OTB: You Think Your Opponent is a Better Calculator. How Do You Win?

Hello Chess.com Community,

This post is inspired by reading the latest blog post by GM Alex Colovic.  He was playing an 18-year old Chinese girl in a tournament in Reykjavik 2015, and he believed that she was a superior calculator.  He wrote this:  "I noticed that my opponent was an excellent calculator (as most young players are) and my own calculations weren’t to my usual standard during the tournament."

So GM Colovic's strategy to beat a better calculator was to do some home brewing on his opening preparation, and this is what he wrote:  "Thanks to my good preparation I obtained a better position as early as move 9, but the position required serious calculations and by move 16 I was lost!"

He ended up losing the game.  She out-calculated him.

Question:  OTB tournament Play.  How do you beat a better calculator?  Or a better tactician.

Related question:  How do the GMs and SuperGMs who aren't Super Calculators beat the GMs who are Super Calculators?

You keep the play simple, not tactical, which can be aided with your choice of opening. Typically dull openings include the Exchange French, Petrov's Defense, Four Knights Game, and Berlin Ruy Lopez.

(p. 34)
When he played black in our match, Kramnik shrewdly chose a
defense--the Berlin variation of the Ruy Lopez--in which the powerful
queens quickly came off the board. The game became one of long-range
maneuvering rather than dynamic, hand-to-hand combat. Kramnik had
evaluated my style and had rightly assessed that I would find this kind of
tranquil play boring and that I would unwittingly let down my guard. I
had prepared intensely and was ready to fight on perhaps ninety percent
of the chess battleground, but he forced me to play on the ten per cent he
knew better and that he knew I would least prefer. This brilliant strategy
worked to perfection.

Kasparov, Garry, and Mig Greengard. 2007. How Life Imitates Chess: Making the Right Moves, From the Board to the Boardroom. New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA.

Here's what Garry Kasparov said to an interviewer:  "My decision will be based on, very roughly, 1% of calculation — probably even less — and 99% or more of understanding, of looking at patterns, drawing information from my previous experience."

But I think Kasparov is one of the greatest GM Calculators who ever played.  Fischer would be the other super GM that comes to mind.  

Kramnik was wise.  And it worked.

So one method, perhaps the best method against a calculator is to simplify, keep the positions straightforward.  Minimize variation calculations by reducing tactical possibilities.  In the meantime, the calculator will or should be seeking to complicate matters.  Battle of the Wills.

I like that saying a lot.  "Punch a kicker, kick a puncher."  

BTW, I have read somewhere where some older players, when playing youngsters, try to exchange the pieces off the board to get to the endgame, and that their young counterparts aren't so well-versed in the endgame, and the older player was able to get the half-point, or the win because of this strategy.

I guess it's better to fight fire with water.  Not fight fire with more fire.  Or better fire.  

 I try to develop fastest and smoothest. Win lines and diagonals, control the center, get my king safe , sabotage my opponents play,and hopefully I am so much faster that I outnumbers my opponent in the critical area when its time to calculate. Kingssafety is essential against the supercalculators. If the king can be checked, its risk for beiing outcalculated. Avoid getting pinned. So I advice early rokade, but be aware of sacrifices crushing your castle: 

In Norway exchanging down to endgame is a bad idea against the kids. They impress me in endgameplaying.  Never exchange anything unless you get advantage out of the exchange. Downexchanging to a won endgame really demands deep calculating skills. I t must be done in a way that you win the opposition for your king.

Here is more corroboration that it's good to play a style in which your opponent is uncomfortable:

(p. 9)
2 Play the man--not the board

Only an automaton plays the same way against every opponent. The
practical chess-player looks out for the strengths and weaknesses of his
opponents, and goes out of his way to capitalize on the weaknesses.

Before a World Championship Match, each player may spend months
making a very thorough study of his opponent's games, searching for
weaknesses in his opening repertoire, identifying the types of positions in
which he is at home or ill-at-ease, assessing his tendency to over-optimism
or pessimism, and so on. You can't go to these lengths, but you should still
be able to make good use of anything you know about your opponent's
style of play.

