Whenever I'm facing an opponent who is losing badly enough, or if a family member is playing me (elo 800ish), at first my mind starts shouting:

"Why take risks in a won game?  Eliminate his counterplay and play solidly!  Do you really want to get swindled after playing such a great game?"

This is sound advice, that will win me games.  But the game goes on, and on, I'm up a piece, and I'm getting bored.  I want to go onto a new, exciting game.  Suddenly, the flashy patzer in the back of my mind speaks up:

"Use your extra piece to checkmate him!  He won't last long, and you can go onto the next game!  There is nothing wrong with being flashy!  It will impress your friends!  Just look at how flashily some grandmasters like adolf andersson finished his games!"

Out of these two, which of the two voices do you tend to listen to more often?  Personally, I think I lean towards solidity.

Really weak players tend to self destruct in spectacular fashion. All I do is pull up a chair and watch.

But when playing weak players it's a good time to try out some different stuff - be flashy to a degree :)

I'm of the belief that a big part of becoming a strong player is training yourself to expect your opponent to always make the best move.  Every opponent. Every move.

That's not to say that you can't experiment a little bit, maybe play a different opening than you usually do... but once you get into that game, you'd better keep your focus & intensity.  You start screwing around and playing "flashy" moves, two things will happen: 1) Sometimes, you're going to bite off more than you can chew, and your "weak" opponent will surprise you, and 2) You develop bad habits that will come back to haunt you against stronger opposition.

Every opponent, every move.

Totally agree. Too many times did I make a move OTB against a friend only to think "Oh, well if he does that it would be bad, but maybe he won't see it!" Not the case. Always check the lines!

Playing "flashy" as you describe it - I consider bad chess. Purposely making blunders is lowering your play. You go down from say a 1500 rating - to 1400...1300...etc. If you play at your best however, the game should not last too long anyway - if the opponent is really as bad as you say they are. ( if it does last - then maybe they are good! )

I personally recommend not playing anyone lower than you. It depletes your chessic abilities. - In the fassion that playing 1min games take away from your hour games.

Hope that helps =).

If you want to be a good player then forget about disliking boring games. When you get good playing weaker players often means you have to slowly pick them to pieces. Although this may seam boring you should enjoy your ability to do so. A win is a win no matter how boring or exciting it is.

Spiffe, playing as if you expect your opponent to make the best move every time isn't just dull (I think tal would have gave up chess if he had to move like that), but in some cases it's outright wrong.

Imagine this, you are down a piece.  You see an exchange sacrifice that leads to major complications, do you do "oh no, if he sees the next eight moves correctly I get into an even worse position" or do you give it a go?  Do you refuse to set a trap thinking "but if he plays the next move correctly, I will have only lost a tempo", or do you do it anyways?

Even the most solid of players know they should swindle and unsoundly complicate the position sometimes.

Ahem, now that I'm done taking the phrase "all the time" much to seriously, again I am a player that plays solidly far more often then not, almost never wavering during a game.  But like everyone else, every now and then I don't want to kill counterplay, trade down pieces, kill counterplay, trade down, kill counterplay, trade down.  Sometimes I see I have good attacking chances regardless of the "eliminate counterplay" strategy and want to ram a queen down my opponents throat.

You guys are worse then my mother who keeps on reminding me how salty foods are bad for my health.

I agree Michael.  In correspondence maybe you have to play the best line, but sometimes playing the most complicated line that requires more precise play and therefor a greater chance to make a mistake, is better than the "perfect line" especially against humans players in time pressure games.

Sorry, I don't really buy it.  There's a difference between an unclear sacrifice, and following a line that you KNOW will result in a worse position if the opponent finds the right line.  You save more games by defending tirelessly & tenaciously, and forcing them to find the perfect continuation, rather than playing for last-stand traps and handing them a win.  Better players WILL find it.

If I end up in a last-gasp situation where I know all lines win for the opponent, I'll still try to find the most complicated continuation and force them to demonstrate the win... but I don't expect otherwise.

I tend to do neither and just think the game will win itself.  I just make moves that I feel like playing without really considering what the position calls for.  I just blindly try to trade down and this is my downfall some of the time.  I prefer to just checkmate the guy so I can get the game over with and just eat lunch.

Spiffe, trust me, I don't go "geez, I'm down a pawn!", find the best spot to sac my queen, and go with it.  I save my "last stand sacrifices" after my opponent has managed not to let their advantage slip, survived an array of traps to get material/complicate matters, developed all their pieces, and quashed counterplay.

Only THEN will I consider doing something desperately stupid.  After all if you start out with a desperately stupid move - your opponent only has to outsmart you once.

I'm not sure that the two approaches are dichotomous. If there's a forced mate--whether it involves swashbuckling attacks and sacrifices or not--I think a good player should seek that line. Otherwise, you are just playing passively and can open yourself to counterplay or even mistakes.

In short, if the opportunity is there -- finish it as soon as possible.  If not, continue ganing space, material, and other advantages to eventually force mate as soon as possible. One can also simplify to make the end easy, error-free, and obvious to the opponent.

If I'm playing friend or family I'm likely to just hang a piece or two without being obvious about it. Then I'm back to playing an interesting game as well as I can. It's all good practice and if I lose they get some bragging rights. It's just a game, I can let them have their fun too.

Any other opponent and I'll keep playing as solidly and strongly as I can. No quarter asked, absolutely none given.

I'm always on the look out for a quick win, but I wouldn't take risks. I tend to just let them make the mistakes.

Be as effective and efficient as possible to win.

Spot on Spiffe!

I played my brother yesterday and was trouncing him soundly. I wanted to teach him a good lesson so whilst I thought he was making sloppy moves and mopped up the rest of his pieces, he pulled of a sneaky mate. Aaargh!

I play a lot of safe games- 80% or so. Occasionally, though, it's too tempting not to try( especially if you're tired). Your head stops calculating lines and just says 'f--- it, it's more fun this way'. You know how your heart beats when you start a mating net- I like that feeling. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? enjoying ourselves?

now I know some of you will get snooty, and say things like- "well you obviously don't to get any better, and your rating hasn't peaked 1350" etc. etc. that's untrue- I pore through every article, and I've just purchased some tactics books and am going to start paying on this website to use the mentor- if this isn't prrof of my willingness for methodical improvement, I don't know what is( apart from the hours online I spend playing).

Like jcorim said; it's not dichotomous. 80% of the time safe the other 20%......

well, observe(y annotations I'll add are the analyses that would have refuted

I like the bishop sacrifice to draw the king out.

e3 was a forced mate in 3, using the same mating pattern as I used. instead it takes me five, with some blunders on his part.

I find one of the major things that separats weak players from strong players is consistency.  A strong player will play a good game 80% of the time, and a great one 10% of the time.

A weak player will play badly 70% of the time, decently 20% of the time, and every so often, they will pull a great game out of their posterior.

I try to play everyone the same. 

Plus, since I've joined a chess club, and am playing people way better than me OTB, I have found that the most dispiriting way to lose a chess game is for somoeone to just slowly choke the life out of you. Slowly take all the space, limit the mobility of my pieces, and force me to make trades. The is what I aim at being able to do.