• 3 years ago


    I don't understand that comment or perspective either. if the person is higher rated then people feel more at ease with sacrificing material and going for sharp lines? this doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand the logic here. one thing has nothing to do with the other. two completely unrelated things. this isn't how knowing the opponent's strength would inform my play. not how I would use that information. in an ideal world yes you play the board and do not care about the rating, but practically speaking such information can potentially be very valuable in certain situations. there are certain things a 2000-2200 player knows that a 1500 player does not. this is why posing as a 1000-1500 player if you are really a 2200 rated player in order to catch someone off guard is a really filthy thing to do. sandbagging, hustling etc.  white men can't jump.

  • 4 years ago


    While I agree with GM Dzindzichashvilli's general advice that you shouldn't consider your opponent's rating when deciding among candidate moves, I don't think it's entirely true that you should absolutely never consider it either.

    From the standpoint of practical, over-the-board chess playing, sometimes you're put in the position of (say) having to choose between a move that's probably more accurate, but gives your opponent less chance of falling into traps; or a less accurate (but still reasonably sound) and more pitfall-ridden continuation. Or a move that's more sharp/tactical/aggressive versus a calmer move, etc. In such a cases, my opponent's rating would probably influence which continuations I would choose. To be sure, such instances have been rare in my experience, but I think they do occur from time to time.
    Then again, I'm the Pat Zuhr and Roman is the grandmaster,

    In any case, another great Member Analysis lecture by GM Dzindzichashvilli.

  • 4 years ago


    @Flangribaz- I doubt your seeing something a grandmaster isn't.

  • 5 years ago


    Be my friend (Godfather), Roman - LOL!

  • 5 years ago


    in the position shown at the start & end of the video (where the music plays), what is wrong with fxe5, black will be up two pawns at this point, get rid of one of white's central pawns & be bearing down the f-file?  Dzini doesn't address this line.


  • 5 years ago


    yea,just make best move it will improve your game when playing a stronger opponant
  • 5 years ago


    In the position at 13:08 I think white still has some chances to win after Re3.  Ideas Rh3 and Rg3 with mating threats.  Thoughts?

  • 5 years ago


    I prefer,also,to make the best move possible regardless of my opponents rating.Just perhaps he himself might make a second- rate move that may give you a chance.Thanks

  • 5 years ago


    nice video

  • 6 years ago



    where can we send you an amateur game for analysis?? I have a good one with many things for begginers to learn... thank you

  • 6 years ago


  • 6 years ago


    very useful advise

  • 6 years ago


    I like that this video has caused some disagreement - we usually only see responses praising whatever information has been dished out by video authors.


    Dzindzichashvili is obviously correct - as the best move should be played always. To not play it means that the opponent will have a higher chance to gain advantage in some manner. Just because person 'b' could be a 1000 points below person 'a' doesn't mean that person 'b' cannot find at least one good move if you make a move that is not considered to be the best, and that can change a game from an easy win to a difficult draw.


    Good lecturing :-)

  • 6 years ago


    Roman is correct.  It's obviously ok to disagree with him, but you must realise the next time you look in the mirror, thats why your not a GM yourself.

  • 6 years ago


    Good points. I'm annoyed when people make decisions on their play based on an arbitrary number. Just play the game!

  • 6 years ago


    Fun game!

  • 6 years ago


    Once I had an opponent about 300 points below me make a totally unsound sacrifice of a piece for two pawns.  It was like Dzindi said, he just figured "what the heck?  I'm going to lose anyway."  But after that he defended like a tiger and I barely won the game.  I can only imagine what the game would have been like if he had played that strongly and NOT been a piece down!

  • 6 years ago


    I love your commentary!  Especially the analysis of throwing away the whole concept of the game play in the middle.  I didn't understand that the first time through, but to point that out was nice.  Cheers.

  • 6 years ago


    Like Bobby Fischer said, "Play the board, not the man."

  • 6 years ago


    I disagree with this advice, I find that making decisions based on your opponents ratings works most of the time.

Back to Top

Post your reply: