If I measure good/bad based on Elo performance:

Best: Neckar open in Deizisau 2005. 4.5/9 with 2184 performance

I don't remember the actual games but I remember this was the first tournament where I realised I don't need to be afraid against and actually can beat 2100+ or even 2200+ opponents. I started with a draw against 2222 and a win against 2211 and I lost only two games in the following rounds. I played really good back then.

Worst: Just a month ago at the Boeblingen Christmas open: 1.5/8 with 1782 performance

I only managed to get three draws against opponents who were on average my strength. I lost games out of the opening, in the middlegame and also one in the endgame. I remember one game especially where we played a kind of long and very sharp theoretical line and I blundered the game away two moves out of my theoretical knowledge (even though I actually knew how I should have continued). I even got a winning position in one game and blew that too (to a loss, of course). To add humiliation to the bad results, I actually got the bye in round 8. I have never been so happy when a tournament was finally over.

So many bad ones that it's hard to select a single one.

A few good ones, though:

at 2100, I made USCF master thus: beat a 1950 in the first round, drew with Sunil Weeramantry (~2300), beat another 2300 with Black, drew with Tim Taylor and beat another master to finish 4-1 for a share of second, along with Fedorowicz, amongst others.

When a borderline 2200, I started another event by beating a 2500 player with Black in under 25 moves in a Caro-Kann, Two Knights, lost to a 2400, beat a 2100, then beat the same master in the last round as in the previous event.

In a G/30 event, beat a ~1950 player in the first round, then won against four straight masters, all over 2300, to win the event.

Was always a bit better in quick play than long games.

In 1800s I think, draw 2150 as black, draw 2150 as black, beat 1950 as white, draw 2300 as black, beat 2000 as white.. with 41. e2-e4 mate. LOL.

Fischerrandom 5 0 tourney at the club, 3 masters, expert, A player, and me (~1900). 10-2 (started 10-0 and put my queen directly en prise while up 2 pieces and a pawn or 2 in the 11th game, sigh).

1st round bye (lol at being the only person under 2000 who played up in the open section, was upper 1900s at the time), Beat 2100, Beat 2300, lose to IM in tough game, draw 2100.

And two mincashes for class prizes (D and B I believe) in US opens back when they were 12 rounds. I was awful when I started, +0 =1 -15 to start my career.

Went to my original home club about 7 years after my last tournament, recognize exactly one person (who was terrible) who doesn't recognize me, play a couple of skittles games and everybody is just terrible. Maybe there was a 1600 in the room somewhere, but I wouldn't want to bet on it So they decide to do a "practice tournament" of 15 0 to get ready for the state tourney (which obviously isn't at anything resembling 15 0). It's not going to be rated. So for pairing purposes, they pull everybody's rating, ask me "Are you a USCF member?" "No." and put me in as unrated, and obviously I 5-0 it with no effort, because even random blitz occasionally is enough to keep you from dropping 500 points in real strength, and if you just don't do anything completely ******ed, 1500s and lower will just hand you the game on a platter over and over. Right after the tournament, when they're all wondering where the next Bobby Fischer came from, one of the decent regs from my original time there showed up.. and I guess he spoiled the mystery for the rest of them.

I don't have a tournament, when everything wrong, or just fine (like, I had 0,5 after a 5 games - terrible start, but I've managed to finish with 4,5/9 - wonderfull finish. But for the whole tournament that was just a bit better than expected - so its average).

But I have a terrible thing allways coming with me all the way from the day I started to play chess - I make bad plays under pressure. I usually get blown my whole tournament work with one stupid mistake, or just one terrible game

The worst story, I think, was against some young kiddo lots of years ago with big underestimation of my opp and losing the game all by myself - he just needed to stay calm and use my mistakes... After while he because quite well known in 2+2 as YouKnowWho

.... Or the game, that could be the best in my career... I get losing position, my position is gonna crack next move... and I find a wounderfull idea - I sacrifice my rook for three moves in a row in a different ways for the nice perpetual check idea... He cannot accept the sacrifice, I've managed to exhange most of the pieces without any loses... And in the end I stupidly blunder a pawn and lose the endgame :/

And of course, last year in our region championship (speed chess), in last game I need to win to be 1st or tie to be 2nd. I play against the favorite, I win a piece, getting nervous about the possibility to win... make terrible tactical decisions and blew it in the blitz final... getting "buble" 4th place

That's why I get angry at chess sometimes As I've said - no tournament where I run perfect or very bad, but too much games where I've managed to spoild everything for the whole toruney

If i had seen a queen fork in time trouble in the last round i could have made 5.5/7 at our local weekend tournament (Nordwest-Cup). But it was still probably my best tournament performance so far. I drew an IM with Black in just 13 moves despite 250 points rating difference:
http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=40246
There are advantages to actually developing the K-side The funny point is how i can meet all knight moves appropriately: Nxe6 Bxe6 and Na6 Nxa6 protecs the rook, Nd5 exd5 attacks his. He pretty much had to take the draw to avoid being significantly worse.

why can't white leave the knight on b5 and just develop another piece?

