Why do some players seem impossible to beat even when they're not doing anything special?

[u/World_Chess_Shop]

Not talking about GMs or people who are massively higher rated.

Some players just make normal moves, don't go for crazy tactics, don't seem to have any deep opening prep, and somehow you end up with a terrible position 20 moves later.

I find that style of chess more intimidating than someone who plays aggressively from move one.

What actually makes those players so difficult to play against?

[u/Born_Competition6651]

They have superior positional understanding compared to you

[u/kanakaishou → u/Born_Competition6651]

Seriously. Look at Karpov. He will do nothing for like 10 moves…and is suddenly just better.

And Karpov did this to people like Kasparov. It’s (just) better positional understanding: that there is a small advantage here, and you can milk it, and this is how.

[u/Born_Competition6651 → u/kanakaishou]

Yes, Karpov is definetly one of the Godfathers of positional chess. Here is a great analysis of his most famous game against Unzicker. "Unzicker is not a clown. He just looks like one because he is playing Karpov" https://youtu.be/1feQUvBY898?is=pS6XdftuHZQxsVZz

[u/Fantastic-Bison6078 → u/Born_Competition6651]

Oh damn I've never seen a Karpov game before. My god what an awful position. He basically physically can't move anything, or without losing a piece or the whole position. That was awesome.

What would one need to learn/practice to get good at that style of play? Is it just learning understanding of things like pawn chains and other positional stuff

[u/Born_Competition6651 → u/Fantastic-Bison6078]

Positional chess is something you cant really learn by yourself. You either need someone to explain the concepts to you or you learn them from a book. "How to reasses your chess" by Jeremy Silman is a great book for amateur players that teaches exactly that. Understanding imbalances in positions and coming up with plans based on them

[u/Maleficent-Garage-66 → u/Fantastic-Bison6078]

A lot of it is just experience and study. Eventually you start to find ways to keep bad pieces bad, take away your opponent's good moves and etc. If every move you make one of your pieces better, on of your opponent's worse, or just favorable pawn transitions it can snowball quickly while looking like you aren't doing much.

It's one of those reasons that quieter starts that keep pieces on the board tend to end decisively or suddenly become explosive, the tension just mounts and mounts until one side is unsalvageable.

[u/SouthernSierra → u/Fantastic-Bison6078]

You could learn prophylaxis the way Petrosian did and study Nimzovich.

Steinitz was also a master at this.

[u/Pawn_Made_Flesh → u/Fantastic-Bison6078]

Study Nimzovich. He not only invented the word “prophylaxis” as applied to chess, but (far more important) invented the very concept.

That said, Nimzovich’s own writings are often dogmatic and therefore riddled with analysis mistakes: moves and lines that he recommends in line with his strategic principles prove faulty in light of precise unbiased analysis.

[u/World_Chess_Shop → u/kanakaishou]

Karpov is actually the perfect example of this. Half the time his moves look completely normal and then you realize his opponent has basically no good options left.

[u/vickzzzzz → u/kanakaishou]

Thats what I like to call intuitional play. They have deep understanding of structures and patterns. They are able to capitalize slight inaccuracies blowing up into a blunder. Hikaru is good at this, but Magnus is great at it. I think he mastered memory repository of 1000s of games, intuition and personal experience to reach that insane end game boss level.

[u/Shin-NoGi → u/Born_Competition6651]

They also do see tactics miles ahead, and prevent falling for them

[u/ApprehensiveTry5660 → u/Shin-NoGi]

If you play nothing but prophylaxis, eventually you run into opponents that are good enough to punish the lack of initiative.

You still have to do the work of playing brilliant tactics to get your brilliant positional advantages. Without those tactics, it’s all just a collection of weak/strong squares and protected pieces. No one is just giving you your strong center and immaculate pawn structure, you have to earn it.

Aimless chess produces aimless results, and inactivity is one of the most punishing mistakes you can make at any rating. Just as devastating as overactivity. But where one mistake shoots yourself in the foot, the other is more akin to you digging your own grave then handing your opponent the shovel.

[u/giants4210 → u/ApprehensiveTry5660]

You don’t have to play brilliant tactics to play positionally principled chess. Not being tactical does not mean you are aimless. See this recent game of mine where my one blunder was missing a tactic, but otherwise I just punished my opponent’s positional mistakes: https://lichess.org/3FWKWgbS/black#82

[u/ApprehensiveTry5660 → u/giants4210]

You are playing with more initiative and tactics than white is in this game.

White plays a Vienna gambit without even the Bc4 pressure justifying the pawn lift and he’s responding to your threats as early as move 7. Truly, he’s kinda back footed at move 3.

