It's not about theory rather than knowing the basic plans and pawn breaks in your openings.
How do I beat a 2000+?
Sort:
Jul 30, 2014
0
#44
Hi Optimissed !....Haven't heard u out in cyberspace lately....Where've u been ?
Checkmate your opponent before they checkmate you.
....
Jul 30, 2014
0
#47
What's the old saying? "how do you get to Carnegie Hall? PRACTICE". :) If you want to beat a 2000+ I'd say the best and perhaps only way is to become a 2000+ yourself. Or you could drug his beverage....
24 hours ago·Quote·#11
chessdude46 wrote:
Also, the reason that my rating is 1500-1600 is because I tend to be inconsistent. I've had really bad tournaments which have set me back on quite a few occassions.
That's pretty much it: the difference between 2000 and 1600 levels is often not in the chess knowledge - both levels are quite advanced - but in consistency: if you beat 1900 player, but then lose to 1400 because of a momentary loss of concentration, you'll be in 1600 for a while. Once you become more consistent, your rating will go up accordingly.
Yureesystem wrote: There is a big difference in chess knowledge, a 2000 player will beat most players below their rating. To make a good move in a position you need chess knowledge; that is the reason why 2200 will beat a 2000 player and a 2000 player will beat 1800 and lower.
Jul 30, 2014
0
#49
neznaika2012 has written
That's pretty much it: the difference between 2000 and 1600 levels is often not in the chess knowledge - both levels are quite advanced -
Hahahahhahahahhahahahahahaha thats one of the funniest things I've ever heard on this site :'D!!!!! The difference between 2000 and 1600 is just consistency and there is no big difference in knowledge or chess skill ;'D. Oh dude, thats to funny, exspecially when you are serious about what you said here. For all guys who dont get it- the difference between 1600 and 2000 is huge, as higher the rating gets as bigger is the difference of chess knowledge and chess skill. And consistency really has NOTHING to do with your chess rating, I know players rated higher than 2100 who permanently get some draws or even losses against 1600/1700 players and I know players rated around 1500 who frequently win against players rated 1800 or 2000( but of course also lose against weaker opponents). The difference between 1600 and 2000 is just so extremly huge! When you were serious about what you said it would really be a blame for you...
Jul 30, 2014
0
#51
Till_98 wrote:
neznaika2012 has written
That's pretty much it: the difference between 2000 and 1600 levels is often not in the chess knowledge - both levels are quite advanced -
Hahahahhahahahhahahahahahaha thats one of the funniest things I've ever heard on this site :'D!!!!! The difference between 2000 and 1600 is just consistency and there is no big difference in knowledge or chess skill ;'D. Oh dude, thats to funny, exspecially when you are serious about what you said here. For all guys who dont get it- the difference between 1600 and 2000 is huge, as higher the rating gets as bigger is the difference of chess knowledge and chess skill. And consistency really has NOTHING to do with your chess rating, I know players rated higher than 2100 who permanently get some draws or even losses against 1600/1700 players and I know players rated around 1500 who frequently win against players rated 1800 or 2000( but of course also lose against weaker opponents). The difference between 1600 and 2000 is just so extremly huge! When you were serious about what you said it would really be a blame for you...
Sure, but could you verbalize the difference in skill? Just want to hear someone with more experience thean me give an opinion.
Guys, it's not that I'm inconsistent within a tournament. It's more that I'm very streaky. I go three or four tournaments where I play at the absolute best of my ability, but then I come to a tournament and I suddenly lose my vision. It's like I'm a completely different person in those games. Depending on how my gameplay is, I can fluctuate about 500 points, easily. I think this could be different than what you guys have been saying, but I could be wrong.
If one means consistency as, say, how many games you can go without a blunder, then yes, consistency plays a large part in the difference of playing strength. Especially considering that blunders can ruin well played games, an inconsistent player may have some really strong games, while in other cases, games where they just blundered everything away.
Although I can't agree that general chess knowledge has little to do with the difference between a 1600 and a 2000; it has very much to do with it. It's just inevitable that a person who has moved up his rating so many points will have picked up many more things along the way.
For me understanding how tactics and strategy are intertwined has helped me to improve as of late. You want to be very comfortable with basic tactics so that you can consistently recognize patterns (and not randomly blunder of course), but you also want to have a good strategy, since a good position contains more tactical opportunities. Even if you are slightly worse at tactics than your opponent, if your opponent is under more pressure, they may still blunder before you.
You want to set your pieces up around a plan. Think about what you will want to achieve in the long term, and where your pieces are best placed for that. Don't just develop one piece at a time; think about how each developing move/ pawn move fits into your grand scheme.
chessdude46 wrote:
Also, the reason that my rating is 1500-1600 is because I tend to be inconsistent. I've had really bad tournaments which have set me back on quite a few occassions.
