- Attack
- Opening knowledge
- Experience
- Endgame
In his current article, he talks about the first way, Attack. I'm very interested in seeing what he has to say about this subject. Attacking makes sense. The idea is that a weaker player won't be able to defend against the stronger player's knowledge of how to attack and tactical strength. There's also a psychological element here. A weaker player may be defeated well before the position is lost, because of the pressure of an attack from a stronger player. But I'm curious as to what IM Taylor has to say about the other three ways. Don't you just have those qualities or not? How can you use them in a way that you wouldn't ordinarily use them anyway?
2 comments:
I think a topic like how to defeat a weaker opponent treads on very dangerous ground. Both players should strive to make the best moves they can during a chess game. Anything that smacks of playing the man and not the board is suspect. I do have to caveat my statement, because some of the attacking greats, like Tal, were able to successfully play the man. However, in most cases, I think it's best advice to not assume anything about your opponent's relative chess strength and strive to play the best chess you can and be alert for weaknesses in your opps' games.
I agree with you, and that's how I try to play. I figure if I'm really stronger, shouldn't I win by playing my usual game? Yet, I see the point that Taylor is making about attacking when you're stronger, with the idea to save energy during a Swiss tournament. I don't think I'm at the level where I can readily adjust my style of play based on the strength or weakness of my opponent, but for players like Taylor I can see where it makes more sense.
Post a Comment