What makes you win games?

Do you usually win because of your attacking skill, waiting for your opponent to overextend, or maybe just because your opponent blunders before you?

I post this because my winning strategies I think are unique and even go against common chess advice, like "endgame is most important", "don't study openings", etc.

I usually win because of my superior positional skill to most amateurs I play. This mostly comes from studying the middlegame with the help of some books, but the interesting part is openings were also a pretty big part of my wins. I know how to increase pressure when I have an advantage and have got to the point where I very rarely blunder if I have an advantage (If I'm under pressure, that's a completely different story). This is significant because the whole goal of the opening is to try to come out with a better position, at least when you're white. If I come out with an advantage and a grip on the position, I usually do very well.

I know a lot of opening theory and ideas well (at least the ones I play, though sometimes studying openings you even don't play is instructive) and because of this, the vast majority of the time I come out better, even with black if I'm playing something I know, and more importantly, I know why I'm better and how to exploit it. Openings have helped me understand strategy a lot better, and helps get me into positions that are favorable to me and have a decent idea of when to go for the kill and when I would be overextending and should delay it.

My tactics are solid, but definitley not overwhelming. I often win because of positional pressure combined with a careless blunder or one out of frustration, which is usually easy to refute.

Ironically I find that the endgame is on the bottom of my priorities to study. I used to hate endgames, even losing endgames one or two pawns up! Now I'm pretty decent at them, I know the basic technical positions and know the common ideas like "use your king", "opposite colored bishops are drawish", and "rooks belong behind passed pawns or 7th rank". I seem to get by at this stage because first of all I usually have a huge advantage by the time we get into an ending, so huge that little technique is even needed to finish it off, and second, the endgame seems to be either a big positional struggle (which I could use my understanding of the middlegame for, except that I should use my king also!) since kings can't be attacked, or a bunch of technical positions and pawn races. The latter is the harder part of course, but I usually don't get many close endgames.

I don't feel the need to get really good at them until I actually get punished for my mediocre endgame skill.

A nice write-up of where you believe your skills lie.

 I was going to go with a more caveman-like "I look for weaknesses and I start hitting them with a stick".

Jokes apart, I always tend to look at "why people win" through a "Steinitz-Laws" filter ->  I win only when 

- I can outplay my opponent in critical positions that require accurate moves.
- I capitalize on mistakes made that swing the position to my favored side of the evaluation number line. 
- I maintain the position I am holding (and the corresponding evaluation) better than my opponent ... i.e. do a relatively better job at not making the position any worse for me with each move.  

Edit: I realised that what I said was nonsense. My games/play vary alot depending on what games I've read lately. My play is everything from fairly orthodox classical play to outrageous positions and ideas.

Why I win? I dunno, sometimes it's because we go into a uncommon position, my opponents doesn't take the time to look at the position enough, they make a move not fitting with the position and lose quickly. And sometimes it's because common ideas, controlling the open file.

Basicly, I win because my opponents doesn't understand the position, or make a tactical oversight. And I usually lose my games due to the same.

I can't play dynamic positions to save my life. I suck a bit less in simple positions and I usually win from my opponents just not understanding what the heck's going on and handing me a large advantage through a huge positional mistake or a series of them.

Unlike some of you guys, I don't know too many openings, maybe a handful, and even when I employ them, I don't know the many variations and continuations to secure the win. I usually do the opening, then just play naturally, develop, and hope that I get some good position and perhaps my opponent makes a mistake or leaves an opening/pin.

This method of mine, so far, has not worked so well. So I try to learn more about openings and try to see how each continuation goes as played by an expert.

Unfortunately, half the time, I don't understand what these experts are doing. And I don't happen to make the same good moves.

Sometimes, I'll be winning by score and positionally, and i'll lose on time---or I'll be quite ahead in time, and my opponent low on time, yet winning and then I'll blunder and instant checkmate. But that seems to be the nature of blitz games, to hope your enemy blunders first.

I don't play CC (online chess) because, I feel it takes forever, and I'd like to focus on one game at a time.

If I win, it's because my opponent makes some big mistakes or blunders and a checkmate occurs. However, more and more, it seems, that simple mistakes/blunders are avoided by blitz players, or they are more subtle mistakes that you sometimes miss and don't take advantage of (even high rated players don't see them sometimes).

It's really not uncommon for me to see my opponent not have a clue what his plan is supposed to be and usually I crush this guy but time pressure isn't uncommon for me and sometimes that makes me screw those positions up. It seems to happen less now though, probably because I don't find myself in time pressure as often as I used to be.

When I lose, it's usually because I'm not being concrete enough with my plans, meaning I'm not calculating out some of the variations that follow my and my opponent's plan (I don't put enough effort into finding my opponent's best ideas, instead I look at inferior moves) accurately enough. I've been working on this. Also time pressure has caused many losses.

As you can see from my rating, obviously I don't win against good players. 

But my main goal is not to panic in an unfamiliar opening.  If a game very quickly enters unfamiliar territory for me, I try to stay calm and remember my basics:

• I know which squares are decent developing squares for my pieces.
• I know a few guidelines for pawn structure that can help me with pawn movement decisions.
• I know how to count to evaluate potential exchanges.

If I can keep these three things in mind for my first 10 moves or so, sometimes I'm in decent shape regardless of whether I knew what opening we were playing, and once in a while that turns into an eventual win.

--Cystem

I often win when I can keep playing decent moves for a while (not necessarily very good ones though) and can spot tactical mistakes of my opponents. I have yet to show my absolutely brilliant endgame technique after a hard fought positional struggle. It never happened to me, usually it was plain tactics in the middlegame combined with a little positional pressure. When I lose though, I think the positional misevaluations prove more critical. Still, a vast majority of my losses are from tactical mistakes too. I guess all this is subject to change as I face stronger players.

