Originally posted by exigentskyYou were not controlling that entire game.
I just played my first OTB game in the Calchess Tournament against an 1800 player and despite controlling the entire game with an edge. I blunder and lose.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. c3 Bg7 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 d5
6. e5 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bg4 8. Nc3 Nh6 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 O-O 11. Qxd5 Qxd5 12. Nxd5
Nxd4 13. Nxe7+ Kh8 14. Ba4 b5 15. Be3 bxa4 16. Bxd4 Rfe8 17. Nc ...[text shortened]... sappointing and that I think I would have played a lot better if it were a 2d computer board.
Originally posted by Shinidoki30. ... Re2+ is the blunder that loses the game. 30. ... Nd4 would have kept it close.
It seems pretty equal all the way to me -- Your attack wasn't strong enough to mate, nor was it going to win material...
all it was doing was driving the king to the centre (till you blundered), which, after a few exchanges would have been an advantage for White..
And btw what was the Blunder Re2+ or Nd2+ or both? seeing as they both lose
Originally posted by DraxusHe resigned in the face of the threat of Rd8 (and giving mate after blocks) forcing him to lose material to avoid mate.
Hold on, how did you lose? You both had equal material and your king wasn't in check. Is there some OTB rule that I don't know about?
Originally posted by DraxusOne of the things iv noticed from watch Yasser Seirawan play blitz against 1200-2000 rated players is that for a most of the game (around 20-30 moves in most cases) the play seems quite even then seemingly out of no where the lower rated player totally collapses. This could be to do with Yassers quiet style, slowly pushing his pieces around for an edge, maybe if it was a more aggressive player like Topalov the games wouldnt look even for so long.
Perhaps you thought you were controlling the game. One thing that I notice from really good players is that they so easily give me the illusion that I am in control and winning.