@eladar saidIs the bad move itself fatal?
Is the bad move itself fatal? Or is the bad move simply a reflection of a poor player, making further bad moves likely?
That depends on which "bad move" you're talking about. A bad move that blunders a pawn away is different than a bad move that leaves one exposed to mate on one.
Or is the bad move simply a reflection of a poor player, making further bad moves likely?
Poor players make bad moves likely because they've not yet learned to play strong moves. I'm not sure about the "reflection" part.
@mchill saidThe bad move is the outward sign of not seeing or not understanding. That is what I meant by reflection.
Is the bad move itself fatal?
That depends on which "bad move" you're talking about. A bad move that blunders a pawn away is different than a bad move that leaves one exposed to mate on one.
Or is the bad move simply a reflection of a poor player, making further bad moves likely?
Poor players make bad moves likely because they've not yet learned to play strong moves. I'm not sure about the "reflection" part.
@eladar saidThe bad move is the outward sign of not seeing or not understanding.
The bad move is the outward sign of not seeing or not understanding. That is what I meant by reflection.
Yes, I think it's pretty safe to say that. It could also be an outward sign of insomnia, small but invasive insects on the floor, or staring too long at a young nubile's ample cleavage.
I don't mean to make light of your questions, but I can't help giggling. Why are are you asking?
@eladar saidIt just seems so many people view a good move is all important.
@mchill
It just seems so many people view a good move is all important. Hey don't play that here, play this then you will have a better result!
JMHO - I think it's best to find the strongest moves you can, and not to worry about others think. If you want a quality opinion of your moves or games, hire a coach with either a I.M. or G.M. title. "So many people" are frequently not very good chess players. 🙂
@eladar saidI think it was Tarrasch who said, "you do not need to play well; you only need to play better than the opponent". Or maybe it was Tartakower. Anyway, this is the truth of the matter.
Is the bad move itself fatal? Or is the bad move simply a reflection of a poor player, making further bad moves likely?
When I started playing chess, I was obsessed with making the "correct" move. Now, I sometimes will play the most interesting-looking move, even if I'm not sure it's sound. I find the game more enjoyable this way.
Hi BigDoggProblem
The Tarrasch/Tartakower quote sounds right,.
Tarrasch said it not enough to be a good player, you also have to play good chess.
Sometimes, and more often than you would think, playing the best move is
not the good move. You can slip in other good moves, those that create more
OTB problems for your opponent to solve. An art form and a ploy often used
by Lasker, Korchnoi and Carlsen. (though Carlsen is more universal he has many styles.)
Reti claimed that Lasker made bad moves on purpose to confuse his opponent.
He was wrong. They were not losing bad moves. they were good moves but not
what you would possibly call the best. Good in the sense they gave the opponent
more chances to go wrong. Sound positional traps if you like.
@greenpawn34
Looks like you have chosen the Lasker style of play, present people with the option of making a bad move. Then get mad if they don't mess up right!
A bad move, when considered all by itself with no context at all, is simply a bad move and nothing more. It is a complete mistake to extrapolate or assign any value to that one bad move, other than that it is bad.
Who made the bad move? When did it occur? What were the conditions(rated, not-rated, on or off the clock, tournament, casual, age/state of mind/ health of player, etc)? Is it part of a pattern? These are just a few sample questions of what should be asked before we could start to get a grip on the original questions.
As a side note, we always have issues such as ...e5 in the Sicilian, which was considered obviously bad at one point, and then was (and still is as I write this) considered good.
Maybe the word "bad" is just too vague a notion for us to use- more mace than dagger, so to speak.
@Paul-Leggett
What brought the topic to mind was this game. I was white.
Specifically 6.a3, I looked at the game explorer and saw that move loses 70 percent of the time. Ne4 is usually soon to come and it usually does not go well from there.
I was not happy with 18.Ra1 either, but it seemed safe and not losing, just way too passive. 6.a3 is my least favorite move of the game, passive and seems losing.
@eladar saidI've run into things like this before. All I can suggest is, if you're really uncomfortable with 6. a3 and ...Ne4, then a different opening for white may be what you need. You might want to consider the King's Indian Attack or (if you like living dangerously) Birds opening. 🙂
@Paul-Leggett
What brought the topic to mind was this game. I was white.[pgn]1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nb1c3 dxc4 4. e3 Bf8b4 5. Bf1xc4 Ng8f6 6. a3 Bb4xc3 7. bxc3 a6 8. Ng1f3 O-O 9. O-O b5 10. Bc4d3 Bc8b7 11. Rf1e1 Nf6d5 12. Qd1c2 Nd5f6 13. e4 Qd8e7 14. a4 bxa4 15. Bc1a3 Qe7d7 16. Ba3xf8 Kg8xf8 17. Ra1xa4 Nb8c6 18. Ra4a1 Qd7d6 19. e5 Qd6e7 20. exf6 Qe7xf6 21. Qc2b1 Ra8b8 22. Nf3 ...[text shortened]... losing, just way too passive. 6.a3 is my least favorite move of the game, passive and seems losing.