I'd like to add my two cents about playing in weak open tournaments.  I used to be very frustrated dealing with players rated 300+ points below me (and still am!), but I've found an excellent way to cope.  EAR PLUGS.

Honestly, I don't know how I ever played chess without them.  One thing I've found is that weaker players are almost always extremely annoying.  They snicker and smile, offer lots of draws, shrug, sometimes even try to make friendly comments to you during the game!  Plus, if you're playing in a weaker open tournament, there's usually some under 10 year old kids playing on the opposite end of the hall banging the pieces, crying when they lose, etc. etc.  Then there's the people who finish their game early and want to analyse it right behind you, or the incessantly out-of-sync ticking of 20 analog clocks.  I find it so much easier to deal with weaker players when I can't hear any of the littls noises they make; then, I'm not annoyed by the person I'm playing and I can just concentrate on the board.  Also, I think it sort of deflates their confidence even faster when they offer you a draw on move 15 and you don't even make eye contact with them, because you didn't even hear them!  Most of them just lose the will to go on when they realise they can't make constant draw offers, cough loudly, moan, chuckle, blow their nose, or do anything else to irritate you.

So I heartily recommend ear plugs, to be strictly combined with making NO eye contact during the game (against weaker players).  You'll be amazed at how much easier the wins come!!

[quote author=Keano link=1150452696/15#19 date=1151049507][quote]I find that I can usually entertain myself by trying to win in the fewest possible moves. [/quote]
I do this as well, although sometimes particularly in endgames I do the opposite - try to win in the maximum moves possible. It completely demoralises the opponent and vey often they will just resign before awaiting the inevitable. I noticed a lot of masters who like to do this as well - completely eliminate any risk and win at leisure. Particulary useful is the Shereshevsky endgame principle of "do not hurry" in which he advocates repeating the position twice on occasions - though not 3 times of course![/quote]

Maybe.  I imagine this will just encourage your weak opponent to play on ("He's not making any progress, maybe I'll draw"), but if it keeps you amused, who am I to judge :-)

Quote:

I do this as well, although sometimes particularly in endgames I do the opposite - try to win in the maximum moves possible. It completely demoralises the opponent and vey often they will just resign before awaiting the inevitable. I noticed a lot of masters who like to do this as well - completely eliminate any risk and win at leisure. Particulary useful is the Shereshevsky endgame principle of "do not hurry" in which he advocates repeating the position twice on occasions - though not 3 times of course!

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/22/06 at 23:46:56:


That's a really good point!  No better way to work a new repertoire than to put it in practice, and nice to have the relative confidence of knowing that some unforeseen improvement might not necessarily sink your ship--though if it does, you're really sunk...

Oooooh! Them stubborn opponents are really quite a nuisance arent they?? How very annoying.  Even in casual social games at Yahoo they refuse to resign despite having only a king! My EXTREME program which is always guilty of such play & refuses to draw even in an obviously drawn position (drawn only after 50 move rule) has made me immune to any such irritation. 

Met these types of opponents very often when I was  playing competitively for my school team. What is even worse, these guys will sit & think as tho they've got some deeeeeeep game saving plan in mind; 20+ mins gone & they either play what is glaringly obvious or a move just to chase a piece away or yet another blunder.

Not to worry, Confucious says "Patience is a GREAT virtue".  JEH's tip is the best- just play the position. At least among my mates, we call it quits whenever its beyond salvation 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/21/06 at 02:17:23:

I suspect English boxing has been losing out in the same way

Quote:


I dont think this makes too much difference to the over-all calculations (as far as I know this was a suggestion of Anand, and it seems quite sensible, and will make it easier to keep track of results as you go along) I remember calculating by average one time (remember there is still the 350 point applied when putting the average together) and individually, and there was hardly any difference at all - I am sure over 100 games there is some difference, statisticians out there    Anyway I thought this rule had already been applied? Are you saying it is being applied in calculation of July 2006 list for the first time? Just curious.