I think both players played really well in this game. Little surprised Kamus did not offer the St G gambit move order.

Thanks Pobble- a few blunders, as usual but better than some other games I played in this tournament at least. Yes 1...a6 instead of 1...e6 does preclude the possibility of going into the gambit line (1.e4 a6 2.d5 a6 3. c4 b5!? 4. cxb5 axb5 5. Bxb5 Bb7) I like that line a lot but for some reason very few people played 3.c4 against me when I played that move order. Lately I've adopted Miles move order for two reasons: psychologically, 1...a6 seems to be more provocative and "inspires" White to either not take it seriously or to try and blow me off the board in an attempt at outright refutation. The opening may have weaknesses but it has not yet been refuted so that often works out for me. The other reason is that it avoids this line: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 3. Nf3 b5 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O c5 6. c3 Nf6 where 7.Re1 is a real pain in the arse and the starting position of more than a few painful losses for me.

This game though adds to my already big (undeserved) plus score with the St. George. It's pretty astounding considering there are definitely lines where White can get an advantage, albeit a modest one, but for some reason White players tend to get discombobulated when playing against it. The odd thing is that I generally do very well against the St. George when I'm White. Of course, since I know the best lines, I have something of an advantage there too, I guess.

Thanks for watching and commenting!

Hey, nice vid! I like how you say something like, I might be totally lost, I don't know, after a move.

Well I went up a pawn after move 16, but really I had not idea what to do on move 17, I wanted to exchange of the bishops, but I had not seen those rooks moves at all. Though after 19. ... Rb8, I had 20. Qxe5 which was winning...

Just shows how I totally crumble under pressure :/ but I guess that is the weakness of weak players?

Generally the play ( not the players ) of low rated players, just looks weird and even psychotic. In this game I had no problem understanding the logic behind all both players moves. Why? Because the moves made sense. Yes, a computer will point out tactical mistakes. Run an engine over an average GM game and the engine will point out plenty of tactical mistakes even there. Your game had a nice ' flow '. Take a compliment guys when you get one! This is chess after all, and mostly you will just get criticism from everybody ( to help ).

@Kamus I agree about Re1 and that d-pawn push. Basman himself got crushed too many times and ran away from this opening in it's purest form. Now even he will only enter it from the ' Pudding bowl ' move order.

Yeah well thank you, I do really appreciate your praises!

It is just that I get really annoyed with myself, when I lose. And beat myself up about, which is something I am/should work(ing) on.

I played a weekend congress as a bairn and lost all my games. I cried for days. Years later I also used to get annoyed about a poor result, and it still effected me for too long. Today - results do not effect me at all. Poor moves by me, when I play them, do annoy me. My focus is not to repeat that same mistake! The result of a game is not in my own control, only the standard of my own play.

Thanks Pobble- your criticisms, both positive and negative, are always much appreciated. I like the "pudding bowl" allusion- it made me LOL.

I hope I will be able to achieve the same mentality towards the game as you describe here.

Also, always good to hear that even masters were mere pawns once