The rating of your opponent shouldn't have any effect on you, it isn't pinpoint accurate of how well they play at chess. Play to the best of your ability. Taking advantage of every little thing isn't being aggressive and stopping a mate threat isn't being defensive, it's playing the game. If you play the best you can and you still lose, you can say "Ok good game, this person is clearly better than me".
Originally posted by Renars is there any sound logic in believing that cautious defensive approach against (much) higher rated opponents works better, i.e. you escape from being knocked out in under 30 moves? while it cannot be a winning one, it seems to have worked on some of the occasions..
That is a bad, bad strategy. Study hard and become a good player works better.
plus it takes time to be really really good, unless your a natural (of which there have been very few chess prodigys) and I mean years, not months or days of studying competing etc
Originally posted by Cimon Play what you know the best.
I think this is the best advice so far. Play something you know and like. If you trappy, tactical lines and you know them well, play them. I guarantee there will be some high-rated player who isn't well-prepared and will mess it up. If you happen to like the exchange French (a dull opening most of the time), by all means, play that. But don't change your style of play away from what's natural.
Originally posted by Erekose I think this is the best advice so far. Play something you know and like. If you trappy, tactical lines and you know them well, play them. I guarantee there will be some high-rated player who isn't well-prepared and will mess it up. If you happen to like the exchange French (a dull opening most of the time), by all means, play that. But don't change your style of play away from what's natural.
ok, I think I've had enough of feedback, including from some of the greats of this site (no pun intended) 🙂 screw the cautious defence, killer offence here we come! well, don't know why I actually asked this in the first place, given that I've had some pretty decent (imho) games against much higher (+400) rated opponents, like this:
If opponent is higher rated but less skilled, I'd play just in normal way. Like last month i played against this 2250 FM, and I knew I am better than him although my rating is still considerably lower (2100), so I just played natural moves and waited until he blundered. Which he did pretty quickly.
If opponent is higher rated and more skilled, then I try to play as solid openings as possible, and try to simplify the position to an endgame where the skill difference usually isnt too large.
Originally posted by Jusuh If opponent is higher rated but less skilled, I'd play just in normal way. Like last month i played against this 2250 FM, and I knew I am better than him although my rating is still considerably lower (2100), so I just played natural moves and waited until he blundered. Which he did pretty quickly.
If opponent is higher rated and more skilled, then I try t ...[text shortened]... d try to simplify the position to an endgame where the skill difference usually isnt too large.
hey, you've been busy, I see you also missed the win and drew against karttunen. a bit weird decision from him to play scandinavian against almost 400 pts lower rated player...
Originally posted by wormwood hey, you've been busy, I see you also missed the win and drew against karttunen. a bit weird decision from him to play scandinavian against almost 400 pts lower rated player...
My take is this...
I play to win just like anyone else. Just like someone my rating or lower, any perceived opportunity to attack is closely examined and then persued.
The only thing that's different is if they do something that seems to me like an obvious mistake, I'm VERY careful about acting on it. Because often they have a deeper plan or tactic that I don't see.
If I can't figure out why they made a "mistake" I'll act on it anyway. If it was a blunder then good for me. If it was a trap then I learned something.
Interestingly, in an article on the USCF website about the Foxwoods tournament, the author stated that "History reveals that the better player almost always wins these opposite-side castling games...". This means that the higher rated player should actively try for opposite side castling games, as he'll be able to overwhelm his opponent's defenses without too much difficulty. I've found that my own games seem to follow this logic.
Originally posted by chesskid001 Interestingly, in an article on the USCF website about the Foxwoods tournament, the author stated that "History reveals that the better player almost always wins these opposite-side castling games...". This means that the higher rated player should actively try for opposite side castling games, as he'll be able to overwhelm his opponent's defenses without too much difficulty. I've found that my own games seem to follow this logic.
History reveals that the higher rated player almost always wins. Doesn't matter wich side he is castling.
Well, it is mainly because when the lower rated has a winning position, he may not know how to win it and the higher rated can patiently t0o turn the table and he know how to win.
07 Jun '09 00:45
strategy against higher rated opponents
Back to Top