15 Dec 06
1 edit
This is pretty intuitively obvious, and can also be a bit misleading if you read it incorrectly - regardless of style, the most skilled player will always have the best long-term score (which is mentioned in the article). What scoring lots of decisive games for you does is increase your variance; you'll finish near the bottom of the table a lot more often, but you'll also be much more likely to finish at the top.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by exigentskyI saw that this morning and frankly It's something I had already observed. Unfortunately, this means that I either have to change my style (something I'm already trying to do) or live with the fact that I won't win any tournaments...
Everyone who plays tournament chess has to read this: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3528! It's very interesting. 😉
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by zebanoIt’s an interesting article. As the author highlights: “However, if trying to avoid a draw increases the chance of a loss more than the chance of a win, then all bets are off. You cannot casually sacrifice expected value just to increase variance.” This is the tricky part.
this means that I either have to change my style (something I'm already trying to do) or live with the fact that I won't win any tournaments...
Some trainers/players favour the “kill or cure” approach of tackling weaknesses. E.g. if tactics aren’t your strength then play sharp openings in order to develop in this area. However, others emphasise more of a “acknowledge your natural strengths, etc. and play accordingly”. For example, Karpov should do what Karpov does best, and Kasparov should do what Kasparov does best.
So, it may be that attempting a “change of style” succeeds in forming a more universal and well rounded player, and one that is capable or pushing for a win more. Or it may just prove that you can’t argue with what nature gave you and that you end up leading with your weaknesses.
Maybe practical results need to be observed to find the truth in any given case. But then, how long do you persist with a change of style if your results are poorer… I don’t think there’s easy answers to this complex issue.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by VarenkaWhat you define as success is also important in how you should approach tournaments. If you feel like you must finish first at all costs, then you should absolutely play a style that will either win or lose - not one that will maximize your average number of points scored.
Maybe practical results need to be observed to find the truth in any given case. But then, how long do you persist with a change of style if your results are poorer… I don’t think there’s easy answers to this complex issue.
If you want to achieve the highest possible rating over a long period of time, though, you should play your "natural" style that makes you play the strongest chess possible, even if it's rather drawish. You may win fewer tournaments than by playing more agressively (but slightly weaker), but your overall results will be better.
Expected value and variance are very important concepts in poker (and most other games that have an element of chance), and this is an interesting way to show how they can effect chess too.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by GatecrasherThat hardly supports the evidence, though. Instead it is an attempt to promote (positive discrimination) risk taking, and making the games more lively. But there are other (perhaps even better) means to achieve this.
This is even more pronounced in RHP tournaments where 3 points are awarded for a win and 1 point for a draw. A win and a loss scores higher than two draws.