How do I beat a 2000+?

Despite having very little respect, I've gotten quite a few good games out of the London System.

I don't know, what is luck in this case? If I blunder my queen against a 1200, it seems like I can connect my loss to whatever made me blunder the queen in my head. In other words I can blame me for it. I may not normally make the mistake, but it doesn't change who to blame for it.  This, of course, does not suggest that the 1200 is a better player, but it does mean that, on this rare occasion, the 1200 played better than me.

If you mean luck in the sense that  something like this happens when in most cases it wouldn't happen, ok. When humans apply skill blunders can still happen -- that's just a cute trait of ours that the machine doesn't share; these situations are luck in the sense that they are hard to predict, but the fact that it's the same me playing the game, just as much as in a game where I don't blunder, is obviously intact.

I guess in other words... I don't see why, just because someone may beat another person 2% of the time, means there is something special about that 2% (like luck). It's rare, sure, but I don't see why that alone is so important. If it's rare, it means it's rare, does it really mean anything else? In 98% of the games he gets fairly beaten, while he wins fairly in the other 2%, just that one happens less frequently than the other. I mean sure if you bet on the guy who wins 98% of the time and he loses, you had bad luck in terms of the statistics misleading you, but I feel like that changes the subject. The 98% chance could be argued to be a natural consequence of the amount of skill the player had.

To both yureesystem and Till_98: I am talking from my own experience: I was (and actually officially still is) a 1600 OTB USCF player, and I played quite a few games against people just under 2000 (like 1900-1950). I can attest, there was nothing that they could surprise me with, or overwhelm me with some tactics: for the most part the games were very even, I lost mostly either on stupid blunders or time pressure, and won mostly on time. The reason I did not get higher in rankings is because when I played someone in 1500-1600, i.e. just below my level, I sometimes got carried away or lost concentration, and because of that lost a few games unnecessarily. I also had at least two situations when I had better position against 1800 players and they offered me a draw, but I refused and eventually lost on some stupid blunders. To summarize: my level of chess was not much different than 2000 level, but I was too inconsistent. Now, I am not saying that every 1600 level player has the same amount of chess knowledge that every 2000 level player has, but the difference on average is not so big: both levels know almost all standard openings and can play them until move 10-15 or even 20 without any mistakes (at least the most common lines), both know all the necessary elements of tactics and positional principles. 2000 level is probably a bit more experienced, so he may spend less time evaluating certain situations on the board and calculate faster - but this is not the chess knowledge, it is a combination of experience and mental ability. And surely there are some 1600 players who just got there only by beating some under 1400 players consistently and who rarely played anyone higher that 1600 - those cases maybe not too knowlegible, but they are probably very minor.

The difference between a 1600 and a 2000 is massive. Would you say "the difference is not that big" when comparing Caruana and a player whose rating hovers around 2401?

Some comments:

1. If a player temporarily lacks a chess mentality (as chessdude46 says), don't play tournament games until you get that feeling back. It happens to most everyone at some point. That's what online chess is for: just some light practice and keeping some sharpness.

2. Elubas' comment regarding a higher-rated (+200) facing the Smith-Morra is close to what I meant about facing a lower-rated attacking player, but that requires a sacrifice of material that may not be quite sound, and so has a bit of an "all-in" feel to it. Dangerous, but if I show a medium amount of care, the lower-rated player with White has little chance.

Now, if I were to play the Najdorf against a lower-rated player and they came after me with 6.Bg5 or played a main-line English Attack, it would certainly get my attention...

In general, when facing a higher-rated opponent, play MAIN LINES with both colors! I can't stress this enough. I WANT 1800s to play sidelines against me!

3. Luck definitely exists in chess. Yeah, sure, it doesn't exist in the same way that it does in Texas Hold'em because chess is a game of "perfect information," but consider the interplay of these factors: 

a) Your feeling/form and your opponent's.

b) Success or lack thereof in pregame preparation.

c) One of the players getting caught in a prepared variation.

d) Position type. A position may arise that suits one of the players much more than it suits the other...and the players could be equally rated/skilled overall.

e) Hallucinations/miscalculations/intimidation/bluffing, etc. are all very real things! A person who says otherwise has not played much tournament chess at a decent level--and no, internet chess doesn't count.

4. Importance of chess knowledge. Knowledge isn't meaningless, but it is definitely overrated. PLAYING WELL is king. Having a lot of knowledge does not imply strong play except in the opening and occasionally in the endgame. Very often a knowledgeable player will have an inefficient thinking process that sinks them time and again.

@Synaphai: The difference in playing skill between a 1600 and a 2000 is massive, but not necessarily their level of knowledge.

@Synaphai, Yeah, but I've gotten anywhere from 40-50% success rate against 1900s. The difference between a 1971 and a low 2000s player shouldn't be enough to the point where I have a 0% success rate against 2000s. That's where the difference is coming from. 

"b) Success or lack thereof in pregame preparation.

c) One of the players getting caught in a prepared variation."

I would still consider this something to factor in when it comes to skill. What I mean is, the better you are with openings, the less likely these things are to happen. Sure, a well prepared player may still get confused, but that will be reflected by the occasional change in their rating.

