I agree!! sometimes the higher rated player plays conservative and you lose but it takes a while.
Slow and Long Wins
Sort:
Oct 4, 2012
0
#2
Oct 4, 2012
0
#3
It depends how agressive you play, but yes of course, you're not suppposed to win in 12 moves against decent opposition, even if you're Kasparov 
Sure, but the 2200 player could get an easy to play position that contains no risk right out of the opening. Sure the 1500 player hasn't lost any material... lets just say he'd be lost long before he realized it :)
dchurchill wrote:
Does drawing a higher rated player count as a moral victory? Also, is the berlin wall still as powerful of a drawing weapon as it was for Kramnik against Kasparov?
no, ideas such as drawing weapons dont exist below master level. The simple fact is players of our caliber have no need to contain whites advantage, our opponents are simply unable to maintain it themselves due to lack of accurate play.
itll still be more drawish than i you were to play the latvian or something, but due to inaccuracies by both sides theres still a big chance of the full point being awarded either way.
Something just hit me today, after beating a pretty good, lower rated opponent from Sweden.
Even though one may be rated higher than someone else, you're usually not going to blow them away in 10 moves. It still takes a slow attrition to beat them - lots of small advantages will have to build up, a pawn here, a pawn there, maybe solid position or great defence over 20-30 moves, only THEN, will one take over the game and/or begin to dominate. It may take 40 moves to begin to beat them.
Before, I had the wrong impression, some higher player WOULD blow away a lesser player and quickly. Thoughts anyone?
So now I wonder, a good 2200+ player playing a 1500 player - it still might take the stronger player 40 moves to win - right? There are NORMALLY no 10-15 move checkmates? Normally. (exceptions, of course)
Anyway, I think this will help me, knowing one has to be patient.