DON CASTI 4-0 RolldUpTrips

(fics: DONCASTI-krazyking)

Very unfair result imo. Although his lower rating he was much better in a couple of games and just blundered in time pressure. ggs

i just beat ganstaman 2.5-1.5... very very tight match. good game buddy

It's true, he let me get just close enough to think I'd have a chance.

Game 1
http://ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/show.cg...70;action=show
I pulled out the Benoni as black to start the match off on a crazy note. Seriously complicated game (for me at least). I got an extra bishop by the end, and then queened first in a K+P vs K+P endgame, but it was just a draw.

Game 2
http://ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/show.cg...56;action=show
Closed Sicilian, I blundered/"gambited" a pawn early on, but then nearly trapped black's queen. Then I thought I was winning a bishop, but it turns out I was dropping one instead. So I resigned (but I was winning before the blunder!).

Game 3
http://ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/show.cg...93;action=show
Even though the Benoni worked well enough last time, I went with a KID this time. There was some serious bluffing in this game I think. White sacrificed a knight for some well advanced, maybe connected passed pawns. I accepted and even let white get a second queen, but he had to give one back to stop checkmate. This left me with a passed pawn and good position, and I won the R+B+PPP v R+PPPP endgame.

Game 4
http://ficsgames.com/cgi-bin/show.cg...84;action=show
2theleft is up 2.5 - 1.5, but I have white, so I pull out the Bird (not quite a must-win-opening, but it can certainly be in blitz). Well, black cramped me up pretty quick. And then I got all tripped up and lost on time in a fine position.

Dang man, you were completely winning in game one, completely winning in game two (just Re1 instead of Bg5 and then after Re8 the same Bg5 crushes) and probably close to winning in game 4 if you play Bh6 instead of Bh5.

Unlucky

I can't tell if this should make me happy or sad

this post is directed to YouKnowWho

not to be an asshat, but this is blitz... 5 min t/c and i dont expect him to make the correct moves all the time. I kept a watch on the clock all the time and my opponent decided to take his time and think. anybody can point out lines later and say "oh if u made this move you'd win" but that's not how things work. Blitz is a completely different game than normal chess.

honestly i was playing on my laptop and watching youtube during every game except the last one.

so pointing out moves after the game and then posting instances where he was "completely winning" is a very dickish move. You can do that with any chessgame in history. But to start doing in-depth analysis on a casual blitz game is just ******ed.

---

also, in game 2, u were not winning before u dropped a piece... u were down a pawn with doubled pawns according to my math

...

again i apologize if this makes me sound like an a$$hole, but i dont rly think u have the right to comment on how u "were completely winning" because this is a blitz match and u should treat it as a blitz match and not a chess game. TIME is a factor in these games, and if u lose because of it, u arent completely winning.

Someone here clearly has self-confidence issues, wow.


what does this have to do with anything? I don't care if you played 5% of your ability or 99%, I am merely evaluating the position, and you were dead lost.

Um.. Thank you Mr. Obvious. The fact that blitz is a different game does not mean that we cannot take a look at it and learn from it. Maybe next time I am with my coach I will tell him "anybody can point out lines later!" when he is trying to explain something to me.

Strong desire to prove your ability I see.. You will get your chance don't worry.


yep, you can. And we do, all the time. Yet I don't remember being called a dick for that before today.

indeed, my analysis was incredibly in depth. Spent hours studying those four games with my super GM buddies!

---

Again, after Rae1 instead of Bg5 you can just resign so I am not sure what exactly are you talking about.

...

it does, but apology accepted.

I am not even sure what to say to this. Are you really sure I don't have a right to comment on the game that was played on a public server and is available to everyone? Am I disturbing your privacy or something?

And last time I checked, blitz is chess.




you are right about that, well done. Yet he had 30+ seconds + increment to win in the first game and ~1m30s to find Re1 in the second one, which is more than enough time in both instances. Sooo... you were completely lost.


[x] douchy reply
[x] he deserved it

Deal with it.

Oh and just to add a little NVG flavor:

In before ban!

(of me obviously).

Although I recognize the point you're trying to make, I would have to disagree. I feel that phrases like "completely winning" are entirely valid as objective analyses of a position. It doesn't mean you are guaranteed to win the game played from that position, particularly in a blitz game, but it can still be an accurate assessment of the position at that point in the game.

Suggesting a move and saying that it would be "crushing" also doesn't mean it would automatically lead to a win, again particularly in blitz, just that playing that move would place the game in a state in which it is objectively favorable (to a large extent) for one player. Again, a valid assessment.

