Self-Destructive Players

I have often found that many players I play against will completely self-destruct if you simply get a solid position and hold back for a while.  After about 20 moves they completely lose their mind and start saccing pieces for no reason and making random pawn moves.  Take the following game I played on here recently for example...

I think this is why I have often been successful with the Caro-Kann in the past, as long as you stay solid for long enough many players seem to start playing against themselves.

Does anyone else employ this strategy of just hanging back and letting your opponent beat themselves?

No, never! It would maybe work against weaker players, but where's the fun? And stronger players will use the time to maximize the effectiveness of their pieces, cramp your position more and more, and finally attack successfully.

Well its true that you have to find counterplay eventually, but my way of playing has always been about avoiding weakness and slowly working my way into the game, especially with black.  I find that very often I don't have to start my own counterattack because my opponent launches into some spectacular and unjustified attack which causes them to lose.

I think the "hanging back" part is wrong but yes, if you play solid chess most players under 1600 will eventually blunder.  You do have to "play the board" however and choose the best moves available and sometimes this does mean plunging into sharp positions.  Otherwise you're just building bad habits that will, as Wasted Youth pointed out, get you eaten alive by strong players.

this is usual for players who play chess actively, maybe for years and years, but never have study it so they do not have proper feeling of possible danger, calculation is not so good, I mean they can see some combinations but with lot of mistakes, even if they make mistake (losing of piece or other) they may not be aware of it for couple moves ahead...

there is nothing wrong with playing solid chess; each player if wants to develop his skills at some part of career has to play solid games  to get fine positional feeling...

see, I have lot of problems in my recent tournaments games against weaker players where I was attacking violently, in crowd of variations "he" will also see something, there is always some miscalculation which is natural even for top GMs, but in solid games, OK you have to play 60 moves instead of 20-25 and in these 60 you will collect a huge amount of positional advantages which can not be defended...

Yeah I think playing a solid style is the best way to beat weaker opponents.  I'm more likely to go for complications against stronger players where I am not confident that I can outplay them positionally so I need to take a risk to get the result.  Against weaker players I don't need to take any risks.

If I have an "oopsie" moment and get into a bad position against a lower-rated player, I'll just start hunkering down until they come to my rescue with a lame move in return that wrecks their position. Against someone equal or higher, I'll play as actively as possible until I need to resign.

we must differ "solid play" from simple waiting for opponent to make mistake (for exmpl Ra1-b1-a1-b1...)

solid does not mean inactive and non ambitious, if you do not make threats, there will be no weakness from your oponent, positionally you also do make some risks (otherwise nobody would win nobody in chess game), by every move situation is changed..

but as I said before, everyone is able to calculate few tactical moves but not all of them are able to predict which position will arise after 15 or 20 moves, which kind of possible endgame, what kind of imapct on position will be exchange of some "minor" Bg7 for , lets say, stronger white rook on a1...

My problem is as soon as I get let's say 2 or 3 minors plus 1 or 2 majors and a few pawns near my opponents king I start an attack without calculating it because the more pieces around your opponents king the stronger the attack

old chess law - play there where your forces are stronger than opponents!

The OP's chess strategy can be sum up as follows:

1. Play defensive chess against weaker players.

2. Play attacking chess against equal and stronger players.

Ummm...the only pieces that need proximity to the king to be considered for a mating attack calculation are knights and pawns (and your own king).  Proximity is a meaningless illusion for queens, rooks, and bishops.  This is something less experienced players need to remember.

Instead learn to "see" the lines of influence your pieces are exerting...when you have the enemy king nearly boxed in by "invisible" lines, then you have something to pursue ;)...

I have played like that before. As other people said I think it only works against weaker players because stronger players will know how to attack you properly.

This is spot on, if only I had thought of putting it so eloquently!

The OP's approach works because  most players under 1600 don't know what to do when there isn't an obvious tactic and the positions are roughly equal.Furthermore,most players under 1600 have no idea how to effectively use their pawns.The result of these two issues is the outcomes  the OP has observed,unsound sacks and bad pawn moves.However,in the game posted by the OP,White lost due to very simply tactical errors,rather than unsound  sacks;move 21 is really a desperado move and not a true sack.

btickler wrote:

jetfighter13 wrote:

My problem is as soon as I get let's say 2 or 3 minors plus 1 or 2 majors and a few pawns near my opponents king I start an attack without calculating it because the more pieces around your opponents king the stronger the attack

Ummm...the only pieces that need proximity to the king to be considered for a mating attack calculation are knights and pawns (and your own king).  Proximity is a meaningless illusion for queens, rooks, and bishops.  This is something less experienced players need to remember.

Instead learn to "see" the lines of influence your pieces are exerting...when you have the enemy king nearly boxed in by "invisible" lines, then you have something to pursue ;)...

Than I try to do this but when I have over half my army pointed at the enemy monarch I tend to attack anyway

Indeed - the posted game isn't a good example to attacking play against a solid position...

White saw ...d4 coming with a fork against his Nc3 and Be3. He realized that he needs to do something about it. 

A - ha! He thought, let's put the B on d4, so that the pawn just can't go there. 

Right! But the pawn can exchange itself on e4, and suddenly the Bd4 is under direct attack from the Q! So what to do? 

So he hurls itself onto g7. In any case he was at a material loss. Later he just missed the pin along the black squares...

Sure, it works against weak players. Against 1800+, you need to have a endgame where you're better and slowly squeeze. If you do nothing, nothing will happen. One of those games is Karpov-Miles.

even if player trading his pieces in hope to get draw position this is not correct, because the worse thing is to play endgame with slightely weaker position than middlegame with clearly worse or even lost position, why? because the possibilities are reduced by reduced No of pieces...

to get draw against stronger opponent, you need balance no matter how many pieces on board, and - immediate threats or counterplay if he dare to undertake some risky operations

middlegame with pawn or two less, even piece..., does not mean anything if you can achieve active play with the rest of your pieces, but in endgame you have only one-two pieces, what you'll do then? so it is very dangerous just to try to reduce material on board.

btw, by the strenght and experience also comes increased knowledge and ability of playing endgames, someone with ELO 1800 and for ex. M Carlsen, they see completely same (even the simpliest one) position from completely different eyes...