Players 100- 2000 - what do you think your biggest weakness in Chess is?

I had very similar problems when progressing from 1600 upwards, and sometimes still do. Especially when I try to play "prophylactically" that can easily turn into me just huddling up and kicking myself for allowing my opponent to move their pieces. 

The thing I've noticed about players like Karpov and Petrosian is that their positional, prophylactic styles are NOT passive at all - they are usually stopping their opponents ideas with mostly natural looking moves that contain nasty tactical surprises - also, if the position clearly calls for active play, they are not afraid to attack like the best of them.

I think playing "defensively" is usually just a code word for playing passively and waiting for the opponent to do something dumb. Not sure if that fits with your experience, but that is what I have found with myself. 

It is super important to have some respect for your opponent and to keep an eye on what they are doing, but you have to objectively evaluate their ideas and find 1) whether they are threatening something and 2) what is the LEAST amount of compromise you can make to stop their idea. 

Low 1200’s here. I can’t seem to visualize, meaning I can’t see what the board will look like after about two moves. 

It's a tough skill to develop, especially in the opening - middlegame, with pieces going everywhere. I recommend practicing in King and pawn endings, visualising/calculating as far ahead as you can before proceeding. 

It will be difficult at first but you'll get the hang of it with enough practice

Agreed

I agree. And the opposite is pursuing an attack when you can see a 'difficult to spot' means to defend it, and yet hope the opponent won't. 

Yep, "hope chess" as Dan Heisman calls it  

https://www.chess.com/article/view/passive-vs-basic-hope-chess

Yes the -balance- is difficult to attain. There's the assumption that well, they're only rated at... and I don't think I would have seen that 2 years ago. But they do. And it's cold comfort when the analysis coach thingy goes 'Great move! That was the only good move and you found it!' Then you check their profile and they're 1990 at blitz. (Great reasoning, genius...) The other thing is people have amazingly different strengths and weaknesses that aren't reflected in rating. My special strength appears to be pulling off 'great moves!' that turn a totally lost positions into a slow grind of a loss. Lol.

You can't make assumptions based on a person's rating - this is the brutal truth that I've learned  

Hey 1st off props to you for giving out so many tips rock on man

Second, I guess it does help, because I think this is exactly the problem I have, not being able to identify these moments, or for some reason mistakenly identifying a "several reasonable options" moment as a "i'm on thin ice" moment, using a ton of time.  as for your general principle of not looking for absolute truths; idk... I believe we are in any event not capable of finding them so looking for them is sortof our best try, you know?... Also there are very playable openings such as Queens Gambit Accepted or when you take the pawn vs the Catalan where you know you are going to have to find difficult best/excellent moves for a while, be practically worse despite being up a pawn (or up 2, 3 pawns but still practically worse).. then eventually consolidate miraculously and create some imbalanced endgame and outplay the opponent somehow... But yes, I guess it comes down to confidence in late-middle/endgame skills, because this obsession on best moves in the early part of the game probably arises in the subcounscious fear that if you don't get the strongest initiative possible out of the opening you will inevitably collapse later on.. 

not wining

Not a question that can be answered overnight, but being aware you have the problem is really half the battle.

I think during the game it's always important to understand what is under threat, what is tactically vulnerable, etc. "Positional" considerations and ideas all have tactical bases. 

If it helps, follow a master game or two, see how they would treat the position differently to how you would - I think you'll find even Grandmasters often don't concern themselves with finding the absolute best move every time, but rather just following principles and keeping an eye on tactics. 

Stick with it my guy - I'm sure you'll work out your groove soon enough! 

endgames :')

FD

Blunders :,)

I'm dead 

Example: one move wins you a pawn, but forces you to play perfectly for a while to maintain your advantage (while inaccurate moves make you lose), while another move doesn't win any material but forces your opponent to play very accurately to keep his material (and not lose).

In every case I would choose the second option.

Because while engines can navigate all the complications, I am not a computer, and neither is my opponent.

The question is how to estimate the actual difficulty to consolidate... It's not always clear.

For example, if as a Sicilian player you refuse taking the Smith Morra Gambit, you are a bit of a coward, don't you agree? It dosen't require perfect play for Black... Another example that comes to mind is the Neuman Gambit, or even some lines in the Scotch Gambit... If you refuse to take the free pawn you often end up giving them a solid positional edge, don't you think?

idk... The Neuman gambit is a good example because I never studied it and never lost to it... just take the pawn, brace yourself for some quick development by opponent, defend against it without much of a hassle, ez win, normally... 

I mean, it really depends on the person and how much he feels he can handle and how confident they are. I would usually take risks in the endgame because I'm fairly confident in my ability to draw in case something goes wrong.