My thinking - perhaps 'fearing' is a better word - was that higher-rated players would have greater opening knowledge, so it should be countered by getting to pastures new.
Conversely I have been happy to play known theory against lower-rated opponents, trusting to my (presumed) greater theoretical knowledge.
I may be right about this, but a post on grandmaster Nigel Davies's Tiger Chess blog has given me food for thought.
He agrees that "you should consider the relative strength of your opponent."
But he adds: "If they [sic] are a better player it makes sense to minimise the importance of their improvisational skills by playing as many moves of opening theory as you can."
I guess the reasoning is that, as long as you are not going down a losing line, you should finish with a position that is equal, or at least very playable.
His recommendation against lower-rated opponents is also opposite to my thinking, in that he writes: "You might want to throw weaker players on their own resources."
However he adds the caveat "unless you know they have poor theoretical knowledge."
I am not sure who is correct in this matter, but I am sure most players, myself included, would rather trust the grandmaster's verdict.
Also preperation is important,especially in this computer era.
ReplyDeleteWhen your opponent got 300 elo more than you,try to find an game he played a couple of years ago(a game he lost from his own level)
Study it and copy it.The most I like is playing with less theory.
But what ever you do,chess is still very difficult
There so many diffirent influences came on your path.
That sounds like it could be good advice. I will try to give it a go the next time the circumstances arise.
DeleteIt wont worked out always ofcourse,but it can be worht it to try.
ReplyDelete