How to beat 2200+ when you are < 1700

@TaleOfTheNoob said in #29:
> Here’s a strategy for beating higher rated opponents in generally
>
> Study and play a certain offbeat opening alot. For example, the Trompowsky is played in 4% of games played after 1. d4 Nf6. Let’s assume that against 1. d4, your opponent always plays 1...Nf6. They will play it in 50% of their games since they have white games too. This means you have around 12.5x their experience with this position. Higher rated opponents would play more games, but this strategy catches up really quickly. In general, try to be very comfortable with offbeat openings to have more experience than your opponent. You will have more experience, so you are more familiar with the resulting middlegames and even endgames too.
.

Correct. still not likely that is the point of ratings. OP looking to brag, albeit unsuccessful for sure

OP has exactly 86 downvotes and 0 upvotes. He has been 86ed.

@anomamadady thats basically how I got to 2200 right now with no opening or end game knowledge. I just try to create chaos and play faster than my opponents.

Looks like all the >2200 have downvoted me because they know it's true.
My speed and end game is bad so I might blunder a queen or something, but my middle game beats them in probably half of the games.

@anomamadady if you know the trick to defeat 2200+ players, why are you still 1700?

If any 1700 plays a lot of 2200's every now and then the 1700 wins... But I do not believe there is a formula that will make a 1700 a 2200 killer.

@Druismat said in #36:
> If any 1700 plays a lot of 2200's every now and then the 1700 wins...

If I calculated correctly (and understood the Glicko-2 paper correctly), that should be ~5% of time, depending on rating deviation. Or, more precisely, ~5% should be the mean result, i.e. out of 100 games, a 1700 rated player should score 5 points on average against a 2200 rated one, which may more likely be something like 1-2 wins and 6-8 draws.

> But I do not believe there is a formula that will make a 1700 a 2200 killer.

Not a reliable formula, of course, but there may still be some guidelines to improve your chances somewhat. Some generic, some specific for your and opponents strengths and weaknesses. The problem I have with the advice from the initial post is that most of it are exactly the things that would come first to my mind to avoid when playing a significantly stronger opponent.

@anomamadady said in #1:
> During my play, i noticed that all those super GMs try so hard to trade everything so that the game is simple and easy to win for them, so here are the steps to beat super GMs:
> 1. Try totally random opening.
> 2. Avoid trading.
> 3. create a middle game as complex as possible.
> 4. play fast.
>
> you will be surprised how super GMs play like 1400- players when the game is very complex..
> Good luck!

There seems to be some really great players. Then a whole ton of fakers. Never know which one you'll get. The ones that frown on bullet games because they can't use their engine in time to give them the answers. Or the ones that are only really good at being fast with the endgame so they trade early as you say. But some of these people are on another level and that's clear. Just a shame how many alt accounts are in use.

The only way to play real chess is not to play online at all. But then you might never meet some of the true masters lurking around these parts. It's truly fun to lose to them.

You don’t

I have come to the conclusion that games between two very different ratings are unfair and should not be allowed. Carlsen's latest fiasco is a case of it. Having to play at a difference of 300 points or so is to much.
Don't think beating a very high rating matters what matters is growing learning and success. I would also say that as a feat of power it is not the hardest, try going undefeated and gain over 200 points in a row only playing those +50 , not easy.