How to Defeat a Chess Expert...

Here's my advice on how to defeat an expert strength rated chess player based on a recent game where I used the strategy to win.

The advice is simple.

Just make a sum of ZERO mistakes and then wait for your opponent to make a mistake that you can capitalize on to win.

Enjoy!

You said zero mistakes but already blundered a pawn in the opening?

Thanks for your question. :) We can't learn if we don't ask. The answer is no. The pawn was a sacrifice in exchange for a lead in development as compensation (therefore not a mistake) and if you run the game through a computer that's at least grandmaster strength, it should also show you that there were ZERO mistakes on my end.

I had the diamond member Chess.com computer (Grandmaster strength) analyze it and it confirmed I made ZERO mistakes.

No, my opponent resigned immediately after I captured his rook, being a piece down.

Sorry but Chess.com computer is utter rubbish and no, that sac was not sound.

Bu where is the compensation for your pawn? Its not only that you were a pawn down but white also had the better position. If course at the end you played good but obviously your opponent just blundered a rook...

And to the chess.com analysis: The chess.com computer doesnt call these pawn blunders mistakes. It calls them inaccuraties. And I am sure it doesnt said zero inaccuraties.

Maybe you need a stronger engine. I just ran your game through Fritz and it had plenty of suggestions:

BTW - This is not meant to take anything away from you. You DID beat someone with a posted rating 400 points above you. Congrats on that.

For those of you who couldn't understand the point of the pawn sac in exchange for a lead in development, I have annotated the diagram above that shows the point.

For those who suggest a stronger than grandmaster level computer is needed for more suggestions, even those "suggestions" are not the same as mistakes.

This is the game showcase forum where I have successfully showcased a game of mine where the computer that is stronger than you has proven I have made ZERO mistakes.

I am not interested in your desires to try to "bring me down a notch" or to try to prove the grandmaster strength computer wrong or any other such pettiness.

So if you appreciate the game, Enjoy! That's who I posted it for.

If you are only a hater or find yourself with bitter feelings, then this level of play is not for you and you may excuse yourself from my showcase.

Although keenly aware of the more base of human nature, it is my desire to believe for the best in you and that you are one of those who can appreciate the game instead of giving in to the base desires of petty envy or strife. For those who are mature enough to handle it, this is for you. And thank you.

Thank you sir.

I don't think anyone is without appreciation for the game.

But what you are calling mistakes, are actually blunders. There is a difference, although the line is a bit fuzzy.

The analaysis I posted is far from master strength. The alternate moves it shows are, generally, the strongest moves it could find. If you did not make the strongest move possible, then, you may have made a mistake. And if you go back and look at the alternate lines, you will see there were some really good moves you overlooked.

Agreed

The thing is, I made zero blunders and zero mistakes.

I did, however, make one (and only one) what could be considered an inaccuracy.

But it wasn't the pawn sacrifice for activity. That was actually something I needed to build up for the double attack on the pawn and rook which ultimately resulted in my opponent's blunder.

So to recap:

My play contained: Zero Blunders and Zero Mistakes.

I will share the grandmaster strength computer analysis here so there are no more doubts:

Not a bad game, but basically your opponent just dropped a rook for no reason. I don't think you can count on that happening very often.

I do agree with your premise though. Simple, unrelenting, solid moves throughout an entire game can be an amateur opponent's worst nightmare.

Wow.Nice arrogance.To give you an example of how utterly rubbish and trash chess.com computer is..In one game of myn,where there were 2 moves which mated in 1 it showed one move as mate and the other move a mistake!Lol.

I understand what you mean about how the computer can be questionable on some things, like calling 1...c5 an inaccuracy when it's accepted theory, but there's really no need to come at me with "arrogance" and all that judgemental stuff. Keep calm and Enjoy! 

Why do you feel offended? We are just trying to give you tips. By the way... Could you please answer my last post?

Dr, I understand where you're coming from with that, but the truth is, there is really a bit more to the story than just my opponent making a blunder.

Before I initiated the exchanges, his rook was protected by the queen.

My strategy was to lure the queen from off the back rank with the series of exchanges and then double attack the rook and pawn.

If you look at it closely, you'll see he moved his knight on the move before the rook was captured.

Now why would he do that when it protected his rook?

Exactly. To protect the pawn.

Because of the unexpected series of exchanges I initiated, he hadn't considered that when he recaptured, he left his rook undefended and so as a result, he was thinking only the pawn was under attack with the rook still defended.

Only, the rook wasn't still defended.

So the strategy worked.

Not just a simple blunder when you know the "why" behind it.

Hi Till, I am not offended at all. I am not asking for any tips. I already answered your last post.

Look in the diagram in the first post.

If you read the annotation I provided for you, it shows you the compensation for the pawn in the lead of development it gave me after he wasted tempos capturing my pawn with the bishop he moved so many times.

It's a very subtle strategy, but one that indeed gave me a lead in development after I forced the exchange of bishops.