Relying on opponents to blunder

I can't outplay anybody on here.  I only win when my opponents blatantly blunder. I'm just an awful chess player. It seems everybody I play knows what they are doing, while I have no idea what I am doing. Pretty much every game I win is a lucky win. Does anybody else on here rely purely on lucky wins like me?

I feel the same way. Most games are won by a mistake or blunder.

After looking at some of your losses, I would quit playing the KID.  

Thanks for the advice GodsPawn. Just curious, why should I stop playing the KID?

Youre not playing it correctly.  The games i looked at showed you dropping pieces.  Now i have no idea if you were just moving to fast, or what the reason was.  

FWIW I played for years feeling like the moves were pretty random, just looking for tactics, waiting for a blunder.

If you read some strategy books, maybe talk with a much stronger player / coach, you might develop a different perspective. The Soltis book Pawn Structure Chess is what started changing how I looked at chess, but I'm guessing the usefulness will be a little different for everyone.

Anyway, I think waiting for mistakes is how many people play. May not even be worth thinking about if you find chess fun regardless.

On one of those I did pre-move a blunder. 

If you are playing the KID I would do advice you to stop playing it. It is simply too much theory. I would recommend changing to something more classical like the Nimzo or simply a QGD. Or QGA, for simplicity, so you can use your time in other more useful things rather than openings.

Your question reminds me of an interesting subject tho, to choose moves that give a higher chance for your opponent to mess it up.

Something like what Carlsen does and which is described on his Wikipedia page:

Tyler Cowen gave a point of view on Carlsen's playing style: "Carlsen is demonstrating one of his most feared qualities, namely his 'nettlesomeness,' to use a term coined for this purpose by Ken Regan. Using computer analysis, you can measure which players do the most to cause their opponents to make mistakes. Carlsen has the highest nettlesomeness score by this metric, because his creative moves pressure the other player and open up a lot of room for mistakes. In contrast, a player such as Kramnik plays a high percentage of very accurate moves, and of course he is very strong, but those moves are in some way calmer and they are less likely to induce mistakes in response."^[175]

That's the sort of advice that's commonly offered, yes... but I'm not sure I agree.

If your only concern is to win the game in front of you, then a low-rated player is probably best off if he sticks to classical openings such as the Giuoco Piano or the Queen's Gambit.

But if you are hoping to improve your chess in the long run (rather than just to win games in the short run) then instead of sticking to openings that you can play fairly well, you would be better off playing a variety of opening systems, and aiming to reach a variety of middle-game positions. You'll lose more games that way, but you will also learn a lot faster.

The amount of theory that a particular opening system requires to really play well... high in the KID vs low in the QGA, for instance... hardly matters at this level of play. Who in the OP's circle of players is going to be playing the opening correctly anyway?

But it's also important to not jump from opening to opening without learning anything.

I'd actually say it's important, in the long term sense, to stick with an opening for a while before switching.

If i remember correctly, the old Russian system was once you lose 3 games in a row with the same opening, you learn another opening.  I dont know...if thats true, i would be on 1.h4 by now.

I mean, maybe for certain skill levels, and maybe if you're doing some kind of work between every game... maybe it makes sense.

Otherwise it sounds like 100% garbage advice

Interesting point of view.

However by theory I also mean ideas, games, patterns, what to and what not do.

There are a lot of pawn structures, and way of placing pieces White can use and Black needs to be ready to face.

He will surely need to learn something good against the Saemisch or else get mated.

Petrosian System, Fianchetto Lines, quick b4s, Saemisch structures, Semi Averbakhs, Averbakhs, 6.h3 lines, Taimanov's, Kozul Gambit, Old Mainline Taimanov etc...

Of course his opponents wont play all the theory but he will need to know how to deal with all of them as at the 1600 it is common for people to know their theory up to move 10.

Informative posts!

Tartakower said "The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."

But don't just wait for a blunder.  At the start of the game your pieces are blocked in and far from the enemy.  We all know the opening principles which allow you to get your pieces out and into active positions.  Just continue that process in the middle game, look for moves which improve the position of your pieces, that is allow them to influence more squares, squares in the centre or near the enemy king and to occupy squares from which it will be difficult for your opponent to evict them.  Meanwhile avoid pawn weaknesses and try to induce pawn weaknesses in your opponent's position.

All this is a whole lot to think about.  And you are also watching for tactical opportunities - that is trying to see blunders which your opponent has made which are a move or two deeper than just leaving a piece en pris.

I doubt all this can sensibly be called "waiting for a blunder".  Perhaps it can be called inducing a blunder.  Or it can be called chess.

i feel the same way - feel bad about myself - i cant win any games above 1600 unless my opponents make mistakes - i work so hard just to void off attacks - im not a stupid person either, i dont know what my problem is - sucks

it was easier to win in the past, but now i dont catch my opponents making any errors - if they do, then i win - but im the first to make an error as i tire first in 30 min games - 

1. when you hang pieces, that doesnt mean you are "not playing an opening correctly". It just means you have room to improve tactically, as we all do.

2. playing an opening incorrectly is no reason to stop playing it, just be sure you are learning from the losses.  Understand what makes those moves "incorrect" and try not to do it again.

thanks, any good suggestions?