Throw on some Karpov vs Unzinger with my words ringing in your head. Boil it down to, “positional chess ≠ passive chess” or whatever you like, but pay attention to the way Karpov gets his positional advantages. It’s all tactics.

No one wanted an isolated queen pawn versus the most notorious pawn grubber of the 20th century. He went out there and took it from them. They’d tie themselves into knots to get out of the tactics he was employing, because having those pieces locked away in the corner was “better” than the alternative. Giving him that juicy target to blockade at least meant you didn’t lose on the spot.

Positional chess isn’t about passivity. It’s attempting to extract more stable of returns from your activity and only indulging in attacks you have calculated to be successful.

[u/Shin-NoGi → u/ApprehensiveTry5660]

Do you even play OTB ? A good positional player doesn't allow for many tactics. They are mostly prevented. Who is talking about aimless chess you are just telling a prerehearsed story that is in no way a response to me

[u/OrdinaryAuthor1278 → u/Born_Competition6651]

I know Kasparov is considered largely tactical while Karpov is positional. Where would Magnus fit in? I'm relatively new to chess.

[u/EdgeRevolutionary913 → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

Magnus is widely considered a positional player like Karpov, but I think this view misses the nuances of his style. I'd say he is most similar to Bobby Fischer. His play is actually very aggressive under the surface. He is constantly setting up tactical problems for his opponents. His opponents see these tactics and respond accordingly, so they rarely blow up into swashbuckling chess, but he uses these threats to force positional concessions. Over time, these concessions often add up to a superior endgame where magnus grinds out a win. This looks boring to spectators because they often don't see the tactical threats which never materialize on the board.

[u/HenkWhite → u/EdgeRevolutionary913]

Kasparov said that Magnus is a lethal fusion of Karpov and Fisher

[u/Altruistwhite → u/EdgeRevolutionary913]

Magnus is a universal player. He is one of the best if not the best in most aspects of chess.

[u/Establishment240 → u/EdgeRevolutionary913]

You are saying that Magnus is a tactical player but the intent of his tactics is merely to make his oponents play defensively until the endgame ? While mantaining an optimal positioning of his pieces ?

So basically he's a less risky Tal ?

[u/alldaymay → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

Magnus does both really well

And conversely, Kasparov was really strong at positional chess and Karpov was a master tactician

[u/AutomaticMedium8418 → u/alldaymay]

Yeah the “tactical vs positional” is just a preference which is most apparent at the top level like between Karpov and Kasparov

But compared to 99% of other players they are masters in both positional and tactical chess

And even when they play each other they have to use both a lot of tactical and positional skills, it is just about which one they lean towards

[u/lesbianmathgirl → u/alldaymay]

Very famously, Kasparov decided after game 9 of the 1984/85 WCC that he was going to play dry and positionally like Karpov until he could get his nerves under control and then they drew the next 16 (iirc) games

[u/madmsk → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

Opening prep has become a lot more sophisticated. Because of this, modern players are sort of more universal, there's not as much room to steer positions into styles that you like.

That said, Magnus is more of a grinder. He's usually not trying to tear open your king, he's trying to get a dry positions and outplay you in it.

[u/Pawn_Made_Flesh → u/madmsk]

Very recently I read someone saying modern training methods — including not only deep opening prep, but also heavy reliance on engine analysis and eclectic/pragmatic approach to strategy — mean top players no longer have easily identifiable styles or even preferences (“positional,” “tactical,” “master of attack/defense/endgames”, etc.).

I think the person saying it was a current or past top player, in an interview. I don’t recall who said it, but my best guess is it came from Sindarov and he was speaking about his own contemporaries, i.e., the younger generation among today’s world elite.

[u/Fakemex → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

Take it from the man himself https://youtu.be/Np1zODg5cqc?si=0HlFFCqMff8EqAUD

[u/automorphic-form → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

Magnus is considered to be universal, meaning his play isn’t characterized by very strong stylistic preferences, but he’s clearly more of a positional player than a tactical player imo.

[u/sick_rock → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

All 3 were extremely good at both positional and tactical chess. In terms of style, Magnus is closer to Karpov than Kasparov.

[u/Background_Fee_7713 → u/OrdinaryAuthor1278]

Magnua is a universal player and has stated he has no preference to style. But he is more towards positional. In his youth he used to play aggressive swashbuckling chess but then calmed down as it would not work as well against the world elite

[u/World_Chess_Shop → u/Born_Competition6651]

Yeah, I guess that's what makes it so frustrating. You don't notice anything going wrong until you're already in a worse position lol

[u/rocenante]

Blitz 1800s here I usually target weakly protected pawns, and people in order to not lose the pawn end up in way worse positions, sometimes its fine to let go of the pawn, its not gm level game where a pawn matters a lot lol

[u/doodlinghearsay → u/rocenante]

I usually attack weakly protected pawns and people

Yep, you gotta go after the weak ones. Especially if they are isolated, you can pile on the pressure until they fall or worse.

