In this game, which I would like to call the most exhausting game I've ever played, I played a player a lot weaker than me. I played moves in my opening which I wouldn't even consider playing against a stronger player, just to get to a certain position. I ended up winning, but I felt uncomfortable throughout. All this begs me to ask the question, does your oppenent's ratings influence shape the way you play against them?

As a newer first year player ...i have to agree that a lesser rated player doesn't get the same play from me, I feel what ever happens I'll figure a way out of it... of course this has cost me a few games....but I still fall into the trap of not giving the game against a lower rated player my same attention...as I would an equally or higher rated players.   I'm careful of the new player now also...or skeptical of the player who never loses.

  It does seem that your better players won't give up a pawn to the weakest of players just on their pure priciples of play.  Crushing a weak player isn't really fun.  I guess you hope they'll resign before that happens.

You are right.  At touraments I have more than once run across a situation where a way higher rated person will look at the rating and say victory is pre-ordained--I can experiment with anything I like.  Over here, though, it looked like you were wierded out by the wierd moves and came up with a similar strategy--my queen can do anything.  Being stronger, you did use other stuff, but you got a bit defensive about keeping it when it was attacked.  Eventually the initiative you added up won the day, but you gave the initiative back several times.  Your opponent handed it right back, so your control was never seriously challenged.

 

Nice enough.

When some people play much higher rated players (I am guilty of this), they feel that they can't win the game so they don't even try to attack, and it is just a matter of time before defeat. I never choose to play new player because for all I know it could be Garry Kasparov on the other end of the computer and he is only rated 1200! I played in a tournament where I was unrated and in the second round I was pitted against the highest rated player. He obviously thought he was going to walk it, because I was unrated, but you must never underestimate an unknown quantity. I beat him and he won't be so cocky again...

you are right but i have begun to treat every opponent as if they are rated equally with me.  even if i use a new opening, i try to be patient and not reckless, giving them the benefit of the doubt.  this i believe will not only help my rating but will help me against higher rated players.  taking folks for granted is a bad habit.

lee 

White's 13th move he should play Nxg6, and black is forced to recapture with f-pawn. As a caro-kann player it wouldn't be my preference to recapture that way, but on second thought it may not be a problem...

Black should play 15: ... Qd7.

White should not capture bishop for knight after ... Bh4+. I think on the previous move black should play ... Qb6 instead of ... Bh4+.

Yes rating affects things for me. For example: 1. Against a stronger opponent I am more likely to take a draw in a "drawn" position, for a weaker player I might "make then play it out" An example is R + 4P vs R + 3P, on kingside. 2. I had an example of a time when I played a GM to a draw in a 5 min game (because I thought he was just a snotty kid who I happened to blunder an exchange to LOL!) I ended up getting a nice outpost for my knight and he sac'd back and I drew the rook ending. 3. Against a weaker player, I've thought things like "what phase of the game do I think this player is weakest in" and perhaps try to steer the game into such a phase. Also, the more simplification that occurs early, the less likely I am to discover the weakness of the opponent. Imagine if I enter a queenless middlegame and discover that this opponent doesn't calculate very well!

-- Ozzie

At move 13. an aggressive course of action would have completely destroyed your opponent.  For instance, 13...Qa5+ or 13...Bxa3 would have at least led to you winning a pawn, but likely much more.  At that point, you would have been at least two pawns up and White's king would have been exposed.  Instead you played the quiet move Be7, then proceeded to waste more time with repetitious Knight movements.  White handed you this game, as you made about as many mistakes as he did.

That said, to address your OP, I think that there is a psychological affect associated with the various ratings of your opponents, but skill manifests in playing the same regardless of that affect.  The over-eager player will seek to deliver a death blow to the weaker opponent from move one (as you demonstrated in this game), but the wise player will be content to gain a pawn every now and then, and focus on playing the best move at each turn, not the move that stands to gain him the most if his opponent errs grossly.

What you should learn from this game is to be objective about chess:

If you play against your opponent, with his earliest defeat in mind, then you will play to his level and surely make mistakes; it will be difficult to find victory.  If you simply play chess, and make the objectively superior move at each turn, defeat will find your opponent.

When I play lower rated players, I like the North Gambit (1.e4 e5 2. d4 ed 3. c3 dc 4. Bc4 cb 5. Bxb2). But it's not the kind of opening I would often use against stronger players.

it most definitly does. when I play weaker people, I go A LOT easier on them

Your question is a good one. Judging from some of the comments I've read, it appears that most of us (myself included) do struggle somewhat with the temptation to assume that a lower-rated player is an easy win. I've fallen into this trap quite a few times and have paid the price for my folly. Hopefully I've learned just how big a mistake that can prove to be.

 

Bowens wrote:

If you play against your opponent, with his earliest defeat in mind, then you will play to his level and surely make mistakes; it will be difficult to find victory.  If you simply play chess, and make the objectively superior move at each turn, defeat will find your opponent.

---

 in bruce lee's words...   "l do not hit...it hits all by itself"

Usually when playing a lower rated player i often look for the opportunity of opposite castling.

Ratings is from now on irrelevant to me, because I was also trapped by a lower rated player! Never again!

samaja wrote: Ratings is from now on irrelevant to me, because I was also trapped by a lower rated player! Never again!

---

Never, never say "Never" again.

The oscillation 14...Ng8, 15...Nh6 looked awful, and are you stopping f5?, i.e.

16f5 pxp 17BxN pxB 18 pxp think this leaves black trying to find something in the mess after 18... Qa5ch.

       When opponent plays 2Qh5 against CaroKann, don't think you need to do anything special to win. Just play sensible moves, and most likely the opponent will self destruct.

I don't really go easy on anyone unless I have a reason to. Like that they're still learning. I tend to be alot more careful with my moves when playing higher rated players or players I know are very good. If I'm in a tournament it's another thing. Then I tend to try to play for a draw if I play someone I think have a good chance to win against me and if a draw would be enough to advance.

Always look at the average strength of your opponent's opponents.  There are players who only seek out games against higher ranked opponents.  These players may have a lower rating than those players who only beat up on lower rated players, but the player who plays strong opponents will be much much stronger than their rating would suggest.

Sometimes you can give a weaker player an advantage in order to make it even and then keep playing and try to win. That would be a practise to the both of you, because sometimes is very hard to win in a better position (that's what would be for him), and the training for you would be play in a bad position, but with a person that has a fewer level than you do, so it will be like a regular match in a certain way. I tell you more, when I had chess lessons with a teacher, when we played, he told me in some analisys that he didn't played the better move because it was psycological, and without much time to think it was harder to think that move than the better one.

I overlooked 17... pxp attacking queen, so looks like white should develop with 16Be2 getting some counterplay at least, because of two tempo's lost with strange knight moves.

This is perhaps one of the fundamental weaknesses in chess: that there is no handicapping system. If the lower-rated player was given a few move-overrules, that would even things up a bit!