Every chess player has areas in which they feel strong and comfortable, and also they have other areas, of their play, which they are doubtful and uncertain about. Once you know, these preferences and dislikes, you can build a plan to get the advantage while playing them.

In the Masters Knockout tournament, ( of 2000 ), while playing a four game match against Fide Master, Warren Elliott, I studied his games closely and noticed certain tendencies. Invariably Warren tried to play in a dynamic and tactically forceful fashion. Generally he was attacking the king position of his opponent from violent start to swift finish.

More to the point, his method of attack was actually pretty standardized, he usually pushed his f-pawn forcefully into the opponent's territory and then used dazzling piece play when open lines were created. I did not find a wide variety of attacking methods in his games and very little subtlety or prophylaxis. His opponents generally offered little resistance so that depth was not neccessary.

I also found games where Elliott seemed at a loss to find a strategic plan, therefore, despite the fact that Jomo Pitterson was helping Warren to prepare, I felt confident that I could present him some problems. I had come across a system of play in the English, favoured by Dvoretsky and Botvinnik, which over protected against the very type of attacks Elliott enjoyed most. It was an opening which would require some depth and subtlety to overhaul and one which I was already familiar with. This opening strategy gave me a very good game against Elliott and a draw. It seemed to me as though Elliott was also physically drained by the game. Even though he eventually won the match this mini success showed me that my approach was valid.

Set a net and let him run into it. Be the Matador versus the Bull.

Bowen - Elliott (games mentioned in text are suggested study games.)

Grantel Gibbs is an emotional player, he feels passionately about the game, how it should be played and who should win. This passion is what makes him play so creatively but it can also make him very disgusted with certain types of positions. His impatience with "boring" positions is a major weakness. Gibbs expects to win every event he enters and may also be prone to lose interest if he starts badly. He seems somewhat paranoid, possibly believing that everyone is envious of his Fide Master Title and somehow out to get him. This suspicious feeling creeps up on him when he gets into trouble on the board and prevents him from having a cool head in defence.

Gibbs studies very sharp, highly theoretical systems, and feels ready to play the likes of Anand and Kasparov in them, but alas, he is playing amateurs who often deviate early and force him to think for himself. How boring. Facing lesser known lines or unheralded players is particularly bothersome for Gibbs because he feels a certain embarassment if he should do anything less than win brilliantly.

To beat Gibbs, get inside his head and play ugly chess, sense when his interest is lowered and then attack him forcefully.

Myers - Gibbs

Russel Porter uses deep positional understanding of certain openings and tough defensive ability and quick play, in combination with sharp counter attack and solid Endgame skills, to be one of the hardest players to beat in Jamaica. Porter does not strive to win brilliantly, his first concern is not to lose. His play is strong and intuitive, however, when faced by someone who really knows his stuff Porter can easily be put on the defensive. It's unusual for him to make huge blunders, because he plays in a non committal fashion, in the opening.

I suggest that you play unusual aggressive variations, which you prepared, or else, if it suits you better , assume Porter's own non-committal, super-solid posture. The main aim, in either case, is to make Porter commit himself to a plan and then make him continually change it. Porter is uncomfortable when he has to rethink his approach. Porter is also uncomfortable when facing the lines that he himself plays, namely the English ( Reverse Dragon ), Dragon , Schevy and KID. Porter has a great understanding of tension ( he loves castling on opposite wings ) and tactical battles do not make him nervous. Although his calculation is suspect at times, his intuition and experience, will make up for this in a line he knows well. He trains alot with computers and follows the top international player's favourite openings. If your king position is strong and you're patient he'll find it hard to surprise you.

Set him problems early on and be relentless with your pressure. Hold up a mirror and scare him.

Robinson - Porter

Humphrey Gayle has been using the Stonewall Attack for longer than most of us have been playing chess . Unfortunately his refusal to add other systems effectively to his repertoire has made him far less dangerous than he could easily be. I am surprised that he does not broaden his game as this is actually well within his ability and would make him a danger to anyone. He does not seem to follow current trends or study much theory and is therefore predictable. Gayle often plays for closed positions, and the so-called Petrosian Endgame, in which knights are better than bishops.

His greatest fear would be to face the Stonewall. Therefore as white he'll often deviate from the Stonewall on seeing f5. He plays less confidently in these transpositional hybrids since he has not studied many Grandmaster games in them. As Black, versus e4, Gayle religously plays the Kalashnikov. Again, he has not done deep enough work, on the other Sicilian lines that he can be pulled into, such as the Morra Gambit. Sultan Khan and Pillsbury are the players he admires most.

Study the Kalashnikov and the Stonewall, his favourite opening systems, and play a line, favoured by a Grandmaster, which suits your style. Open the game.

Gayle - Bowen

Marshall - Gayle

Jomo Pitterson is very hard to beat but mainly because his busy schedule does not allow him to play every weekend open like others do. Although he has continously studied the game deeply, this lack of over the board practice, affects his confidence, on those rare occasions, when he is "out of book ".

To beat Jomo use sneaky transpositions and a flexible style and force the game into overtime. If you can continously change the nature of the position that would also be a plus. Falling into a line from NIC Yearbooks or repeating one of your past mistakes is sure disaster against him. He will often target an opponent's favoured systems and come up with a recent twist or perhaps an old variation with some venom.

Know your stuff and play quickly and flexibly but be ready for the long haul.

As GM Gulko said, " Do nothing but do it very well. ".

Bruzon - Pitterson

Holness - Pitterson

Shane Matthews is an interesting player. Stylistically, he is heavily influenced by Bobby Fischer and his games therefore often have a startling clarity and aesthetic value. He also has an invincible aura and a knack for slipping out of danger, this causes some to call him " The Magician ". Shane often starts slow in a match or tournament and he is more devastating with the bishops and in open positions. Able to improvise tactically and blessed with extremely quick sight of the board, he is also able to play tough in the endgame. Shane needs the initiative and can be surprised by shrewd remanouvreing and unusual defensive resources. Humphrey Gayle is the local player that seems to give Shane most trouble so if you can copy his methods do so.

Use a line that doesn't allow an early kingside rout and has unusual and unexpected positional features which you have studied carefully.

Velez - Matthews

Matthews - Equitable Brown