Prepare for opponent

It's so much easier these days to prepare for opponents. Back in the dark ages (pre-internet), when I played OTB tournaments, you were lucky if you recognized your opponent's name on the tournament roster, and if you did, which meant he was an excellent player, you'd be doubly lucky to find some of his games in the various volumes Chess Informants you happened to remember to bring with you to the tournament.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi, how does one prepare for a specific opponent? Yes one understands that looking through his/her games are a prerequisite, but then what?

Try and see what they like or dislike as a player, then do your best to piss them off.

Originally posted by Ice Cold
Try and see what they like or dislike as a player, then do your best to piss them off.

you mean if they like open positions with piece play to keep the position closed, or if they like slow manoeuvring positions to open it up, or if they prefer bishops to knights etc etc I dunno there is in me Lord Vader a sense that one must be true to oneself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you mean if they like open positions with piece play to keep the position closed, or if they like slow manoeuvring positions to open it up, or if they prefer bishops to knights etc etc I dunno there is in me Lord Vader a sense that one must be true to oneself.

Yes, that's the idea. If they like to gambit pawns in the opening, decline (e.g. 1 d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 e6), or play gambits yourself if they are weak tactically, and so on.

Originally posted by Erekose
Yes, that's the idea. If they like to gambit pawns in the opening, decline (e.g. 1 d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 e6), or play gambits yourself if they are weak tactically, and so on.

Ah herein lies the paradox, what if we ourselves like to gambit pawns as black, we play 1.d4 d5 hoping for 2.c4 so we can play the Albin and they go and play 2.e3 or 2.Nf3.

Its is really quite interesting, for i have just finished a book , Tigran Petrosian, his life and games, and the masters were speculating as to the strategy he should adopt against Botvinnik in his world champoinship match. Some such as Keres and Korchnoi were saying that he should sharpen his play, for it was generally held that Botvinnik was if anywhere, suspect in his combinational ability, however, Petrosian realised that it was in the areas of the masters apparent strengths that he himself was no lesser a mortal as he played positionally, which had such an effect on Botvinnik, for he was totally surprised by it. Petrosian was in essence challenging the King on his own terms, on his own strengths and proved successful. I suppose in chess there is always the antithesis of the rule. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ah herein lies the paradox, what if we ourselves like to gambit pawns as black, we play 1.d4 d5 hoping for 2.c4 so we can play the Albin and they go and play 2.e3 or 2.Nf3.

Yeah - playing aggressively against the Colle or Stonewall reversed (after 2 e3) is difficult unless you're a fan of King's Indian (after 1 ... Nf6) or Gruenfeld-type (after 1 ... d5) structures. I've discussed this before with folks in this forum and there aren't a lot of awesomely aggressive choices after 1 d4 d5 2. e3 (anybody else want to suggest some?).

Getting back to preparing for opponents - even though I never play the King's Indian proper, I used to play 1. d4 Nf6 2 e3 g6 anytime I though my opponent might be aiming for these systems, because King's Indian structure is very effective against either opening.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you mean if they like open positions with piece play to keep the position closed, or if they like slow manoeuvring positions to open it up, or if they prefer bishops to knights etc etc I dunno there is in me Lord Vader a sense that one must be true to oneself.

I try to un-nerve my opponent in any way I can. Lasker was great at that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi, how does one prepare for a specific opponent? Yes one understands that looking through his/her games are a prerequisite, but then what?

If I may turn this on its head a bit, I have had several players tell me that they prepared for me by looking over my previously-played games on the site.

In general, I think those games have been better games as a result.

I very much appreciate the effort, as I think the games are more challenging to my opening experiments, and they prepare me for future OTB games, which is my main chess reason for playing on the site.

Originally posted by Ice Cold
I try to un-nerve my opponent in any way I can. Lasker was great at that.

Unleash a torrent of hate, ala 1984's Two Minute Hate

Or act like Mike Tyson and threaten to eat their kids


...oh yeah. And playing well falls somewhere on the list of things to prepare too

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi, how does one prepare for a specific opponent? Yes one understands that looking through his/her games are a prerequisite, but then what?

On early November 2009 I understood I could not progress, so I took the decision to leave aside my Black opening preparation (I tried to switch from Scheveningen to Grivas but my results were poor: Grivas was playing the variation that is named after him very well, but this patzer beastie had poor results so he stayed with his Schev). I also realized that the poor results were related to my overall middlegame strategy and tactics ability… And, on the other hand, I was rarely playing the endgame because the most games were decided earlier. So I started working again mainly (at least two hours daily, five days weekly) my ole puzzles CT ART 3.0 program. Soon I finished Level 30 (420 puzzles rated 1900elo each), entering as my personal basis the lowest possible ranking, which is 800elo), and the stats were revealing: 1st approach: 1937elo, 75%, total time 7 hours non-stop for all the puzzles; 2nd approach: 1962elo, 78%, total time 6 hours non-stop; 3rd approach: 2004elo, 83%, total time 4h 10min non-stop; 4rth approach (final): 2026elo, 86%, total time 2h 30min! As you see, for this level I spent 19h 40min and I merely crawled from 1962 to 2026elo.

