Playing a titled player tonight, what's the best way to prepare?

Found out that I'm playing an FM in a league match tonight (peak rating 2350). I've only played a couple of games OTB so far so as yet I'm ungraded, but I'm definitely a lot weaker if we go on ratings.

I figure the only advantage I have is being cunning.

Some hardcore google-ing research found around 200 of his games from the last few years. My first thought was to look at the openings in which he's lost the most frequently, and try to steer the game towards that kind of territory. But then I realised, most titled players analyse their own games -  so there's a big chance he would have corrected his mistakes, and will probably know a hell of a lot of theory even in the openings he's lost. My opening theory knowledge amounts to 1 or 2 moves. Way more than I could squeeze into my peanut in a few hours.

So maybe it's best to go "out of book" quickly?

To those who play OTB regularly... what's the best way to use this information?

Thanks!

Pray?

Don't try to exploit mistakes he has made in the past. Look for holes in his repertoire...stuff he hasn't played/played against a lot...bonus points if it's complicated

Play your usual openings, if you're going to adapt to him you'll definitely end up in something he's played before and you never.

Sometimes chess is easier if you don't feel pressure to win, when a draw would be a nice result. Just look for healthy moves and see what happens.

Sleep well the night before. Have fun.

Just play your usual game, and try to gain some insights during the post-mortem.

Good luck,

Slip half a dose of Rohypnol into his beer.

Thanks for the advice guys. I'll post the game here later for you all to scrutinize!

Against masters I've had good results with the Saragossa opening, 1. c3.

This takes them out of their book; makes them think you are an idiot; and makes them feel they are obligated to crush you quickly. But the move is a good one defensively, and by playing thorny defense from the start, a good defender can exploit an over-aggressive mentality.

Eat chilli dogs and distract him with a series of powerful farts.

Considering that I know nothing of your backrounds, the only advice I can offer, based on your question is, remember he/she is human, and wasn't always titled. He had to get there somehow. It is possible for you to get there too. It is possible for you to play better than a titled player. Keep that in mind.

These are examples.

I played GM Bogoljubov on Chessmaster to a positional stalemate for about 45 moves. We were both left to move a few pieces back and forth behind our walls of pieces. I had the initiatize. I got bored and complacent, because the game wasn't as interesting. I thought it was going to end in a draw or he would lose on time because I had a huge time advantage. After I slipped up complacently moving pieces. I realized I actually could have drawn or even maybe won. I didn't remain vigilant.

I have also beaten a player rated over 2100(Jade) on Chessmaster.She apparently got overwhelmed by my menacing attack and let the timer run out. I actually looked at the position and realized an error that obviously she didn't see. It could have made the difference, but it is also possible that I couldn't see as far ahead as her and I could have still forced mate inspite of my desperate position.

Finally, I have beaten Josh Waitzkin's 9 year old character on Chessmaster(1800 rated) one year before he beat his first master.

If my rating isn't any indication that you have a chance, look at yours and then my record and rating again carefully and rethink it for a while. Hopefully this gives you peace of mind. I believe if you carefully study each position and find the right move each time, you will win. Do what ever you do, to get yourself as relaxed and in a mode to be able to concentrate as you can. Good luck.

I'd say exactly the opposite. As long as you're following main lines, well, you're following main lines. You play the strongest moves possible. He has to play something inferior if he wants to deviate.

Whereas if you play something out of book, it comes down to pure chess strength. The strongest player will win, and that's not you.

Why do you think the main lines are the main lines anyway? Wouldn't all masters constantly be switching to 1.c3 and so on to surprise their master opponents?

Do you expect an FM to go "Oh noez, an opening surprise!! Who could have known!" and immediately start playing at 2000 level or so?

I actually pulled off the "P-KR4 and three-quarters" trick, j'adoubed it onto KR5, and pushed it onto KR6 the next move. My opponent burst out "Christ! that pawn is shifting!", realised he was going to lose the promotion race and promptly resigned.

He took it in good humour, when I explained what I'd done.

Yes, from annotations I've seen in local tournies, it scares a master more when the 1200 upstart plays 15 moves of mainline.  In fact the masters usually deviate first to make it a battle of chess strength and maybe get something out of the opening.

Playing non-sharp sidelines is what strong universal style players do precisely to make it a battle of skill and less of memorization.  You are much more likely to "win" a battle of memorization.  A battle of skill you will be worse off :)

That said, play your game, nothing too different.  Most important is to play moves you'll be willing to argue for tenaciously in the post-mortem, that way you'll learn something.  Not moves where you'll have to admit "I only played this hoping you'd not find the punishment" and all he can do is shrug and post-mortem over.

lol, that is way too sneaky.

Did you think I meant online against Bogoljubov? I have actually questioned the way Chessmaster reacts to my play with the various level characters I have played against.  Even still, I have played about 50 or more games on there against various GM's in tourneys. That was only time I have ever gone that far into a game and had a realistic chance to win or even draw. Call it a fluke, computer glitch, or maybe, just maybe, the match the master lessons and chosing a less agressive GM gave me a chance in that game. It was the last game I played a GM in, on Chessmaster.

Muddy them waters.  

When presented a rating (implying actual skill) difference, it is not uncommon to see the grown-ups drag you kicking and screaming to the endgame or basically any position that is "simple" for them to play owing to their vast pattern-recognition trained experience....usually where  their stronger evaluation skills prove advantageous.

Another behavior I've seen is the "weaker" player is the one who often forces things and creates weaknesses and the stronger player "waits for it" and reacts ... usually decisively to exploit said weakness.

Therefore if you are trying to "not" give into their "keep it simple" plan .... complications right out of the opening or middlegame might be a way to go? Patiently playing without forcing anything dramatic (such as an ill-timed pawn break etc.)  may also tell the big bad wolf that you are not going to trip and fall and that his wait-and-see approach is not working. Just a few ideas to consider?

Though there's a line between playing stupid "one trick pony" openings or aggressive lines (with calculated risks)  that you hope he hasn't booked or worse yet => just plain risky/unsound chess  VS.  taking the time and thought to choosing/creating positions with tons of options and complications to sort out (where even strong players have historically gone wrong )

If you can find the right side of that line and give that ol' heffalump (in the words of Simon Webb) something to scratch his head about, you might be one of those fortunate few with a titled scalp on their hands. Good luck!

Get a picture of her in a 8x10 in a nice frame and put on the table where you can both see. When your opponent notices, and you both know he notices, coyly say "she's my training partner" "it's for inspiration"...

I agree, if you can't out calculate/visualize your opponent, you'd be better off to stick to the book moves. If he deviates, it because he wants to get you lost, and see what you can do on your own. Besides, he knows he can't beat the laws of mathematics. So I would play book in what ever I played as long as possible. Unless, he turns out to be a bumbling idiot. I doubt the last part would happen, but all things considered.

I have made use of some good advice that I found in a IM Jeremy Silman book

The Amateur's Mind. The trick is to concentrate on the game, not your oppenents rating. I often feel loaded with my opponent's rating, but this usually helps