Something like a6 and b5 comes with tempo and black's development advantage assures him of the better game. Of course he can still try to outplay me from there...

When I was 10 or so I once scored 0/6-7 to a bunch of kids my age just as good as I was. Sick beat. Last tournament I've played (about a year ago) I had a performance of 1950 or so. I remember that in one of the games I drew a ~2050 in 15 moves, but used about 50 minutes while he used about 10.

then he should have taken more of his time! The only thing that matters is the result.

I thought it was how you play the game..

Or maybe just maybe.. having fun?

I have this perverse issue where my favorite games are almost always losses, in OTB or online.

A win means I successfully exploited a mistake I already knew how to exploit.

But in some losses, I play to the best of my abilities and my opponent shows me what that wasn't good enough. That's a lot more fun and interesting.

thats not what i meant dumbo. He was almost hinting that he didn't play as well as his opponent because he had to use 50 minutes whereas his opponent only used 10. Time management is PART of the game and the only thing that goes on the scorecard is the draw.

Lol. I like hearing the stories of some of the bottom boards in scholastic tournies. One of my good friends was an awful chess player when he first started out and for our school tournaments him and this one kid Rudy would always play each other in the last round cause they were both 0-3. My friend would torture this poor Rudy who was the biggest drooler ever, never checkmating him always promoting all of his pawns to really savor the victory.


My favorite tournament. 5th grade state championship. I was like 13th ranked in my grade maybe like 1450 or something.


Rounds 1 & 2 I roll through some turkeys. Round 3 - I hang a whole rook in the first ten moves somehow and make an epic comeback. Win games 4 and 5 pretty handily.

Round 6 I play this unrated kid who is 5-0. I roll him off the board. I checkmate him and he just sits there. So I don't know what to do so I call over the tournament director and ask him if its checkmate to try and get this kid to get up and the director says "yeah dude, you're done." So we head to scorer's table and he tells the scorer that he won. So after a big argument I finally get the clown to say that I won. So round 7 for all the marbles against my arch-nemesis Ben Blott ranked number 1. I am down a piece and two pawns getting worked over really bad. But he hangs his queen somehow.

Now this kid is notoroius for asking people if they'd like to resign (which is a hilarious taunt in scholastic) and I always play next to him so I have to hear it all game. So I asked him if he'd like to resign after every move I make until I finally checkmate him. And then I got a trophy bigger than me. Standard day of scholastic chess imo.

My best performance is starting out X-0 and getting a 1 point lead on field in the chicago open U1600 in 1999. Worst performance is obv losing the last round.

Best: Winning U-14 state torunament to compete in Nationals back in India.

Worst: First tournament (before I got a coach), lost all rounds except for 2 byes, lost 50% games check mated to Bc4/Bc5, Qf7/Qf2++

Oh, I forgot to mention what was probably the grossest one: when I played in the Israel U-14 (or was it 13?) top 10 got into a qualifying tournament for the world U-14 and I (of course), got 11th. Not only that, but some complete douchey moron whom I played got 10th, and I had had him beat when we played and somehow (time trouble?) he got a draw in a king and pawn ending. The sickest part was that we had the same score, and he only beat me by a few points in the secondary ranking system (you add up the score of all the players you beat or something?). So gross.

Worst lost some match 0-4 yuck!

Best probably 1993 National open rated 2088 in the Tournament 1st round beat master
2nd round,beat grandmaster 3rd round,draw master 4th round,lose to IM 5th round beat master 6th round,draw master my performance was 2500+
Here is the link to the game against Grandmaster Shamkovich.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1122624

Very nice game. It's not too often someone gets a win in less than 20 moves when they're playing a GM and outrated by 400 points.

I have always liked this game, he thought for close to an hour at the end and resigned,he was a classy guy.

That resignation is like one of those 3D puzzles for me. A long time of staring thinking "I don't see it, I don't see it, I don't see it.... OH, I see it!"

lmao

Chess is one big 3D Puzzle.

Not sure why he'd need an hour to think about it - I'm no GM and I see



in a lot less than that. Or am I missing something?

maybe he was going through the five stages of grief

i would still have looked at it at least until Rf3. Why think for ages and then resign? In fact i never resign if i have just one move available, i just move. Except of course if it's mate in one after that.

Yes pretty clear,obviously he had to come to grips with losing to a patzer.