[u/Goudinho99 → u/doodlinghearsay]

Is this still chess or a trip to the supermarket?

[u/World_Chess_Shop → u/rocenante]

That's interesting because I feel like people get way too attached to defending every pawn. Sometimes giving one up is probably better than spending the next 10 moves defending it.

[u/Pawn_Made_Flesh → u/World_Chess_Shop]

Exactly. In rook endings for instance, every 1800 player knows that activity is more important than a pawn.

Still, activating an otherwise passive rook (in an ending), even at the cost of a pawn, is easier said than done. I remember an ending I lost to Ehlvest that Lenderman and Bercys were analyzing after the game and both told me, “You have to activate your rook” (presumably instead of holding onto a threatened pawn). But every possibility I looked at for giving up the pawn still failed to produce meaningful drawing chances.

[u/Trollerthegreat]

Look up the series "playing simple chess" from gm Noel Studer. It'll give you insight on how those folks use that simplicity to be able to think much farther ahead than something complex.

[u/Metaljesus0909]

Theres a famous saying that goes “the person who wins a game of chess, is the one who makes the second to last mistake.” Meaning it’s not really about who played best, but who blundered the least.

Players like Capablanca, Botvinik, Karpov etc made careers off capitalizing on their opponents mistakes, however small. But it takes someone of incredible skill to pick up on such small inaccuracies and turn them into a winning advantage.

Of course none of us are on that level, but the idea still holds true. Odds are if you’re playing someone around your rating, one of you will make a mistake, you just have to hone in on your own, and not get in your own head.

[u/rckid13 → u/Metaljesus0909]

But it takes someone of incredible skill to pick up on such small inaccuracies and turn them into a winning advantage.

You can see this in almost any GM vs IM game online. There are tons of games from the IM streamers where they make zero blunders or major mistakes, but the GM will grind them down until the evaluation is like +3 and then they are going to win the end game.

[u/BelacRLJ → u/Metaljesus0909]

This is true. Put your opponent in the pressure cooker, give them opportunities to make errors by making threats that are complex for your strength level, and eventually they will make some kind of error. If you notice and capitalize on that error, eventually you'll pull ahead.

At every strength level, there are tactics that fit that category.

I improved greatly at chess by playing Go, which has the concept of Sente--initiative. If your opponent is responding to your threats, they're not putting pressure on you, and you're dictating the pace. Doesn't matter if they answer each threat, you can steadily push them into a poor overall position because their moves are foiling your plans rather than furthering theirs. Conversely, if your opponent has Sente, you want to find a move that they have to respond to instead of pressing their own threats. Individual chess moves do more than individual Go moves, so it's easier to retake the initiative in chess, but the style the OP is referring to restricts big moves on both sides and reminds me of Go strategy.

[u/Pawn_Made_Flesh → u/BelacRLJ]

I never learned Go, but your description of Sente exactly matches every feature of the initiative in chess.

On the other hand the OP’s description reminds me less of “the initiative” and more of the “prophylaxis” concept associated with Nimzovich or the “python strategy” of Petrosian or Karpov. Or perhaps most of all, Rubinstein: taking pains on every move to insure you aren’t allowing the opponent a way to “change the course of the game.”

[u/HairyTough4489]

They're indeed doing nsomething special. It's just beyond the comprehension of weaker players. You can't understand that your opponent is preparing to exploit a weak square if you don't know what a weak square is.

[u/bearwilleatthat]

The attribute I think you are describing is what took me from a 1000 elo to a 1300 player. When I played chess I was always looking for the killer move and if I couldn’t find it I would oftentimes panic, feel a sense of time anxiety and usually make a mistake trying to be aggressive. At some point it clicked that at this level I can win by understanding a few things, but focusing on 1) looking for mistakes my opponent made I can capitalize on and if I don’t see any 2) making sound moves that do not hurt my position.

[u/budgiesthrowaway]

If theyre not higher rated and are just playing solidly, ofthen theyre not actually playing correctly. So the trick is to find where theyre actually weak and come up with a plan to break it down.

Often solid structures are tactically or positionally unsound, its just harder to punish it

[u/World_Chess_Shop → u/budgiesthrowaway]

Yeah that's a good point. I think the hard part is recognizing when a position only looks solid versus when it actually is. Sometimes I can tell there must be a weakness somewhere, but figuring out how to exploit it without creating weaknesses of my own is a whole different story.

