How to prepare for an specific opponent?

I will soon play against someone at my local club. I have heard a lot about how all GMs since Alekhine prepare for their games by studying  their opponent, but how do you do that? What should I look for in the games of my opponent?

Here is a game of my opponent, what does this game tell me from his style? Or do I need a big sample of games?

 Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide.

There is a problem with your comment. It does not fall under the category of "preparing for your opponent", however it is good advice if you add "and not the opponent".

Thanks for your comment.

I like writing and some may not understand it. 

I think he plays 1.d4 exclusively. I am facing him as Black, however I do not know what lines he plays against specific defenses. The only thing I know is that against the Nimzo Indian he plays 4.Qc2.

(p. 9)
2 Play the man--not the board

Only an automaton plays the same way against every opponent. The
practical chess-player looks out for the strengths and weaknesses of his
opponents, and goes out of his way to capitalize on the weaknesses.

Before a World Championship Match, each player may spend months
making a very thorough study of his opponent's games, searching for
weaknesses in his opening repertoire, identifying the types of positions in
which he is at home or ill-at-ease, assessing his tendency to over-optimism
or pessimism, and so on. You can't go to these lengths, but you should still
be able to make good use of anything you know about your opponent's
style of play.

If you play regularly at a club you will doubtless know what to expect
from most of the other club members. You may know that Smith will
attack like crazy and go to any lengths to avoid an exchange of queens, that
Jones is lacking in confidence and inclined to agree to a draw in a good
position, and that Bloggs relies mainly on setting cheap traps. With this
information you should be able to tackle each of these opponents in a
particular way.
(p. 10)
You will have less to go on, however, when you face an opponent you
know nothing about, in a match against another club, for example. Your
friends or team-mates may be able to give you some information about
him, but even against a complete Mystery Man you should be able to make
a few deductions. Does he look a bit past his prime? Is he carrying a
briefcase bulging with openings books? Does he look confident or
nervous?

If you've got nothing else to go on, age is a reasonable guide. Older
players tend to have less stamina; they may be subject to time-trouble,
unfamiliar with current opening theory, and bad in complications, but they
often play simple positions and endings well. Younger players are usually
well genned up on current opening theory (though not the theory of ten
years ago), and good at analysing tactical lines, but frequently lack
technique in simple positions and endings. Once the game gets started you
will be able to modify your first impressions in the light of your opponent's
choice of opening, although by this stage you will have less opportunity to
steer the game in a particular direction.

A good illustration of how to play on your opponent's weaknesses is
provided by the way Korchnoi tackled Geller in their semi-final match in
the 1971 World Championship Candidates' series. He knew that he
couldn't outplay Geller positionally (as he frankly admitted after the
match); so he deliberately aimed for complicated and unclear positions,
in which he believed Geller would be uncomfortable. This approach paid
off handsomely. Geller continually became short of time trying to fathom
the complications which Korchnoi produced, failed to find the right
answers, and lost 5 1/2 - 2 1/2. Indeed, he lost 3 of the 8 games on time.

Webb, Simon. 2005. Chess for Tigers. London: Batsford.

Just one game is not enough, but from this game It looks like he prefers bishops, maybe take his bishops out early or play a closed board variation where bishops are not as useful.  For instance, I knew a guy at my club (1500-1600 range) that liked knights....I just took his knights out early and could beat him 9 out of 10 when I did that and my rating was only about 100 points over him.

Wow, thanks a lot! I guess you have to play both the board and the opponent.

I have 3 games of his, I don't think they are enough... I do saw that he missed some tactics, so I'm gonna try and play like Korchnoi did against Geller. 

Interesting comment, why do you think he prefers bishops?

At your level, "preparing" for an opponent is not necessry.  Just play the board.  

Don't play like a fish.

 the bishop thing is just a hunch, he lost his knights and retained the bishops and maintained an open position for them, but I could be wrong....at your level Diakonia and 2Q1C gave good advice....just play and have fun....don't expect to win prizes

My first coach was trying to prepare me for someone rated around 1800 at the time.  He wanted me to invest in a book on the Modern.  I kept telling him that im not anywhere good enough that i need to "prepare"

The book wasnt needed.  

Unless your opponent has an expanded library of games at your disposal, there's really no point. If you did you could look at his openings and then study the best lines to combat them. But there's not much you can do. And I think looking over his 3 games and trying to gain something from them is just going to psych you out and mess with your head. Play your game.

And honestly although I'm not as proficient as you, I think I'd do better to know nothing about my opponent going into the game. You're already over analyzing and filling your head with useless knowledge that will likely pop up in your game when you should be focusing on the actual game and not his 3 games you happen to have access to.

Really? I thought it would increase my chances of winning. 

Thanks for sharing your opinion, it is interesting to see both sides of the coin.

Thanks, I think you are right, 3 games are not enough. You also mention an interesting point, I may be over thinking this too much, it may make me go anxious and mess up the game.

I love researching data and creating my own conclusions but right now it may not be the best idea. 

Thanks all for the posts. I see most of you agree that my level is too low to think about that stuff.

All of this makes me wonder, when will I have to prepare? When I'm titled? (If I ever reach a title...)

Interesting question. White was playing poorly in the opening, especially misplacing his bishop at c4, and Black seemed to know how to take advantage of that quite well by putting that bishop into a poor corner and forcing it to lose tempi. That suggests Black is good at taking advantage of mistakes, at least common mistakes regarding misplacement in common openings. However, then Black got into similar trouble himself with ...d5?!, which got his own bishop into almost the same situation! (The fianchettoed bishop at g7, which got hemmed in from White's 14. e5.) This suggests that Black was not familiar with the guideline of not moving the same unit twice in the opening (in this case his d-pawn), and was not familiar with the "small center" concept of the Sicilian (Black pawns at d6 and e6): Black probably should have played ...e6 instead of ...d5. I'm not sure how an opponent could use this knowledge to his advantage, though: maybe get more aggressive after seeing him move the same unit twice in the opening, as what happened here? Maybe become familiar with standard central pawn formations and how to exploit common mistakes in those? (Holes, backward pawns, doubled pawns, overextended pawns, blocked bishops, etc.)

20...Nc7 was indeed odd. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like an outright tactical mistake, since it gives time for White to protect his b4-pawn, and leaves Black's knight in a poor location besides. I don't believe the avoidance of a queen trade says much since Black couldn't allow White to invade with his rooks, Black's knight was hanging and had to be protected, and Black couldn't trade at c5 without giving White a passed c-pawn.

Yes, I'm almost certain White had gained the upper hand and got a winning position during the middle game tactics between moves 20-30. White started playing with unusually high strength there, especially compared to the opening!

Then Black started playing the endgame quite well, I assume White made some mistake there that forced him to lose a knight for a promoted pawn (I'd have to study the position more to exactly see how that happened), whereupon a win for Black was pretty much assured.

It's hard to generalize all this, especially from just one game. Black does make both tactical and positional mistakes, especially in the middlegame, yet has decent positional knowledge, especially in the opening and endgame, so maybe watch for both tactical and positional mistakes to exploit, and get comfortable with middlegame tactics, since that's where change of fortunes is most likely to occur. However, that same advice applies to everyone in every game.

Thanks for your instructive post Sqod. I am not a good chess player so I don't think I would be able to really get him out of his territory and destroy him but I guess I will try to make the position tactical and if possible deviate from theory, as you said he seemed to be familiar with the opening but then as the game progressed he made some inaccuracies.

I mean from a psychological standpoint, it may help you.  But realistically, there is no reason to need to prepare like that.  Im a USCF Class A player, and have NEVER prepared for an opponent.  As others have mentioned.  Have fun!  I will add the follow: Follow opening principles, and double check your moves.

You would be better off knowing something personal about your opponent.  If they doesnt like the color blue, then wear something blue.  If they smoke, wait until they are getting up to take a smoke break and make your move.  If eating at the board bothers them, eat at the board (as long as youre being quiet about it). If your black, you get to choose what side the clock is on, or you get to choose what side of the table you want to sit on so the clock is where you want it.  If your opponent is using a non USCF approved set (Staunton Design) ask to use another set.  I know a guy that has one of those really nice/fancy sets.  No one will play on it because: 1. Its not an approved Staunton set.  2. You have the right to refuse to play with it.