How to beat an IM

You are trying to use a boxing metaphor.

Which relies mostly on physical strength not mental strength.

There is a difference between physical strength and mental strength.

However, I can use a boxing metaphor with physical strength to show the flaw in your metaphor.

Old George Foreman way past his prime did 1 punch that shocked the world becoming the oldest World Heavy Weight Champion in history.

He retired in 1997 at the age of 48, with a final record of 76–5, including 68 knockouts.

Let wikipedia show you the truth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman

While the above metaphors are about physical strength which chess is considered hugely alot more on mental strength.

I can always prove you wrong on that regard as well.

Some players in chess remained very dangerious players even up until there late 60-80's.

Emanuel Lasker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Lasker

Viktor Korchnoi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Korchnoi

Viktor is 84 years old and is still play chessing winning the pants off of people from time to time lol.

Yes, they have done well to still be playing at high level. But it's clear that not everyone enjoyed this youthfulness of the mind. Biguiser has fallen to 2170 and plays at that level now. Beating him now would not be as difficult as beating a 2500 rated GM.

"Viktor is 84 years old and is still play chessing winning the pants off of people from time to time lol."

1. Actually he suffered a stroke and can't play anymore

2. Back then he was winning the pants off people all the time, not time to time, its clear he's not at world no.2 level anymore

Well your not understanding what I am saying.

A ranking does not show a person strength it shows a persons consistancy in a series of games not 1 single game.

He may not be as consistant as he was in his younger years.

However, if you looked at the games individually some of those games may be of GM strength level.

If he has 3 GM strength game and wins than gets tired because he is older than he use to be and does bad in the other 7 games than his ranking will show his consistancy in a series of 10 games which can reflect his 2170 ranking.

However, the 3 individual games were GM strength.

The people he faced in those games would be the unfortunate souls lol. Who ended up playing him at the wrong time of the day perhaps!

In the end your statement he is not of GM strength can not be proven unless you look at each individual game he is playing.

The only real thing you could get away with saying is.

Biguiser is not as consistant as he use to be in his earlier years which than you will have proof by looking at his ranking.

Consistency is a key determinant of strength. Alot of IMs have GM performances, but does that make them GM strength yet? Alot of expert players have beaten masters and have master performance in a tournament, but they've never reach the elo yet, or considered at master level. There are positions we play comfortably in and can play at a much higher level than positons we don't understand well, or days we are playing great and days we aren't. 

My view point is the following:

For me I believe a person needs to have GM strength + GM consistency to get the title of GM.

Some IM's have GM strength;however, I believe they do not reach GM title because they do not have GM consistency.

They may only have IM consistency which is why they are at IM title.

So when I look at someone like Andrew Buguiser I say to myself.

He is capable of GM strength + GM consistency because he is a GM.

As the years have gone by his ranking has gone down to 2170 which I believe is due to him not having both of the above elements.

Maybe he has gone down in GM strength

or

Maybe he has gone down in GM consistency

or

Maybe he has gone down in Both

 This is the way I see it.

However, It is tough pointing out which problem it is.

Clairvoya could of probably gotten away with saying Andrew Buguiser has lost some GM consistency.

This part we know is true based on ranking.

However, very tough to say that about the other points.

You are definitely right. You have voiced your great and insightful opinions on the prestigious internet, and us mere mortals, unblessed with such great mental capacity revere you for it. As Einstein said; "Great minds often encounter opposition from mediocre souls"; I beseech you to come to the conclusion that refuting reasonable opinions is a waste of time, and to focus your extensive mental faculties on a more productive purpose.

I always find it ridiculous when people post forum topics that supposedly are putting on a clinic on how to beat titled players, when in reality they're winning internet games against players that couldn't care less about their online results.  I'd say that you would have the right to brag if you beat an IM in an over-the-board tournament, but the reality is that if you did, you would hopefully be a strong enough player to understand that it's bad form to gloat over your victories.  It's one thing to post a game that you feel you played particularly well in, it's another thing entirely to name your topic "how to beat an IM", as if you're posting a comprehensive guide to chess dominance over strong players.

I accept your praises. Thank you for your kind words.

However, I respectfully decline your beseechment.

I am not like Einstein.

Nothing is more productive in life than helping some one esle understand something.

I don't think he's gloating but the title is misleading. It is a puzzle from one game he played against a Mongolian IM. I think the only way to beat an IM is to practice and start playing consistently at the level of an IM.

@X_PLAYER    I guess we have different definition of strength. Especially. you need to understand that different people have different strengths in different positions. That's a part of the consistency, is to play like a GM in many different positions and not just a few. E.g. I might be able to beat a few stronger players in positions that I played at a higher level, but doesn't mean I have the knowledge of chess overall or skill to be at their level.

That's what I mean by consistency, the ability to play different types of position at a similarly high level, while you are probably talking about consistency in terms of having a good day and having a bad day and how it varies your playing strength.

I'm guessing that many players who are +2000 have beaten IMs or GMs in official games. 

I've beaten GMs in bullet and blitz chess on another site. But I generally don't publish those games. I'm just happy to have the chance to play these great players! To me, publishing casual online games is a bit like publishing simul victories.  It's something that should be discouraged unless there's an important novelty or truly brilliant play.

WOW

Well you have stated your case very well.

In fact, I am compelled to add what you have said onto my existing notions.

I originally believed to be like a GM you have to have.

GM strength + GM consistency

However, after the discussion with you.

I am thinking maybe Consistency should have different types of consistency.

Maybe instead of 2 elements I should have 3.

GM strength + GM human consistency + GM position consistency

or something of that nature.

I strongly believe a person who is throwing up and is sick is going to play completely different than if he is not throwing up and sick lol.

and

Your statement about a person knowing a position very well does seem valid. Obvious a person will do very well in a position they are familar with.

Thank you for the insight.

You'll get over it.

+1

I went on a small rant about how absurd the name of the forum topic was, missing a far more ridiculous comment on this thread from the poster above me:  solskytz comparing a three minute blitz game of his to a "gem by Morphy".  I don't know whether to be amused or disgusted - I guess I'm a little bit of both.  I would say that (similar to my above comment) it's laughable for anyone short of strong grandmaster level to compare themselves to Morphy, but I would hope that almost all people who reach that level know better than to make such absurd comparisons, let alone about their blitz games.

nice

In fact, I tricked you, <Parnon>.

This isn't my game at all. It's one of a series of friendly games, Paulsen Vs. Morphy, New York 1857. Now whatcha say to that?!

Is this for real? If it is for real, well played, sir. I still totally agree with parnon though, this comment section is ridicoulous and the OP just wants to brag about how he beat a low level IM in an internet game he gave 0 fucks about.

I agree. Nobody should ever brag about beating IMs. There's nothing to it - IMs are easy meat and anybody can beat them with their eyes closed. Such low level players!

I wish my own level was that low...

And on another note, <Kakamou12> - touché!

With your last comment you were simply proving what I said earlier - the average (and by no means bad) player wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a game I played and a game Morphy did... :-)