Rate my elo through this game

I'm a low rated intermediate player. I'd like if any higher rated players tell me my approximate elo from this game. This is not my best game but an average game. I am rated 2150+ on puzzles but only 1510 in Rapid (recent rating drop, was 1650-1700 in rapid) reason being I often make many silly piece blunders from absolutely winning positions or equal positions and hence am not able to breach the 1800-1900 rapid barrier in chess.com. Any advice/critique on improvement in gameplay,technique,etc. is seriously appreciated and welcome

Thank You

P.S: I play the BLACK PIECES IN THIS GAME.

1500

But you might want to pick a game where your opponent actually looks like they tried. 

@IMBacon and @AZ2019chess thank you for your valuable suggestions but as I mentioned this isn't close to my best game. I focussed too much on choosing an average game that I posted a game in which my opponent didn't resist. Would you like me to attach a game where i faced more resistance  in this conversation only?

Whenever this kind of post is started, its always the same things:

A poorly played win.

No analysis.

And full of excuses as to why it was poorly played.

@IMBacon I guess you are correct no excuses I wouldn't have won and would even have been worse if my opponent had played correctly(even decently). Sorry for your time I'd keep this in my mind while posting the next time around

No worries, but learn to let the ego thing go.  If you want a serious assessment of your abilities, you need to be honest with yourself. 

Find a well played game. 

Do your own analysis.  This lets others know what your thought process is.

You played well for your rating. A little above your rating.

You can't rate your ELO--or anyone else's--through a game! That's simply not how ELO works. Your ELO rating isn't based on how much you know about chess or how clever your moves are. Your ELO is based on two things: Your opponents ratings. and your result (win, draw, or loss). If you won because your opponent hung his queen when he had mate in two, that's a win. If you played a positional masterpiece for 50 moves and then overlooked a simple knight fork, that's a loss. That's how ELO works

@Laskersnephew i get your point. I maybe wrong but there is a thing called performance elo which is closely rated to how accurate your moves are. For example Nihal Sarin who has elo of 2620 recently played the SILVER LAKE OPEN where he had a performance rating of 2800+

annotate from 5.a3 to 12...Nbd7 (at least)

@Arceusadi You're close! "performance elo" is generally a way of rating your performance in a single tournament, not a single game.  Sarin's performance rating was based on his excellent performance against a strong field.  

In any case, I suspect you're really interested in an assessment of your performance in the game you submitted, which is a very reasonable interest

Well, the first half was pretty bad, I probably would have guessed below your current rating (although I tend to think in terms of blitz, and rapid is usually higher, so maybe when adjusted for rapid I would have guessed your rating).

The second half of the game had some nice moves / tactics, but for example... you played the move 16...e5 in 3 seconds. Would I have "sacrificed" that pawn in 3 seconds knowing I had Bxh5 in the end with pressure on f2? Yes... but somehow I think you accidentally lost that pawn, then afterwards you were sad and looking for a move when suddenly you noticed 19...Bxh4 was possible.

So do I like that move? Yes. Does it make me think you're good? ... not really

Looking again at the other tactics, maybe you really saw those, so that's not bad.

The first half looked bad to me because so many pawn moves. And on move 5 you didn't capture on c4 (which is classic semi slav) plus your opponent's a3 was slow (which should have given you even more confidence to play the already natural move). On move 6 you put your bishop on possibly the worst diagonal on the board, and on move 7 you capture instead of building up pressure.

@Laskersnephew I want to know whether it'll be worth for me to pursue chess professionally ( I dream of being a titled player  not as a  livelihood obviously) or not. I don't have a coach or anything. I'm just an amateur

Its always good to have goals.  But they need to be realistic goals.  You are NEVER going to be able to play chess professionally by playing nothing but speed chess. 

Don't take my negative comments to mean you can't be a pro. Everyone starts out terrible at chess. You're not terrible right now, you're somewhere between terrible and professional

A better indication of a person's potential is how fast they improve. If you improve a few 100 rating points each year (and if you study chess in addition to playing) then you're not close to your best yet.

But if you don't improve very quickly, and you don't study from books, then you probably wont  be close to professional level.

It's safer to make an assumption e.g. that anyone rated 400 points higher than the opponent would have scored approximately 99% accuracy. This is because in the rating formula, you're expected to score ~99% when you're ~400 points higher. Ok so accuracy and performance aren't the same, but in any case assuming 2800 is required is silly.

(1472 + 400) * 0.867 = 1623

@llama47 no I didn't accidentally lose the pawn on e5. I was re-evaluating my position after the said pawn sac. I'm more of a feel player than a calculating one. I personally felt his attack was more of a pseudo attack( just merely pushing pawns, light squares were weak but no light square bishop to attack, too many defending minor pieces). I knew if I successfully defend this attack then I'd have probably won because his position was overextended and king was weak even if he long castled and somehow planted his king on c2.

According to me some of the key points in this game for me in my perspective were:

1) Exchanging the light squared bishop early: The moment he played 11.e3 i knew he was going for a king-side pawn storm and due to the semi slav structure( pawns on d5-e6) was worred about the weakening of light squares along the d3-h7 diagonal. Moreover, my light squared bishop was useless so win-win

2)His kingside pawns fell apart 15) h4.

3) After move 13)Qc2 his knight was undefended on f3 and if he removed the knight from there his f2 square became super-weak if our bishop could sit on the h4 square hence the f6-e5 pawn sac idea.

4)move 30) ng5 I wanted to bring knight into the game but was blocking my queen's protection to my bishop on h4 but he can't attack Rh2 because of Ng3 fork.

5) I played 21) Qe7 knowingly that I'd be exchange down but he shouldn't have played 21)bd6 and taken my rook. His bishop could have gone to g3 to counteract my bishop on h4 after which the attack fails.

6)Though this is a pretty basic move the move hardest for me to find was 24)Qh3 pinning the rook and preventing it from defending the f2 square

7)I saw this ne5 check to sac the knight so that i can fork the king and the rook on h4. Probably Qf2 was better as I was getting the c3 knight anyway. But i felt at that time that 2 rooks were too strong.

8) Move 32 he should have gone Kh2 instead still losing due to my army of pawns but atleast rook would not be lost he marched his king forward looking for some futuristic mating net. This is typical 1500 mentality I would have probably done the same in less time if not resign

@Llama I didn't take dxc5 as I don't know opening theory much. I play more on feel ( which is a terribly habit obviously but I'm stuck with it. In hindsight yeah i should have played dxc5 my bishop is beyond terrible on b7. I guess i exchanged bishops the next move due to my aforementioned terrible bishop.

Hmm, I guess you put a lot more thought into the game than I realized. I dislike some of your moves, but you had some good ideas.