I played in a classical tournament this afternoon out of the four payers I payed between them they had four inaccuracies, I mean I didn’t play terribly so shouldn’t feel too bad. I mean I had blunders but everyone is playing so damn well am I wrong in my thinking I would have to play flawless chess to stand a chance please feel free to take a look. And give opinions , please note I’m not accusing of any wrong doing I’m just a bit lost as an average amateur hobby player as to what I’m supposed to do ............ yes I know you’ll say get better anyway just a bit shocked that I didn’t stand much of a chance and would call on lichess again to make Swiss tournaments with ratings caps for 1500 , 1700 1900s and so on.......... sorry just a bit frustrated as we all get sometimes SOJB
Yes, no accusation of wrongdoing there!
@MrPushwood said in #2:
> Yes, no accusation of wrongdoing there!
Seriously I’m not accusing anyone. I’m trying to understand. Sorry if it came out wrong. I mean I had pretty good a acpl and accuracy my self in some games. So you’re saying I just got beat ..............ok sorry xxx
> Yes, no accusation of wrongdoing there!
Seriously I’m not accusing anyone. I’m trying to understand. Sorry if it came out wrong. I mean I had pretty good a acpl and accuracy my self in some games. So you’re saying I just got beat ..............ok sorry xxx
So @MrPushwood you’re saying everyone that good and that’s the level I need to be at 0,0,0, low acpl and 90%s accuracy to stand a chance ? I’m just saying everyone this good now? xxx as the title of the thread says ‘how good do I have to be?’ xxx
@SOJB said in #1:
>
1900 beat you because he had a easy possition to play against you, more difficult possition = more blunders
You simply couldn't challenge him after losing a pawn no counterplay and easy moves for him
>
1900 beat you because he had a easy possition to play against you, more difficult possition = more blunders
You simply couldn't challenge him after losing a pawn no counterplay and easy moves for him
@xDoubledragon said in #5:
> 1900 beat you because he had a easy possition to play against you, more difficult possition = more blunders
> You simply couldn't challenge him after losing a pawn no counterplay and easy moves for him
Thanks for your time and feedback
> 1900 beat you because he had a easy possition to play against you, more difficult possition = more blunders
> You simply couldn't challenge him after losing a pawn no counterplay and easy moves for him
Thanks for your time and feedback
I don't know which games you are referring to, you have played a lot of classical games. Even classical now is played with no increment? I mean, what do players have against increment? I checked a few of yours and couldn't see any where the opponent had virtually no inaccuracies.
At least there's more chance of getting a draw by the 50-move-rule now in a dead-draw but how do I manage my clock when I have no idea how long the game will last?
At least there's more chance of getting a draw by the 50-move-rule now in a dead-draw but how do I manage my clock when I have no idea how long the game will last?
Hi @SOJB , I'll try to give you some analysis of your games and your typical mistakes - but before reading them, I'd encourage you to do this step for yourselfes and only then compare your analysis with mine - at least, if you want to take the opportunity to improve your play by active learning (like I do it here atm, too).
Game 1/4:
3. ...h6. You more or less give white a tempo for free. This is too much prophylaxis for no reason.
Remember: 1 tempo can win games! Simply playing 3. ...Nf6 would have given you the chance to castle as soon as possible. ...h6 is okay, if white needs to react to it in a way, that compensates for this tempo loss, like the following simple line: 3. ...Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 (now ...h6 makes sense, since white has to react and lose a tempo, too - and you btw. follow the lines of the heavyweights as Carlsen, Aronian, Caruana, Nakamura, and many others).
Don't get me wrong - this is not a "blunder", but it may point to something in your thinking process, that in other situations can be even more challenging/lead to even worse situations (for example disrespecting quick development).
5. ...c6. You more or less give white another tempo for free. Yes, you strenghten your centre and the position is closed, but white can already castle and you still need 2 more moves to accomplish the same, while white may develop some more pieces and sooner or later will open the position and throw an attack at you, while chances are high, that you won't be prepared (developed) for handling that attack.