In the context of postmortem analysis, I feel all the above language is fine to use. And particularly in a post like YKW's in which he was actively commiserating about the vaguaries of blitz. He was just pointing out that even though ganstaman lost the match, he could just as easily have won, and did manage to place himself in several good positions.

thanks for a reasonable reply. It is obvious that YouKnowWho is severely butthurt from my comments and i've managed to rage him quite a bit.

The point im trying to make is that pointing out better lines that my opponent could have taken is just plain stupid... especially of a blitz match. If you're trying to go back to move 15 and make a better move, why not just go back to move 12? or move 8? why not just go back to move 1?

I could easily go back to the games, do some analysis, find better moves to make, and i can do that for both sides...but it becomes a pissing match. I'm not denying that YKW's analysis is constructive, but people who point out other peoples mistakes in order to win the game are stupid as hell. Also sayin how he has 1m30 to find one move... i've spent HOURS trying to find certain moves when doing puzzles and still have no ability to come up with the correct move in certain positions.... so using that as an excuse "oh he has 1.30 to find a move" is something i'd expect of a rtard.

After the first game, i felt my opponent out and had a reasonable idea of what he was/was not capable of... and i played accordingly. I did what i had to do to go on to the next round.

For anyone else reading this forum... this is the reason why i decided to quit chess. The majority of top tier chessplayers (IM's, GM's, FMs) are bums. If you ever decide to play chess professionally YouKnowWho is the exact type of person you'd run into. Someone who has to be a smarta$$ in every goddamn situation, a know-it-all, and makes idiotic arguements that dont even make sense in order to win an arguement.

People take this game too seriously. They look down on you because u arent good at chess... but at the same time they've done NOTHING with their life aside from be mediocre @ chess.

U really are a class act YouKnowWho.

I am fairly sure I only talked about the LAST moves in both games 2 and 4, and the ENDGAME of game 1. Please "make arguments that make sense in order to win an argument" buddy

I mean can't you see that you are not making any sense? So is every post mortem analysis a pissing match? SPECIFICALLY because it was a blitz game I DID NOT do analysis of the game, instead I only evaluated the VERY END of those games. What is wrong with doing that?


Why?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. None whatsoever. What ****ing "excuse" are you talking about? YOU are using that time as an excuse, not me. YOU are saying that you WERE NOT lost in that game BECAUSE he had 1m30s remaining, despite his position is CLEARLY completely winning.


You really are a total douchebag, who is also totally delusional. "I did what I had to do to go on to the next round, such as getting outplayed and being one move from resignation in game 2 [but I knew he is going to blunder instead of winning] and losing game 3". Get real buddy.

Let's see here. You fellas play a match and post the games on the CHESS SUBFORUM where EVERYONE can see them and comment on them. I log in, look in your games, state my opinion, which YOU apparantly don't like, even though it is correct. You IMMEDIATELY respond with various insults to me, a massively long response to my 3liner with evaluations of the positions AND NOTHING ELSE. Do you see where I am going? You start the whole thing yet somehow I become a bum for responding to your ******ed post? It is not my problem if you haven't achieved anything in chess and are thus bitter at everyone higher rated than you buddy. You should be mad at yourself for that, not me.

Please, show me a single word in my first post that says something about you. PLEASE show me where I "looked down upon you" because of your chess ability, EVEN after you insulted me in your response? I was responding to your arguments, not to your chess ability...

Also, what do you know about my life to make such statements? I am indeed mediocre @ chess, yet at least I understand it and therefore I don't do it professionally anymore. You, on the other hand, clearly have some grudge in you against people who might be better than you, for no reason whatsoever. So if some 2600 would look at your game and say "hey buddy, this move is a mistake, you should have played here!" you would call him a smart-ass, know-it-all etc.?

I treat people the way they treat me, in most cases. You attacked me for no reason, you got a response. Looks like you cannot handle it, so maybe you shouldn't bite what you cannot chew?

I challenge you to find someone else on this forum who thinks I am as evil as you are trying to depict me

there are no ifs, ands, or buts in chess. there are only results. also LOL @ being "1 move away from resignation" u clearly have no clue about blitz. you'd know tat just because you're dead on the board doesnt mean u cant win on time or that your opponent cant make an even more costly mistake 1 move later.

