Finally I beat OpenTal, BUT...

[BrendanJNorman]

Difficult to become a strong player with this attitude.

Tell me about it! At lichess I had to abandon my beloved incremental games because they don't play tournaments with it, so I had to stick to 10+0 time controls, and lost 100 rating points

A win is a win, only when your opponent puts up resistance and succumbs regardless - due to your superior play!

At my level, victories like those are very rare...

More and more it feels like I don't win any of my games, it's my opponents that lose them with some random blunder that they would have made against anybody else

Let me show you my strongest win of the week, against a 1900+ something player (my shown rating is Classic Provisional, but I actually Berserked and turned this into a 10+0)

[pgn][Site "https://lichess.org/d3K4nM7u"]
[Date "2018.01.12"]
[Round "-"]
[White "How2lose"]
[Black "Ovyron"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2018.01.12"]
[UTCTime "22:45:48"]
[WhiteElo "1941"]
[BlackElo "1577"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-38"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+74"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "1200+10"]
[ECO "A38"]
[Opening "English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Duchamp Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Event "Classical Shield Arena"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. d3 { A38 English Opening: Symmetrical Variation, Duchamp Variation } b6 8. a3 Rb8 9. b3 Bb7 10. Bb2 a6 11. e4 d6 12. Qc2 e5 13. Nd5 Nd4 14. Nxd4 Nxd5 15. Nf3 Ne7 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. Rfe1 b5 18. Nd2 Nc6 19. f4 Nd4 20. Qc1 bxc4 21. bxc4 Bc6 22. fxe5 Bxe5 23. Bxd4 Bxd4+ 24. Kh1 Bb2 25. Qc2 Bxa3 26. Ra1 Bb2 27. Rxa6 Be5 28. Nf3 Rb2 29. Rxc6 Qxc6 30. Nxe5 Rxc2 31. Nxc6 Re8 32. e5 f6 33. Bd5+ Kh8 34. e6 Kg7 35. Ra1 Rd2 36. Ra7+ Kh6 37. e7 Re2 38. Bf7 Rc8 39. Nd8 Rb8 40. Rb7 Ra8 41. Rb1 Rxe7 42. Bxg6 hxg6 43. Nc6 Rc7 44. Rb6 Ra3 45. Nd8 Rxd3 46. Kg2 Rd7 47. Ne6 Rc3 48. Rb8 Rxc4 49. h4 Rc2+ 50. Kh3 Re2 51. Nf4 Ree7 52. Rf8 Kg7 53. Rc8 Kf7 54. Rh8 Kg7 55. Rc8 g5 56. hxg5 fxg5 57. Nd5 Rf7 58. Kg4 Kg6 59. Rg8+ Rg7 60. Rf8 Kh6 61. Rf6+ Rg6 62. Rf5 Ra7 63. Rf8 Ra4+ 64. Kh3 Kg7 65. Rd8 c4 66. Rd7+ Kh6 67. Ne7 Re6 68. Nf5+ Kg6 69. g4 c3 70. Rg7+ Kf6 71. Rc7 Ra3 72. Nh6 c2+ 73. Kg2 Re2+ 74. Kf1 Rae3 75. Ng8+ Kg6 { White resigns. } 0-1[/pgn]

30...Rxc2?? is a game losing blunder, I should have lost or resigned after that, or something.

But then they play 40.Rb7??, allowing 40...Ra8 that threatens mate, and the rest is history.

A true win shows a different graph, where one gains small advantages until they're overwhelming and wins, by superior play, but my wins look like big zig zags with blunders by me and the opponent. Like, the penultimate blunderer loses!

But these last blunders that allow me to win don't really look different from mouse slips or wins on time because my opponent didn't pay attention to the clocks. So at this level I'll celebrate those as well.

Seems to me like you played too cautiously - especially against his relatively unambitious opening.

