Resolving the central pawn structure early usually does the trick.
How to play "boring" chess games?
Sort:
I think it's best to play online games where you have many hours to think and analuyse your next move using the built in analyze board.
I do that often times then look for pawn breaks and I try to keep a strong position.
AssauIt wrote:
Resolving the central pawn structure early usually does the trick.
granitoman wrote:
I think it's best to play online games where you have many hours to think and analuyse your next move using the built in analyze board.
I play turn base more than anything else. I do not use the analyze board because I want to calculate moves in my head and getting used to moving the pieces in my head.
To ensure a slow strategic game with no complications, without exception you will need:
Your opponent's cooperation.
Well, that makes sense since there is 2 players. I don't mean to totally play a safe game from beginning to end but simply to avoid unnecessary complications and to keep your opponent from having counter play etc
waffllemaster wrote:
To ensure a slow strategic game with no complications, without exception you will need:
Your opponent's cooperation.
It's a hard question to answer. In short, be really good at chess 
If you don't want to give unnecessary counter chances you at least have to understand strategy in general and the usual middlegame ideas associated with your openings.
If you want slow strategic games I guess I'd say learn a lot about the endgame and then always head for an endgame even if it's a completely equal position.
But you wanted general rules. The biggest thing I remind myself in this circumstance is to weigh the benefits of my plan against what it will give my opponent.
Often times I find myself looking for ways to send the game into an endgame.
waffllemaster wrote:
It's a hard question to answer. In short, be really good at chess If you don't want to give unnecessary counter chances you at least have to understand strategy in general and the usual middlegame ideas associated with your openings.If you want slow strategic games I guess I'd say learn a lot about the endgame and then always head for an endgame even if it's a completely equal position.But you wanted general rules. The biggest thing I remind myself in this circumstance is to weigh the benefits of my plan against what it will give my opponent.
Estragon wrote:
Nimzowitsche described the style of trying to accumulate small positional advantages as "miserly." Is that fun?
It can be!
I do look for tactical shots or tactics that would give me an advantage going into the endgame. I enjoy these boring games because one is slowly torturing the opponent or simply makes impossible for the opponent to penetrate ones position, then you hit them hard/. I agree with you, opponents can play actively and make you play another type of game.
Estragon wrote:
You cannot really force the opponent into that type of game if they don't want to go. You can avoid complicating yourself, but if the opponent is determined to stir it up, he often can for as little as a pawn.
And if you avoid complications as a reflex, you will miss some of your own opportunities. You can't be just a "positional" or a "tactical" player without limiting yourself and voluntarily accepting disadvantage.
Besides, why would you want to play "boring" chess? Nimzowitsche described the style of trying to accumulate small positional advantages as "miserly." Is that fun?
It is fun!!!!
Bur_Oak wrote:
Estragon wrote:
Nimzowitsche described the style of trying to accumulate small positional advantages as "miserly." Is that fun?
It can be!
Maybe study how Botvinnik tried to engineer dry as dust positions in the world championship against Tal
You need to be an expert in both tactics and positional chess to stop your opponent having counterplay.
I'm pretty sure every 1500 player on chess.com plays like Tal.
linuxblue1 wrote:
Maybe study how Botvinnik tried to engineer dry as dust positions in the world championship against Tal
Just play c.c games (tournament or team-matches) on here.
That will provide what you are seeking.
I don't know if I would call it boring chess, but I do have a recommendation for you. Review Petrosian's games. He was a positional giant and he had a knack for preventing opponents plans.Its not that he could not level an opponent with tactics,but he loved a good endgame as we all should.He drew a lot but getting a W against him was surely earned.Just look at how he won the World Championship.This was not boring chess ; it was more of a slow walk by a chamelon.Best of luck!
I really don't understand why people call "boring" that style of play. To me, to win with and oustanding simplicity to an incredible strong opponent is simple beautifull. Because simplicity is the hiden face of the genius.
That why I belive that making the opponent bishop "look like a tall pawn", to simple don't allow your opponent any stratigic plan, to, by a solid but just simply play win a game, is one of the most beautys of the game of chess.
I belive that people regrets that borings position just because they don't understand them. It's more easy to understand a sacriface wich end in winning material or mate, that to understand a beautifull creative idea that, with a simple way, just slowly crushed your opponent in a simple way.
Not in vain a genius alredy said "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
May I recommend a book? Chess Secrets: The Giants of Strategy by Neil Mcdonald may give you the knowledge to play effective boring chess although in reality it is not boring. The Giants referred are Capablanca, Nimzovich. Petrosian, Karpov and Kramnik. I hope this book would give you answers.
I love petrosian's games. Specially his positional sacrifices to gain pawn mobility and to get winning positions.
kevsha77 wrote:
I don't know if I would call it boring chess, but I do have a recommendation for you. Review Petrosian's games. He was a positional giant and he had a knack for preventing opponents plans.Its not that he could not level an opponent with tactics,but he loved a good endgame as we all should.He drew a lot but getting a W against him was surely earned.Just look at how he won the World Championship.This was not boring chess ; it was more of a slow walk by a chamelon.Best of luck!
I like to play slow, methodical, strategic games and not allow my opponent to create complications. What are some general rules to follow in order to accomplish this?