- Joined
- 03 Jul 13
- Moves
- 86141
15 Jan 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedHi Duchess64,
So in the example you give, in an equal position, as the stronger player you chose to create complications and although this initially put you at a disadvantage, you, as the stronger player, found the best continuation, and your student did not.
So this is what I was thinking - that going for complicated positions is more effective against weaker players than simplifying.
Am I understanding this correctly? Would I be better off playing, for example, the King’s Gambit, an opening that always seems to lead to complicated positions, against stronger or weaker players?
- Joined
- 03 Jul 13
- Moves
- 86141
16 Jan 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedThank you for your reply.
What you say makes complete sense.
But whether my opponent does or doesn’t understands a chess position well is an unknown variable to me. The only thing I know about them is their rating, and if their rating is significantly higher than mine, then it’s reasonable to assume they will understand the position better than I, whether it’s a simple position or a complex one.
But I would still have thought that I would be more likely to get something out of a game against a better player if I could avoid complex positions, which I could be sure they would understand better than I, and instead try and go for simple positions, which I might have a chance of understanding as well as they do.
Hence my belief that I would prefer to play the Exchange Variation of the Slav against a stronger player, as I think this is less likely to lead to complex positions.
Maybe I’m wrong; I can’t say I’ve ever done any research to back this up. But this has been my thinking till now.
- Joined
- 03 Jul 13
- Moves
- 86141
16 Jan 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedInteresting stuff, and I take your point that many positions are deceptively simple.
We’re all familiar with games where we’ve achieved what appears to be an equal, maybe drawn position against a much stronger opponent, and they’ve then made us work extremely hard to maintain that equality and get the draw.
There’s a nice sense of satisfaction when we achieve this (and an equal sense of annoyance when we screw up somewhere and end up losing.)
That's a good point you make about Magnus Carlsen.
As for the ‘being offered a draw’ by a top Grandmaster, that is something us mere mortals can only dream of! It might have been nice to push on and try and convert the win, but a super-GM will punish the smallest inaccuracy, and I can only imagine the frustration if it all went wrong somewhere, resulting in a loss.
At my level, that would of course have been the most likely scenario, so were I ever to find myself in that unlikely position, I wouldn’t have had to think long before accepting the draw!
16 Jan 21
@tommovich saidBear in mind it matters how much stronger they are. A rating difference of 200 corresponds with an expected score of 75% to the stronger player, in other words a win and a draw. So it is enough for the weaker player to go for a draw with the white pieces. I find holding equal positions hard, I'm much more comfortable with something definite to do, so I'd tend to play for a win anyway. If you're comfortable playing an exchange Slav against someone rated 200 to 400 points stronger then that probably overrides my complexity point. Against someone rated 400 or more points higher I only expect a 10% score anyway so I feel I may as well try for a position where they are liable to blunder too. They'll cope with the complications better than I, but they'll play a simple position effectively perfectly, so I might as well go for the position where they've got as high a chance of going wrong as possible.
Hi Deep Thought,
I was interested to read your views on how to play against stronger and weaker opponents - to look for simple positions against weaker players, and complicated positions against stronger players.
I think all these years I have been viewing it differently - I’ve thought that if I’m playing a weaker player they are more likely to be able to find the correct ...[text shortened]... play the opening well, I tend to find my way through the complications better than my opponents do.
Note that this won't work so well on this site as people's ratings aren't necessarily reflective of their playing strength. I've got an opponent with a 1,300 rating who was over 2,100 a decade ago. Dammit 😛.
- Joined
- 03 Jul 13
- Moves
- 86141
@deepthought saidThat's a good point you make that it matters how much stronger they are.
Bear in mind it matters how much stronger they are. A rating difference of 200 corresponds with an expected score of 75% to the stronger player, in other words a win and a draw. So it is enough for the weaker player to go for a draw with the white pieces. I find holding equal positions hard, I'm much more comfortable with something definite to do, so I'd tend to play f ...[text shortened]... ing strength. I've got an opponent with a 1,300 rating who was over 2,100 a decade ago. Dammit 😛.
if someone is 400+ points higher I can completely see the validity of going for the complications hoping they might slip up.
As you say, we'd be expecting to lose anyway, so why not try and mix it up?
But against players who are stronger, but not that much stronger, maybe by 200 points or so, I think I'd still be inclined to try and simplify given the chance, rather than complicate matters.
I am here, adopting the attitude that I'm going to be happy getting a draw against a player 200 rating points higher than me. I appreciate that for players who always play for the win, regardless of the opposition, this doesn't apply.
Whether this is best, I really don't know, and as Duchess64 says, some positions can be deceptively simple anyway.
In fact, considering the vastness of chess, rather than describing a position as 'simple', in most cases the term 'less complicated' might be more appropriately used!
17 Jan 21
1 edit
Interesting what Jeremy Silman had to say on the subject of how to choose your own openings:-
"There is no such thing as a 'best opening.' Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)."
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
18 Jan 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou're quite right, but I think your last point is only true if the player still wants to, and believes himself able to, advance as a player. At the club level, there are a lot of players who know who and what they are, are settled and content in their position on the board, and play chess just as an amusement. I certainly see that at my club, at various levels.
And if that level is "about as bad as Shallow Blue's", well... against my usual opponents it pays to have a system you know well and your opponent doesn't, even if it's not the best. Too many of them play boring, stodgy openings which my superiors will smash through with no problem but which I struggle to get a handle on. On the flip side, they never walk right over me, either. It's always "who makes the first blunder in the boring middle game".
I myself can't be bothered with that. I try to play proper book openings. I have no delusions that I might grow into a good player - too old for that by a few decades - but at least it gives me a chance to make interesting notes. I can't be doing with a closed four knights'. Frankly, I prefer losing to our club champion in what is at least guaranteed (we both know this!) to be a proper, open Sicilian.
Mind, they're not always boring. Some of them know their niche, as well, but it's an agressive one. One of these guys always plays the Bird. He has great success with it, too, because he at least loves attacking the kingside, is genuinely good at that, and his opponents have no idea how to handle it. Until I booked up just a little and served him a From... that was fun.
But no, in general, at the level these guys are playing at (i.e., mine), and with the attitude they play with (not mine!), time invested in learning pawn structures would be wasted. None of it would stick, that's not the level their mind works at. They're woodpushers, as am I, and unlike me, they have no delusions of being a frustrated IM.