[u/budgiesthrowaway → u/World_Chess_Shop]

As you get higher rated, you start to realise that chess isnt about not making weaknesses, its about knowing which ones you can make, and which ones are too dangerous.

[u/GarrusExMachina]

They're playing defense instead of offense. 

When you're attacking and looking for brilliancies or going for strange off the beaten path opening theory it's extremely easy to open up your position and end up I a spot where you accidentally blunder a 1-3 move sequence that leaves you a piece or even just a pawn down.  

When  you're just making quiet sound defensive moves almost all trades are even and you're just looking for a single mistake from your opponent who is being invited to over extend and try for things. Especially at lower elo that person is very likely to attempt ideas that are very one dimensional and easily countered that don't improve their position and create weaknesses and imbalances that can be exploited. 

So one minute you're attacking and the next you're in an endgame where you're a pawn down or have some sort of doubled structure or have the wrong colored bishop or just straight up let a knight or queen infiltrate your position and now you're hopelessly lost barring a blunder that your opponent is significantly less likely to make because the position was simplified... by you. 

[u/r_fernandes]

Fundamentals. They mastered fundamentals and rely on those for the majority of the game so they arent tiring their brains out the whole match. So when they get to a position that needs thinking outside the box, they are "fresh." Its the different between practice and perfect practice. Pretty sure this is applicable across all disciplines.

[u/VandalsStoleMyHandle]

You have a misconception about 'crazy tactics'. Usually, you have to accumulate a series of positional advantages in order to be able to drop a decisive tactic on your opponent - lightning doesn't usually come from a clear sky. You're ignoring the basics and focusing on the flashy stuff.

[u/buttons_the_horse]

A lot of beginner and intermediate chess is simply not making losing moves.

[u/Particular-Tap1211]

Structural chess is underated, whilst you're pushing, thier holding and creeping awaiting for you to blunder. And blunder you will.

[u/MikeEpps734]

I haven’t read all the comments, but many times defensive players who leave you with little attacking opportunities out of the gate is what comes to mind. They end up just waiting for you to make a mistake.

[u/QMechanicsVisionary]

Can you provide some example games? I can give more specific feedback.

[u/Zugzwang86]

You can go an incredibly long way with solid setups, a couple of basic plans and avoiding blunders when not under pressure.

Even very strong players blunder though, so it's about learning how to put these players under pressure with:

Opening preparation or an unusual line

Strong attacking and or tactical play.

Or an evening more solid approach - good endgame understanding will go a long way here!

[u/GuitarVast8752]

You got hit by the capa play style

[u/After-Version-412]

It's just luck sometimes

[u/MTaur]

If you were qualified to identify what special looked like outside of hindsight, you'd be strong too.

[u/lasagnadogwater69]

They likely understand certain structures better than you. I have an 80% win rate in knights tango at 1800 lichess. If I get f4 that's usually game. My opponent likely thinks, wow he's wasting so many moves, his bishop is terrible, so many holes in his position. And then I play f4 and they see actually, my light square bishop has a life. My knight is arriving on a central outpost. My rook and bishop have excellent coordination. My queen is ideally placed to place pressure on the kingside. Etc. And they just don't know what to do.

[u/rsk1111]

Alot of it is "order of play" and "tempo". It's not the moves they make, but the order that they make them in. Aggressive play often gives opponents opportunities to develop and respond and can waste tempo in tactics.

[u/IcarusFIB1]

Because it is a real badass skill to just be solid and patient. Carlsen is a prime example of that.

Get in a equal Endgame -- just ask questions to your oponent and do that for 40 moves... The "Blunder" will come more often than not.

[u/CelsiusOne]

Aman would love this. It's habits at work!

[u/SnooMaps9656]

These are the games that really get me titled. Not losing to an opening trap or anything like that. But the games where we're suddenly 20-30 moves in and I'm just suffering from playing a shitty position

[u/Voodoohairdo]

The style you're referring to has a name. It's called old man chess.

Basically it just means playing solid positional lines and relying less on tactics. It's called this because older players tend to play like this since it gets harder for them to calculate due to age.

[u/johnes_aaron]

I feel like often times Chess is less „who is playing better / making better moves“ and more „who is playing less bad / avoiding unnecessary risks and blunders”.

But maybe that’s only me - when I try to be aggressive and force great plays - then I usually trip and fail. But when I try to be calm and steady - not slow or too defensive, but just not “trying to outplay forcibly”, then I usually do way better.

[u/Picard_III]

I think there's a lot of "poker" included in their way of playing, like, how can you say they didn't make a crazy tactics? Only because they didn't sac a rook or queen? How do you know they didn't do deep opening prep? If then don't talk about it, it doesn't mean they didn't, and if they say they didn't, still, doesn't mean they're saying the truth