I played a player much better than me, can someone point out some of the big errors I made?
You were doing really well until you missed that pin on move 13 that would have won you his queen. It's easy to miss those moves in blitz games.
Also, alarms should be going off in your head when an enemy queen or rook is pointing down the file at your king. When the pawn in front of your king can't capture, that is basically an invitation for tactics and mating threats.
Also, alarms should be going off in your head when an enemy queen or rook is pointing down the file at your king. When the pawn in front of your king can't capture, that is basically an invitation for tactics and mating threats.
First off:
I want to point out this game is a PERFECT example on one of the reasons why I say the rating system here at lichess is completely broken.
You lost the game. Dramatically. But you gained rating points just because you played a 1900 rating. Thats stupid.
I too have gained 75+ rating points from losing a game.
That shouldnt happen.
Anyway on to your question:
Im no GM. But Im better than my rating suggests (as puzzles + ZH might show) So I'll do my best to lead you in the right direction.
Move 4. Would of been more pragmatic to take that Knight instead of Moving your bishop.
If you did take it this would force him to take it with the B7 Pawn. If he uses D7 Pawn you could take his queen with your queen and check his king and his king takes your queen; which puts him in a precarious situation.
So he uses B7 instead. Now you have options. Like moving a bishop D3 or Queen F3 or Queen H5.
I'd probably do H5 in that situation as it would put his C5 Bishop in jeopardy causing him to move forward queens pawn which youd take and hed take with his pawn then you can check with white bishop and have him in a real pickle.
I really cant get into all your mistakes; as this first one (imo) was the most damaging; as it set up the bad position you got into for the rest of the game.
Go into the game analysis and preform one of the suggests it gives you for later moves. After doing what it suggests; it will then proceed to suggest moves to you for Black/White showing you how the game will proceed (if the player would make the best possible responses; or put in your own moves for them or you and see what happens to the suggests )
Hope this helps a little.
I want to point out this game is a PERFECT example on one of the reasons why I say the rating system here at lichess is completely broken.
You lost the game. Dramatically. But you gained rating points just because you played a 1900 rating. Thats stupid.
I too have gained 75+ rating points from losing a game.
That shouldnt happen.
Anyway on to your question:
Im no GM. But Im better than my rating suggests (as puzzles + ZH might show) So I'll do my best to lead you in the right direction.
Move 4. Would of been more pragmatic to take that Knight instead of Moving your bishop.
If you did take it this would force him to take it with the B7 Pawn. If he uses D7 Pawn you could take his queen with your queen and check his king and his king takes your queen; which puts him in a precarious situation.
So he uses B7 instead. Now you have options. Like moving a bishop D3 or Queen F3 or Queen H5.
I'd probably do H5 in that situation as it would put his C5 Bishop in jeopardy causing him to move forward queens pawn which youd take and hed take with his pawn then you can check with white bishop and have him in a real pickle.
I really cant get into all your mistakes; as this first one (imo) was the most damaging; as it set up the bad position you got into for the rest of the game.
Go into the game analysis and preform one of the suggests it gives you for later moves. After doing what it suggests; it will then proceed to suggest moves to you for Black/White showing you how the game will proceed (if the player would make the best possible responses; or put in your own moves for them or you and see what happens to the suggests )
Hope this helps a little.
Your 5 Be3 was OK. If you take 5 Nxc6 he has the intermediate move 5...Qf6 threatening mate at f2 and allowing 6...Qxc6.
You could win his queen with 13 Bh5.
17 Qd1 loses the game: you should defend with 17 Qg3.
You played the opening well, but you missed tactics in the middle game.
You could win his queen with 13 Bh5.
17 Qd1 loses the game: you should defend with 17 Qg3.
You played the opening well, but you missed tactics in the middle game.
I agree with tpr.
Be3 is not a mistake. It protects both d4 and f2 by developing a piece. That's totally reasonable. In fact, up until move 12, you are at least equal, if not a bit better (due to your strong center).
13 Bxf5 and 17 Qd1 are two big blunders, obviously, and turn the game from a 1-0 to a 0-1.
I'm not too happy with 15 d5 either. 15...Bxh3 already is a possibility right there. Lucky that he didn't play that. Even without his threat, d5 is much stronger after a preparatory Re1 (indirectly attacking his uncastled king).
An alternative to Qf3-g3 is to simply play 16 Kh2, moving out of the pin and thereby almost immediately neutralizing his threat. With 15...c5, he has blocked in his dark-squared bishop for at least a couple of moves, so your king is pretty safe on the dark squares for now (your own dark-squared bishop is nearby, too, and can help protect the h2-b8 diagonal against his queen). Did you consider this move?
Oh, and btw, aside from your two blunders (versus his own one, 12...f5), he didn't play that much better than you, as the rating difference would have suggested. Take some hope from that. :)
Be3 is not a mistake. It protects both d4 and f2 by developing a piece. That's totally reasonable. In fact, up until move 12, you are at least equal, if not a bit better (due to your strong center).
13 Bxf5 and 17 Qd1 are two big blunders, obviously, and turn the game from a 1-0 to a 0-1.
I'm not too happy with 15 d5 either. 15...Bxh3 already is a possibility right there. Lucky that he didn't play that. Even without his threat, d5 is much stronger after a preparatory Re1 (indirectly attacking his uncastled king).
An alternative to Qf3-g3 is to simply play 16 Kh2, moving out of the pin and thereby almost immediately neutralizing his threat. With 15...c5, he has blocked in his dark-squared bishop for at least a couple of moves, so your king is pretty safe on the dark squares for now (your own dark-squared bishop is nearby, too, and can help protect the h2-b8 diagonal against his queen). Did you consider this move?
