Well it seems as if you were just outplayed on top of a few mistakes, which isn't a good combination. Something i've noticed about computers, if you make a mistake, they will devour your soul and laugh about it later. I hate computers...
In which a chess program clobbers a poor high school student.
Sort:
you miss 9.Bxh7+ Kxh7 10.Ng5+ Kg8 11.Qxg4, after this your up a pawn and should win with out to much trouble.
I have a cheesy chess program on my phone that I can barely beat at novice difficulty. Most of the time when I play a computer I don't take the same amount of time nor the consideration that I do when I play a (suspected) human opponent.
You just didn't calculate the combinations accurately enough. Spend more time looking at variations during the game and you won't blunder material. That's a patience thing.
If you are losing because you don't have a strong enough understanding of positional play... well, the solution presents itself. Study up.
What program is this? Before trying to beat it, test its strength against a few other computers. If, from the testing, you find that the computer plays at a level 1000 points stronger than yourself, then there's really no quick solution -- you'll just have to let yourself improve before challenging it.
1) First try the chess.com computer on "Hard" (http://www.chess.com/play/computer.html)
2) If chess.com gets whooped, try Jester on level 10 (http://www.ludochess.com/jester_eng/jester_eng.html)
3) If Jester gets slaughtered, try the Shredder online computer on "Hard" (http://www.shredderchess.com/play-chess-online.html).
I practice against these computers, so I've a pretty good estimate of their playing strength. I'd say chess.com on "Hard" is about 1500-1600. Jester is probably 1800-1900. Shredder online on "Hard" is around master level.
Get an estimate on the computer's playing strength, and compare that to your own strength, then see if it's realistic to try to beat it.
Thanks for the input. I think a big part of my losses stems from my impatience--I usually try to finish games in the fifteen minutes or so that I can play. Lately I have been taking my time and I have noticed some improvement: in my latest game, I am now up a queen (although black managed to build a very comfortable pawn fortress...).
19. Qxf8+??
19. Qh3
Also, I think another problem is that the bishop sac was unsound and had no guaranteed mate or material return, if it were me I'd never make a sac against a computer when I can't see a forced win ahead (or material win).
In my high school's talented and gifted room, there is an eight-year old Macintosh computer. It has played against dozens of students (and a few teachers) in hundreds of games, all but a relatively nonexistent few being on the easiest difficulty setting. And it has never. Lost. Once. Granted, none of the challengers were tournament players or anything, but they weren't exactly inept, either. No matter what, the end result is the same. The games aren't even close; each one ends in a blowout.
I resolved to beat the computer by the end of this semester. After researching the weaknesses of the typical chess program (the horizon effect, etc.), I stumbled upon the Stonewall Attack. Oddly enough, the Mac program shows all the symptoms of being unprepared for the Stonewall, but I still lose. Below is a typical game. What exactly am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.