Suppose you're in a serious tournament playing a weaker oppnonent, say 1800 vs 1400. You have one move that gives you a strong initiative. All other moves yield a dull equal game. However, your opponent can counter it with a sacrifice, say a minor piece for two central pawns that gives him a very strong center attack, but you have serious doubts he can see it. Against an equal opponent you wouldn't accept that line.
So, which course would you take?
Originally posted by RegicidalI always play what I objectively believe are my best moves; I don't hope that my opponent will miss their best move. An exception might be if an opponent is in serious time trouble and it might pay to complicate the game, but normally I just play what I think is best. If from what I could see the move that would give me a "strong initiative" had a refutation that would leave me worse off, I'd assume my opponent would be able to see the same thing, so I wouldn't play it.
Suppose you're in a serious tournament playing a weaker oppnonent, say 1800 vs 1400. You have one move that gives you a strong initiative. All other moves yield a dull equal game. However, your opponent can counter it with a sacrifice, ...[text shortened]... you wouldn't accept that line.
So, which course would you take?
Originally posted by WeadleySo you're saying don't factor in his rating? So you're saying don't factor in his rating? So you're saying don't factor in his rating? And you're saying don't factor in his rating?
Play the pieces on the board not the opponent across it.
In other words dont factor in anything besides the pieces on the board when deciding your best move. Do not factor in opponents rating, experience, age, sex, appearance, rating, rating, or his rating.
Well, Lasker, Alekhine and others would disagree. They played psychologically, not always objectively. Granted, not to the extent of making outright blunders since the opponents were strong.
Chess is not a religion and objective play is not the goal in a tournament. The goal is to win. If one needed that point bad enough, why not take the risk?
This is why I like RHP: you play the board itself without distractions. I try not to play an unsound move, even if my I expect my opponent to never find the refutation.
Also missing from RHP chess: OTB shenanigans like momentarily hovering your hand over a piece you might move, to see what reaction there might be on the face of your opponent, etc.
Originally posted by RegicidalWhen you start playing as well as Lasker and Alekhine, you won't have to ask what strategy to follow. In the meantime, I suggest you play the best moves you can see without expecting your opponent to play poorly.
Well, Lasker, Alekhine and others would disagree. They played psychologically, not always objectively. Granted, not to the extent of making outright blunders since the opponents were strong.
Chess is not a religion and objective play is not the goal in a tournament. The goal is to win. If one needed that point bad enough, why not take the risk?
Originally posted by RegicidalI think I'd play it safe, but you never know.
Suppose you're in a serious tournament playing a weaker oppnonent, say 1800 vs 1400. You have one move that gives you a strong initiative. All other moves yield a dull equal game. However, your opponent can counter it with a sacrifice, say a minor piece for two central pawns that gives him a very strong center attack, but you have serious doubts he can ...[text shortened]... it. Against an equal opponent you wouldn't accept that line.
So, which course would you take?
A lower rated opponent has a good chance of screwing up an otherwise dull and even game, so his weak rating favors me either way.