your thoughts on this statement...

"your not at the level where an opening surprise would fool you (or hurt your game)." This makes some sense, but then again, if the surprise isn't good, it shouldn't matter the level, you should just be able to "play chess" and beat it, correct? Unless your opponent really out prepped you and prepared your responses as well, in which case playing strength still shouldn't matter, right? Just pondering this.

And for completeness, here's the game after which my very friendly opponent said this. There was no dis-respect in the statement, I just wanted to see what others thought as to its correctness.

I am Black ( and won the game). He played 4.d5, playing a gambit in the caro-kann. My opponent is rated 400 points higher than me. This is an OTB game.

Hi

Not too sure what the statement means. Is it a compliment?

Anyway, 15.Rxc5 taking the undoubled pawn was his best
drawing chance.

Interesting gambit idea but wasting tempo pushing the pawn
kind of knocks the wind out of it.

The best gambits are where you leave the pawn/piece
on it's original square so you get the extra tempo.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi

Not too sure what the statement means. Is it a compliment?

Anyway, 15.Rxc5 taking the undoubled pawn was his best
drawing chance.

Interesting gambit idea but wasting tempo pushing the pawn
kind of knocks the wind out of it.

The best gambits are where you leave the pawn/piece
on it's original square so you get the extra tempo.

Hi greenpawn!

I think he was basically trying to say that an opening "surprise" like that would have more effect on a stronger player who has played the caro-kann for years, than myself who is an intermediate player with 1.5 years of playing the caro. I'm just trying to analyze the statement to see if it has merit. It wasn't necessarily a compliment, but wasn't meant as a put-down either. Perhaps it was just an excuse for him losing!!! 🙂

As you stated, it was an interesting gambit idea, but I don't think the best. I think 4.f3 is the better idea for white playing a gambit (the blackmar-deimer I believe). It's double-edged, but can be very tricky playing OTB for black.

Yes, 15.Rxc5 is what we both decided was better in post-mortem, and actually the move I thought he was going to play during the game. I didn't even calculate him taking the e-pawn with the knight!

If you don't mind me asking, what was your rating and what was his at the time of this OTB game?

I wonder if he prepared that opening or if he just has an idea and decided to try it.

Was this statement made by any chance by a fat and obnoxious 571 lbs player on this site?

Originally posted by chesskid001
If you don't mind me asking, what was your rating and what was his at the time of this OTB game?

Response to the 3 people above:

1. OTB Rating: mine a little above 1300, his 1730.

2. I don't think he had it prepared, probably just an idea to try out.

3. No, it wasn't a 500-pound player from this site 🙂

Well first of all, let me say that for a 1300 you played extremely well. If someone were to show me that game, I would've guess black was at least 1600, if not better than that. In my humble opinion, I believe his comment was a bit of an insult; people tend to act that way when they lose to to players lower then them. I mean, it was clear that he was disrespecting you throughout the game; after he traded the second pair of rooks, any 1700 would know it was dead lost, and he did not resign after you queened.

Originally posted by passedpawn22
Response to the 3 people above:

1. OTB Rating: mine a little above 1300, his 1730.

2. I don't think he had it prepared, probably just an idea to try out.

3. No, it wasn't a 500-pound player from this site 🙂

Well you shouldn't try your own gambits without analysing some lines a bit unless you can get at least three tempi (for a pawn) or that plus an attack for a knight... And its usually no good to gambit a bishop except on f7 but that's not usually a gambit idea. These are just general though and its up to you to decide what you should do.

Originally posted by chesskid001
Well first of all, let me say that for a 1300 you played extremely well. If someone were to show me that game, I would've guess black was at least 1600, if not better than that. In my humble opinion, I believe his comment was a bit of an insult; people tend to act that way when they lose to to players lower then them. I mean, it was clear that he was dis ...[text shortened]... d pair of rooks, any 1700 would know it was dead lost, and he did not resign after you queened.

Chesskid....thanks a million for the compliment! A few people have told me the same thing, that I'm under-rated and play much higher. A few reasons for this....I started playing seriously (at the club) about a year and a half ago, not knowing much at all about strategy and even tactics but wanted to start playing again since I played some when I was younger. My second provisional game I lost to the lowest rated player at the club, rated 500!!!!! So my provisional rateing tanked to 150! As I kept learning and playing it slowly crept back up, but I think my knowledge of the game has increased must faster than my rating because I just don't get to play that many rated games. The highest rated player I've beaten was 1800, and then this win from a 1700. It's strange because I'll beat some higher rated players, and then blunder and lose to a 1200!

I'm just trying to improve and have fun, and stay competitive! I like the challenge. I'm 28 years old now, and my lifetime chess goal is to someday hit class A (1800). I've already won a 1st place class prize at our biggest local tournament, so life is good! :-)

I don't think it was meant to be insulting, maybe just an excuse. I was just contemplating if it makes sense, if opening surprises hinder stronger players more than weaker, but I guess that depends on how well each is prepared, and how well each plays when they have to think for themselves.

Aim higher than class A! As a class A player myself, I remember languishing in the 1100s and thinking I would never get higher than 1400. I am now about 1900, and based on your play, I think if you play tournaments frequently and do occasional study and analyze your games, you could hit class A in a year, year and a half, two at most. Be a little more ambitious! Go for expert, or even master! 🙂

Originally posted by chesskid001
Aim higher than class A! As a class A player myself, I remember languishing in the 1100s and thinking I would never get higher than 1400. I am now about 1900, and based on your play, I think if you play tournaments frequently and do occasional study and analyze your games, you could hit class A in a year, year and a half, two at most. Be a little more ambitious! Go for expert, or even master! 🙂

Wow...you made my day! Thanks chesskid!