Again, don't get me wrong - this is not a "blunder", but as I said before, it shows kind of a tendency to disrespect/break opening rules like quick development. The simple 5. ...Be7 or the even more active 5. ...Bb4+ would have given you the chance to keep up on development and castle the next move.
White now returned the favour and missed the opportunity to castle as early as possible with 6. 0-0, giving away a tiny bit of it's advantage. White instead played 6. Nbd2, which seems a bit passive and also blocks it's own bishop in c1. A more active square for the knight would have been c6.
6. ...Bb4. At least you develop your bishop, so that you can castle on the next move. It doesn't matter, that this is not the top engine move since white hasn't played all the strongest moves, too.
7. 0-0 White castles and is now ready for the game.
7. ...Bxd2. I couldn't believe my eyes for a moment. Even moving the bishop back to e7 (and lose another tempo) would have been a better move. Ask yourselves, why didn't you castle?
By taking the (PASSIVE and also bishop BLOCKADING) knight with your MOST ACTIVE PIECE, you solve all of white's problems in 1 go.
- White get's rid of it's opponent's most active piece
- White get's (indirectly) rid of its blockaded bishop - see my comment a few lines below, if both players would have played the best moves.
- Ironically, you almost force white into an attacking position: After 8. Nxd2 what happened is, that you helped white in the "best" way, so that he can play 9. e4! and try to open up the position, while your king is still standing in the middle of the board.
9. e4! The critical position arises. Now the moment has come to take some time (for example 5-10 minutes) to calculate the consequences of all of the sensible candidate moves - at least the following: 9. ...0-0 (followed by 10. exd5 or 10. e5), 9. ...dxe4, 9. ...Nxe4, 9. ...dxc4
Your move 9. ...e5? didn't even came to my mind. Opening up the position even more while white is on the attack and black's king is still sitting in the centre of the board just feels so wrong, without even having to calculate this line.
Yes, if both players would have played the best moves, then 9. ...Nxe4! would have kept things together: After 10. Nxe4 White now get's (indirectly) rid of its blockaded bishop (as I mentioned above) by even taking back with gain of a tempo. 10. ...dxe4 11. Bxe4 and the position is (a bit worse for black, but) still payable.
10. ...cxd5? Even here it was possible to castle out of the attack and try to somehow come up with some resistance. By taking the pawn on d5, even more lines will open up for white's attack - you basically roll out a red carpet for your opponent.
The rest of the game is more or less simple conversion of the advantage - which is a piece of cake for most 2000+ players, so I won't comment on that.
Conclusion:
- Blundering the game in less that 10 moves (critical moment on move 9)
- Disrespecting the development of pieces for pawn moves and sensless trades
- Disrespecting to castle as early as possible
- Begging the opponent to open the centre while the own king still stands in the middle of the board (while the opponent already has casteled/development lead)
=> To learn more about what I call "sensless trades" I'd encourage you to go to Youtube and watch (and afterwards APPLY!) the "to take is a mistake" series by Igor Smirnov. You must understand the dynamics of how a trade (often) worsens your position and at the same time improves the opponents. This is one of the main reasons why ppl lose and afterwards wonder why, without even "blundering" tactically...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFOv8AagFjA
So far for Game 1/4. I'll continue with my analysis later on, if you'd like to read more of that from me...?
Game 1/4:
3. ...h6. You more or less give white a tempo for free. This is too much prophylaxis for no reason.
Remember: 1 tempo can win games! Simply playing 3. ...Nf6 would have given you the chance to castle as soon as possible. ...h6 is okay, if white needs to react to it in a way, that compensates for this tempo loss, like the following simple line: 3. ...Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 (now ...h6 makes sense, since white has to react and lose a tempo, too - and you btw. follow the lines of the heavyweights as Carlsen, Aronian, Caruana, Nakamura, and many others).