I also believe my chess ability is better than yours (not that i have anything to
prove).

blunders are a huge part of a blitz match... suggesting moves and saying "COMPLETELY WINNING" is utterly ******ed. this isnt a 6 hour chess match. its 5 minutes blitz. sometimes it is better to sacrifice a piece, play an eventually LOSING game, but make the position so complicated/difficult for your opponent, pressure him, and win the match that way.

Sometimes you dont see the science of a blitz match. purposely playing losing positions because you know its good enough to win. a LOT of people cave under pressure. so what's to say even if i gave my opponent a winning position he'd be able to finish me off? what's to say he wouldnt go on to blunder a piece in the next move just like i did to make the position arise?

just arrange a chess match duel to the death

holy overreaction 2theleft. do you have anger management issues

Wow, if I knew this would happen, I would have just won my match...

Just to be clear, are you claiming that this is what you did? I'll give it to you in game 4, but I survived the pressure in the first 3 games and had winning positions that were not complicated. Did you really not think you were going to lose all 3 games, and why can't you give me credit for that?

Game2, if Re1, Re8, then "the same Bg5" ... so black takes with Qg5, where's the crush?

Going from memory, so I could be wrong, but:

Rae1 Re8
Bg5 Qxg5
Qxg5 Bxg5
Rxe8+ Kd7
Rxa8

and I'm up 2 rooks for a bishop and pawn.

Oh, just realized that it should be Rae1 to start, and not Re1, which could have led to the confusion.

No it was clear you meant Rae1, the confusion is that I'm a fish.

You're right of course, for some reason I thought that in the line you gave black ended up with a queen against 2 rooks, not a bishop. Just amazing how rusty one can get, I actually stared at this position for several minutes and still ...

Guys, arguing a point is fine, but insulting another poster is not. EVER. It's time for us to end this discussion/argument/debate. Any further posts in this thread that call other posters stupid, or include direct personal attacks of any other kind, will lead to bans. Make your points, but please do so respectfully.

FYP (the way this thread's going haha).

I skimmed what thingy wrote, but not gonna read all that (tl;dr)

I think he's got some point about post mortem's in blitz are kind of pointless- but that's only true if you don't use the post mortem's to your learning advantage.

In post mortem's you can often find where and why *you go wrong in the opening, and what you should have done differently.

*Recognising why you have blundered tactically is extremelly useful information to have about yourself. Is it because you were thinking about something else> A miscalculation? Next step: How can I correct my mistake?

Tactically the same thing applies. You need to know where AND WHY you went wrong tactically in order to add that to your list of arsenal for quickly calculating these sharp lines in blitz games. It's all about the patterns when it comes to tactics.

So yes you CAN use Post Mortem to your advantage, but not if you think about it in the way thingy has (the "hindsight means bull****" view). This is coming from a negative angle, and is unnecessarily trying to justify that PM's are useless because they are in hindsight.

Whilst this fact is true, it does not mean you cannot actually learn from your mistakes- in effect, during PM study, you are learning from hindsight. Doing just this means that next time you will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again.

Read some more of the bitchiness and this is what I have to say (inspirational speech following...)

The point is that we can argue about this bull**** all day and night, who's right, who's wrong, blah blah blah, but in the end, chess doesn't care.

So if you're going to argue in this manner about something like someone pointing out your mistakes, even if it was "completely winning" or whatever you think might embarrass you...well, firstly:

Go bitch in another forum. This is the CHESS forum. Not the bitch forum.

Secondly, if you can't face your mistakes in chess, even if you leave mate in one, then why are you playing chess in the first place? Have I got this all wrong or something? You made a mistake IN BLITZ, get over it! Everyone makes mistakes.

Please explain why stating that someone missed a mate in one in a blitz game is "dickish"?

If you made a mistake, that's your fault. They're just objectively stating a fact.

I doubt he meant to "rub it in" or whatever, and even if he did- that's him being childish. Set the example by not being aggrevated. And I'm sure he's made worse mistakes than that, especially in blitz, everyone has!

GTFover yourselves please and stop this nonsense

I know that way long and a bit overkill-y but hopefully that will calm things down lol

post count +4 imo

it took me a few seconds to figure this out

+1 your fault.

this is exactly what angered me.. It doesn't matter, he can be a 2600+ GM who just had a horrible day, but that does not mean that he can say all that bs straight to your face, I mean cmon.. Credit has to be given where it is due, you outplayed him, simple as that

and then he tells me that I look down upon other players if they are worse than me, after writing that stuff to you. Fantastic