How do I beat a 2000+?

  • #181
    InfiniteFlash wrote:

    I can safely say, even though I am 2000 uscf, I am probably the worst calculator of the bunch that has ever reached that mark and surpassed it.

    So in order to beat me, for example, all you need to do is beat me in a position that involves calculating a lot. I will blunder quite a bit. I like simplicity.

    But truth be told, that's only one strategy to go about things against a 2000. My preferences are different from other 2000s and above. 

    Knowing your opponent, their strengths and weaknesses will help a lot in attempting to defeat them.

    Do you have Aagard's GM Prep: Calculation?  It's an amazing book that will break you down and build you back up again. Same with Secrets of Pawn Endings.  It doesn't just work endgame technique but the positions are quite demanding with calculation too and you'll recognize some of the positions from Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.  Dvoretsky's School of Chess Excellence 2: Tactical Play is great if you feel you need to build up to them. 

    Do you feel weak against the Fried Liver?  I personally play 3...Bc5 in those situations (when I'm not playing a Sicilian against 1.e4 obviously as my main weapons against 1.e4 are the Berlin Wall and Paulsen Sicilian with the idea of setting up a Hedgehog) since the big calculation and aggression peters out too early in the Fried Liver.  As white I prefer 4.d4 against 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.d4 and 4...Nxe4, a very natural capture is incorrect as 5.dxe5 leads to a great game for white.  There's a convincing Lasker win as white from that opening too.  Hoping for 4...Nxe4 isn't my main reason for playing it but is a nice little extra. 

  • #182

    I do have Aagard's calculation book actually. Went through the first 17 puzzles, and for some reason I am being lazy and stopped reading it. 

    No reason for it honestly. I guess I am on the "easy" stuff with the first chapter haha

  • #183

    youre only 1300 strength, there's your answer

  • #184
    chessdude46 wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Chessdude, the Northwest rating is just a scholastic rating. 2000 there does not equate to 2000 USCF. You are aware of that, aren't you?

    Added:

    I just noticed, you're not even a scholastic player anymore. It's time to join the big kids' pool and play in USCF events. There are plenty of events in your area.

    Where are you seeing these USCF events near me? The closest ones that happen around here are two hours away.

    Portland is less than two hours away and hosts the Oregon Open at the end of the month. If you don't want to commute (two hours isn't a horrible drive), I'm sure you can find another chess playing friend to share the ride and a room. 

     

    You're a college student. Stop looking for excuses and go play in some of these events in Portland! Get your chess playing buddies together and get a club going at your local college.

    Quack!

    http://leadership.uoregon.edu/get_involved/student_groups/446

  • #185

    <<Exchange brains with Magnus Larsen. Brain transplants are going to become possible in a few years (that's a fact).>>


    There are some jokers here ... 

  • #186

    <<I expect to be in an environment where chess is nurtured but sadly chess.com apparently babysits a certain kind of sour attitude.>>

    Yes, there are a lot of miserable and self-opiniated beggars but it still seems better now than it was three months ago when all I seemed to see were strongish players with ego problems. Maybe Summer's helping.

  • #187
    Optimissed wrote:

    <<Exchange brains with Magnus Larsen. Brain transplants are going to become possible in a few years (that's a fact).>>


    There are some jokers here ... 

    Who is Magnus Larsen?

  • #188

    He's the result of a genetic experiment by a Scandinavian mad scientist.

  • #189

    SmyslovFan, how'd you know that I'm going to the U of O? 

    Or did you see that I'm from Eugene and take the leap that I would be going to the U of O?

  • #190

    Unfortunately, my best chess buddy was hit by a car a year ago, and there's nobody that I know of at the U of O that's at my level. (At least from my high school). I'll keep looking though. It'd be nice to have a player around my level to spar with. I haven't had someone like that since Scotty was hit by a car.

  • #191

    You post your name on your profile, it's probably not that hard for him to look you up and see where you're going to college.

    Back to the main question, I have a few points:

    The person who said we all suck at chess is completely right. It's understandable to be inconsistent, but the sooner that you admit that your losses are because you need to improve and your wins have quite a few errors too, you will get better. Also, you will have more luck beating 2000+ players if you realize that they also aren't that good, and while they generally have some idea of what to do they certainly don't have the perfect plans memorized in every position and don't have perfect tactical abilities. Finally, most scholastic ratings are inflated, so use your USCF rating and play more games.

    Now, 2000+ players certainly are fallible, and to prove this I will regretfully post one of my worst games.



  • #192

    Easy you've to calculate at leat 3 moves deep and be good at endgames. And choose the openings that suites your personality!

  • #193

    kaynight wrote:

    Luck does not come into chess...

    kaynight wrote: Luck does not come into chess...

  • #194
    chessdude46 wrote:

    When I'm playing at my best, I've tended to play somewhere around a 1600-1800 level. I've beat several 1900's, including one that was such an upset it got published. However, whenever I play someone who's anywhere above 2000, I always seem to collapse. I've played really good games against them, and I've even been in situations where 30 or 40 moves in the game is even. I always seem to make one mistake or miscalculation that makes me collapse. Is there any sort of chess advice that would benefit me here, or is it entirely psychological?

    Ive beaten players rated higher than me by simply doing these things (although i forget to heed them sometimes):

    1. Play moves not for the sake of just playing them, meaning, always plan something at least 2 or three moves deep all the time. we are all humans an opponent will have a tendency to not see em and so do you if your opponent keeps doing so. Pins, forks traps, even threats of mate keep creating one all the time.

    2. Never go for exchanges that would benefit your opponent. The things that might help him: time, space and good squares.

    3.Never ever go and exchange pieces just for the sake of going into an endgame unless it wouyld benefit you by having an advantage or much more an innitiative.

    4. Dont burn bridges: when you start to go for an all out war make sure you can have something to hold on to when its been refuted ( im always guilty of this lol)

    5. Lastly..dont doubt your strength and play the game like its the best of you always,

    Hope it helps.

  • #195

    My friend and I started chess around the same age but I stopped playing when I was rated 1100+.  Now, after 13 years.. his rating is around 2000. It took me one and a half year to reach 1600. As a 1600 player, I only beat him once.I think he underestimated me and fallen for the trap that I learned from youtube. but since then, he played more carefully and I was not able to win a single game against him.

  • #196

    train for 4 ours per day

  • #197

    He's probably killing you positionally and then picking off the stray piece or two. Until you vastly improve, you don't stand a chance.

  • #198
    DrSpudnik wrote:

    He's probably killing you positionally and then picking off the stray piece or two. Until you vastly improve, you don't stand a chance.

    ^Pretty much this.

  • #199

    Very carefully.

Top
or Join

Online Now