Wouldn't 10...d5 have equalized almost right away instead of 10...a6?! - the ...a6/...Rb8/...b5 plan seems a bit strange when you've already spent a tempo on ...b6, and if that wasn't your intention, then ...a6 makes no sense anyway - he isn't threatening to invade b5.

Seems a little bit like the common case of both sides doing their own thing, regardless of what the opponent does.

Breaking free of this and playing actively against weak opening play, is a very fast way to jump to 1800+.

[Ovyron]

Seems to me like you played too cautiously

Well, this is the new me. The old me would play like this:

[pgn][Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/GCgWOzqA"]
[Date "2017.06.25"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Ovyron"]
[Black "cstrong"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2017.06.25"]
[UTCTime "21:25:06"]
[WhiteElo "1687"]
[BlackElo "1750"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+12"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-13"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "360+3"]
[ECO "C41"]
[Opening "Philidor Defense: Bird Gambit"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 { C41 Philidor Defense: Bird Gambit } dxc3 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Ng5 c2 7. Bxf7+ Ke7 8. Qxc2 h6 9. e5 hxg5 10. exf6+ Kxf7 11. Bxg5 gxf6 12. Be3 Nc6 13. Nc3 d5 14. O-O-O Be6 15. Qb3 Na5 16. Qb5 Nc4 17. Nxd5 Nxe3 18. Nxe3 Bd6 19. Qxb7 Rb8 20. Qxa7 Qe7 21. a3 Be5 22. Rd2 Ra8 23. Qb7 Rhb8 24. Qe4 Qc5+ 25. Rc2 Bxb2+ 26. Kd1 Rd8+ 27. Ke1 Bc3+ 28. Ke2 Qb5+ 29. Kf3 Qh5+ 30. g4 Qh3+ 31. Ke2 Bd4 32. Rxc7+ Rd7 33. Rxd7+ Bxd7 34. Qxd4 Rd8 35. Qc4+ 1-0[/pgn]

Much more active? But the old me would never dream of beating a 1900 elo player.

I made progress when I became more cautious and waited for the opponent to blunder. And it happened more often in closed positions.

10...d5 on the other game would have opened the position and would have been suicide against the +200 elo stronger opponent, so at least, in my case, "doing my own thing" was the formula to crack down stronger opposition, otherwise, the things that worked against the 1800s would just fail every time, and I was tired of losing against the strongest ones.

