What makes you win games?

haha, word. I know that feeling, it's like nobody's good enough to play real chess except a few random people

I always win by making the second-to-last error

I think you cannot win if your opponent doesnt make mistakes and you cannot lose if you do not make mistakes. The problem is, we all make mistakes. Stronger players just make them less often than weaker players and the severity of a mistake is usually less with stronger players than weaker ones.  The stronger a player is the smaller/fewer the mistake(s) need be in order to cause loss....

I think this summarizes the vast majority of wins by non-titled players.  Uncle Steinitz wants to give you a hug :)

Ziryab wrote:

Of course I get a point when my opponent loses, the same point I would get if I win. The point is that I do not so much play well as avoid playing as badly as my opponent.

Sometime I err in my writing by giving my readers more credit that they deserve.

I think I have a reasonable positional understanding on my good days.  Also a decent end game.  Those two things and capitalizing on my opponent's errors are how I win games.  Tactics and openings are how I LOSE games because I do not study them like I should.  I really don't enjoy it very much.

One day when I find vast amounts of free time, I'm going to study all phases of the game and improve.  One day... 

Orangehonda: I think both ways are fine, and I'm not claiming my way is the best way, but it's the one that works for me. I seem to get by in the endgame by knowing I have to use my king and it often involves many long term ideas in a quiet middlegame, except with little chance of a k side attack and more rook action than usual (since it's easier for them to penetrate and pawns aren't defended by as many pieces, so of course it's different, but I'm just saying my middlegame knowledge helps me there a lot) and I know most of the common technical positions you're supposed to know just in case one comes up, but nothing too advanced, in fact I don't even know the bishop and knight vs king mate well enough to execute it, and probably not queen vs rook mate either (I know you're supposed to force the king back and try to force a queen fork, but I don't know if general ideas are enough for me to figure it out in a game completely).

Another reason I don't study the endgame that much is that aside from technical positions in books, it's kind of hard to get instructive games to study! You'd have to dig out endgames (if there even is one) in all of these master games and look for the kind you want!

And to people who say it's their opponent that loses that makes you win, I agree. But I think blunders are much more likely to happen if their position is getting attacked in some way, so it usually takes some skill to at least force a blunder from them.

Reb, definitley. I don't play very spectacularly unless I think it's truly necessary, which is rare. I usually just play methodically, don't give my opponent any opportunities, and take whatever he gives me. Most amateurs try to force things too quickly, and that usually gives me an opening too.

Very nice post, would love to see more higer rated players responses and thougths.

as for me at my level in otb and online most games are decided by blunders, at 1700+ not "big" blunders but, for instance losing a pawn and more rarely and fore more complicated tactics lose piecies.

 My goal in chess has ever been playing games in wich the result wasn't made of a tactical oversight. at this level online is beginning important positional play but subordinated by tactics

And in response to Elubas I just can't catch how a player can play positionally and win without endgame skills: I wanted to improve my positional play and the first think i'm makiing is strenghen my endgame play. How do you evaluate exchanges if you don't know the endgame well? And can you please post an example of a middlegame won positional game??

chry, I know. It's ironic isn't it? Maybe when I play really good players I may have to demonstrate some endgame skill.

Just one example was my last blog which you can check out, titled "Interesting King's Indian game" or something. In that game I had to decide when to use my center which was strategic but I combined it with tactics. When the smoke cleared I had such a huge advantage that even if my opponent didn't make further errors I wouldn't need to show that much endgame technique. But the fact that what he did (ended up losing more material in desperation) is what happens almost all the time in my games is quite funny. I get certain advantages that I never really have to fully make use of because the death of my opponent is always sped up; they often "self destruct" and lose quickly even though theoretically the advantage may need a lot of time to force a win.

We ALL win because of one of a few things...greater positional understanding than weaker players(I would think it would be VERY rare for someone of higher grade to be weaker positionally)

Greater tactical skill and or calculation ability-pretty self explanatory

Or greater endgame or opening knowledge

That being said most people call me a very agressive (or "tactical" player) although I can positionally grind if necessary too.  I play how I feel it is necessary to win

It's important not to start panicking when you made a small mistake. Dropping a pawn or something will seldom make you lose the game on this level, if any. With many people I play with, when they make the first mistake, the second and the third are usually not far down the road. That must be psychological.

Personally, most of my wins are by an attack or other tactics in middlegame. It helps if I get an advantage from the opening but it's not necessary as long as I have an active game. I sometimes sacrifice or take risks in middlegame. Endgame is not my strong side and I don't enjoy playing it so if it makes it into the endgame I will often be glad to agree on a draw even if I am a pawn up or some other small advantage.

"I have a nagging suspicion I'm not very good at endgames.  However very few of my games reach that stage, so I guess it's okay."  -- Peter Svidler

So it's certainly possible :)

I think the answer, at least for people who are rated somewhere around me, is pretty simple: I make fewer mistakes when I win (or smaller mistakes relative to my opponent's), and more when I lose.

As far as I can tell, I have never, ever played a brilliant game.  I have played good moves, and nice combinations.  I have developed solid plans and made strong moves to implement them.  Never has this continued through a whole game.  Inevitably, I make mistakes that weaken my position, I fail to see certain moves that decisively refute my combination, and I have the wrong plan, or make moves that simply don't further a good plan.

My opponents do the same thing.  It is the one who does the former the most, and the latter the least, that usually ends up winning.  The success of my chess (and I suspect the success of most untitled players), is dependent on my skill only insomuch as it involves making fewer mistakes relative to my opponents.  I have never (and I dare say will never), win a game based on my skill alone.  But I intend to keep trying.

Study everything and then whack everything in your games.

"What makes you win games?"

Checkmating or resigning.

Sorry couldn't pass up a chance at being sarcastic. :)

If I knew, I'd do it more often...or maybe I wouldn't.  

Despite my poor rating, I still have this indefatigable subconscious belief that wins should waft to me, rather than I should go to them.    And I'd like no mistakes while I'm at it.