Oh, and btw, aside from your two blunders (versus his own one, 12...f5), he didn't play that much better than you, as the rating difference would have suggested. Take some hope from that. :)
@breakreign What are you talking about, he didn't win rating.
Besides Glicko is proven to work better than e.g. "normal" Elo (plus experiments verify that it indeed does)
Would be curious to see that game you mentioned with +75 after losing, I can't think of a scenario where that would happen.
As for the game: Tactics! As mentioned above 13.Bh5 wins the queen and later you let him do tactics against you. I think simply by playing or possibly by doing tactics puzzles here you should become better at those over time in which case you can very well win such games. :)
Besides Glicko is proven to work better than e.g. "normal" Elo (plus experiments verify that it indeed does)
Would be curious to see that game you mentioned with +75 after losing, I can't think of a scenario where that would happen.
As for the game: Tactics! As mentioned above 13.Bh5 wins the queen and later you let him do tactics against you. I think simply by playing or possibly by doing tactics puzzles here you should become better at those over time in which case you can very well win such games. :)
@MoistvonLipwig
Yes; he did. Or at least; thats the same symbol (+ sign with a minus sign) I received when I got positive ratings on a loss.
I'll find the game I was talking about whenever I feel like going through my games looking for it. It was in a tournament; that much I remember for sure.
Pretty sure it was Crazyhouse.
I'll post it here when I find it; or message u or somethin. Or; I'll just share the next time it happens in a game to me (or someone else I see) as I see it quite frequently.
Yes; he did. Or at least; thats the same symbol (+ sign with a minus sign) I received when I got positive ratings on a loss.
I'll find the game I was talking about whenever I feel like going through my games looking for it. It was in a tournament; that much I remember for sure.
Pretty sure it was Crazyhouse.
I'll post it here when I find it; or message u or somethin. Or; I'll just share the next time it happens in a game to me (or someone else I see) as I see it quite frequently.
@MoistvonLipwig
K Still hunting for the exact one I was talking about, but came across this one which makes for a decent example:
lichess.org/tournament/j523rS9T
Review this guys games:
@vahidalipour
Game #1 he won winning 14RPs Game #3 he won with 17RPs.
Game #7 he Lost losing 3 RPs
Game #8 he lost losing 3 Rps.
Game #10 he Lost losing 10 RPs.
He Lost All Other Games receiving +_ signs for each. 14+17-10 = 21. Thats 5 Losses with +_ signs (only way you can tell exactly what happened each game is if you were in the tournament and looked at his name after each one. The # showing now is the final rating increase after the end of the tourny.
Okay so anyway:
+17+14 = +31 Rating Point Increase from Wins
-3 + -3 + -13 = -16 RP Decrease from Losses not counting +_
Thats a increase of 15.
As you see now however he actually got 17 Rating Point Increase instead of 15.
This means; he received POSITIVE rating points for 7 losses in a row; gaining the increase from the +_ losses. Would of been a substantial increase from losses had he not lost RPs from people rated close to him on Games 7/8/10 where he lost the 16 Points.
I also gained 2 Rating Points this tournament despite the fact that I won against two people rated way lower than me and lost 3 games to people higher.
You most often see this happening in tournaments.
Long story short: Do you see what I mean?
I'll still look for the huge increase I got that one time; but it might of been in a tourny where other games offset it but I'll look.
K Still hunting for the exact one I was talking about, but came across this one which makes for a decent example:
lichess.org/tournament/j523rS9T
Review this guys games:
@vahidalipour
Game #1 he won winning 14RPs Game #3 he won with 17RPs.
Game #7 he Lost losing 3 RPs
Game #8 he lost losing 3 Rps.
Game #10 he Lost losing 10 RPs.
He Lost All Other Games receiving +_ signs for each. 14+17-10 = 21. Thats 5 Losses with +_ signs (only way you can tell exactly what happened each game is if you were in the tournament and looked at his name after each one. The # showing now is the final rating increase after the end of the tourny.
Okay so anyway:
+17+14 = +31 Rating Point Increase from Wins
-3 + -3 + -13 = -16 RP Decrease from Losses not counting +_
Thats a increase of 15.
As you see now however he actually got 17 Rating Point Increase instead of 15.
This means; he received POSITIVE rating points for 7 losses in a row; gaining the increase from the +_ losses. Would of been a substantial increase from losses had he not lost RPs from people rated close to him on Games 7/8/10 where he lost the 16 Points.
I also gained 2 Rating Points this tournament despite the fact that I won against two people rated way lower than me and lost 3 games to people higher.
You most often see this happening in tournaments.
Long story short: Do you see what I mean?
I'll still look for the huge increase I got that one time; but it might of been in a tourny where other games offset it but I'll look.
@breakreign
Ratings were unchanged for that game. It's possible you've seen some strange behavior in other games, but this game is not an example of the phenomenon you're describing :)
Also, in that other example, his win against H_Sadah in that tourney shows +19, not +17.
Ratings were unchanged for that game. It's possible you've seen some strange behavior in other games, but this game is not an example of the phenomenon you're describing :)
Also, in that other example, his win against H_Sadah in that tourney shows +19, not +17.
@a_pleasant_illusion Well dag nabbit. All that page changing and typing out figures and I misread one simple figure that changes everything. Now he ended up with a 0 gain/loss from 5 losses. Thats still silly. But I'll find a real example and post it when I can; assuming I didnt dream it all up in a hallucinogenic chess induced stupor.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.