Yes, you basically gave the answer yourself, in your fourth paragraph.
In match play, and double-round robin tourneys, draws are "worth something."
By that I mean that a draw is okay. But in a short 5 or even a 6 round weekend Swiss tourney, if you have a couple of draws you are almost always already out of the running for first place. A 5 or a 6 round tourney is short enough that you most usually need 5 or 5.5 or 6 points to win. 4.5 points rarely is enough.
Thus, when playing in these shorter tourneys, you really should attempt to achieve unbalanced positions. I don't mean inferior positions, but ones that are double-edged that increases the chances of the game being decisive, one way or the other. Although you increase your chances of losing the game, paradoxically you also increase your chances of winning it too... something you need to do, if you're wish to increase your chances of winning the whole thing.
How does playstyle strategy change for Swiss tournaments?
Sort:
Well, it depends on the rating range and where you fit into it. SWISS can
be very frustrating if the rating range is large, and you're near the middle. The likelyhood is you're not going to get a single game with anybody around your own rating. In the 11 round World Amateur some years ago my opponents were either 1800-2000, or 1000-1200 alternating between rounds. (I was 1450). It is not uncommon in such a situation to win all Black and lose all white, or vice versa. It's really tough to get a momentum going. Off course, if you're luck enough to be near the top, it's much better, with opposition gradually becoming stronger, if you keep winning.
I am wondering, how strategy for Swiss tournaments must differ from double round robin tournaments and match play?
Many of us everday players play in 1-3 day swiss tournaments, yet our chess idols play in extended double round robin or match tournaments, and I wonder if a more aggressive "high variance" style has an advantage in swiss tournaments.
Let's take the quintessential solid player. A Petrosian or Kramnik. Were they to enter a five round swiss tournament, and play with their extremely solid style, would they be at a disadvantage for overall score? Versus someone like a Tal or Bronstein who played for the attack?
I, personally, idolize solid play. But I wonder, if trying to emulate this play style is not bad for me as a player who primarily plays in swiss tournaments? I typically finish a five round swiss sectioned tournament on a good day with 2.5 or 3 points (a large number of them being draws). I imagine that someone with a more attacking strategy would finish with the same average but a larger standard deviation, which, I think would result in more tournament wins.
This also applies to opening selection. In the French defense, it seems (I'm not an expert here) that the classical has the best scoring record in the database and is favored by the super GMs. But for swiss tournaments, might the Winawer be a better choice, with more chance for a win (although also more chance for a loss)?
And also the Sicilian Dragon, which we don't really see at super GM level play very much, but it's all over the place in amateur Swiss tournaments. Kind of makes sense.
Thoughts? I am hoping to win $$$ in a lowbie section at the Mid America Open soon, so this is very important to me. Sorry if I'm rambling or this doesn't make sense.