Rock, Paper, Scissors

@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?

In baseball, we would say that there is probably a "hole in your swing". It's where a batter has a particular area of the plate and pitch elevation that they simply can't hit, regardless of how good they otherwise are as a hitter.

Some pitchers figure it out and smoke batters who are otherwise very good hitters.

If you played a large number of games against this person, you need to look at them closely, and then look at them as a group for patterns. It could be almost anything, but some solid work should reveal it.

@kunsoo said
@BigDoggProblem

Am I violating the person's privacy? I guess not.

I do know that I got crushed taking the pawn in the Marshall Gambit a bunch of times, but that doesn't account for all of it.

And looking at our record, it seems to have leveled off since the last time I looked about a year or so ago. 24 wins to 44 losses and 1 draw (the games are always knife fights).

Here you go.

https://www.dailychess.com/chess-player/blanca

I wrote quite a long post about this, but it kept getting auto-modded for no apparent reason. What it boiled down to was that he's got a lot of games in progress, but is quite attuned to the tactical opportunities in the Smith-Morra Gambit, so you should try a closed Spanish or French Defence against him as he'll be in a more manoeuvering game then where he won't be able to spot tactical tricks like the ones that undid you in your last game with him.

@DeepThought

Interesting - thanks

@kunsoo said
I've noticed that there are people who range in my rating level that I seem to have better results against than others. One person seems to have my number - Yet other people in our range seem to play better against this person, and yet I have few problems against them - even some winning records.

Apt thread title!
I think it's a good analogy for people with small opening repertoires (like me).
For instance I have a good record against GhostOfADuke (3.5 v 3.5) who is
consistently rated 100 higher than me.

I guess the answer (if you are uber competitive) is to research your opponents games.

@paul-leggett said
In baseball, we would say that there is probably a "hole in your swing".

Not heard of that but similarly in cricket; bowlers will
attack the batsman's weakness be it leg-side, off-side or other.

Probbaly true in most sports.
Goalkeepers research penalty takers.
Tennis players analyse opponents serves.

I've been watching how my adversaries tiddle their winks.

@Kunsoo

I've played @Blanca 90 times. He typically has 100 to 200 games in progress and is one of the sites million movers. He is a gambit specialist favouring things like the Blackmar Diemer as white and the Englund Gambit as black. He is all about his openings, faithful to his particular sub variations which he tweaks after a loss. Many times we have followed lines from IM Chris Scheerer's Blackmar Diemer book over 25 moves deep for example. My guess is that he has a prepared opening book set up for easy reference which he will follow saving time over his many games. If you don't want to engage in database recitations of precipitous lines you are best to avoid them altogether paying attention to avoid tempo loss and development so as not to give the gambiteer the compensation he craves and make the game less about the opening. I've also played @felldancer a few times and he is much less a theory freak and that may be your answer.

@wolfgang59

Well, back in the early 80s there came a time when McEnroe was beating Borg consistently, but he would lose to Vitas Gerulaitis - not sure if I'm spelling that right. But Gerulitus only beat Borg once in his career.

@Ragwort

Thanks.

By the way I believe Felldancer is a woman - based upon a conversation we had.