- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19034
11 Sep 11
In the potentially most important chess game of your life, it's just entered the middle game and you see two moves. The first is pretty conservative, it's a solid move that retains your new found advantage but concentration much be kept on full for the rest of the game to see it through. The second is slightly more risky but if executed the game will be over quickly, get it wrong however and your opponent could possibly get back into the game. What do you do?
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by trev33I do the latter all the time, and if I did more of the former, I think my rating would go up. Then again, maybe not...
In the potentially most important chess game of your life, it's just entered the middle game and you see two moves. The first is pretty conservative, it's a solid move that retains your new found advantage but concentration much be kept on full for the rest of the game to see it through. The second is slightly more risky but if executed the game will be over ...[text shortened]... get it wrong however and your opponent could possibly get back into the game. What do you do?
11 Sep 11
OTB the latter without hesitation. Don't even look at the 'sound line'.
if it goes wrong, then you just have to outplay them again to get to
another position where you have the same choice.
Anyway the sound way is no guarentee. The longer the game goes on
the more chance you have of blowing it. There is no sound way.
😉
A good player will and should have the confidence to go the sound way.
Some will actually enjoying playinng it that way.
But I'm not talking good player. I'm talking sac first and analsye later.
11 Sep 11
1 edit
Actualy Kbear you are the sound one.
Most Sackers and Hackers (and I'm one) will not even see the sound way.
And if they do they will ignore it becuase they have no faith in their ability
to carry it out. Add that to fact they are playing up to a myth and the buzz of
winning with a dodgy sac is akin to winning on the horses.
(possibly my most honest post on here........wish I could come up with a punchline.)
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34I am first on the list for GP's new "Hackers and Sackers" Clan.
Actualy Kbear you are the sound one.
Most Sackers and Hackers (and I'm one) will not even see the sound way.
And if they do they will ignore it becuase they have no faith in their ability
to carry it out. Add that to fact they are playing up to a myth and the buzz of
winning with a dodgy sac is akin to winning on the horses.
(possibly my most honest post on here........wish I could come up with a punchline.)
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34Thanks Greenpawn - I've been described as playing like a boa constrictor. I have a friend who plays like a tiger - described that way long before the book came out. He never made his master rating but came very close and could have if he sometimes curbed his tendency to play wild lines all the time.
Actualy Kbear you are the sound one.
Most Sackers and Hackers (and I'm one) will not even see the sound way.
And if they do they will ignore it becuase they have no faith in their ability
to carry it out. Add that to fact they are playing up to a myth and the buzz of
winning with a dodgy sac is akin to winning on the horses.
(possibly my most honest post on here........wish I could come up with a punchline.)
I'm thinking of posting a couple of games to "worst game" post just to illustrate how bad we can play at times - dropped a pawn in the opening to beginner's trap. I also dropped a piece in one of my games here. Time for bed
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by kbear1kOne of my goals on the site is to play more soundly. We have the virtue here of days to move and the ability to start a new game any time, so there is not the same sense of urgency as when your clock is running OTB.
Thanks Greenpawn - I've been described as playing like a boa constrictor. I have a friend who plays like a tiger - described that way long before the book came out. He never made his master rating but came very close and could have if he sometimes curbed his tendency to play wild lines all the time.
I'm thinking of posting a couple of games to "worst gam ...[text shortened]... he opening to beginner's trap. I also dropped a piece in one of my games here. Time for bed
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettCurrently, I don't play OTB anymore - graduate school, carrer wife, kids - I think many know the story. I probably - most likely - get back to it once I retire! This site has certainly helped me get back into chess and improved my opening study. I also coach/teach chess at my daughter's old school. I tried not to get into time pressure - it's an awful fealing - but it is inevitable if you play long enough. I remember having only six seconds left in an even position (digital clocks were new at the time) and had my move already to play. My opponent punched his clock and somehow - do this day it still bugs and perplexes me that I was unable to make the already planned move in the six seconds and I lost on time. I still puzzles me to this day.
One of my goals on the site is to play more soundly. We have the virtue here of days to move and the ability to start a new game any time, so there is not the same sense of urgency as when your clock is running OTB.
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by trev33I don't understand the difference.The so-called risky line wins quickly if played correct.Right?
In the potentially most important chess game of your life, it's just entered the middle game and you see two moves. The first is pretty conservative, it's a solid move that retains your new found advantage but concentration much be kept on full for the rest of the game to see it through. The second is slightly more risky but if executed the game will be over ...[text shortened]... get it wrong however and your opponent could possibly get back into the game. What do you do?
Then what's the risk?If you pick the 'solid' line you'll have to play correct too or else he'll get back in the game as well.
I'll go for the quick kill everytime for I have a much better chance of getting a short skirmish right than a long drawn out battle.
But I probably don't quite understand your question.
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by tortenI think the question involves the relative assessment of the position in terms broad considerations rather than a finite calculated series of lines.
I don't understand the difference.The so-called risky line wins quickly if played correct.Right?
Then what's the risk?If you pick the 'solid' line you'll have to play correct too or else he'll get back in the game as well.
I'll go for the quick kill everytime for I have a much better chance of getting a short skirmish right than a long drawn out battle.
But I probably don't quite understand your question.
In other words, you see an attack and you see a superior endgame, neither of which you can calculate all the way to a "tablebase-like" conclusion, but which are mutually incompatible, so you have to make a decision as to which way to proceed.
I'm not sure if I'm actually helping, but I hope this does!
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettAh,ok.That would depend on the mood I'm in and who I'm playing.
I think the question involves the relative assessment of the position in terms broad considerations rather than a finite calculated series of lines.
In other words, you see an attack and you see a superior endgame, neither of which you can calculate all the way to a "tablebase-like" conclusion, but which are mutually incompatible, so you have to make ...[text shortened]... n as to which way to proceed.
I'm not sure if I'm actually helping, but I hope this does!
But in general I think I'll take the ending.
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by Crusty JugglersThis might be true if the position were completely calculable and both players were computers, but that's not the situation the OP described.
It makes no difference if either move wins.
The OP is not describing a forced situation. He is describing a situation that requires technique and accuracy in particular circumstances, and the value and relevance of the question is that the audience is composed of humans with varying levels of technique, and differing skill sets and style.
We even see this distinction at the World Champion level. There are games where Kasparov might have lost but Karpov could have drawn, and games where Kasparov could have won where Karpov would only have drawn, etc. Petrosian and Tal offer an even clearer idea of differing approaches to a position.