Psychology of Beating 'Better' Players

1.tip: Don't study openings

2.tip: Study tactics!

3.tip: Try to think creative and make your own moves!

4.tip: "Reassess your chess" Silman.

5.tip: "Think like a grandmaster" Kotov.

6.tip: "How to calculate chess tactics" Valeri Beim

Your opponent was overly aggressive and tried to smash you. He expected an easier game than he got. Highly rated players often feel obligated to smash lower rated ones, and this is a trait that can be used against them, especially with a bit of ju-jitsu.

Thanks, pskogli! Will follow up on that advice. Yip. I must say that I agree with you Ricardo. But then, what's the point in playing chess if you go straight for the kill and not let the other guy develop?! lol

You played a good game there, for your OTB rating.....

First off, your win was 100% deserved. You should feel great that a master screwed up and you could take advantage and win being so much lower than him!

Also, you have to be at a certain level before you can understand master games. Learn the basics of planning and get your tactics decent from books. From there, you test out what you know and learn by studying how the masters do it your own. But if you just can't understand most of the moves, there's just no point. I remember when I tried to look at master games awhile ago and I learned nothing because they were too advanced. But now, I'm learning a ton by looking at them.

Your OTB rating listed in your profile is 1989, but in that game it's 1216?  What am I missing?

He went up after beating that 2100 player

When I defeated a master in a 2-game match, we both played slow, boring chess. No tactics, no threats. The first game went to a draw and the second game was on track to be drawn too. He didn't want to twice draw a player rated 500+ points below him, so he tried a sacrifice that didn't work and he resigned.

Regardless of who you play, I think you have to stick with your best openings, use familiar tactics, reach positions you are comfortable in, etc. The master just moved pieces around aimlessly and waited for me to make a mistake. Usually I oblige, but not that time. If he would have been the aggressor right away, he could have took me out easily.

I think styles make games too. There are guys 200+ rating better that I have winning records against and guys rated 200+ below me, and they consistently give me trouble.

Geez I guess so.

edit : this was directed at pskogli's post

Well if you're fine with a draw (like in a tournament game) against someone hundreds of points higher, then you want to keep the complications to a minimum because that's where is superior skill counts for the most usually. The point is that if they're that much better you're almost certainly going to be the one to make the first mistake or at least the most.

Actually I have heard many times (from masters) when playing lesser players they like it when there are no complications and they can simply grind you to dust in positional play (where the main gap in strength is) or go into an endgame where there experience and study is far superior.

While it's true that only complications can try to scare masters, trying for positional pressure gives much better chances for a draw and again when 500 points or more higher,  the weaker player is pretty much certainly going to make more mistakes which usually lose material in a complicated game. I'm not saying there is a good chance of a draw either way, though. Playing for complications may win you a game once out of 10 against them but more importantly perhaps is that you could learn alot from studying one of those games. So you could figure "I'll probably lose anyway, so I'll try to learn and maybe I'll even get lucky" but I do think the simple positions definitley increase the drawing chances.

And syntrax, I thought the main difference was still tactics. But then I understand alot more positional ideas than people with the same rating as me, and my tactics dip as a result.

In my case, I was a last-minute sub for a 12-member team. Players on both teams were 2000+, except for me. I was rated 1500. So my own team didn't want me. Instead of playing something aggressive and reckless, I figured I'd play cautious and at least make a game of it. To get a win and draw were better than anybody expected!

I wasn't playing to win. I was playing to NOT lose :)

Well, maybe the 2107 person didn't consider that game seriously and under-rated you. I am around 1900 and found it really hard to play against an FM of 2300. In fact I lost to him after mere 20 moves. The discrepancy is reflected quite accurately through the rating.

Ignoring rating is a good strategy. If a guy is 1200 or 2500, are you going to play him any different? Easier said than done, I know. But if you approach every game the same, and play the board, not the player, you're giving your best every time.

Sometimes when I play low rated guys I take them lightly or try "trappy" stuff that is just plain bad. Or with high rated guys I bear down and try harder.

Really, shouldn't we try our best every time out?

Couldn't have put it better myself!

If you beat the better player, it is pretty often because they made an awful mistake. Your state of mind has little to do with it. (I know, this isn't always true, but more often than some of us weaker players would like to admit).

My best tournament win came against a player 400+ points higher than me.  He walked his king down to the middle of the board in the middle game to take a pawn, and I goofed up the recapturing move to leave him ahead one pawn.  But I had time to make that right, and instead of retreating when threatened, he walked his king deeper into my side to try to save the extra pawn. He walked it right into an easy mate.

Was it fun? Yes.  Did I do a good job of getting to the middle game against a better player without any major issues? Yes. Would I have beaten him had he not blundered? No.

Then again, maybe it's the opponent's psychology that matters.  Maybe he felt that he "finally" had the advantage he deserved over me and didn't want to give it up. Every even exchange against a weaker player can leave the better player feeling like the pressure of a draw coming.

I used to have an amusing little book by Simon Webb, Chess for Tigers.

He advoated the exact opposite approach.

His point was something like this:

1) Before the game, realise that you are probably going to lose. This is a fact, you ARE likely to lose most games against opponents much stronger than you.

2) If your opponent is much stronger, he is likely to play SIMPLE positions much beter than you

3) Try to complicate the position to such an extent that NEITHER player knows for sure what's going on.

4) Hope he makes a fatal mistake before you do. This is unlikely, because he is a good player, but you created a possibility. It is not more unlikely than getting a result from a simple position. I think he calls it "increasing the randomness of the result"