That's not a bad game, but it was a pretty typical 1600 game. There's a decent grasp of tactics, an okay but could be much better opening, but really a lack of strategical plans and importance, when an individual eventually falters. I would have won with white from the opening playing someone around 1800 below, not because I've studied it or it was played well, but because my understanding of positions and strategy would have led me to outplay them in that weakness, blunder or not.
I also see some text at the bottom much smaller, idk where that came from but it says you only converted 1 of 3. I would argue that's another thing that 2000's have figured out, and that is how to close out endgames or win with a 0.7 advantage. That's not something learned by tactics or openings.
¨but it was a pretty typical 1600 game. There's a decent grasp of tactics, an okay but could be much better opening, but really a lack of strategical plans and importance,¨
just because white played poorly and did not know what he was doing does not mean i dont know anything about the Sicilian and cant see tactics well. observe blacks play and compare it to whites. i played that game the same way many other people who know how to play the sicilian would have.
but what really holds me back in slower games is finding a way to imbalance the game correctly and win. the only reason why i got up to around 2050-2100 on lichess was because i only played open games or things like the kings indian and dutch, which are naturally sharp
I wasn't judging your ability compared with white's, I said you played the Sicilian well, no? I made a mistake in my grammar, I wasn't judging white's and yours playing ability together. I noticed several things you might have worked on, several things that I would have played differently as both sides.
That's not a bad game, but it was a pretty typical 1600 game. There's a decent grasp of tactics, an okay but could be much better opening, but really a lack of strategical plans and importance, when an individual eventually falters. I would have won with white from the opening playing someone around 1800 below, not because I've studied it or it was played well, but because my understanding of positions and strategy would have led me to outplay them in that weakness, blunder or not.
I also see some text at the bottom much smaller, idk where that came from but it says you only converted 1 of 3. I would argue that's another thing that 2000's have figured out, and that is how to close out endgames or win with a 0.7 advantage. That's not something learned by tactics or openings.
¨but it was a pretty typical 1600 game. There's a decent grasp of tactics, an okay but could be much better opening, but really a lack of strategical plans and importance,¨
just because white played poorly and did not know what he was doing does not mean i dont know anything about the Sicilian and cant see tactics well. observe blacks play and compare it to whites. i played that game the same way many other people who know how to play the sicilian would have.
but what really holds me back in slower games is finding a way to imbalance the game correctly and win. the only reason why i got up to around 2050-2100 on lichess was because i only played open games or things like the kings indian and dutch, which are naturally sharp