Wow. I almost don't know what else to say, but when has that ever stopped anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2theleft
in reply to ganstaman... honestly the only thing that i was focused on was going to the next round. i'd be just as happy with a 2.5-1.5 victory than a 4-0 knockout. I dont think you could have beat me to proceed with the next round to be honest. As u can see i buckled down in game 4 a little bit after turning off youtube and stuff.
You were very close to losing this match by a wider margin than you actually won it. You had nothing to do with the mistakes I made to turn the match around in your favor, so I don't see how you can think that I didn't have a chance. You seem to be so afraid to show any weakness that you can't even give me the respect I deserve based on my play. It's a shame, really.
Still, you didn't answer my question. Down a bishop in game 1, and 1 move from being down a bishop in game 2, you still thought you were going to win?
As for game 4, are you sure you want that to be the shining example of how well you play when you "buckled down?" If I hadn't played Bh5 and then panicked, throwing away my last 23 seconds and still not seeing that h4 would hold for me, then you would have had to choose between going down the exchange or getting an uncomfortable, worse position. You should be able to achieve better against the Bird of all openings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2theleft
the points that u put out "of i had a winning position" i mean cmon, that's like saying kramnik is going to lose down a knight to an 1100 player... he has a losing position but i dont know any serious chess player who would really take the 1100 to win over kramnik.
The difference in skill level between Kramnik and an 1100 is many times greater than the difference in skill between us. And regardless, at the point in the first 3 games where you were losing by a bishop (in game 2, this would have happened with Rae1 instead of Bg5 -- just a moment of oversight as I forgot your bishop was not still pinned to your king), I would have beaten or at least drawn Kramnik. The games were very much simplified by then -- it's far different than starting the game with bishop odds.
The fact that you even make this comparison is absolutely stunning. Do you really think this highly of yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2theleft
same thing- you didnt play the correct moves for a reason, and with the time pressure and your lack of experience that is completely understandable.
Where was there time pressure on me except in game 4? I took the time when I needed to and was able to achieve a material advantage (again, in game 2 I was just a little off with it). From there, I don't need much time on the clock to convert the advantage to a victory.
As for lack of experience, what are you talking about? I've been playing for 15-20 years (seriously for like the past 10). I've saved over 1300 blitz games I've played on my computer. Sure, I haven't played serious blitz in a while, instead playing correspondence chess, but I don't know where you get that I'm inexperienced.
It's clear that you think you played well and are the superior player. You might be better than me, but these 4 games showed you getting into trouble in every single game and me letting you off the hook with a simple mistake not forced by you in anyway. This is a very dangerous way to prove superiority, and you plain and simple got lucky this time.