Forums

Better go sharp, tactical or positional, maneuvering against higher rated players FM's !?

Sort:
Avatar of DerpyShoelace
DerpyShoelace
Mar 8, 2020
0
#21

Against a stronger player, it is obvious that the only way you can win is if they make a blunder/careless error.

You also need to ensure that the mistake they make is big enough for you to convert the resulting position easily(Which is no easy task against a strong player)

So I feel that a tactically wild position has the greatest chance of inducing mistakes from your opponent since they might become overconfident and decide to go for overly aggressive moves. 

 

So one moment of carelessness might be enough for you to win a piece and then the game.

Keep in mind that it is even more likely for you to go wrong, but the odds are always against you if you are playing against stronger players.,

Avatar of drmrboss
drmrboss
Mar 8, 2020
0
#22
Darkness_Prevails wrote:
drmrboss wrote:

What is the point of showing a game where one player did horrible mistake and lose?

 

If you dont know why black lose, I can tell you, 8.---- Nd4 ?? is a bad positional blunder, 

 

What if your opponent doesnt do such positional blunder? What is the plan?

He was an IM btw.May be you should show a game when a lost player does not 'blunder' and still loses.

Billions and Trillions of games had been played among human and computers . ( Even Stockfish vs Stockfish played 1.6 Billions of recorded games )

 

It doesnt matter, IM or GM, it is already known human do mistakes left and right. Even 3600 Stockfish does blunders.

 

" There is no single game in chess history where a player lose without a single mistake".

Avatar of Uhohspaghettio1
Uhohspaghettio1
Mar 8, 2020
0
#23

I've seen drmrboss do this "positional blunder that lost him the game" routine a few times now and I don't trust it, especially not on a game from an IM.  

OP the answer is clear - a game full of tactics is your best option. The easiest win of all would be to outbook the better rated player in a really sharp opening and giving them no way to come back from a terrible position. Tactical strength fluctuates a lot compared to positional strength. If you go for a strategic game then likely it'll all be over before you have a clue what's happening. Better to throw those pieces around and he might slip up. 

Obviously if he does blunder a piece you'll start playing everything tight, no more wild tactics giving him a chance to get back into it after that.  

  

Avatar of ESP-918
ESP-918
Mar 9, 2020
0
#24
Optimissed wrote:

When you look at many current GM games you see that very often they are not playing positionally sound chess and that is because the current fashion is for experimental chess which is extremely tactical, as though they're pretending to be computers. Since IMs and GMs see tactics instantaneously that would take you and me ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to work out, even though the prevailing wisdom is to play tactically against a stronger player that is wrong. You try to play as positionally and solidly as you can because every move made in the game is an extra move where the IM or GM could get careless. Going for fireworks is just what they want. Making it hard for them to beat you isn't what they want.

So you play positionally. Of course that only applies IF you're capable of playing positionally. Positional chess is not boring but in positional chess most of the tactics go unplayed and you strike when it's strongest to do so.

Thx I think you are actually right about positional , slow , game .

Some people recommend go wild in tactics lol I'm sure FM's or IM's calculate much better and more IMPORTANTLY MUCH faster in blitz game so I think it's just suicidal 

Avatar of ESP-918
ESP-918
Mar 19, 2020
0
#25

🤔

Avatar of ESP-918
ESP-918
Mar 19, 2020
0
#26
Optimissed wrote:

I do know because in the past I played a lot of high rated players and usually lost, due to their understanding of variations. I had a few wins or draws but not when I played tactically unless THEY started the tactics when I was playing positionally or just defending.

My last game against a high rated player was against a FIDE 2300 about two years ago in a league game and he played his favourite 1. g3 opening. I played positionally and got a won position but at the end I had about two minutes left and he had four or five and I blundered in time trouble and lost a couple of pawns with a lost position. He told me I'd given him his most difficult game in a year, because he needed to win or the English grading system would have wrecked his grade, and for his team of course. That was playing positionally and just trying to outplay him. Nearly succeeded.

I usually play 3/2 OTB , so I doubt he will have 4 or 5 minutes to think 

Avatar of Destiny
Destiny
Mar 20, 2020
0
#27
ESP-918 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

When you look at many current GM games you see that very often they are not playing positionally sound chess and that is because the current fashion is for experimental chess which is extremely tactical, as though they're pretending to be computers. Since IMs and GMs see tactics instantaneously that would take you and me ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to work out, even though the prevailing wisdom is to play tactically against a stronger player that is wrong. You try to play as positionally and solidly as you can because every move made in the game is an extra move where the IM or GM could get careless. Going for fireworks is just what they want. Making it hard for them to beat you isn't what they want.

So you play positionally. Of course that only applies IF you're capable of playing positionally. Positional chess is not boring but in positional chess most of the tactics go unplayed and you strike when it's strongest to do so.

Thx I think you are actually right about positional , slow , game .

Some people recommend go wild in tactics lol I'm sure FM's or IM's calculate much better and more IMPORTANTLY MUCH faster in blitz game so I think it's just suicidal 

The same thing applies to positional chess. They have a much deeper strategic and positional understanding of the game. They are more likely to play more accurately than you do and capitalize on your inaccuracies to secure a win. Playing more aggressively will likely result in a loss as well but your chance to win is higher in a more complicated situation. 

Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Mar 20, 2020
0
#28

Tactics in a well played game usually come after positional play.

If you are playing against a high rated player it is best just try and find the best move you can find==each time it is your turn.