Any tip to beat longsword using the katana?

In all imagined scenarios, the opponents should be of equal skill, otherwise the result would be partly ascribed to the skill of the better wielder (unless, of course, the lesser wielder won) .  I always thought (not being a katana master or anything) that the sword would be somehow measured to the individuals stature (like holding it golf club style, with the tip a few inches from the ground).  It is my understanding that katana was mainly a dueling sword, with the fight being over in a few strokes (and seconds), like an old west gunfight in the movies, and that the swords were not meant for blade on blade/all day long, like longsword.

Ah, it's been so easy...
I should have watched Asad Javeeds Avatar.

Longswords and katana don't cut in any radically different ways. They're sharp steel. The techniques overlap as well from what I've seen in the texts from both traditions. Longswords just have some advantage in length and double edge while the katana has some advantage in draw speed. Katana focuses less on bind work and perhaps more on hand and forearm hits. Both can strike with incredible speed. And either will kill you in the first strike if you don't cover your line.

You'd probably have a challenge with a narrow blade like something along the lines of an XVIIIb (love that needly shape), but if you had a reasonably wide blade no reason why you couldn't. A balance point closer to the hand takes away from cutting power, but you can accommodate for that with practice, especially if you spend time learning to drop your body weight into the cut - you can get devastating power there.

You only need to cut enough to win, regardless of what sword you're using. Not every attack with a katana is meant to bissect or take parts off. The most fundamental basic attack is a shot to the head after all.

Keep in mind that he Japanese had a highly different set of values than Europeans did. If you matched a samurai against a knight with an equal skill level, the knight would win. But just winning wasn't the point about being a samurai. Though Miyomoto was incredibly different in this regard. His values weren't the same as many others at this time.

Japanese values weren't always placed on staying alive, so innovation wasn't the priority. But rather, the priority was refinery. To do it one way and be the best at doing it this one way. Miyomoto symbolized innovation, and how incredibly effective it was. But if we're gonna say something is better cause of innovation, then we might as well put down our swords and get guns. We should quit using ink when we could do it digitally. Why bother with a violin when you could do music with more accuracy when it's done electronically?

I would argue that a typical katana beats a typical cut-and-thrust longsword on mat cutting any day of the week (in terms of cleanness and ease of cutting), but would lose against single edged medieval European weapons like messers and falchions (the latter two being much thinner generally than a typical katana).

That said, I agree that the katana is not a sword meant to survive blade on blade contact. It is a weapon of last resort, meant for a quick draw and direct cuts (unlike some overly complex hews in German longsword for instance). If I had 3 seconds to react to an attack, I'd choose a katana. If I has to kill someone in one motion from a sheathed position, a katana. If I had to decapitate or take off limbs, a katana (over a typical longsword of course).

In much the same way, I would take a spear, halberd, or other pole weapon in an open-field fight over a longsword. Longswords never really dominated battlefields. As a quick draw sidearm, they are IMO inferior to a katana (which in turn I feel is inferior to a short single-handed cut and thrust sword). As a battlefield, duelling, or blade vs blade weapon, sure they're better than katanas but they're not really the best at any one thing.

Having actually used katana for blade-on-blade contact, their fragility is being massively over-stated. I've got a tanto that was looking pretty grisly after almost a year of being used for, among other things, hard blocks against katana strikes that were strong enough to seriously gouge up properly heat treated W2 tool steel. Here's a poor photo of some damage the edge of a very nice katana took - it was more of a roll than a chip out and I was still able to use the thing while I set up the appointment to get it repaired. That's one tiny spot in over 28" length. From the way people are talking you'd think the thing would have shattered like glass, especially since it's apparently "very poor steel" (mix of home-made and imported tamahagane).  You guys really should try to avoid making statements that look like absolutes without having experience with them.  If you've actually broken katana, that's one thing but it really sounds like you're repeating truthy feeling statements you read somewhere.

Not sure why you Euro guys are so hell bent on saying why the long sword is superior in every aspect. I say each sword has its function. But apparently live and let live isn't good enough for you guys

This is what I mean by "katana bashing". You guys are like galaxy phone users. Cant stand that a different sword might be slightly better at a certain function?

Gonna toss out there that I never said a long sword couldn't cut mats. But you gotta really go out of your way to miss my points.

I also understand that you can make a long sword that is an even better cutter than a katana. But when you do this, can it thrust as well? I own the GSOW and it cuts better than any katana I've owned yes, but it's also a pathetic thruster.

Katana is a fantastic cut and thrust design optimized for offence. It's not a defence weapon

Just cause you call it objective and realistic doesn't mean it is. The sword community is heavily biased.