How to beat 2000+ :http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=875234096
How do I beat a 2000+?
Sort:
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?
Depending on how you feel yourself during a game with 2000+, we can talk about more or less strong effect of psychological aspect. BTW, in blitz games psychological aspect seems to cause more effect.
But more simple explanation: maybe it's pretty hard to get from 1970 to 2000 (have not delved into all the intricacies of rating systems), so that only best of the best 1970's can afford this.
Jul 31, 2014
0
#84
kaynight wrote:
What a load of ball cocks.
An absolutely hilarious response !
Thru my nose my Pepsi goes !
InDetention wrote:
How to beat 2000+ :http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=875234096
How did you manage to win despite fixing your pawns on dark squares and exchanging off your lightsquared bishop for an awkward knight? Not only that but you had space and the Ng6 wasn't contributing to any overall goal, and if ...f6 then exf6 and the knight isn't coordinating with a pawn to pressure the head of a chain but instead open up a line towards the backward pawn.
The French variation chosen is criticised as dubious (don't tell Dvoretsky! In his School of Chess Excellence 3 he had some success with it)
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
InDetention wrote:
How to beat 2000+ :http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=875234096
How did you manage to win despite fixing your pawns on dark squares and exchanging off your lightsquared bishop for an awkward knight? Not only that but you had space and the Ng6 wasn't contributing to any overall goal, and if ...f6 then exf6 and the knight isn't coordinating with a pawn to pressure the head of a chain but instead open up a line towards the backward pawn.
The French variation chosen is criticised as dubious (don't tell Dvoretsky! In his School of Chess Excellence 3 he had some success with it)
Thanks for analysis,I dont know exactly how i won. The time control was 90 30,and I had only 7 minutes at the end. and why is the line of the game of french defense considerd dubious?
and if it is dubious, then how did dvoretsky get good results with it?
Learn martial arts. That should get you started
SmyslovFan wrote:
Don't ya just love it when the person asking the original question later comes back and acts as an authority?
I wasn't really trying to act as an authority. It just came out that way really. Communication isn't really my strong suit. Plus it was pretty late when I wrote that. I'm definitely less able to communicate in the manner I want to when it's late.
Optimissed wrote:
Basically white won because black played appallingly badly and allowed white an active knight versus passive bishop ending.
Uh... have you noticed I was up a rook going into the endgame?
neznaika2012 wrote:
Synaphai wrote:
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?
(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.
This is implausible.
Yeah, it's theoretically possible that a person might not know much more than someone 400 points below, but extremely unlikely. It would sure take a big coincidence to not happen to pick up more things as you are trying to climb the rating ladder, getting experience, correcting your previous mistakes, etc. In fact, chess knowledge is actually related to consistency in some sense. Here's what I mean: nuggets of info like "a bishop can only control one color of square" can allow a person to never hang material in some bishop endgame, because they know there is a 0% chance a dark colored bishop will be able to attack anything on light squares. Knowing that will reduce blunders because they can put all of their pieces on a light square.
It generally comes down to this: Stronger players are better at pretty much everything -- which does, indeed, include things like performance, consistency, maybe even fitness. It's hard to just improve your chess in one area of the game, since they are all so intertwined, and also, even if you did, the other areas of your game would still drag you down so it would be unlikely to raise your rating by such a huge amount (a few hundred points).
Optimissed wrote:
If you want to lose, guaranteed, against someone rated +400 higher than you, play for the draw. You will get clobbered every time.>>
Totally wrong.
Well, I do agree with smyslov fan in this case. But note, I don't consider that the same as saying "playing positionally/solid against a stronger player is bad" 
. There is a distinction between playing solidly and playing for a draw.
Solid chess is just a strategy. You don't create weaknesses so that you can make sure you don't have to worry about anything before starting your own play. It's logical. Weaknesses can lose you games. Not making too many gets rid of this option. The play may result in draws more often, but not necessarily because a draw is desired, but because that's just the style. One may still try to win but if nothing comes up, ok, at least I didn't give my opponent a chance to win. I wouldn't call that playing for a draw but rather just not overpressing.
