How do you play a superior opponent?
I'm talking about someone rated way above you. 400+ points above you.
Do you play cautiously, trying to survive for as many moves as possible, praying for a draw?
Do you try to make the game as boring as possible, and hope to wear out your opponent?
Do you recklessly go for the kill, figuring that since you'll lose anyway you might as well have some fun?
Or is your approach more subtle, where you basically try to play your best, but:
- You play more conservatively, trying to keep it safe, avoiding complications for fear your opponent can navigate them better.
- You welcome complications, figuring there's more chances for your opponent to mess up.
One thing's for sure: Your higher-rated opponent wants to win. They won't be happy with a draw. Many times this translates into them taking unnecessary risks and making mistakes.
The 2005 Atlanta Chess Center Championship is August 19-21, and it is a little unusual in that the Open section goes all the way down to 1800. This means I'd be playing in the Open section and potentially facing players I've only seen on the upper tables until now.
I've only ever played in an Open section once before, at the 58th Annual Tennessee Open last year. Now that was a blast. Rated 1691 at the time, I beat two experts and gave a FIDE Master a rough time in a long game I eventually lost. I went into each game believing I could beat them all (well, to be honest, I was too nervous at the start of my game with the FM to believe much of anything, so nervous I accidentally knocked over two of my pieces on one of my opening moves!). This was also during the peak of my tactics bootcamp training.
While it's still up in the air as to whether I'll play this upcoming tournament (still recovering from bronchitis, and I don't want to play unless I feel 100%), I can't help but feel an extra element of excitement at the thought of so-called mis-matched pairings in the early rounds of these Open tournaments, because every now and then you get an upset or two.
7 comments:
I like playing much stronger opponents. The underdog position is allways comfortable. And I go for the kill. The ratingsystem prevent you from loosing points. (Statistically in the long run that is)
I look forward to my next open in 2 months, where my first opponent will be 400+ above me. One year before seven underdogs made full or half points in the first round. This year I hope to be one of them. I think the most important strategy as underdog is to avoid passive moves. I even would try my gambits, if I lose, I still can profit and improve my weapon. But in the first round I'll be black, so I'll just try to get active play without any material sacrifice.
An excellent little book that (among other interesting things) talks about practical approaches to playing much stronger or weaker opponents is 'Chess for Tigers' by sadly deceased Simon Webb.
His take on this is that the wekaer player (the rabbit in his syntax) should aim for complications. In a clean cut technical game, the stronger opponent will prevail with almost certainty. When the position turns into a mess, the better player is still prone to win, but the likelihood of him making a bad mistake is way higher.
Never having been in such a mismatch, I would probably just play my own regular game instead of trying to be extra cautious or extra aggressive. That way even if I lose I will learn a lot more than if I play in a fashion that I never play. (Of course if I win in that manner, then maybe I should always play that way?)
Hi Chris!
I have also never played anyone OTB that much stronger than me...but in my situation I really don't know what my true playing strength currently is. If I went by just my published rating I am certain that I would be very under-estimated and that would play into my favour. I truly feel that I am a much stronger player than my rating indicates right now...but I am just getting back into OTB tournament chess, so only time will tell. In the meantime, proper "training" should reinforce my strengths and help to further reduce my weaknesses.
Again, if I were to play someone OTB 400 points or more than be by just my published rating, then I would go the "complications road", and hope that with accurate play on my part that my opponent would make one or more errors that would have a cumulative effect of at least equality in the game. Now, it might just turn out that were are in fact much closer in playing strength than my published rating would indicate, and in fact I could be the stronger player, so it would be my game to lose at that point.
I am still planning on playing at the tournament Chris, barring some unforseen obstacle...see you there!
Regards,
Bill
I agree... it's sometimes good to be the underdog. It's hard to be really good (not that I know!) It's like that kid in Searching for Bobby Fischer. "If I win, then everyone will say 'Of course, he won.' But if I lose...."
Post a Comment