Beating lower-rated players consistently?

I'm an Expert in the USCF, but sometimes I don't feel like I play like one.

I can play good games against masters in the 2200-2300 range, perhaps well enough to go 1/4 or 1/5. I can play level games against other experts. But the problem I've always had (even long before I was an expert) was my ability to consistantly beat the people I'm supposed to beat.

I often play people in the 1500-1800 range, and I know for a fact I know more about chess than they do. However, they are by no means awful chess players, and it's not a rare event for them to outplay me in an opening they know better than I do, or play something boring and get a very drawish position, or outcalculate me in a particular position.

If I was to be, say, 2100 USCF (not too far from where I am now), this means that mathematically, I would be expected to go 9/10 against a 1700 player; that is, if I played 10 1700s and went 9/10, my rating would stay at 2100. Somehow, that seems like a much harder thing to do than going 1/2 against experts.

Anyone else have experiences like this?

Are you talking OTB games against lower rated players? Or on here?

"I often play people in the 1500-1800 range, and I know for a fact I know more about chess than they do" Maybe this thinking is the problem. You don't know what they do and don't know.

A dolphin can kill a shark even though the shark is a killing machine and dolphins know virtually nothing of killing.

Well, knowing more about chess isn't going to get the win itself: you have to apply it, sometimes with particular creativity. I think being able to apply this stuff is just as important as having the knowledge -- otherwise what's the point of having it? If you engage yourself creatively in the position and don't cut corners, your better skill should push through. But if you just play a lot of mindless stereotypical moves none of that skill you may have will push through.

So I think that's the key: always be in that creative mindset, not just when you want to beat a higher rated player. You wouldn't hope for traps against a higher rated player; you would know you would have to come up with something special. But I think you should be trying to do that regardless of the opponent. You may get away with not doing that against weaker players, but it puts you at a greater risk of an upset.

Anyway that kind of consistency is a good, underrated virtue to have I think -- though it doesn't reflect a higher amount of knowledge, it shows you can apply your knowledge to play a profound game of chess on command, not just once in a while.

Both, but talking about USCF ratings, not chess.com ratings :)

Thanks for the advice!

Sometimes 'weaker' players can play a good game, when that is the case it is no shame to lose or draw. When facing weaker players you should give them the chance to make mistakes. This is achieved by letting them make choices what to play. By attacking a piece there are few moves to choose from, in a position where nothing is going on, there are much more moves and more chance to do it wrong.

I have a similar problem. I've slowly come to grips with it by playing more solid/positional chess, and altering my repertoire in favour of less popular lines.

I'm also working on my endgame skills. I come to realize that patience is key.

Now my results against weaker players have improved, but my results against peers and stronger players have deteriorated

Guess I haven't found the right balance just yet...

hicetnunc has anyone told u u look a bit like kramnik? :D

Other than the kramnik look-alike issue, i will post this game, where i won a 2100+ opponent using his superiority psychology against him. It was 10 min game, and in the game he had chance to go for a draw, but by looking "down" on me, he tried to push for more.

The lower rated player has more motivation and less to lose, so he is going to play the game of his life. In the other hand, when you play a lower rated player, it's your duty to beat him, so you get more preasure, which is bad. That's why Real Madrid sometimes loses against horrible teams. You have to play at your maximum every game, and do not think "i'm a better player so this win is going to be easy, so i will just move the pieces and see what happen". NO MERCY.

@David: I'm not sure I find your "psychologic" interpretation very convincing. His higher rating doesn't automatically mean that he's looking down on you... Maybe he just likes playing offbeat openings (1...e5), and maybe the reason why he didn't take a draw after move 14 is that he wants to play chess, and not go for a quick draw. To me, that's far more likely than your conviction that he's too arrogant to draw against a lower rated player. You say yourself that he wanted to play for a win - is that so unheard of in chess? Finally, you can blunder for all kinds of reasons...

le_bon_fou in chess you should play for a win when the position allows you to play for the win, the position on the board dictates your plan, including to play for a win or draw, when he played c6, it was clearly an inferior move, not the best.

And plus i didnt call him arrogant, his personality i don't know, but the way he played quickly on the board and tried to play for a win when his position didn't allow more than a draw was a mistake and was most probably the result of being the higher rated player by 300 points.

And your right one can blunder for many reasons, but his blunder was an oversight blunder and not a tactical combinational one, meaning it was more psychological than pure calculational.

You can agree or disagree but tat doesn't change any of the facts.

That's good advice too

i am without motivation ( cries ).

I used to have this same problem.  Rather often I would be set to play someone  300 points or so lower rated than me and doubts would creep in.

As a result I was drawing and losing a ton of games to significantly lower rated players and I was playing hesitantly.

In fact, in Jan of 2012 I made it just over 1700 USCF, but then I got the fear I mention above.  By August my rating had plummeted to 1560.  At that point I managed a bit of a turnaround to make it back over 1600.

Then, what actually fixed the problem was a conversation with my brother, who only plays casually.  I was rated in the mid 1600's and was paired against a kid who was just over 1500.  I was talking with my brother via text message before the game and he said "Oh, you've got this" and I just thought to myself that he was right.  That there is a reason for the rating differences and that as a result I should do just fine.

Since that time I have become very consistent against lower rated players and I just made it over 1800 for the first time.

Here is my player stats on USCF showing my record against various ratings: http://main.uschess.org/datapage/gamestats.php?memid=12503540

Here is the game I played after the conversation with my brother: http://www.chess.com/blog/ChrisWainscott/queen-sac-finish

the trouble seems to be that you're playing weeker players, so your own game won't move on - it's like Man UTD playing in the Scotish division - league 2 - you're better off playing the bigger leagues, even if you do get beat now and again

Oh, no, I play up all the time at tounrnaments. I have resonable results against experts and masters. But I can't avoid playing lower rated people altogether - that's my weak spot.

Thanks for your input!

It might be hard to help you without seeing how you are losing / drawing those games to lower rated players.

From my experience, very strong calculation skills result in consistent wins over class B and lower players.  At some point, whether it be in the opening, middlegame, or endgame, they will miscalculate and give up material.

It looks like my USCF record from many years ago was about 81% against class B (1600-1799), outperforming my rating.  That performance was earned by very strong calculation skills, which at that time defined a one-dimensional game.  It was the stronger players who accumulated incremental advantages, that I lost to.

I am more well-rounded now, and wonder what my OTB rating would be. But back when I dabbled in OTB, basic/simple moves coupled with very strong calculation was enough to score well.  If you combined rock solid calculation with some strategy/technique, I think you would get to your 90% against 1700.