Is this a "quality loss" for a Beginner vs. Stockfish Level 7?

Started playing a little less than two months ago and suprisingly had a pretty good game vs. Stockfish level 7 @ lichess.  I either played WAY above my sub 1000 rating OR one would  have to assume the 2159 rating is inflated.  Probably a combination of both.

What did I do right?  When did I go wrong?

Anyone?  Anyone at all?  

Can't I get at least one reply??? 

Exchanging your b5 bishop was not the best decision I think. It allowed Stockfish to develop quicker, and pretty much free himself.

17. b3?? was a blunder, which cost you the game immediately. Simply defending the d4 pawn instead of the b2 pawn would have kept you alive, although with a bit worse position. Capturing on b2 would not have been attractive for black anyway, as Rb1 immediately wins back the b7 pawn with good play for white.

I'm familiar with Stockfish but not with "Lvl 7."  In general, if you lasted 45 moves against Stockfish that's not bad.  However, it's an unreasonable test in many ways.  If the computer is full strength, it is too strong for you in a way similar to an 18-wheel truck.  It proves nothing if you last 3 seconds against the truck...you can't test yourself that way.

If it's dumbed down by "levels," these are always defective in various ways which humans find strange.  The computer doesn't know what a human considers normal, so it may play like a Grandmaster for ten moves, hang it's queen, then go back to playing like a GM--again, you can't tell much from this even though the result might be an even score against a 1000 player.

So...just play against humans is the best way to really get a feel for anything.

As far as what you did wrong, I'd say nothing except what would be expected from a 1000 player--you got taken apart tactically.  Not much you can do about that except become a GM.  Even then, Stockfish will usually beat you.

I don't really care for the Berlin Defense (1.e4, e5; 2.Nf3, Nc6; 3.Bb5 [Spanish Game]; Nf6 [Berlin Defense]), so my commenting on the opening would be poor.  I know that you are playing a sideline (5.d4 is the more common move) but it doesn't look bad.  I don't understand h3; I would prefer Bf4 here, trying for Be5 and maybe you'll be able to drum up some k-side play later.  17.Be3 or Be5 is what I would have played, since Qxb2 is answered by Rab1 and Rxb7.  After black played Bxd4 you needed to play Be5--if Bxc3 and Bxc3 you might survive the ending with opposite-colored Bishops IF you can exchange all the Rooks.  With 19.Bxc7 you're just down a piece with no comp.  The idea of swapping the pawns after 23.c4 wasn't a bad idea--if you can swap off all pawns it's a draw--but it was too late for that.  Overall I think you played well and just missed a couple of opportunities to maintain the position--keep playing like this and you won't be a 900 player much longer.  Hope this helps!

Thanks for the replies.

17. b4 was the result of overthinking & feeling threatened, and was the first move where I went against my instincts.  Hopefully I learned from that.

What about 17. Na4,  with the goal of getting to c5?

I dont know if you could call this a "quality" loss. You lost by a lot. You figure if you play someone equal level you should win by a pawn or draw in theory. To go from a -12 materal ownage to a draw, or a 1 pawn win, could very well take 1000 more "rating points" of skill.

What is a "quality loss"? How are you supposed to determine the spread or money line?

You didnt get mated in 16, but it did seem like the game was lost after Bf4.

About a month ago I played this same computer (level 7) and got mated in 22 moves. 

That's the main reason I call it quality loss.   Obviously I improved somewhat.

Well you didnt get mated in 22, but you did "lose" by move 16.

I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to figure out exactly how one can figure out what is an "appropriate loss" relative to skill level differences.

So you're saying you got mated in 22 vs being mated in 45?

In the game you got mated in 22, where did the first blunder occur? If the blunder that caused you to be mated in 22 happened at 16, then im going to say the result here is the same.

You did last longer... but your first blunder occured at ~15 moves. Whether your got mated in 22 or 45 is irrelevant then.

Or, if in the game where you got mated in 22, your blunder happened on 21, then you actually did better that game than in this one.

See what im saying?

don't play computers. they are boring!!!

I agree.

The point is where did you make your first blunder. A game in which you made your first blunder at move 60 and you got checkmated at move 61 is far better than making your first blunder at move 5 and be checkmated at move 150 (when you are playing against engines!)

In this game my average centipawn loss was 31.  In the previous game it was 53.  Lichess says I made 2 mistakes & 1 blunder last time (in 21 moves), and 3 mistakes & 1 blunder this time.  I was even with the computer until move 10 last time, & until move 17 this time.  Nothing else to say.

Bottom line is, I like playing difficult computers once in a while in order to test myself, and also to see what very accurate chess looks like up close.