I Can't Believe That Happened | Chess Rating Climb 1712 to 1721

Comments · 213

• S.

  @s.o.k.1393 · 4 months ago

  Chess is such a brutal game lol, I can't even blame Nelson for getting tilted off the face of the earth for losing against a 1700 rapid player playing the fools mate as a NM. When you're playing a principled opening and your opponent isn't, then you have a lot more to prove and the game is harder for you

  9

• TH

  @TheLeviathan1293 · 4 months ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR2F_igfE4I&amp;t=2536">42:16</a> I think they got into a scary position by mistake, you got into an attack with no future, blundered a piece and they spent the whole game escaping from the attack.

  37

• S.

  @s.o.k.1393 · 4 months ago

  I&apos;m a 1750 rapid player myself and I&apos;ve gonna call it here, no rice. Here&apos;s my reasoning:<br><br>-Your attacking ideas were longer-term than you thought; just because you could threaten checkmate early on didn&apos;t mean you actually had a checkmating attack. <br>-You sacrificed a piece for exactly 0 pawns just to get some checks in. Usually what justifies these sacrifices is breaking up the pawn structure around the king, but that did not happen at all.<br>-You chased the enemy king into what was essentially a defensive fianchetto position and when you sac&apos;d the piece you were not even up in development, your pieces also were not well placed, and you didn&apos;t have any advanced pawns. Your positional justification was that the opponent had an inactive rook in the corner, well, in that case you&apos;re just &quot;up&quot; the exchange temporarily and the rook supports the a pawn anyway.<br>-The fact that white was able to waste time with Nh3 Bg2 Qg1, human moves but inaccuracies, and get away with it proves that your attack was not actually strong. The opponent did not defend well you just didn&apos;t have anything. <br>-The opponent&apos;s endgame technique was horrendous and they blundered a completely winning endgame into a draw<br><br>TLDR: you didn&apos;t actually have an attack and the opponent didn&apos;t even have to find precise moves to defend

  55

• VI

  @vitahast · 4 months ago (edited)

  first game was a miracle that the position was not lost. also, weird that opponent with a lot of time didn&apos;t force you to find the saving continuation but maybe they were tunnel visioned on trading pieces to reduce the pressure on their position instead of playing for the win. i wonder also if they have just started chess in the last couple of months when they joined the site or if they were already a strong player.<br><br>I think the second game was likely to be legit. I think this is just a thing where players in this rating range will go for hope chess traps or tactics that they have not properly calculated. In this case it worked out for them because you didn&apos;t find the refutation and then there were a series of top moves they found but a lot of them were where they had no real option.

  14

• VP

  @vPegasus · 4 months ago

  Is this the return of the “Blunders Rating Climb”??

  22

• AL

  @alexandermcfarlane7609 · 4 months ago

  Thanks a lot Nelson I recently made it to 1200 thanks to your instructive videos, been watching you for almost a year now and I’ve learnt a lot I’m coming from 600 elo, keep up the good work man

  12

• TH

  @themorosov7 · 4 months ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR2F_igfE4I&amp;t=880">14:40</a> &quot;Okay, so they defend&quot; - That was a free bishop

  37

• SY

  @sylentknyte · 4 months ago (edited)

  I think the game against Onndra was totally legit. 1700s can lock in and play really good games. They also made a number of mistakes and their Blitz and Bullet ratings are consistent with their Rapid level. It was just a really weird game that took you out of your comfort zone and the opponent played better.

  75

• 97

  @979O · 4 months ago

  u can check if ur up material under every players name...saves time

  7

• RC

  @RCB-j5f · 4 months ago (edited)

  &quot;What&apos;s up guys welcome to Peter Patzer Rating Climb.&quot; Goated Line

  33

• BI

  @biscottone3357 · 2 months ago (edited)

  Onndra game was really awesome to see. He was able to bring his king to safety with somewhat an easy plan and then carefully enough convert a material advantage. Honestly I love how aggressive nelson is, but sometime it can back fire at this rating in rapid. But in this particular game I feel like he was reacting too much instead of continue being aggressive and keep creating threats after sacrificing a piece. Really cool seeing such a strong player make recognizable mistakes. Even by a 1300 hundred like me. 1700-1800 player a no joke, I can&apos;t imagine the amount of time invested. And I understand why nelson need to try to rationalize a loss from a person lower rated. In classic they would have no chance but 10 minutes is really hard to not have deep calculation holes in our vision. 2000 fide still have a lot of them. Understanding and intuition are different things. I recently started to play some blitz, which I was avoiding because I didn&apos;t want to build bed habits. But actually was really useful in making me aware of my lack of vision in certain aspects of my game. Ones in a while is see worth it to play faster games, it can direct you in the kind of puzzle you really need to develop vision. Love you nelson. Sorry for the length of the comments but went I do is usually a disorganized stream of consciousness.

  1

• PE

  @petrie911 · 4 months ago

  Man, I would be totally incapable of playing f3 g4. It&apos;s got that feeling like when you stand at the edge of a cliff and look down.

  14