Playing the opponent?

I usually don't think very much when I play people under 1600, I find it's nearly useless. Most people around that area, usually the younger crowd, relate chess to poker, which to me is admirable, however, misguided. Playing the man and not the board leaves obvious opportunities for your opponent to stop, take a moment to think and calculate the best move at anytime, something that may cause headaches. Playing the man also leads to being sent down the rabbithole. I don't like givnig the opponent any chance like this. I'd rather leave them no room to breath until they are either fed up with the combinations I throw at them and resign, or they watch as thier position crumbles. An inevitable crush is the most satisfying type of win. It means your plan was flawed, and mine wasn't. THAT, is a win.

Goodluck in your games, just thought I'd drop that little nugget on you, though I normally don't do so out of principle.

Personally I try to play a combination of the man and the actual position..

Of course, if you don't pay attention to the sneakyness the player might have in store (just in case they have a read on you in some way), you can really be made to look foolish.I meant more of a "oh I'm badass, i'm gona rock this guy with my style yo"....gtfo

You knwo?  Just annoys me.  My goal, bizarrely, is to be able to play LIKE a computer, it means I see deeply into the game.

I don't mean playing anything unsound.

As I haven't really discovered my style yet, I try for a karpov-like approach of trying to always play the objectively best moves but if there are a few almost equally strong moves to choose from I try to choose the one which will bring the game into the sort of position my opponent will feel least comfortable in..

So you play a combination of the man and the person, but you don't have your own style, so where's your reference point for their style and how to counteract it?

I don't think you understood my point. I wasn't referring to people who play good chess but pay attention to the opponents tendencies, I meant people who are idiots who don't know chess yet think they can suave their way and I won't pick up on it. Insulting my intelligence essentialy. Usually, I'll just stop trying.

I lost 3 gams in a row against an opponent that thought he was mastermind. Kept saying "You see how I play"?  not realizing I knew he meant his annoying talk attempts to get under my skin and not the board.

By looking through their games if I have access to them and trying to determine what kind of positions they like.

Still need a reference point. That's like saying you want to sail without a compass.

If I didn't answer that already then I don't know what you mean by a "reference point".

if you dont have an internal style reference ponit, how will you know waht their likes are? are you going to memorize? i dunno, but I find that if i want to memorize an entire set of games ( i did this for fischer's ruy lopez, and his style in general) it's gonna take a while and you'll probably only be able to confirm a move or two, something we don't have time for online.

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't have to photographically memorise any of their games just to find out their style.

Lmao. How do you find out their style without knowing your own well, and nto looking into several games of theirs?

You'll understand what i mean when you unravel the thought.

1. So can you explain how it makes it any more difficult that I don't know my own style well? Looking through my own games I don't seem to obviously favour any particular type of position, while a lot of my opponents however do. Also as I only now play exclusively turn-based games which usually take a long time to finish and as I'm improving at a steady rate only my last few games actually reflect somewhat accurately my current ability.

2. I do look into several games of theirs.

Most players under 2000 don't have a "style" do to the fact that they have not nearly played enough games to have one! Sure you can be more comfortable in open or closed positions but that does not mean you have style. Also most games under 1600 are bludgeoning matches of tactics where the last mistake loses.

My understanding of "playing the man" is making moves that clash with your opponents style of play. For example: your opponent is a brilliant tactician and fierce attacker, and you know this. So, you decide to trade down pieces and reach an endgame as quick as possible. Or: maybe your opponent is extremely studied in a certain opening so, you decide to make a move that perhaps isn't the "absolute best move" as dictated by theory, just to veer of the main line. Anything that intentionally takes your opponent out of their comfort zone is "playing the man."

I don't think anybody claims to strictly "play the man" without any focus on position, tactics, or strategy. That wouldn't make any sense. In order to "play the man" you must adapt to position, tactics, and strategy that oppose your opponents style of positions, tactics,and strategy. The concept of "playing the man" can not live dependently of these things.

If you know how your opponent plays, there's nothing wrong with "playing them." Anything that augments your chance's of winning is great! However, if your playing with a stranger online, like most of us do, it seems that the whole idea of "playing the man" is irrelevant.

That's not what i mean, just watch some of the lower rated games and you'll understand.

 u mean like this one?

That's pretty much the type of stupidity I was referring to. It happens at the 13-1400 level even. If you play "weak", they'll all of a sudden make bold, but unsound moves to which you chuckle the first few times, but eventually you're wondering how dumb the species you belong to is.

The laws of chess exsist regardless of your opponent. The only variant is how much chess your opponent knows. I never play my opponent, only chess. A simple example of this is 1.h4. It is garbage if I am playing against an 1100 player online, and it is still garbage against Fritz 6 at 2150. It really doesn't matter who you are playing, what is on the board is there either way. One thing I learned was a lot of humility once I started running my games through a chess engine for analysis. My darling little creations that I would be so proud of would be cast in true light, and if I missed a countreattack that my opponent should have played, or I missed a snappy mate in my own attack that I played out to a draw, then I got a real chance to learn and improve my chess. Chess is not like other combat in that the physical characteristics are exactly the same for all players. It's not like Shaq vs Kobe where there is a personal difference in the performance. A knight for you and a knight for me are exactly the same. An aggressive player pushing 1.e4 and a passive player pushing 1. e4 both get the same board position.

I wuold feel that way about your moves.  But, it wouln't make me think you are any less of a person or an less intellegent than myself