Originally posted by nimzo5If I could add to this, studying endings teaches you how to win won games.
If your goal is to get decisive games and you are 1700ish
1) Don't get fixated on openings, just avoid completely symmetrical positions. Look for opportunities to play Knight vs Bishop, minority pawn play etc.
2) Don't accept a draw, don't offer a draw. Play until naked kings.
If you can see in the middlegame that you can get to a won endgame, then the game is already decisive.
You just have to finish, which is why you should study endings.
Originally posted by RamPThis may sound simplistic, but why don't you play the opening(s) you know best, and realize most games are won in the middle and endgames😏
I have a tournament coming up and need advice so that I can get a decisive result in all the games I play (Of course, I am playing to win 😛).
1. I need an opening (like Latvian Gambit) so that the game gets into high gear from the beginning itself and doesn't end up as a draw.
2. I am a big fan of Latvian Gambit. Any Pros and Cons while playing this white/black?
Thanks in advance.
1 edit
If you are 1700-1800 on fics I would imagine it would be difficult to have a draw if you simply keep playing.
Isn`t drawing a game a bit like getting struck by lightning it could happen but seems like if one plays on its awfully unlikely.
I think drawing games isnt very related to opening but way more related to rating.
Gms draw lots of games.
Average players nearly never draw except the one in a million miracle or those earthlings who agree to a draw since they would rather go eat than continue playing.
@Greenpawn, Thanks for your advice. I am playing a lot of blitz here and have been analyzing all my games.
I keep overlooking some good opportunities.
@wormwood 🙂 Will keep your words in mind. I am focusing on my middle game now.
Thanks to all for the kind advice 🙂
Originally posted by wormwoodRelatively safe play doesn't necessarily force boring draws. Building on small positional advantages in a patient manner is often enough for the win, particularly in the end game.
drawish, safe play forces boring draws.
fearless, active risk taking forces decisive games.
nothing to do with the openings.
The name Tigran Petrosian springs to mind. From wikipedia:
"Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Nimzowitsch's idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent's offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure.[4] He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own."
Originally posted by obsesschesspetrosian & kramnik, two of the most drawish players ever.
Relatively safe play doesn't necessarily force boring draws. Building on small positional advantages in a patient manner is often enough for the win, particularly in the end game.
The name Tigran Petrosian springs to mind. From wikipedia:
"Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Nimzo ...[text shortened]... ing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own."
Originally posted by obsesschessyou rather conveniently snipped off the end of your wiki quote there. here's how it went on:
"Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Nimzowitsch's idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent's offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure.[4] He usually won by ...[text shortened]... ring the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own."
"He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own. This style of play often lead to draws, especially against other players who preferred to counterattack."
It's easy to criticize Petrosian from the armchair, but I think I would play conservative chess if I had the Soviet machine on my back. See Taimanov and Spassky as examples of what happened to losers.
Kramnik has no excuse. He lacks the willingness to risk unclear positions unless he is forced to do so.
Originally posted by nimzo5i would actually like to see Petrosians game percentage of draws, in comparison to other Masters at the time. I doubt he really did draw more games than anyone else, but I stand to be corrected.
It's easy to criticize Petrosian from the armchair, but I think I would play conservative chess if I had the Soviet machine on my back. See Taimanov and Spassky as examples of what happened to losers.
Kramnik has no excuse. He lacks the willingness to risk unclear positions unless he is forced to do so.
Originally posted by nimzo5yes but consider his over all percentage. I have read his biography by Vasiliev in which he quotes the statistics, but i cannot locate them at present. What was surprising was that Petrosian did not have a greater drawing percentage, over all, than any of his contemporaries if my memory serves me correct.
Well consider that he drew with his comrades on a regular basis....