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

A proper examination of ratings in a nutshell. I have an ID on Chessmaster that is 1984. I have played only 3 games on it. All with white, all carefully selected opponents. Won all three. My other ID on there has a 1375 rating. My id on here has about the same. In the end it its just a number. Before two tourneys on Chessmaster, it was 1500+ . It goes up and down like a yo-yo. In the end, it's only a number that I can easily manipulate.

@uhohspaghettio

Yes, prepare a deep line.  If it's tricky and dangerous in the long run you'll get bigger scalps, but you'll also lose more often.  If it's a solid sideline (or a mainline) you'll have a higher frequency of wins.

Biggest upset vs lower chance of losing that is sharp play vs solid play.  This is how it is   So I suppose it depends on what the OP is looking for.

As Chrisr says above me, preparing the line means you know the line as well as they do, even if it's a mainline.  Well prepared means you're entering a middlegame position that you've studied as part of your preparation.

Tricky lines work well in blitz vs any level of opponent of course, but tournament games are different.

 Don't feel too bad. Despite never having played an OTB event, uhoh believes himself to be some kind of chess god because he has a high chess.com blitz rating. It's quite sad really.

 He's a bit like RoseQueen...eerily similar now that I think about it

RoseQueen was way higher on the caustic scale IMO :)

I didn't have time to do much research in the end, but thanks for all the advice in this thread! Very useful in future for me and others I'm sure.

Here's the game:

FM vs jamesflynnx, 90 mins

I stop recording moves because we're both in time trouble. He manages to trade off and create a passer, I resign in about 15 more moves...

Any more input would be appreciated. Cheers

James

I agree that this tactic could work quite well in blitz, where they don't have time to think. In a game where they have time to think, no matter whether you play common or uncommon moves, if the titled player sees you are taking a game into a territory where you are in control of what you are doing, common or not, they will try to get you to change game plans suddenly, so that it is his ability to see 10 moves ahead against your 7. Bottom line, this is a safer game for him, common moves or not.

I don't understand why people assume all titled players know mainlines well.  I outbook the majority of titled players I play (caveat:  I've never played a GM in a tournament game).

Enough of the "I'm right you're wrong" BS. It's boring. We're here to enjoy the game. There's some element of truth in most statements, no matter how tiny. Having endless arguments isn't conducive to learning.

For those interested the game is at the bottom of the last page : - )

James

The comment to your last move made me smile... he's had a passer since move 20 guy :)

Seems you understood what went on pretty well... at least those were the things I was thinking about the queenside and all.  A few things I noticed.

16...Rc8 looks odd, maybe too worried about defense?  Rb8 looks natural.

20...Kd7 is different :)  How does it defend against Nd6?  I was looking at your own outpost on e3.  If at some point he takes on e3 you've cleared d4 for your knight (or the file for a rook against his pawn) if not maybe you just take on g2 and your b7 bishop is uncontested on that diagonal.  It's a thought anyway.

Or like you said 20...g6 looks great, shoring up your squares can even walk the king to g7.

Then 21...Nce7 :)  I really liked how you opened the game actually, leaving theory and moving with a plan right away... I thought your opening was a success.  But in the middle here it's like you lose your purpose and the moves seem unrelated to each other.  Where was the knight heading from e7?

Only faced a master once and was crushed badly :) but it's a lot of fun to play someone who knows what they're doing... even if that means I lose ;)  Thanks for posting.

Comment on move 17 is exactly the kind of question I like to ask... where am I headed.  I think your activity has to come on the queenside.  I'd want to do 0-0 Rb8 and Ba6 (after moving the pawn).  If white lets you have that, your position is looking very healthy... you may have to pause with moves like g6 or

Or what?  Actually his b4 push is one of the only threats.  Maybe back on move 16 (or even earlier) play 16...a5 then 0-0 Rb8 Ba6 stuff.

The queen is good on b6, she may even belong there (as in best square).  I don't see anything wrong with Be7 as far as placement (timing may be wrong, not sure).  I do like it better there than the long diagonal though.

As for punishing the opening, as white I'd try to hit with d4, but looking at it myself it just turns into a normal game.  In fact it went right back into book so I took a look in my database.

The first 8 or so moves look familiar?  How about the first 3 moves uhohspaghettio? 

"c5, b5, a6 seems a bit of a ridiculous way to start the game"

This is a very flexible and astute answer to the closed Sicilian. It has been played by Ivanchuk and Bologan among others...

@James : your notes show a very good understanding of what happened - did you have the opportunity to discuss the game with the guy afterwards ?

It is difficult to outwit a much stronger player. You may end up better in opening but will blunder your advantage somehow. If you are let say 500 points lower rated, just hink about how easy it is for you to win a 500 lower rated player. Not a comforting thought but rather relax, else you are going to blunder quickly. Just go there, concentrate, and try to learn something.

