Only Chess
04 Jul 08
04 Jul 08
1 edit
If they are a bad player, they shouldnt really be playing strong games.
I have had some losses against lower rated players that I would normally expect to beat - this one sticks out in my mind as being an especially good example.
Game 3156188
Sure, I was a bit reckless but most 1400s would not have put up such a defence against a higher rated opponent.
04 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex'a bit reckless' for letting him push the pawn? 😀 that was pure suicide.
If they are a bad player, they shouldnt really be playing strong games.
I have had some losses against lower rated players that I would normally expect to beat - this one sticks out in my mind as being an especially good example.
Game 3156188
Sure, I was a bit reckless but most 1400s would not have put up such a defence against a higher rated opponent.
his moves seem pretty straightforward to me. nothing fancy, he just cashed in the advantage you freely gave him. -I only glanced through it though...
banned? I thought the name was familiar. but wasn't it for 3c?
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI don't think he is that weak. He certainly managed to find the drawing line in Game 3278351 at a time when I was still taking it easy and expecting a win.
If they are a bad player, they shouldnt really be playing strong games.
I have had some losses against lower rated players that I would normally expect to beat - this one sticks out in my mind as being an especially good example.
Game 3156188
Sure, I was a bit reckless but most 1400s would not have put up such a defence against a higher rated opponent.
05 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI looked at this game.
If they are a bad player, they shouldnt really be playing strong games.
I have had some losses against lower rated players that I would normally expect to beat - this one sticks out in my mind as being an especially good example.
Game 3156188
Sure, I was a bit reckless but most 1400s would not have put up such a defence against a higher rated op lanced through it though...
banned? I thought the name was familiar. but wasn't it for 3c?[/b]
If THIS game is the evidence used to show "Engine Use," the real engine users have nothing to fear...
the Black formation ...c5, ...d6, ...e5 is recommended in several "Black to play and win" Sicilian books. this is a tough nut to crack. Since this is in the books marketed to c/d players, It should not be used as evidence of Engine Use.
Your 5.Nxf6 and 9.Bxe6 are weak. Standard plan against a stonewall formation is to play YOUR pieces in the holes, not swap them off. These moves both give away a Tempo.
13.d4 deserves ?? because the e-button drops AND keeps at least one extra d-panwn.
21.Re7 and 22.Rxc8+ (in speed chess) would be called a "howler." White is lost after taking the rook.
IMHO, I see absolutely NO evidence that Black used any software-based engine in this game. He played reasonable moves and took advantage of the blatent and unforced errors of his opponent.
I suspect he spent hours on each move, sweating bullets, while White spent less than 5 seconds each move. a 1400 player should be proud of this game and the 2000+ scalp he took! sad that he was banned...
by the by: what is "3c" as a banning reason???
It was an interesting game, though!
thanks for the opportunity to analyze one of your games!
the PawnRaider wishes y'all wonderful days, good salmon fishing and good chess fortune!