Skill in chess is applied in complex ways. Skill in closed positions will only increase wins in closed positions for example; but that doesn't make that skill any less real, it just means that sometimes it won't show/make a difference depending on the position that is reached. So it would make sense that skills will result in a win sometimes and other times not. That's just how it operates.

It's still your decisions, which you have full control over, that determine what opportunities you give your opponent. But ok, I guess one could argue that one can't control "what their opponent will play" no matter how good they are. This wouldn't matter if you were perfect at chess, but otherwise could. I still don't think you can ever really complain to your opponent that they didn't deserve a win or something -- you were both offered the same starting position, and your opponent made something out of it that you could not. If you thought your opponent would play some opening and he didn't, well guess what, you were wrong :) You can think whatever you want, or be surprised whenever you want; regardless, if you're wrong, you're wrong :)

That last part reminds me of a distinction that is worth making. You can have a probabilisitic chess belief, such as, there is a 50% chance this move will work. But that is only from your perspective. We use these beliefs as tools. Just because things seem random in our heads, doesn't mean that's how chess really is. Of course things will seem strange to us in chess sometimes, because chess is complicated to humans. It's our crappy attempt to make something out of this perfect information game, and our inability to do so is because of skill, not luck. We estimate chances of things, but that's just us trying to make sense of what we don't understand and nothing more; it's our psychological reaction to the complications. When we play a good move we may not always know it is a good move, but it will always be a good move.

Hi Everybody Ratings 1639(blizt) Vs 2104 (blizt) 10 minute game

This is the highest ratings that i have  ever beat in chess.com

Live Chess Game

Date: May 21, 2014

Time: 10|0

here my opponent initial ratings is 2104 (Blizt) and after i beat him his ratings comes down to 2089.Now My ratings in blizt is  1651 Every one can check the game in this link

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=812553807

Nice job, but I'm pretty sure that it's much easier to beat a 2000+ player in a 10 minute online game that in a 90 minute OTB match. 

chessgames-99, I'm pretty sure that if I did that, I'd end up losing on time and therefore would not be able to beat a 2000 player.

I'm not Erik. I'd reccomend stopping this childish behavior because you're making a fool out of yourself.

This is a load of nonsense.  I play complete crap over the board at 90+30 minute time controls and I have find results.  I play Halloween Gambit, Morra Gambit, Hillbilly gambit (vs Caro).  b4 pawn sac agasint Qa5 Scandinavian.  I play Sicilian Dragon and Benoni as black.  You don't have to play "solid" openings to hit 2000.  Just don't blunder pieces.

(Sorry if this is a repeat, my original message did not post for some reason). Again, I agree the difference between 2000 and 1600 is huge, but not so much because of chess knowledge (basic principles, tactics, positional play - stuff you'll get from books, videos, coaches), rather because of skill: 2000 level is more experienced and probably has better mental ability/concentration - that constitutes skill. I am sure that 1600 player may have a pet opening that s/he studied to the GM level, and can crush 2000 player with it if 2000 player has only basic knowledge of it. Now, if we look at GM level, these guys have far superior skills and knowledge: besides normal main lines, they study lines that are not even covered in books, often inventing new lines. This is far beyond the chess knowledge that even 2200 level players have. I hope my point is clear now, it is basically what Andre_Harding said in post#81.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS play for a win when playing someone alot better than u. Force their play. They may do a Homer Simpson on u. Ur problem becomes: If they're hotly playing 4 a win ?....then you're the one in trouble my love.

So, u have a chance if they're kinda scared and play touchy-feely.

If you want to lose, guaranteed, against someone rated +400 higher than you, play for the draw. You will get clobbered every time.

SmyslovFan wrote:

If you want to lose, guaranteed, against someone rated +400 higher than you, play for the draw. You will get clobbered every time.

Pretty much this ^^

Well, you should never play for the win or the draw. You play to put yourself into the best position you can have on the current board (or at least that's how I do it). If you play with the sole intention of winning or drawing, that's going to cloud your vision to see the board one way or the other. If you're playing to win, and your opponent has played you into a dead drawn position, you're going to play too aggresively and often times lose. If you're playing to draw, you're going to play passively and can often miss opportunities to gain an advantage. You've got to play the board, not your opponent.

chessdude46 wrote:

Well, you should never play for the win or the draw. You play to put yourself into the best position you can have on the current board (or at least that's how I do it). If you play with the sole intention of winning or drawing, that's going to cloud your vision to see the board one way or the other. If you're playing to win, and your opponent has played you into a dead drawn position, you're going to play too aggresively and often times lose. If you're playing to draw, you're going to play passively and can often miss opportunities to gain an advantage. You've got to play the board, not your opponent.

-------------------------

Don't ya just love it when the person asking the original question later comes back and acts as an authority?

Since 1992, I have not lost a single USCF game to anyone rated less than 1600. I have defeated and drawn players rated +2400 tho. I do know something about how to play against lower rated players and against higher rated players.

As an aside, I think it was Patrick Wolff who once said that an expert was just a consistent C player. He was clever but wrong.