Play your usual openings, memorise a few lines, see what is his usual response to that opening and try prepare for that.

If I play someone who is rated 300 pts lower than me, there are a couple of things I wouldn't feel too comfortable with :

1. the guy playing a very sound main line
2. the guy playing a line I know nothing about, but which looks dangerous
3. the guy playing with upmost confidence in the early middlegame, in a position where I can't find a clear plan to get an advantage

But most of the times what happens is :

1. the guy goes out of book on move 3 and plays something passive
2. the guy plays a well-known sideline, and I just know it /understand it better than he does
3. he shows lack of confidence/familiarity with his position early on

Bottom line is : play something that you understand. Even better if it happens to be a sound variation

Let's see what some respected authors have to say about this issue :

"1.e4 c5 2.Cf3 d6 3.d3 - I'm always happy to see such moves. Despite a rating difference of almost 400 points my opponent has effectively decided to outplay me in the middlegame"

GM Aagaard on Burnett-Aagaard, 2007 in Grandmaster vs. Amateur p.10

"In the US, every grandmaster gets to be a little Garry every once in a while. We all play open tournaments, where in the first couple of rounds our opponents are experts or weak masters [...]. I'll reveal a little secret here : in this situation, there's nothing I want more from my opponent than to step-away from main-line theory. Go ahead : surprise me, throw me off balance, make me think on my own - any way you call it - but there's a catch. You give me a good position after 10 moves with plenty of pieces on the board, and I'll find a way to outplay anybody 300 ratings points below me."

GM Alex Yermolinsky in The Road to Chess Improvement, p.160

I have met some FMs, IMs and WIMs. My score to date is =7-8.

As with all stats, the figures don't tell the whole story. I had advantageous, sometimes winning positions, in a few of the games. Poor technique, poor clock management and nerves played a role in quite a few of the games. Of course, some of the losses were pure wipeouts. The strongest result I have achieved is a draw against an ELO 2385 FM'er.

My experience is that the IM'ers are definitely versed in their openings, whereas the FM'ers and the two WIM'ers were rather less so. As was mentioned above, it is wrong to assume that a titled player is versed in everything, is a walking encyclopedia.It is better to play the openings one usually plays and have studied. I essay my favourites and have achieved sensible, playable positions (the aim of any good opening preparation). The losses arise because the opponent is simply much better in the ensuing middlegames and endgames and for the other reasons noted above.

It's often the case that a titled player wants to diverge first in order to avoid long book variations, the logic being: "why do I want to play 20-25 moves against "Garry Kasparov" when I can play a lesser played but good line where I feel my greater playing strength will show itself, if not immediately then in the long run?" In one instance, an FM player prepared a long line against me. I caught him out! Because I had played that line for a couple of years. Next time we met, he diverged at move 2. (1.c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4)

The most important thing is to approach these games with the correct frame of mind. It's a psychological issue. Nerves really can kick in when you are winning against a titled player. Maintaining control of emotions and playing at one's usual speed - there is a tendancy to drift into time trouble because of excessive indecision or hesitation - is important.

And as the old saying goes: titles don't win games, only good moves. So respect your opponent -- also when you beat him!

For what it's worth, the other day on the Gilbraltar commentary, SImon Williams (who is certainly no tactical slouch) recommended that the best way to beat a higher rated player is to complicate matters as much as possible, and even mentioned that he had lost a couple of times to an IM using just this strategy. So there are certainly adherents to both philiosophies.

I do think uhohspaghettio is forgetting that playing an FM in 3 0 on chess.com is a completely diffferent beast to playing him in a competitive game/90 OTB. Apples and oranges

Don't know anything about the O'Kelly Sicilian, but I would have thought that d5 is premature. It would surely make more sense for black to get out his kingside pieces and castle first, before attempting such a central break. If you open the position up with your king still in the centre, there's a fair chance it will stay there.

Still, you made him work for it and didn't get obliterated, so I think you did ok, especially if that was your first master opponent.

Actually there is a theoretical problem with the Fried Liver Attack as black. 

You are playing an inferior sideline 5...Nxd5?! with the hopes of 6.Nxf7!?

But white can play much stronger with the Lolli Attack 6.d4!

I would never want to be caught on the black side of that.

Really, the best thing you can do is to play to your strengths. There is a saying, "Play the board, not your opponent". Concentrate on the board, on the pieces and find the best move, to your ability. 

Opening theory will only get you so far, the meat is in the middle of the game, and the endgame. Be weary of traps/gambits, as he may try to play them if he realises he's the stronger player. If you can avoid them and develop normally then you should be fine.

Don't get frustrated if he cramps your position early, and you struggle to find the best move. Often we can use our opponents energy against them when they throw pieces at us, just defend patiently and logically.

Keep an eye out for forcing tactics too, if you can throw punches, then do it. It could catch him off guard and send him into the downward spiral.

Don't forget he's only human at the end of the day, and don't move untill you see it!