A logical forcing followup might be: 28. Kh2 Nxd2 29. Nxd2 Qxe2 30. Qg6 Rf5 31. Bxf5 exf5 32. e6 Qxe6 33. Qxe6 Bxe6, and Black is decidely ahead, with nothing but a painful finish for White ... However, if I'm rated 900 points higher than my opponent, I might have played on to see whether you could find any of this. If you did, I might consider resigning and thinking that you're really not a 900 player but something much stronger.
How did i win this? I dont get it!
Sort:
Apr 19, 2009
0
#2
Apr 19, 2009
0
#3
It wasn't totally lost considering the grading difference. After 28 Kh2 Qxe2 then 29 Qg6 forces black to lose his Rook for a Bishop by Rf5 to prevent a mating sequence with Qh7 (#).
On the other hand there are other ways for black to take even greater advantage than just capturing the Knight with Queen and even after losing his Rook black would still have a strong advantage.
I don't understand why white got into this position though, looked like a lot of pointless moves to me, and some moves which were hopeful more than anything with the Queen. I actually quite like the way you built up the position here as black and destroyed the white position, you played better than your grade here without a doubt. 
Well done.
Why didn't you play 25... Qf1+ right away?
Should've played 22. ...Bh4
22. ...Bh4 23. Qe2 Bf2+ 24. Kh1 Bxd4
you also could have won a piece on 25.
25 ...Qf1+ 26. Kh2 Qxe2
15... Ndxe5 wins a pawn. (16. dxe5 Qb6+)
22... Nc6 is a bit iffy. As has been said above, Bh4 was probably better, although 23. g3 would mean that you don't get a lot out of it.
Also as Slack says, 25... Qh1+ grabs the hanging knight right off. Luckily, the possibility exists later. (25. Ne2? is an odd move for a 1750 player... perhaps he was underestimating you!)
26... Kh8? If your opponent had played correctly, 27. Nf4 would have lost you at least a pawn. (27... Rc8 28. Ng6+ Kg8 29. Nxe7+ Nxe7 30. Bxh6)
Its odd that your opponent resigned after 27... Qh1+. At worst, he was going to have a rook for two bishops. Perhaps he didn't see the correct continuation! (Something he did more than once...)
shotokun16
Here's the reason why you won: YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T UPDATED YOUR RATING IN A WHILE, AS IT WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST TOURNAMENT YOU PLAYED IN A WHILE, AND YOUR PERFORMANCE RATING IS MUCH HIGHER THAN 900.
I'm assuming the other games you lost were pretty close. Your play strength is probably around 1700-1800. And if I were White and I was playing against a high Class B or low Class A player and I was down a piece, it's a no-brainer to resign. Even Anand and Topalov couldn't do anything with White's position after Qf1+
Michael is fairly new to tournament chess and had a poor evening. He drew a 1600, lost to a 1500, drew a 1200, lost to 1350, then lost to a 900. After the first few games he should've realized something was wrong and probably should've withdrawn. You scalped a big one. Congratulations on a good game and a well-deserved upset victory. :)
likesforests wrote:
Michael is fairly new to tournament chess and had a poor evening. He drew a 1600, lost to a 1500, drew a 1200, lost to 1350, then lost to a 900. After the first few games he should've realized something was wrong and probably should've withdrawn. You scalped a big one. Congratulations on a good game and a well-deserved upset victory. :)
Poor guy! 
Out of interest, where did you find that out?!
Nytik, I live nearby. 
yeah he was pretty strong i just got really lucky i guess. Tell michael that if he plays d4 i would of cried. Might i say a nice gentelman too we were laughing at the opponents next to us when the kid couldnt stop sneezing. And the kids opponent stopped the clock because his sneezing was distracting him. lol.
Hydroxide wrote:
Why didn't you play 25... Qf1+ right away?
No doubt. But I think that since that move never came, it was such a surprise later on, and by then the "quiet queen" had become "invisible" to your opponent. Good job!
883 is clearly an inaccurate rating.
likesforests wrote:
Michael is fairly new to tournament chess and had a poor evening. He drew a 1600, lost to a 1500, drew a 1200, lost to 1350, then lost to a 900. After the first few games he should've realized something was wrong and probably should've withdrawn. You scalped a big one. Congratulations on a good game and a well-deserved upset victory. :)
It sounds like people in San Francisco don't play much tournament chess. We have the same problem in Hawaii. There's only a small amount of tournament regulars, and for a lot of them, their current ratings are pretty similar to the ratings they had when they all first started out. They all keep getting better, and most of them have a play-strength of 1400-2000, but their current USCF ratings are really poor, like 1100-1300. The reason is that they keep beating each other up, and you can never get to 1600-1800 when you're constantly winning and losing games to 1100-1300 rated players.
After winning one tournament, my USCF rating, which is probably still provisional, is 1553. I'm sure if all my opponents' ratings reflected their true ability, I would probably be rated 100-200 points higher.
I don't think anyone who has a rating of 1700+ is new to tournament chess at all. What is more likely is that all his opponent's are relatively new to tournament chess, i.e. they played in one tournament, got their 900-1500 rating, and stopped entering tournaments for a while. It's difficult to carve out 1-2 days in your schedule where all you do is play extremely strenuous chess for 8 hours/day. They kept playing online and OTB, and they entered this tournament with low ratings but much higher skills, and gave the USCF ratings system a beating.
Therefore, shotokun16's upset was really much of an upset. You see his Live rating is like 1650, so he's at least that or more in extended time controls. Just like I don't consider an 9-seed beating an 8-seed or 10-seed beating a 7-seed an upset, a 1650-1850 beating a 1750 doesn't sound that farfetched to me.
you played quite well that game. I think you deserve a rating better than 900ish.
kco wrote:
what does this mean ? 90'+30"/40+15'+30"
Fritz 10 did that. I was copying the game and forgot to remove that and plugged in it through the PGN file
Apr 20, 2009
0
#18
oh i see but still what does it mean ? and what was the time control in that tournament you were talking about ?
g/45 i set my clock for 40 with a 5 second delay. There were two IMs in this tournament i believe--a very interesting field of players.
Well this game took place in San Francisco at the famous Mechanics Institute Chess club. The tournament was called the 9th annual Imre Konig tournament and i was one of the lowest rated palyers in the tournament (USCF 977) my first round was a forfiet, secound round i played the Queens gambit against a 1850...lost that, third round--lost to a 1750 by playing the slav, fourth round i lost to a kid in the 1658 range by playing the english incorrectly and i won my last round who was rated 1802. For some reason i do not why i won the last game. He was playing white and i played the French. Here is the game: