castlerock wrote on 06/17/06 at 05:22:06:



What? Is FIDO going from the ELO rating to something similar to the swedish system?! Was this decided in Turin?

Hmm, seems I should consider putting my pieces on the shelf then - as nowadays I get bored playing low rated tournaments and these days it's all we have around here. 

And with this system I suppose Copenhagen open won't be worth the effort as there's usually lots of 1000-1900s to play in the first first few rounds - which is boring enough without a preliminary two hour travel to Copenhagen.


Anyway, back to the topic of weak opens. I think Karpov gave a very good advice how to beat weaker players, i don't remember the exact words but the content was something like 'allow them a little counter-play and you'll win much easier', which I think is a good idea BUT it entails staying sharp during the whole game, as these guys dont surrender when being a piece down - at least not as long as there's a possible threat to be made...

If you know the weaker players, it's usually much easier to get the full point as one can adapt oneself to their strengths & weaknesses - the big trouble is that's it's not much fun, so you'll need a cash motivator and around here those are patheticly small...

I will play in a tournament where I'm one of the top two or three seeds, but I prefer to play in ones where I'm more or less anonymous.  In the "weaker" opens that I play in, a single draw can have me lose rating points.  I've won tournaments that have cost me rating points and left a bitter taste in my mouth.  The money helps me to buy some beer to wash it out though. 


Even so, I get far more enjoyment playing (and occasionally winning prizes) in tougher tournaments.  Here in the US, the opportunity to play in a closed event is very rare.  They are the most rewarding in terms of chess quality, but the least lucrative.   

But as I tell my students, "don't play chess for the money; play it for the fun!"

Yes - I think it is a skill in itself to play these tournaments. I actually think the sharper style is not necessary here (and for me an unnecessary risk) as when I started these type of tournaments I had a couple of reverses. For me the sharp style is ideal for playing higher rated players (they hate being attacked ) and I found a strange thing that when I jst tried not so hard and went to super solid mode then the wins just followed automatically - it also helps you conserve a lot of energy.

Taking Karpov's positional style into account, presumably playing for wins could be destructive to his style, which emphasized solidity.  I suspect that a player who traded on dynamism more--like Kasparov, for example--would be more open to your philosophy, when he would prefer to sacrifice material or some other imbalance in order to get a complicated game.  Karpov's style frowns upon this kind of play, so I presume that's what he meant.  I guess the question boils down to whether you're wanting to play win-at-all-cost chess or whether you tend to play a rock-solid positional chess.  The latter might not lend itself to this approach...

I noticed a comment from Karpov in an interview somewhere that he would never play in an Open tournament because in his opinion, for a world class player, it would lead to a "destruction of style".

Now if I can take this angle to a somewhat ower level (i.e. my own) what do people think of playing in weak open tournaments? I am talking of tournaments where you are expected to score say 7.5/9 to break even in rating.

Opinions! Personally I think it is a good challenge to try and win all your games - completely different to the classic all play all tournaments. The downside is that after one slip up you are in big trouble