Andy Soltis mentioned that he made a big increase in playing strength (maybe when he first made Master?) when he realized that he could just out-sit most opponents.  This is a wonderful skill to have.

In a recent tournament, I played against a young (around 10 years old?) opponent already rated in the high 1900s (he's taking lessons from a GM).  The tournament had started late and this was the third round and the game began around 5:30.  Time control was 30/90 and G/60.

I was White and played a fairly timid b2-b3 line against his Semi-Slav, knowing no real theory but just wanting to outplay him.  I reached a position with a very slight edge against his IQP, but it was very hard to make progress.  

So what did I do?  I made sure that he was up past his bedtime!  I forced myself to take an extra few minutes on some moves, even when I knew what I was going to play.  I shuffled pieces, etc.  I forced him to sit at the board a long time.  

Around 9:00pm, the game finally sharpened as I played g2-g4 (with Queens still on) to take away the f5-square from his pieces.  He had plenty of counterplay...but fell apart rather quickly as he miscalculated a line.  And frankly I doubt that I'm any better at tactics than him; he's a little whiz kid.  But I don't think he was interested in sitting at the board much longer.

Sometimes you just have to out-sit people, I guess that's the point I'm trying to get across.

MrCookie wrote on 02/02/12 at 20:22:40:


Like others I'm not convinced about the idea that 1600s can draw any position 'easily'.  I'd back myself to win any position against a 1600 up to and including theoretically drawn pawn endings and I'm only floating around the 2000 elo mark.  I wouldn't always succeed, of course, but I'd try.

Personal anecdote ahoy:-
the two highest rated players that I've ever drawn against punted the Bogo.

The first game (against a 2190 odd) went 1 d4 Nf6, 2 c4 e6, 3 Nf3 Bb4+, 4 Bd2 Qe7 at which point I was out of book.  I got a worse position and had to defend quite a bit and then he made a big mistake at the time control and I would have played on to try to win had the game not been adjourned.

The second game (against a 2300 FM) went 4 ... a5 at which point I was out of book again.  The position was level-ish throughout and at some point he offered a draw.

I was surprised even though I had a big time advantage and the position was very level and difficult to open up.  He could have shuffled about a bit and waited for a mistake that might well have come.  I suspect the reason he didn't was that the tournament included several days with two games to be played and he wanted to save energy.  (If so it worked - he ended up winning a prize and finishing high up).


That said, I'm not convinced that the only way to win games against lower-rated opponents is to unbalance the position as soon as possible.

I can add that Nimzo Indian with 4 Bd2 usually transposes to a Bogo Indian mainline in Qe7 variation, the only difference is that Queen is at d8 and black can us that tempo to play something else but is might be the same problem for Nimzo players when it comes to winning as in this thread since the positon has very few imbalances. The funny thing is that I tend to win every single game vs Bd2 Nimzo by playing on and outgrind opponnets and the same applies to Bogo Indian in general.

bragesjo wrote on 02/06/12 at 12:04:55:


So true, the only problem its easy to play for your opponent too

@ Gilchrist is a legend
Well, 20...Nf4 was considered of course. But the deep analysis brought me to conclusion that 20...Nf6 was safer...at least in a correspndendence chess game. 

@ ErictheRed
Yes, Eric - I agree 4...c5 is the best choice for black to unbalance a Bogo-Indian game. A good decision for an OTB game, no doubt about it. And one more thing - what amazed me in this 4...c5 setup was the fact that whenever I tried to analyze the program centre strike e6-e5 with the help of an engine...my crazy comp objected to the idea. 

In the second game, I think 20...Nf4 was better than 20...Nf6, so you can play perhaps with ideas as ...f5 and ...Rd6 with kingside chances. In any case this looks better than 4...Qe7 in terms of dynamism. My friend who is 2250 would not mind either the positions in the first or second game, but not everyone will want to play such positions.

I think it is more easy to generate winning chanses for both sides after Nd2 line than in Bd2 line, almost as much as after Nc3. b6 leeds to positions where both sides can outplay each other.