This new style also caused me to lose against this 1100 elo player though o_O

[pgn][Site "https://lichess.org/3K1Eg1K7"]
[Date "2018.01.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Ovyron"]
[Black "NTD25"]
[Result "0-1"]
[UTCDate "2018.01.18"]
[UTCTime "01:24:32"]
[WhiteElo "1659"]
[BlackElo "1127"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "-23"]
[BlackRatingDiff "+30"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "D00"]
[Opening "Queen's Pawn Game"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Event "Hourly Rapid Arena"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. d4 d5 { D00 Queen's Pawn Game } 2. g3 Nc6 3. Bg2 e5 4. c3? { (0.63 → -0.44) Mistake. Best move was dxe5. } (4. dxe5 Nxe5 5. Qxd5 Qxd5 6. Bxd5 Nf6 7. Bg2 c6 8. Nc3 Bc5) 4... Bd6?! { (-0.44 → 0.42) Inaccuracy. Best move was Nf6. } (4... Nf6) 5. e3? { (0.42 → -0.72) Mistake. Best move was Bxd5. } (5. Bxd5 Nge7 6. Bg2 exd4 7. Nf3 dxc3 8. Nxc3 O-O 9. O-O Bc5 10. Bf4 Bg4 11. Qxd8 Raxd8) 5... Nf6 6. Ne2 O-O 7. O-O e4?! { (-0.60 → -0.05) Inaccuracy. Best move was Re8. } (7... Re8 8. Nd2 Bg4 9. f3 Bh5 10. e4 h6 11. Re1 dxe4 12. Nxe4) 8. b3 Bf5 9. Bb2 Qe8 10. Nd2 Qd7 11. f3 Rae8?! { (-0.75 → 0.01) Inaccuracy. Best move was exf3. } (11... exf3 12. Nxf3 Rae8 13. Nh4 Bg4 14. Qd3 Qe6 15. Bc1 Ne7 16. c4 c6 17. Nc3 g5 18. Nf3) 12. f4?? { (0.01 → -3.59) Blunder. Best move was fxe4. } (12. fxe4 Nxe4 13. Nf4 Bg4 14. Qc2 Bxf4 15. Rxf4 Ng5 16. Re1 Ne7 17. c4 h6 18. Rf2 Bh3) 12... a6? { (-3.59 → -1.24) Mistake. Best move was Ng4. } (12... Ng4 13. Qc1 Nxe3 14. Bh1 Bg4 15. Re1 Nf5 16. Nf1 h5 17. h4 b6 18. Ne3 Nxe3 19. Qxe3) 13. Kf2?? { (-1.24 → -4.37) Blunder. Best move was Nb1. } (13. Nb1 b5) 13... h6? { (-4.37 → -3.35) Mistake. Best move was Ng4+. } (13... Ng4+ 14. Kg1 Nxe3 15. Qc1 Bg4 16. Rf2 Nxg2 17. Rxg2 Bh3 18. Kh1 Qg4 19. Qf1 Ne7 20. Ng1) 14. Ke1?! { (-3.35 → -4.16) Inaccuracy. Best move was h3. } (14. h3 Bxh3 15. Bxh3 Qxh3 16. Rh1 Qg4 17. Qg1 Qg6 18. Nf1 Ne7 19. Nh2 h5 20. c4 c6) 14... Ng4 15. Rh1?? { (-4.11 → -8.71) Blunder. Best move was Qc1. } (15. Qc1 Nxe3 16. Kf2 Nxg2 17. Kxg2 Bh3+ 18. Kh1 Bxf1 19. Qxf1 Ne7 20. c4 c6 21. c5 Bc7) 15... h5?? { (-8.71 → -1.38) Blunder. Best move was Nxe3. } (15... Nxe3 16. h3 Nxd1 17. Rxd1 Bg6 18. Rh2 Qe6 19. Rc1 Ne7 20. c4 c6 21. Kf1 Nf5 22. Kg1) 16. Ng1?? { (-1.38 → -6.95) Blunder. Best move was Nf1. } (16. Nf1) 16... Nxe3 { White resigns. } 0-1[/pgn]

I just missed Bxd5, though.

[PK]

Hi Fern,

Is LucasChess using its own book? If so, can you disable it and see if the problem persists?

[BrendanJNorman]

10...d5 on the other game would have opened the position and would have been suicide against the +200 elo stronger opponent

This type of thinking will cause endless stagnation for you as a player.

I'd be going nuts if a student of mine gave such an excuse.

You need to play against the BOARD, and maintain complete objectivity.

Otherwise, you'll never develop independent (free from an engine or moving pieces) analytical power (one of the three elements of mastery, with tactical skill and positional judgement).

At least if you play ...d5 and lose due to a mistake later you can identify that mistake and fix that, but avoiding the best move because a player is 1900 (far from strong, let me tell you) is a mistake.

Play the best move regardless. Your style will guide you unconsciously, but still consciously remain completely objective.

PLAY THE BOARD!

[Henk]

Normal practice for me in human-human games. If I see my opponent is thinking long I try to move as fast as possible. Because he was thinking long he gets tired sooner or later and if he needs a break he has to use his own time.

Never think too long otherwise better resign. Saves time.

[fern]

Norman, your tone is somewhat scholarly and looks like you are giving a lesson. Perhaps you does not consider that there are many ways to see and play chess.
Not all of us are teacher of chess, just amateurs looking for a good moment, that is, winning in any way to get a kick or playing and losing with an smile without worries about how much stronger we could be doing this or that.
When I had a champion chess challenger I even tried purposely NOT to learn the weaknesses of the computer in order to keep him surprising me and useful as a tool for fun.