If you play regularly at a club you will doubtless know what to expect
from most of the other club members. You may know that Smith will
attack like crazy and go to any lengths to avoid an exchange of queens, that
Jones is lacking in confidence and inclined to agree to a draw in a good
position, and that Bloggs relies mainly on setting cheap traps. With this
information you should be able to tackle each of these opponents in a
particular way.
(p. 10)
You will have less to go on, however, when you face an opponent you
know nothing about, in a match against another club, for example. Your
friends or team-mates may be able to give you some information about
him, but even against a complete Mystery Man you should be able to make
a few deductions. Does he look a bit past his prime? Is he carrying a
briefcase bulging with openings books? Does he look confident or
nervous?

If you've got nothing else to go on, age is a reasonable guide. Older
players tend to have less stamina; they may be subject to time-trouble,
unfamiliar with current opening theory, and bad in complications, but they
often play simple positions and endings well. Younger players are usually
well genned up on current opening theory (though not the theory of ten
years ago), and good at analysing tactical lines, but frequently lack
technique in simple positions and endings. Once the game gets started you
will be able to modify your first impressions in the light of your opponent's
choice of opening, although by this stage you will have less opportunity to
steer the game in a particular direction.

A good illustration of how to play on your opponent's weaknesses is
provided by the way Korchnoi tackled Geller in their semi-final match in
the 1971 World Championship Candidates' series. He knew that he
couldn't outplay Geller positionally (as he frankly admitted after the
match); so he deliberately aimed for complicated and unclear positions,
in which he believed Geller would be uncomfortable. This approach paid
off handsomely. Geller continually became short of time trying to fathom
the complications which Korchnoi produced, failed to find the right
answers, and lost 5 1/2 - 2 1/2. Indeed, he lost 3 of the 8 games on time.

Webb, Simon. 2005. Chess for Tigers. London: Batsford.

(p. 10)
Many of Tal's sacrifices were
unsound but time and time again his opponents cracked under the pressure
of his relentless initiative. In a lecture Tal explained his approach: "I like
to take my opponent for a walk in a dense forest. One where the path is
obscure and easy to miss. I feel comfortable in such wild places."

Seirawan, Yasser. 2006. Winning Chess Combinations. London: Gloucester Publishers plc.

(p. 291)
Here is the only game in which Bisguier is outplayed from
the start. Describing his sensations before the game, Bisguier
wrote:
"For the first time I was really in doubt as to what Bobby
would play against me as White . . . I was hoping to play
the Black side of the King's Gambit or the Two Knights'
Defense, but he 'surprised' me with the Ruy Lopez . . . taken
by surprise I was not so prepared or comfortable as I would
like to have been. Now that Bobby has added psychology to his
arsenal of weapons he is a much more dangerous opponent
than ever before."

Fischer, Bobby. 1972. My 60 Memorable Games. New York: Faber and Faber Limited.

Probably not a good idea against kids trained by Russian teachers either.  They are taught endgames first.  In America most kids are not trained by classical teachers who emphasize the endgame.

A difference between the kids that are so good that they choose to compete OTB with adults and adults is that most of the kids are attending classes or use personal coach (many in my area use WIM Sheila Barth Sahl or GM Torbjørn Ringdal Hanssen), while only a few adults goes to a teacher.   I was overwhelmed how good Bjørn Magnus Bø defended to a draw, two pawns down, and also how mature Livia Lindstad is positionally. I did not expect such typically adult skills from small kids. The small kids in my club Nordstrand attend classes every tuesday, and many of them also gets tutoring on gatherings for the national teams. I guess that things are very different when we talk about the kids on the internet, who probably dont take classes. Actually I had best luck against small kids with trappy openings, like Max Lange Attack. The kids are young, and they have not learned all the traps yet.

I recall playing a positional player long ago. After the game, he wrote in his newsletter: you take the light squares away from him and he just plays on the dark squares. By the time you've taken the dark squares away from him, you find that he's beaten you on the cracks between the squares.

very nasty method