Well, that's a problem. Being able to perform consistently is a skill. Strong players develop this skill because that way they don't drop easy points. It's a lot harder to play 5 good games in a row than play 1 good game, then be lazy and play a bad game, then play another good game, etc.
It's not that I'm lazy. Here's what I think happens: when I play chess I tend to have a completely different mindset. My mind tends to work a lot differently than it normally does. When I can adopt that mindset, I tend to play really well. However, when I can't adopt that mindset, I lose my vision and my ability to look ahead. That's why I tend to do really well or really badly in tournaments. I either have that chess mentality or I don't.
"To beat a much higher-rated player (+200 points), in general one must try to get an advantageous situation in which the higher-rated's knowledge/skill advantage is not helpful to them."
An astute observation. I agree. This has applied both to times where I have beaten better players, and when I have lost to worse players.
The rest of Andre's post #18 is also excellent.
chessdude46 wrote:
It's not that I'm lazy. Here's what I think happens: when I play chess I tend to have a completely different mindset. My mind tends to work a lot differently than it normally does. When I can adopt that mindset, I tend to play really well. However, when I can't adopt that mindset, I lose my vision and my ability to look ahead. That's why I tend to do really well or really badly in tournaments. I either have that chess mentality or I don't.
Then work on maintaining that mindset :) I have done something similar. Think of it this way: If you are always in "good form," you will always be playing higher than your rating suggests until it moves up :)
Fiveofswords wrote:
Andre_Harding wrote:
@chessdude46:
The best way to beat a higher-rated is a direct attack. Even 2600 GMs collapse sometimes as a result.
The problem is that it's hard to not get too carried away and go all-in prematurely.
Trying to beat a much higher-rated by defense (take material and hold it) virtually never works.
totally true.
for a strong palyer...positional play and technique is jsut habit...its simple...its effortless. You cant mess up a simple positional win where you accumulate minor advantages.
Calculation is less reliable. Chaotic tactical positions are very dangerous, no matter how strong a palyer you are...unless you are a computer....everybody miscalculates occasionally.
But yeah...you have to be careful not to allow some forceful liquidation to some slightly worse but calm position. Then they will just kill you easily again.
I actually disagree a little. Sometimes people just don't play well on some days, no matter the type of position. I mean, one can go on about how bad playing positionally against a stronger player is; while another can make just as convincing of a case that trying to attack a better player will just make the win easy for him (the lower rated player will probably drop a piece to an easy tactic instead of testing his opponent's technique).
Neither strategy works well, else you wouldn't be a lower rated player ;) I would imagine the positional strategy would have a higher chance of a draw but a lower chance of a win, but no matter what strategy is chosen, a loss is highly probable. It's like asking would I rather have my limbs slowly cut off or freeze/starve to death in super cold weather. Is there really a right choice at that point? :)
I know what you mean about putting pressure on your opponent. But I think you should still let it come to you naturally. A quiet position can turn sharp; you don't need to force the issue if it requires you to just make bad moves.
I think the more general idea of just trying to get your opponent to think, whether the situation is strategic or tactical, is the most important thing. And of course, a good strategy will lead to a strong, hard-to-defend attack anyway :)
Well, first I need to figure out how to get that mindset back. I haven't had it for quite a long time. (Mainly because I live in an area with very few chess tournaments and I went on a cold streak at the end of the chess tournament "season")
To add to my post #72, I don't actually necessarily disagree with andre, I just think it's not as clear cut as it seems. I mean, sure, I would probably be less comfortable playing a worse player if I have the black side of a smith morra gambit (well especially since I know nothing about it) than playing on the black side of a french defense which I know rather well. But having to grind positionally is not foolproof -- yeah, I'll probably win, being higher rated, but problems can still arise. I can still get impatient, miscalculate. Perhaps the worst thing that can happen is if I start to have trouble making progress against a solid position, and get into time pressure, and now suddenly I feel like I have to take a risk to win, so I play a dubious move to complicate things. And then due to time pressure I blunder and lose. This has happened to me before.
So, those are just some points to keep in mind.
@EricFleet: Yes, but the wins I have against my opponents were in the Northwest rating system and not the USCF rating. Unfortunately I've tended to have poor results in the USCF, especially very early on, which shows my poor rating there.
You believe it is luck that your USCF rating is 13xx and that you haven't beaten anyone rated +1700 in a USCF rated game so far, but earlier you didn't believe in luck.
You're young. Get some experience. Next time you play a +2000 rated player in a USCF game, tell yourself that you will win the game. Really believe it. I know this sounds hokey, but confidence is worth about 200 rating points.
Think how much confidence helps football players. Chess is an entirely cerebral game. If you believe you will win, really believe it, you will improve your play. If you go in believing you can't beat a +2000 rated player, you will be right.
The other things you will need to do will be to gain experience, work on tactics, and play dangerous chess. Don't try just to survive. You will get clobbered every time. Play to win.