Then I did the same with the Level 40 (difficulty: 2050elo, 202 puzzles), and it went like this: 1st approach: 1785elo, 55%, total time 12 hours 5min for all the puzzles; 2nd approach: 1875elo, 60%, total time 9 hours 30min; 3rd approach: 1984elo, 72%, total time 7h 5min; 4rth approach: 1971elo, 71%, total time 7h 38min; 5th approach: 2022elo, 75%, 5h 49min non stop; 6th approach: 2065elo, 80%, 4h 8min non stop. For this level I spent 47 hours -and my 4th approach was worst than the third because the day before I received a note from the managing board of the company I am working since June 2001: in other words, I was informed that my position was expandable. Finally the next day I managed to ensure them sharks that I was an asset for the company and they decided to fire me not, but I could not focus properly and my results were poor. Anyway, my starting point was 1785elo and I ended up on 2065.

Then I continued with Level 50 (difficulty: 2200elo, 134 puzzles). The results were the following: 1st approach: 1491elo, 53%, 8h 33min for all the puzzles; 2nd approach: 1588elo, 61%, 6h 24min; 3rd approach: 1670elo, 68%, 4h 57min; 4th approach: 1729elo, 72%, 4h 02min non stop for all the puzzles; 5th approach: 1806elo, 79%, 2h 44min non stop; 6th approach: 1871elo, 84%, 1h 59min non stop. Total time: 28h 39min, and I was glad to see me climbing from 1491 up to 1871elo.

Level 60 (2300elo, 84 puzzles) was tricky. The first approach gave me 1157elo and 45% in 6h 21min, the 2nd approach ended with 1208elo and 50% in 4h 4 min, the 3rd approach ended with 1288elo and 60% in 3h.

The time overall for all the above mentioned exercises was 108h 44min in a period of five months.

Now I will continue again with Level 60 in order to achieve more than 80%, and then I will try Level 70 (difficulty: 2400elo, 59 puzzles), Level 80 (2500elo, 44 puzzles) and Level 80 (difficulty 2550+ elo, 67 puzzles). Finally, when all the exercises of all the Levels will be solved, I will repeat all of them 1.209 puzzles in the fastest possible pace in order to achieve at least 80%. This is my wee personal training system regarding Tactics for the time being (along with the analysis of one game daily regarding specific strategic concepts analysed by Grivas) -and when it will be over I will have in this empty skull o’ mine at least 830 patterns more. Then I will try the same way to solve solely endgame tactics puzzles, and at the same time I will study deeper my endgame theory; then I could start studying again my opening repertoire with both colours in order to reassess it, and at the same time I will keep up solving middlegame and endgame tactics puzzles for two hours daily five days weekly.

Conclusion: my preparation is related not to the opponent but to my own weaknesses -ye lang leggedy beastie rabbie would rather claim that practically this is merely Math. 7:5 and this would be fine with me! Anyway methinks my preparation it’s a never ending story
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
On early November 2009 I understood I could not progress, so I took the decision to leave aside my Black opening preparation (I tried to switch from Scheveningen to Grivas but my results were poor: Grivas was playing the variation that is named after him very well, but this patzer beastie had poor results so he stayed with his Schev). I also realized th ...[text shortened]... 7:5 and this would be fine with me! Anyway methinks my preparation it’s a never ending story
😵

this is awesomeness dear beetle. when you say non stop, did you really sit for seven hours doing tactical puzzles? I never learn endgame stuff, there is no point at my measly level, it never reaches that stage, its is always invariable settled in the middle game due to a tactical error, 99% of the time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is awesomeness dear beetle. when you say non stop, did you really sit for seven hours doing tactical puzzles? I never learn endgame stuff, there is no point at my measly level, it never reaches that stage, its is always invariable settled in the middle game due to a tactical error, 99% of the time.

When I say non stop I mean non stop. I did it, and I will keep up doing it for other kind of studies too, because I practice Botvinnik's doctrine regarding the handling of tricky positions under pressure.

Regarding the endame, methinks you should go for it. I still dig Dvoretsky and Grivas, but perhaps you gonna luv the endgame once you get that fine Marin's "Learn from the Legends" (second edition) that yer fellow Scots offer up there at 93 Hope Str.! Take yer sweet time and Check the PDF excerpt, enjoy the Romanian GM's in depth analysis of master Akiba's rooks endgame skills, weep, get the book and run😵