tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393640898640561043.post9093866480500749457..comments2024-02-24T12:16:34.475-05:00Comments on Path to Chess Mastery: Ratings Fear and LoathingChessAdminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02231584333139931889noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393640898640561043.post-36625976222708229232013-08-03T10:43:34.210-04:002013-08-03T10:43:34.210-04:00This was a great post for sure!
I also (as do ma...This was a great post for sure!<br /><br />I also (as do many/most) suffer from this issue. And to be quite honest, I think that it's something that only improves with time.<br /><br />Ultimately, when I sit down at the board I want to know what my opponents strength is. But I don't want to let that then get in the way of playing my normal game.<br /><br />As more time has passed since my return to chess 2.5 years ago I have gotten better at this. But it takes time.<br /><br />The other rating related issue that I experience is that I forget that as my rating goes up my expectations should as well. For example, when I made my comeback in January 2011 I was rated just over 1500 (although I was probably 1200 in strength since I hadn't played in 19 years) so when I would play someone rated 1600 I felt like I was in for a serious uphill struggle.<br /><br />Now I am rated 1763. And it took me some time to realize that now when I play a 1600 they are the ones in for the uphill struggle. I was giving my opponents far too much credit before the game for a long time because I was still thinking of myself as a 1500 rather than a 1750, etc.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05917471376232837820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393640898640561043.post-46777868620813478332011-10-11T22:17:47.691-04:002011-10-11T22:17:47.691-04:00Great post Chess Admin! Very interesting isn't...Great post Chess Admin! Very interesting isn't it how the ratings can have an impact on the phsycology of a game. It's almost impossible to ignore it altogether so I agree that the best thing to do is accept it and try not to let it affect your natural playing style. <br /><br />Confidence is a big factor too I find. When I'm on a good run I feel I can beat players rated quite a bit higher than me but when I'm in a slump I feel I can lose to anyone!<br /><br />Finally, having agreed that it is best to "play the board and not the opponent" it must be said that sometimes it can be useful to take your opponent's strength into account on a tactical level depending on the game situation. For example, on occasion, when I've got into a tight spot against a player rated lower than me I have made the decision to opt for a tricky looking continuation over a solid looking one because I feel it might give me a better chance of getting back in the game.<br /><br />Very interesting subject matter. I've just posted an old game of mine on my "travailpursuit" blogspot which features exactly this kind of phsycological subject...Intermezzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09506234400044036036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393640898640561043.post-62566587162184052392011-10-10T16:49:14.994-04:002011-10-10T16:49:14.994-04:00The idea of developing effective in-game strategic...The idea of developing effective in-game strategic approaches based on significant strength differences is definitely something that deserves some more research. I recently acquired the "Chess for Tigers" book but am forcing myself to finish at least one of the other books that are in process before reading it in detail.<br /><br />I tend to think that the "play solid" approach against significantly lower-rated opposition (200+ points) has more validity to it. The odds are much greater then that your opponent will simply go wrong in an exploitable way for you, whether it's dropping material or significantly misplaying things positionally in the middlegame or endgame. On the other hand, if that's not your natural style, you may simply be crossing yourself up.<br /><br />Against significantly higher-rated players, the obvious point against pursuing the strategy of complicating the game is that you are moving it more onto their turf, i.e. increasing the importance to the game result of being able to consistently calculate multiple complicated lines. I think as a conscious strategy this is most effective when the opponent already has an advantage on the board, since simple choices will easily allow them to keep the advantage, while complex ones give them more chances to miss something. If they don't already have an advantage, it may simply make it easier for them to get one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6393640898640561043.post-85887640137948263462011-10-10T13:39:34.189-04:002011-10-10T13:39:34.189-04:00Really excellent post; I have come to agree that n...Really excellent post; I have come to agree that not thinking about the opponent's rating while choosing a move is the best policy. S. Webb's book <i>Chess for Tigers</i> had some interesting ideas about how to approach higher- or lower-rated players (attack and complicate if you're the lower, "simple chess" and wait for the mistake if you're the higher) but it never appealed much to me.<br /><br />I have thought sometimes about how much the ratings changed the whole chess scene. Pre-ratings, if you went to a tournament where you weren't familiar with the opponent, say a U.S Open, if your opponent wasn't a known master you might get a clue from someone how strong he was, or you might not and just "play chess". Ratings have had a profound affect on the game--as you note, ratings are almost an obsession for some. I am not above it all myself. A few years ago I got back into rated chess for awhile and was pretty upset when the hard-earned gains of a year of work went up in smoke in a few weeks of tough losses.<br /><br />So I ain't gonna criticize anyone for wanting to advance their rating. But overall, you hit the nail--downplay it and relax during the game, tote it up later!Robert Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357942424904415208noreply@blogger.com