Hi chess.com!

I have quite a strange scenario here!

I have just come back from a chess tourmanent that I was playing in (ECF U130 section), and found myself getting the most bizzare results. At the end of the tourmanent, i found myself beating some of the strongest players there (including an ECF 128), yet losing to players that appear to be significantly weaker (with a grade of 83 for example). Its quite a strange question to ask, but how should should you go by beating weaker players. This tournament is not the only occaision this has happened.

Ill post a couple of games that took place:

A psychological factor of underestimating? In my opinion it might happen that when an obvioulsy stonger player plays a weaker one, he or she can consider some moves very differently than when played by (in their opinion) a stronger player.

Simply the 'weaker' player thinks hard to do the moves. The 'stronger' on the other hand consider the game as an easy victory and it might be fatal :)

Sometimes the weaker players play out of book openings and you find yourself in a mess if you don't respond properly. 

In the 1st game why did you play a3? It looks like it just weakens your Q-Side and wastes time. Something like h4 was probably more appropriate.

If my opponent is much weaker than me, I'll still try to play the board like I would with any player. If I have a choice of roughly equal candidates I'll probably pick the most solid ones which entail the least risk. Can I ask how you approach your games against such opponents technically and psychologically?

BTW, why have you put down your ECF grade as 113, yet on your profile it says 126?

EDIT: Don't worry, I realized 113 is your rapid grade.

After 83's 3rd move, it's clear that he's going into some kind of hippo.

This is good news, as it means two things.  1) his position will be passive, and 2) he will make mistakes from his passive position (since he's an 83).

Are there ways to punish a hippo as it's being constructed?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on a trillion nuances of move order choice.  But they can be hard to puzzle out over the board.

So my recommendation is: don't bother.

Develop in uber-classical fashion.  Center pawns up.  Knights to c3/c6 and f3/f6.  Bishops somewhere.  Castle somewhere.  Move the queen up a square.  Centralize the rooks.

This gives him time to complete his hippo development, when you've got a classic active vs passive battle ahead.  Do you have any tangible advantage to show for your efforts, ten moves in, versus a guy who you know should be much weaker than you?  Not really.  A computer would probably tell you you had a pawn advantage, give or take, but essentially even.

But you're in an active position with no weakness, and your opponent, given what you know about him, is like 99% likely to start making mistakes at this point.

You couldn't be better poised, and because your structure will feel so familiar to you because it's just the textbook stuff you learn in chess 101, you won't feel nearly as uncomfortable making logical moves from this starting point.

Very nicely said.  Against weaker players, it is practical to take as few risks as possible and play a simple game.  This is not to be confused in "playing to draw" .... by simple, I mean you're merely picking solid candidates and avoiding complications if you can.  If your opponent is truly weaker than you, he's going to make a mistake worth cashing in on more often than you are.

Remember, as the stronger player, you have a bigger "database" of "easy to play, I can't screw this up" positions in your brain than he does.

The converse is just as true: against stronger players, complicate, create imbalances and muddle up the board and make it difficult for your opponent to find accurate moves.

I agree with most of this. 4.e4 seems a bit commital. I'll add as well that once development is complete even if he doesn't start making obvious mistakes don't try and then do anything hasty like immediately bust open the centre, but instead just keep gradually improving. You shouldn't be in a rush.

EDIT: Instead of moving both Knights out to c6 and f6 straight away I'd personally probably want to play c5 and/or f5 1st. I don't really think there would be that much risk attached, the Hippo is very passive.

Thanks for all the comments here; i find them quite helpful!

I don't think that underestimation is the biggest issue with me; i had already lost to a weaker player and so i was telling myself to keep my cool :) I have to admit though that i think my problem lies with not being able to cope with irrational moves (ie. That is the 1st time i have ever had to play against the hippo). Against stronger players, i can understand their moves quite clearly. Playing sensible is an option, but i worry that my opponent will also just play sensible, and nothing but a draw is achieved. Wouldnt attacking and complicating positions be the best way to test teh strength of a player. Weaker players with a complicated position may be less able to cope with it, and therefore blunder. Whereas just 'waiting' for a player to blunder may be more solid, but what if they dont? Just a thought though. (i agree though that i ususally play c5/c4 when getting the centre before playing Nc3/ Nc6 to get more flexibility with the pawns)

In the 1st game, a3 was played in order to prevent black from probing the c3 knight (eg by playing b5 followed by b4 for example). Ng4 may well be the main line (i must admit that im no sicillian expert), but its seems that Nc6 is perfectly playable.

In the 2nd game i felt that exf3 was forced. if i continued the pawnstorm with a4, i would lose the pawn after fxe4 as well as the center. i didnt want to give him that opportunity

Thanks once again,
Ravi

You're welcome.

Ravi,

We must also keep our opponent's mental outlook in mind. If they are weaker the have less to lose and can play aggressivly as their rating points will not suffer as much as yours will. They also may have not played a rated tourney in a bit but have been studying hard or they may have even sandbagged (lost another tourney on purpose to get into a lower bracket).

But either way it is best to play the position, look for the best move and after your opponents move try and get into their thinking to see what they are trying to do. The latter is easier if the opponent is strong as they will play moves that make sense or follow the best lines. For example I had a OTB game yesterday where we played the French, it went:

1. e5 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nf3 c5
4. dxc

At this point I had to spend a moment to think. This move is not a normal continuation of the French. After much consideration I moved 4... d4 and ended up winning the game. The normal move of 4. Bxc5 loses a pawn.

Hope this helped.

William

I'm sure you got some good advice / responses / analysis but without wading through it just wanted to jump in and say you lost because your sense of danger / underestimating threats.  You didn't react to the advances on the kingside and let your opponent open it up to attack you easily. 

If you really were unaffected by your opponent's rating, it's simply a lesson like any other, maybe you have a weak sense of danger for attacks on your king, or have a tendency to overestimate your own pluses in the position (maybe you thought your attack was faster?)

As already said, a weak player will increase his concentration  when faced with a stronger opponent while the stronger one might decrease his. This tends to even the rating discrepancy. In fact, it ,might even tilt the relative temporary strengths to the weaker players favor. In short, they switch places and voila!

 LOL

there are no weak players only weak moves

hey ravi,,how have u been,,i check out the games u have here,,,i think tht u didnt take them serious becuz of there scores,so do remember tht lower numbers sometimes mean a better player,,