot, but nevertheless, went on playing a piece down, and won the game rather easily... Tongue Out


Hate to break it to you but 2300 isn't even GM in real life.  Maybe get a 2800 (internet scale of course) and up and you can claim so. 


When I was beginner strength an expert blundered his queen against me in a club game... he kept playing and I eventually lost  : /


Guys I made this forum to show you that a GM blundered not to show you that I could have beaten him me a pawn up I have no chance of beating him I realise that. But why the blunder against an 1400 is it over confidence?? I am sure he wouldn't do this to another 2000 rated player.. "" thinking process"" I can beat this 1400 fairly easy"" oops I blundered"" later u asked him about it and he got angry with me I am quoting " can u say something meaningful for once"" I don't like chatting on and he left the chat.... Would I be angry if I blundered against a 700 rated player??


Pfren, exactly: It can be a pain in the ass to win up a piece against someone higher rated. Imagine how wrong your resignation would have been there (oh perhaps I mis-spoke; it's probably not very nice to win, and chess players are all about being nice...).

BudBoomer wrote:

and its not "an" 1400 is english youre second language?

Oh, the irony!


pfren - it may be simple means to you but I can't find how white ends up winning a piece. Could you please explain this to me?


I think the point is that after 24 Qxc3, black can try to take his own rook with 24...Nxb1, but since black's queen is attacked, 25 Qd3 (25 Qc2 may run into 25...Na3) gets out of the attack and attacks the knight, and his threat on the queen stands, so it seems black can't save his queen and knight at the same time.

Although now I realize that black could also try 24...Qxe4, but again white can try to get his pieces out of the attack so that he can take the one he is threatening -- 25 Re1, and unless black can find some reason to deter white from taking on a3, I think white finally wins the piece. He could try 25...Nb1, but again this only temporarily gets black out of his problems. After 26 Qc1, black's queen is still attacked, and the knight is double attacked.


Ok guys this shows anybody can have a good game??? what do you think my chances are against an NM rated 2400???? Well i am up a pawn in i think endgame then i am going to take another pawn but i mousleslip. how do you think this is going to end if i didnt mouslip?

hessmaster wrote:
Randomemory wrote:

*time to untrack from hessmaster's nonsense*

I am not nonsense!!!!!

Why do you not just admit that you didn't see 19...Nxd3, it happens to everybody! Trying to advocate 18.Ne5 as anything else than a blunder is ridiculous.


Don't sell him short.

hessmaster wrote

I did see nxd3 white still wins with it

Explain to us, how exactly does white still win after ....nxd3.