how nice to see your visit here! I confess your comment compelled me to read back what I had written to double check I had in no way said anything malicious or irritating, which I am glad does not seem to be the case.

I imagine it is tough to play a supposedly stronger and younger player… It does happen to me too from time to time, since there indeed are 15 years old kids with ratings in excess of 2300 these days!

As for the game, you should not be too frustrated since you played very well – by double checking with Fritz it appears we played a surprisingly correct game. A bad move happens in time pressure…

Thank you for stopping by!

Cheers,
T.

I enjoyed reading your annotations to our game. Playing against a 2100+ rated player while being rated 1864 and being 25 years older is very challenging. To lose the game with such a horrible move was very frustrating especially so because I saw the error the instant I let go of the rook. Next time crush me in the opening! I like the quote by the recently deceased GM David Bronstein: “We should never forget that we are all one big family of chess amateurs!”

take care,
Alex

hmmm let’s see, I think if you consider the universe of people that know the rules of chess, 2100 may be 4 sigma, but if you consider only club players and above, 2100 is maybe at the 2% level. So, strong, but not exceedingly so
A 2100 player may occasionally play a correct game even against strong opposition – it happened to me a couple of times in my life. But typically, here or there a computer will spot a blunder, often two per game. Rc1 is a very bad blunder – I may have played only a dozen of such low level moves in my career – but still not impossible even at our “high” level!

Cheers,
T.

And besides Rc1 i didn’t see any funny move – well, ok, some looked funny to me but some of Kramink’s moves look funny to me as well (and i’m not talking about this very very funny Qe3…)

Cheers
Joachim

well, not a very high level – I am a 2100 player, and my opponent is probably below 2000. But indeed, Rc1 is a real howler of a move. I explain it by the pressure white had to face during the whole game – he handled it well until then.

Yes, the bishop roundabout manouver was a good one. I would have also considered freeing it on the long diagonal by pushing f4 and e5, but maybe placing the B on d5 was really the better idea. Only, W should have followed it by Ne5.

Cheers,
T.

I suppose Black would have had better practical chances in the endgame anyhow. He should manage to trade the knight against one bishop and always have the threat to create a passer on the queenside. But it’s tough, no question.

after 5.Rxb1 the position is equal – white has a bishop pair and black has solved a good part of his opening problems. True, black has the initiative from early on in the game, and this – in the hands of an attacking player as myself – is a good thing against weaker players.
After 15.Kf2 the position is still equal IMO. Fritz 8 agrees Of course, if you take into account psychological problems as well, things change hue a bit.
Timings: ok, since you ask… I always write that down in my scoresheet. So here is it: the game was 45 moves in 90 minutes.
I give below the time before each of the moves.

5.Rb1 [2.5'] Qxd5 [3']
9.f3 [18'] Bc5 [11']
11. dxe3 [29'] 0-0 [35']
14. e4 [44'] Bb4+ [43']
17. Be3 [53'] Qxc4 [47.5']
21. Nd3 [54'] b5 [55']
27. Bd4 [77'] Rc2 [70']
30.Nxc5 [-10.5'] Nxc5 [-17']
37. Bb2 [-3'] R1c2 [-14']

So overall nobody was pressed by time too much… I spent more time on the opening, when I was trying to blow white out of the board with some smart tactics that I could never start, and he spent time when we reached the queenless middlegame – I suspect he hadn’t a clue of what he had to do then.

Cheers,
T.