Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 11 Sep '11 01:39
    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?
  2. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    11 Sep '11 01:56
    Originally posted by trev33
    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?
    I 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...
  3. 11 Sep '11 02:40
    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.
  4. 11 Sep '11 03:06
    I guess I'm the boring one. I'll always play the conservative move and try to grind the opponent down in an endgame - unless the complications are well understood.
  5. 11 Sep '11 03:12 / 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.)
  6. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    11 Sep '11 03:39
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    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 am first on the list for GP's new "Hackers and Sackers" Clan.
  7. 11 Sep '11 04:17
    I'd almost always take the sound way, but only because I'm far too timid and conservative in my chess, like I am in real life :/
  8. 11 Sep '11 04:21
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    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.)
    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 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
  9. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    11 Sep '11 04:24
    Originally posted by kbear1k
    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
    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.
  10. 11 Sep '11 11:57
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    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.
    Currently, 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.
  11. 11 Sep '11 12:50
    Originally posted by trev33
    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?
    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.
  12. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    11 Sep '11 13:00
    Originally posted by torten
    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.
    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 a decision as to which way to proceed.

    I'm not sure if I'm actually helping, but I hope this does!
  13. 11 Sep '11 14:56
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    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!
    Ah,ok.That would depend on the mood I'm in and who I'm playing.
    But in general I think I'll take the ending.
  14. 11 Sep '11 20:55
    It makes no difference if either move wins.
  15. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    11 Sep '11 21:14
    Originally posted by Crusty Jugglers
    It makes no difference if either move wins.
    This might be true if the position were completely calculable and both players were computers, but that's not the situation the OP described.

    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.