02 Sep 07
... Deliberately. I don't know why I did it but I just made a gambit that I myself found a refutation for (against a higher player) with the hope he (or she I suppose) will miss it. Is it complicated? Sure. Will he or she find the refutation without blundering the game away? I doubt it. Was it a smart idea? ... not sure.
02 Sep 07
Originally posted by ih8sensIf you can find a refutation for a move, it's very likely that a higher rated opponent will also find it. Even against a weaker player, I always try to make the best move that I can find, and I try to never assume that my opponent will miss a good move.
... Deliberately. I don't know why I did it but I just made a gambit that I myself found a refutation for (against a higher player) with the hope he (or she I suppose) will miss it. Is it complicated? Sure. Will he or she find the refutation without blundering the game away? I doubt it. Was it a smart idea? ... not sure.
02 Sep 07
Originally posted by Mad RookThat's the smart way to play 🙂.
If you can find a refutation for a move, it's very likely that a higher rated opponent will also find it. Even against a weaker player, I always try to make the best move that I can find, and I try to never assume that my opponent will miss a good move.
Either way I have a better position from the move I made though, I'm just down a pawn that's all.
02 Sep 07
Originally posted by Mad RookI have lost many a game where I played that "winning" move that had a single refutation and a dozen ways to lose in the hope my opponent would find one of the dozen ways. Somehow he never does and weaker players always find a refutation.
If you can find a refutation for a move, it's very likely that a higher rated opponent will also find it. Even against a weaker player, I always try to make the best move that I can find, and I try to never assume that my opponent will miss a good move.
When there is only 1 defense the likelihood of ot being found is very high.
02 Sep 07
Originally posted by Dragon FireLol we'll have to see when the game ends. Tal wouldn't have thought twice about the move 😛. Perhaps I can consolidate my loss of material (should there be one) with another sacrifice, tal style 🙂.
I have lost many a game where I played that "winning" move that had a single refutation and a dozen ways to lose in the hope my opponent would find one of the dozen ways. Somehow he never does and weaker players always find a refutation.
When there is only 1 defense the likelihood of ot being found is very high.
02 Sep 07
It works pretty well in blitz and even in over the board chess but, most of the time, if the refutation is not too hard to find then the opponant will play it.
Having said that, I have seen some really suspect sacrifices go unpunished sometimes so it is not always a bad idea to muddy the waters a little - just make sure there is plenty more material left on the board to lend fear to the attack.
03 Sep 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexTurns out it's perfectly sound. I missed a winning move if he played my 'refutation'. And I object a little about hopechess. If you lay a series of nicely disguised traps, the odds are your opponent will blunder somewhere. Everyone 'hopes' their opponent will blunder.
It works pretty well in blitz and even in over the board chess but, most of the time, if the refutation is not too hard to find then the opponant will play it.
Having said that, I have seen some really suspect sacrifices go unpunished sometimes so it is not always a bad idea to muddy the waters a little - just make sure there is plenty more material left on the board to lend fear to the attack.
03 Sep 07
Originally posted by ih8sensif you know there is a refutation, you're simply playing a bad move. whether your opponent sees it or not is irrelevant.
... And I object a little about hopechess. If you lay a series of nicely disguised traps, the odds are your opponent will blunder somewhere. Everyone 'hopes' their opponent will blunder.
03 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodTal knew his moves had refutations. Fritz found many of them in seconds. It was the complexity of his play that saved him. Chess may be a science but a good chunk of it is psychology. Confuse your opponent and you have a won game.
if you know there is a refutation, you're simply playing a bad move. whether your opponent sees it or not is irrelevant.
03 Sep 07
Originally posted by ih8sensno he didn't, he might have suspected at the time he played a move that there could be a refutation, but after being unable to find it himself he trusted the problem to be too hard for the opponent as well. which is a completely different thing.
Tal knew his moves had refutations. Fritz found many of them in seconds. It was the complexity of his play that saved him. Chess may be a science but a good chunk of it is psychology. Confuse you're opponent and you have a won game.
he most certainly would not have played a move to which he found the refutation as well. no good player would.