This is all regarding slow play (or cc). At my blitz level, it's whoever that takes the hanging piece first.

My play is very similiar to yours except that I know little to no opening theory. What I play, I've come to understand on my own as good or decent moves. My openings change when they're able to be outplayed or proven wrong. I'm extremely particular about finding the "right" moves in every turn on every position so I have the same lack of endgame skill you seem to suffer from by simply making or breaking (very often making) it in the middlegame.

Any opening theory or endgame I know is simply by playing and seeing firsthand what works and what doesn't. My tactics are obviously amazing because anyone's should be when given days to move around the pieces and see what happens, lol. So I tend to slowly run my opponent out of good moves or break even and just play my position more accurately. And if the game isn't drawish, then obviously I just move in/go straight for the kill depending on the particular position.

I win most of my games by an advantage in the opening where I usually keep an edge (usually winning a pawn or two because of the pressure) and end up winning the endgame. I don't really calculate much, nor do I consider many variations. Maybe I have good intuition

The one who wins my games is the player who keeps up the most pressue. (Attacking or time.) At my level you can only defend well for so long!

I think Tarrasch said the winner is the one who makes the "second to last mistake".  Truer words have not been spoken.

I thought he said the loser is the one who makes the last mistake. lol

Don't we all win from our opponents mistakes?

I win by having a far better positional understanding and an eye for fantasy combinations.

Well I think it's the dynamic pressure (and the frustration the opponent gets from being under it) that causes the majority of blunders, they usually don't come from nowhere. When you're losing you're supposed to fight back with counterplay when possible as opposed to sitting around, and that's because putting pressure on your opponent makes them (or at least me) nervous and more likely to make a mistake. Time pressure combined with desperate tactics (that shouldn't work) has always given me trouble in winning positions.

I usually win by middle-game play and tactics.  I always concentrated so hard on the openings, but now I'm starting to realize that openings do not win games for me, it's my middle game and end game

I usually win because my opponent makes a blunder of some sort and I then crush  because my finishing ability is pretty strong.  I usually loose because I blunder something and can't recover :)

I guess it just depends on what kind of player they are and how strong or weak they are :).  I try to be objective about the position.  I don't wait or attack in general, if their weakness is static I take time to eliminate counter play as a first priority.  If their weakness is fleeting, I try to have the guts to do what it takes heh :).  Psychologically, I guess I'm more comfortable in a game where I can create a weakness in my opponent's camp that I can maneuver around and try to exploit for many moves, even if it means trading it for a different weakness etc.

I'm a bit proud of the games I've managed to win because of steering toward a type of endgame.  In one Sicilian I had everything pointed at black's kingside (where he had castled) while he had everything coming down my c file (My king ended up on f2 or near there).  My attack looked much more dangerous than his queenside action, but I realized his queenside action was the only card he had to play, and if we traded off all our heavy pieces on the c file that the same color bishop ending was 100% winning for me.  So I transferred my rooks and queen off of the g and h files over to the c file where he happily traded them off... but it turns out he was dead lost everywhere, if he had retreated I win both sides of the board, and if he trades I win the endgame.  Knowing something like this is very handy as allowing his c file infiltration was certainly double edged (even though my attack was at least optically very intimidating).

No doubt this is useful and would win you many good games.  I'm wondering about when you face an equal or stronger opponent though, and a middle game arises that's merely equal, and stays equal for another 15-20 moves.  I think this is when the strategy you learn that flow from the opening ideas fade and transition into middle game strategy that comes from knowing the types of endgames that are possible.  For example based on the pawns and kings, what piece trades can you not afford?  Considering the different combinations of pieces, what's your ideal endgame?  e.g. Your knight vs his bishop, your bishop vs his bishop, or a heavy piece endgame?  Being able to answer these is also key to middle game strategy as in my example above.

So yes, knowing your openings into the middle game, and the way behind them, I can imagine being very useful.  I'm just trying to argue from the other side of it, there's no way I'm the ideal balance player or something

I'm not so sure you can simply look at it as a middle game but with less pieces + kings.  Even non-technical ones.  Like openings, each endgame can have it's own objectives and ideas.  I guess you said you know the basics, but just like knowing why your middle game advantage is there, and how to use it, endgame knowledge pays off in the same way.

But just because the games you win are most usually already won by the time an endgame pops up doesn't mean endgame themes and ideas aren't present in your games and might help you.  Just like a very tactically focused player may say his openings and middle game are ok, but further understanding isn't necessary because his games are won with a tactical blow.  He may win by way of tactics, but that doesn't mean his games don't also contain strategic elements, elements that ifrecognized may have allowed him to win an a different way, or against a stronger play may have been the only way.

And I think that's completely legitimate (unless you're a professional player and your country is counting on you or something) I'd just say that improving in this area isn't so dissimilar from the feeling of knowing your opening ideas and middlegame plans.  As a strategic or idea oriented player it may be to your taste to know clearly the future plans once a late middle game is reached and winning through those advantages as well.

So again, nothing wrong with you, just trying to argue the other side of it.

Most of my wins in CC come from opponents making serious blunders.  I find that if I can position my pieces in relatively decent position, the average opponent will eventually move carelessly; thus losing a pawn that critically weakens their defense. 

I've never won. In over half of my games, my opponent lost. I know how to pick up the pieces when my adversary gives the game away. I can pick them up during any phase of the game, and apply pressure throughout to encourage the sort of mental collapse that causes loss.