I would say that it depends on what you want to achieve.
If you are interested in winning this particular match, then by all means go for something a little out of the ordinary. Streetfighter has a lot to say about this approach, you may be able to find some forum posts.
On the other hand, if your goal is to improve your game, then play as you would against someone of your own strength. Should you lose, analyse the loss and find where your game is below par.
When I play, I like to play the game without knowing my opponent's grade, so that I'm not influenced by it.
Phil.
Originally posted by LidanI think you should play every game as if you were playing someone much better than you.
Hey, me again with a new question.
Now this one is not about opening or anything, it's more about game strategy.
So, that's the thing.
I play in a chess club in my city, and started getting strong players to play with me lately.
Now they might not be strong to you but they're stronger then me.
Now I know that in a "regular" game, my opponent will win at a ...[text shortened]... d a knight.
(Just in case that helps you recommending an opening)
Thanks ahead.
Originally posted by orion25Hmm I disagree, the problem is that the weaker the player, the less they react to your threats, or pose "serious" threats, so it is altogether a whole different experience than playing against a stronger player where you are the one falling behind in coping with all the various difficulties in the position 😕
I think you should play every game as if you were playing someone much better than you.
Originally posted by caissad4"Seeking perfection may be a distraction: In chess, you have to learn what your goal is. Win the game, score points. It is a fascinating game and you can get lost in it. But the goal is not to make the perfect move, not to get into the bottom of a position. It’s simply to trick the opponent to win the game." Anand
"Always play the best move." Lasker
1 edit
Originally posted by masniak"On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."- Emanuel Lasker, as quoted in Bobby Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games".
"Seeking perfection may be a distraction: In chess, you have to learn what your goal is. Win the game, score points. It is a fascinating game and you can get lost in it. But the goal is not to make the perfect move, not to get into the bottom of a position. It’s simply to trick the opponent to win the game." Anand
That said, I think Anand and Lasker are both correct, in context.
The most significant thought for me is that Lasker and Anand have many similarities in their play, and Lasker was well-known for playing the man as much as the board. I have a suspicion that Lasker, in making his comment, was indirectly showing humility and criticizing his own play. I'd love to know the context in which he said what he did.
Paul