Don't get me wrong - this is not a "blunder", but it may point to something in your thinking process, that in other situations can be even more challenging/lead to even worse situations (for example disrespecting quick development).
5. ...c6. You more or less give white another tempo for free. Yes, you strenghten your centre and the position is closed, but white can already castle and you still need 2 more moves to accomplish the same, while white may develop some more pieces and sooner or later will open the position and throw an attack at you, while chances are high, that you won't be prepared (developed) for handling that attack.
Again, don't get me wrong - this is not a "blunder", but as I said before, it shows kind of a tendency to disrespect/break opening rules like quick development. The simple 5. ...Be7 or the even more active 5. ...Bb4+ would have given you the chance to keep up on development and castle the next move.
White now returned the favour and missed the opportunity to castle as early as possible with 6. 0-0, giving away a tiny bit of it's advantage. White instead played 6. Nbd2, which seems a bit passive and also blocks it's own bishop in c1. A more active square for the knight would have been c6.
6. ...Bb4. At least you develop your bishop, so that you can castle on the next move. It doesn't matter, that this is not the top engine move since white hasn't played all the strongest moves, too.
7. 0-0 White castles and is now ready for the game.
7. ...Bxd2. I couldn't believe my eyes for a moment. Even moving the bishop back to e7 (and lose another tempo) would have been a better move. Ask yourselves, why didn't you castle?
By taking the (PASSIVE and also bishop BLOCKADING) knight with your MOST ACTIVE PIECE, you solve all of white's problems in 1 go.
- White get's rid of it's opponent's most active piece
- White get's (indirectly) rid of its blockaded bishop - see my comment a few lines below, if both players would have played the best moves.
- Ironically, you almost force white into an attacking position: After 8. Nxd2 what happened is, that you helped white in the "best" way, so that he can play 9. e4! and try to open up the position, while your king is still standing in the middle of the board.
9. e4! The critical position arises. Now the moment has come to take some time (for example 5-10 minutes) to calculate the consequences of all of the sensible candidate moves - at least the following: 9. ...0-0 (followed by 10. exd5 or 10. e5), 9. ...dxe4, 9. ...Nxe4, 9. ...dxc4
Your move 9. ...e5? didn't even came to my mind. Opening up the position even more while white is on the attack and black's king is still sitting in the centre of the board just feels so wrong, without even having to calculate this line.
Yes, if both players would have played the best moves, then 9. ...Nxe4! would have kept things together: After 10. Nxe4 White now get's (indirectly) rid of its blockaded bishop (as I mentioned above) by even taking back with gain of a tempo. 10. ...dxe4 11. Bxe4 and the position is (a bit worse for black, but) still payable.
10. ...cxd5? Even here it was possible to castle out of the attack and try to somehow come up with some resistance. By taking the pawn on d5, even more lines will open up for white's attack - you basically roll out a red carpet for your opponent.
The rest of the game is more or less simple conversion of the advantage - which is a piece of cake for most 2000+ players, so I won't comment on that.
Conclusion:
- Blundering the game in less that 10 moves (critical moment on move 9)
- Disrespecting the development of pieces for pawn moves and sensless trades
- Disrespecting to castle as early as possible
- Begging the opponent to open the centre while the own king still stands in the middle of the board (while the opponent already has casteled/development lead)
=> To learn more about what I call "sensless trades" I'd encourage you to go to Youtube and watch (and afterwards APPLY!) the "to take is a mistake" series by Igor Smirnov. You must understand the dynamics of how a trade (often) worsens your position and at the same time improves the opponents. This is one of the main reasons why ppl lose and afterwards wonder why, without even "blundering" tactically...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFOv8AagFjA
So far for Game 1/4. I'll continue with my analysis later on, if you'd like to read more of that from me...?
Thankyou @derkleineJo very interesting read and helpful thankyou for taking the time and effort, brilliant
ChatGPT, How good does @SOJB have to be these days?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.