It doesn't matter as much whether the position calls for tactics or positional play, as long as there are imbalances, the stronger player should be able to outplay the weaker one.
openings to choose for beating lower rated
Sort:
Jan 15, 2014
0
#23
When we beat higher rated opponents 30% of the time, it is because we are underrated.
When we lost to lower rated opponents 30% of the time, we ask what is going wrong.
Sounds like you feel most comfortable responding to your opponent's initiatives rather than seizing the initiative yourself.
Openings tend to have strategic objectives. If you are pursuing a strategic objective you will move yourself away from relying upon counter-punching and your lower rated opponents may find it harder to engineer exchanges which do not involve concessions.
The most complex opening you feel you can play, but no more. You are better because you have a greater understanding, if they aren't likely to know what to do in certain pawn centers and piece placements go for those kinds of openings. In closed centers beginners love to play ...c4?! or c5?! overextending this pawn ripe for attack for example. Most players 1500 and below have an incomplete positional understanding, and many will automatically think doubled pawns are weak without exception. Little do they know that piece activity compensates weaknesses.
Okay, in summary play openings that increase chances of running into knowledge gaps and exploit holes in their understanding and/or less developed calculation. If they still have retained image errors or even look at all checks, captures, and threats you'll pick up some good pieces.
For white the Catalan or fianchetto King's Indian is good, for black Sicilian, Bogo-Indian, Dutch (any really but I personally like the Leningrad), Queen's Indian setup against Londone and Torre Systems, and different Nimzo Indians as one needs a good understanding of pawn centers to play and play against Nimzo-Indians correctly.
birdsopening wrote:
It doesn't matter as much whether the position calls for tactics or positional play, as long as there are imbalances, the stronger player should be able to outplay the weaker one.
Exactly! We still need to refine this statement however: if the position is too clear and simple the weaker guy will know how to play the position and they'd be on even territory. When FMs and GMs play they seem pretty even for many moves until the FM plays a strategic boo boo or just demonstrates a hole in his understanding. This "boo boo" can even be in the endgame where they prematurely push a pawn or place their rook on the wrong rank or file throwing away a hard to draw drawn position.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#28
csalami10 escribió:
Against weaker players play closed, positional lines. The difference between the player's calculation skill is not that big, the stronger player is stronger because he is better at playing closed, positional lines, has better planning and endgame skills. In a sharp, tactical position you have the same chances to make mistakes.
Maybe at GM level. However, differences between amateurs are in calculation. At least, from my experience, I can tell you that 18 of my last 20 tournament game loses where due to tactical mistakes
Jan 16, 2014
0
#29
In my opinion it is best to avoid complications against weaker players. Although I know many players get tempted to enter extremely complex positions against weaker opponents this is the best way to lose since you have a bigger chance of making a mistake. What you should do is play a relatively safe and slow style where you can simply outplay them positionally and with endgame technique. On the other hand if you are playing a much stronger player this is where you should go in for complications to try and catch them out, rather than trying to play it safe and being gradually picked apart.
But they are weaker, they by definition have a greater chance of making a mistake than we do. Remember, we ironed out our retained image and other calculation errors, they haven't. Read Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker.
Besides during a practical game we aren't thinking of their rating and enter complications if we feel we'd come out on top in our primary variations and play quietly if we feel that's how we'll reach the better endgame. Complications kind of just happen.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#31
I try to make the position as complex as possible every game to practice tactics
I completely agree with amartalon .
In my opinion it is best to avoid complications against weaker players. Although I know many players get tempted to enter extremely complex positions against weaker opponents this is the best way to lose since you have a bigger chance of making a mistake. What you should do is play a relatively safe and slow style where you can simply outplay them positionally and with endgame technique. On the other hand if you are playing a much stronger player this is where you should go in for complications to try and catch them out, rather than trying to play it safe and being gradually picked apart.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#33
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
But they are weaker, they by definition have a greater chance of making a mistake than we do. Remember, we ironed out our retained image and other calculation errors, they haven't. Read Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker.
Besides during a practical game we aren't thinking of their rating and enter complications if we feel we'd come out on top in our primary variations and play quietly if we feel that's how we'll reach the better endgame. Complications kind of just happen.
Of course your chances are still better, but I feel that as a position gets more complex, the possibility of a major tactical oversight increases and therefore the advantage of the stronger player is less. You're better off reducing risk and using superior positional knowledge to capitalise on their smaller errors and inaccuracies which by definition they will make more of.
I also find that weak players tend to "self-destruct" when you play slow chess against them so it's not really even necessary to take any risks yourself.
thanks guys.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#35
chesspartha wrote:
hi all,
I am 1800 and I am having a lot of troubles beating a lower rated.they easily equalize and go to draw.what do I do?
In your last 20 games with lower rated opponents, you are 15-5. Do you expect to win every game based on rating alone??
Jimmykay wrote:
chesspartha wrote:
hi all,
I am 1800 and I am having a lot of troubles beating a lower rated.they easily equalize and go to draw.what do I do?
In your last 20 games with lower rated opponents, you are 15-5. Do you expect to win every game based on rating alone??
where,in chess.com?? I was talking about real tournaments not online chess
Jan 16, 2014
0
#37
Should it matter? As I said, this is more likely just standard deviation, not a pattern that needs to be fixed.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#38
I think that some people play closed positions better and some play open positions better.
One shouldn't try to adjust to a style the are not comfortable with, but simply play something natural...
I play the same style against all opponents, weaker or stronger.
I play the Queens Gambit exchange, Catalan and Queens gambit declined as white.
As black I play almost exclusively the french defense in all of its forms except the Winawer. I might play a sicilian from time to time, just to mix it up
Jan 16, 2014
0
#39
Playing something like the Modern should help. You never get balanced static positions there.
I doubt that this is an opening issue. I know for myself, I feel the same way, but it is more between my ears.
When you are playing with someone 100 points higher, you play looser, often more aggressively, with a nothing to lose attitude.
When playing against someone 100 points lower, we expect to win and often fail to play our best.
I would suggest ignoring the rating of people to every degree possible, and concentrate on the board.