Was I Playing A Master

Originally posted in "Game Analysis" forum, but with no responses...

Yesterday I played in a 15/10 live tournament, and I lost what I thought was a close game that I decided to analyze (using Stockfish) to see how I might improve.  I was surprised to see that 21 of my opponent's 28 moves were the #1 choice of Stockfish, including 17 of his last 18!  Of his 7 moves that weren't the best, 3 were 2nd best, 1 was 3rd best, 2 were 4th best, and 1 was 5th best.

https://www.chess.com/live/game/1391067290

Although I lost, I feel pretty good, since my opponent played what I believe to be close to a Master-level game.  Of course maybe he played so well simply because I made a lot of bad moves and it was easy for him (or any other player at his level) to exploit them.

Any higher-level players who might give me a more objective perspective?

I am surprised that chess.com moderators haven't removed this thread since you are accusing your opponent of cheating. (They probably will.)

The last bit was really accurate. Hard to believe only a 1000 rating. If it were a blitz game I'd be more sure. Hard to say in a game like this unless the tactics are really outstanding. These were good, but impossible for a 1000? I'm not so sure (you could answer that better than me).

The only time one game convinces me they're a cheat is if every move were the #1 choice of an engine.

Just to point out, the OP isn't accusing his opponent of cheating. He merely stated that his opponent played a game at what he believes to be master level. 

I am NOT trying to accuse the player of cheating.  I am just trying to determine if I played well against a very good player, or if I played well against a player who made great moves simply because my moves were so poor that they were easy to exploit.  Nothing more.

In short, I don't want to think I played well if I really didn't.  Does that make sense?

I thought you played well above your rating for most of the game too.

9.Ba4 seems to argue that the a2-g8 diagonal is better than te b1-h7 diagonal, but I disagree. 9.Bd3 is not only faster, but is centralized and in terms of kingside pressure h7 is more vulnerable than f7.

14.Rad1 is interesting, and the computer agrees with what I had in mind (16.Bxf6 followed by 17.Qe4 when black will have to suffer many tempo losses if he wants to both defend d4 and finish development... i.e. white can pick up the d4 pawn).

I suspect though that you simply overlooked that 14...cxd could be played because the way you followed up you're just a pawn down with a slightly worse structure.

You seem to have broken down on moves 20-22 though, playing purely for cheap tricks. It sucks to be in a worse position, but just like early in the game you have to prioritize piece activity. You want pieces on safe squares where they influence the center (or can be safely posted in the center). Qd3 is generally not stable because Rd8 at some point. Also a battery on the open file will tend to trade pieces which you don't want when a down in material. More blatant is 22.Nd2 which deactivates a piece simply hoping for checkmate (and missing the threat on f2). An easy example of a good move is 22.Nd4 or 22.Bd4 (centralization / piece activity even in defense).

Notice your opponent didn't have to find the best follow up to take on f2. 23...Rd8 with Nxd2 to follow is an easy way to keep the extra material. Also 25...Bh4 to hang on to extra material is not hard to spot. If both players were required to see to the end of the game to know capturing on f2 was possible, then I'd say ok, it's not your fault.

But again, I think you played surprisingly well for your rating. If I can only pick on a few moves out of a whole game that's really good in my book! :)

Not explicitly but it's clearly implied when he wonders how a 1059 happened to play 17 out of 18 moves in line with the computer's first choice...

Can someone analyze my last 5 or 10 blitz games. I believe I'm really better than a 1400 player...

I agree that he wondered how a 1059 played so well, but I thought he was accusing them of playing at a much higher level than their rating, not of using an engine. 

I appreciate your comments, and I'm encouraged.  Thank you for taking the time to take a closer look at the game, and at offering some sound recommendations.

Which program are you using?

It´s the "Let´s Check" feature in Deep Fritz 14, the engine that I used for that was Stockfish.

Thanks, luckily I can run that. :)

If you are asking me, I'm using Lucas Chess with Stockfish 6 set at 10.0 seconds duration.

I was actually interested in the Engine/Game Correlation feature in that window on the post to which I replied.

Okay, the image in your post is on perpetual "loading", so I didn't see that.

To get the "Engine Correlation", tick the box that says something like "All Text Comments" (in the "Let´s Check" advanced settings).

Your opponent is ranked 1,000.

He is not that great.

The reason you lost this game was because you had the misfortune of running into your opponents home preparation.

The line with 3.Nc3 is actually the mainline of the French Defense.

Thus, your opponent played one of his prepared pet lines against you.

Rubinstein Variation/Blackburne Defense

I plan on writing an article on one of the sub variations of the Rubinstein.

I will show you the engine review of your game which shows your mistakes.

Engine Review:

As you can see you made some error's which cost you this game.

You could of had him.