@kunsoo said
@mchill
But why am I losing to this player and only this player, while other people at my rating level are beating the person? And why are there players at my level whom I seem to beat at a higher rate than the others. For most of the players at my rating level, the record is pretty close to even. What accounts for the anomalies?
Without seeing the specifics it is difficult to be certain but there may be some reasons not directly related to the positions on the board. If your opponent is actually a stronger player than the rating displayed suggests but carries a high game load it may mean that they make generally sound moves but lose stupidly every so often when their rapid style play unravels. Similarly a weaker player with a just a few games in progress who analyses carefully may well post a rating higher than their actual objective strength. And that's before we get to anyone who suddenly loses games when their rating threatens to push up their tournament entry rating and other nefarious practices. When facing a stronger player with a weak rating they may just play an accurate sensible opening, make generally solid moves, keep tempo and wait for you lose your way and win in the endgame. Other's go for a gambit that gives them a lead in tempo and development that may be difficult to face if you don't defend with the best moves. If you get a good position once in a while they may not pay sufficient attention, lose the game with a sigh, and make up the rating point deficit in other games.
All I can say for certain is that you and I have played four games here. It appears the first two have been archived and we can't see the moves. As for the second two the opening choice is irrelevant as it was a Gambit Fantasy thematic opening. I can't remember if either you or I or both were blitzing or not but it looks as if we exchanged on average a move a day. There is evidence in the games that neither of us were particularly tactically accurate which suggests that neither of us were analysing very deeply. In your white game you fell to pieces after losing the exchange to version of a well known tactical theme despite you playing the known antidote. Your king was stuck in the centre and you never recovered. The other game was better but you missed a simple pawn capture which would have equalised, preferring a weaking pawn move that also lost a valuable tempo. This was followed shortly after by a pawn loss on the queenside which left you with additional pawn weaknesses that you couldn't defend in the endgame. So it's the usual thing of losing tempos, allowing weaknesses, and missing tactical shots for both sides, but if you were feeding the baby, watching TV or cracking off a move in each of your 100 games before going to bed then fair enough, and the relevant lifestyle changes are in order if you want to improve your rating. If you don't know what a pawn weakness looks like or how an opponent might engineer the position to exploit it without letting you have a look in then mchill's non specific training advice may have a point. I've always felt, and I'm no expert, that you gain more from trying to understand what it was you didn't see, or why your mind wandered off down the wrong track by going through your own games rather than this attempt to reduce the game to subliminal pattern recognition that may stifle individual creativity and problem solving ability. If you don't have a good memory then it makes sense to me not to train so as to over rely on it. Your head eventually goes to mush and you end up not knowing what's going on.