Ulysses is happy winning no matter what, let him do it.
Chess is just a game, Norman.
I save my efforts for my craft, for nothing else.

my best

Fern.

[fern]

No, no book at all.
This does not happens with Arena, just with Lucas thing.

Fern

[BrendanJNorman]

Norman, your tone is somewhat scholarly and looks like you are giving a lesson. Perhaps you does not consider that there are many ways to see and play chess.
Not all of us are teacher of chess, just amateurs looking for a good moment, that is, winning in any way to get a kick or playing and losing with an smile without worries about how much stronger we could be doing this or that.
When I had a champion chess challenger I even tried purposely NOT to learn the weaknesses of the computer in order to keep him surprising me and useful as a tool for fun.

Ulysses is happy winning no matter what, let him do it.
Chess is just a game, Norman.
I save my efforts for my craft, for nothing else.

my best

Fern.

My apologies Fern...

I had no intention to come across as condescending to Uly.

Only to help him to improve his game (which I thought we all strive for, despite the fun we have losing against engines! )

I guess in my ten years as a chess coach, I have grown to think that everybody wants tough truth about their play, and advice on how to improve.

This is what they pay me for afterall.

"RESULTS A.S.A.P" is the name of their game.

Perhaps for this reason I misunderstood Uly's intention for posting his games for me to see.

And I agree with you...I never try to find the "weakness" of engines either, but try to treat it like an objective human opponent.

Anyway, no condescension meant in my post buddy.

Hope that clears it up.

[fern]

Man, no apologies needed. I already know you as a decent, nice guy. I was just trying to show the great variety of chess players that are in this world. Many years ago I hired an IM to teach me something. He was a lovely guy, Carlos Jauregui, one of the few that ever defeated Fisher, game of his somewhere in the Internet. Well, in fact we faced each other with the board in between and after perhaps a couple of minutes of some chess we finished all the time telling jokes, drinking heavily and laughing as fools. as he told me anecdotes of his travels to diverse tournaments. What a good spent money!!

The really serious thing for me is music.

Listening Mozart regards
Fern

[BrendanJNorman]

Man, no apologies needed. I already know you as a decent, nice guy. I was just trying to show the great variety of chess players that are in this world. Many years ago I hired an IM to teach me something. He was a lovely guy, Carlos Jauregui, one of the few that ever defeated Fisher, game of his somewhere in the Internet. Well, in fact we faced each other with the board in between and after perhaps a couple of minutes of some chess we finished all the time telling jokes, drinking heavily and laughing as fools. as he told me anecdotes of his travels to diverse tournaments. What a good spent money!!

The really serious thing for me is music.

Listening Mozart regards
Fern

Some of my fondest memories were with 4-5 fellow chess guys of similar strength, some wine and beers, some chess equipment and a Saturday night to spare.

One doesn't need a tournament atmosphere.

That being said:

I can remember the first time I beat a 2100 player in a long time control tournament...

I was saying to a 2300 friend of mine "Oh no! I have to play (name), I'm gonna get crushed".

This 2100 opponent was on the national training squad for juniors - very sharp and experienced.

I'd seen annotated games of this guy in chess magazines.

My friend said "He's cake dude...Just play your game and enforce your will on him. Don't be scared of him...You can beat him. Just don't fall for his kiddy tricks" (the "kiddy" was the same age as me, but I was a "nobody" with a couple years experience)

With those encouraging words, I crushed the guy in what was essentially one-way traffic.

In chess, a little OVER-confidence is better than a little too much caution.

Since that day I feared no opponent, and gained hundreds of Elo points without noticing.

This was the mentality I was trying to share with Uly.

He can beat a 1900 player comfortably if he doesn't fear the guy.

Especially at quick time controls.

Fern, you as a 2000+ guy, know that the difference between a 1700 guy and a 1900 guy isn't that much.

Nothing to fear, right?

We should believe in our abilities, whether we are having fun or not.

P.S I love Mozart too!