Outright playing for a draw, on the other hand, would be like not taking a slightly better position instead of equality just because it would make some sort of imbalance, heaven forbid. That kind of player will give into their opponent and will never find opportunities because they are too scared to find them and only care about making the position "symmetrical" or something like that. That kind of narrow level of thought will almost certainly fall victim to the kinds of (relatively) sophisticated ideas stronger players use.
Another way to think of it: It's easier to draw a better position than it is to draw an equal position. So even if you want a draw, you would really better your chances of it by fighting for a better position. But of course at that point it's economical to at least try to win a little, since half points certainly have value.
"Just before I equalised I would offer a draw. Occasionally this backfired and the draw was accepted but usually it was declined. I'd seen the equalising line which nullified his activity and three moves later my opponent would start pushing too hard to justify his declining the draw. Or very often he would offer a draw which I would decline, leading to confusion and maybe anger on his part, again leading to unjustified aggression on the board. He'd make a mistake and I'd win. Chess is, in part, playing with people's minds."
Admittedly, there is some merit to this psychological ploy :p Not my personally favorite idea, although in any case strategic draw offers can be useful. If I'm playing a lower rated player and they have some advantage, but then I offer a draw, they get disoriented. Even if they decline, they will have thought for a while declining it, and they will probably feel some psychological pressure which could negatively affect their play. If they accept, I get a draw without having to fight for it in an inferior position.
I really haven't offered a draw in a game in a long time. Most of the time I wait until it's obvious that the game cannot be won by either side. I've changed in my ability over the last 2 years apparently, because over the first two years I was playing I was known as the draw king.
Aug 1, 2014
0
#95
Playing for the draw is a great way for grandmasters to get 1/2-1/2. It is also a great way for an amteur to get checkmated.
Leap for the sky, you'll land in the trees.
Leap for the trees, you'll land in the crap.
I have helpful hints here:- www.outshinechess.webs.com
Its still under construction. I plan on making my own group on chess.com
Aug 1, 2014
0
#97
I've received numerous draw offers from lower rated players. I have almost never accepted them. I've seen hundreds of USCF games (my own and others) where the lower rated player runs out of moves and offers a draw without realising their opponent has been playing for precisely that position.
Usually, when such players offer a draw it's because they have no clue how to continue the game. The "psychological draw offer" usually backfires.
Even the very best players have extreme difficulty playing for a draw, even as white. The most famous example was Mikhail Gurevich's loss to Nigel Short. Gurevich only needed a draw to win the Interzonal tournament.
This is what happened:
Optimissed wrote:
There's a mistaken or faulty understanding here.
If someone plays for a draw, that means that they try to make moves that are most likely to lead to a draw. They do not make moves that are likely to lead to a loss. I think that a lot of people here don't understand the difference between playing for a draw and playing for a loss, hence all the stupid comments!
And they usually try and fail in this, unless said player is a strong master OR has fantastic opening preparation. Neither describes most players who think they are "playing for a draw."
No mistaken or faulty understanding at all.
Occasionally there are players who can play for a draw AND usually succeed. If this describes you, then congratulations!
This win could have happen by luck. So just be happy you won!
SmyslovFan wrote:
I've received numerous draw offers from lower rated players. I have almost never accepted them. I've seen hundreds of USCF games (my own and others) where the lower rated player runs out of moves and offers a draw without realising their opponent has been playing for precisely that position.
Usually, when such players offer a draw it's because they have no clue how to continue the game. The "psychological draw offer" usually backfires.
Even the very best players have extreme difficulty playing for a draw, even as white. The most famous example was Mikhail Gurevich's loss to Nigel Short. Gurevich only needed a draw to win the Interzonal tournament.
This is what happened:
Very interesting. If a 2600 can botch a position like that, it makes me wonder why I sometimes fear trading off too many pieces in an exchange french, leading to the "dreaded dead drawn ending" or something. Carlsen too has shown how much play there can be in "quiet" positions where many pieces are traded off. Basically, he just keeps looking for good plans and plays better than his opponent.
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?
Just get yourself 2000+ opponents on a regular basis (not like four times a year) and at a certain point it will not be as big an event from your perspective and it will become 'business as usual' that you manage to beat them every once in a while.