[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Chess, Cheating, Psychology, Analogy

Posted By: Todd Kennedy
Date: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, at 3:20 a.m.

In Response To: Chess, Cheating, Psychology, Analogy (Jeremy Bagai)

I am a chess player as well and I don't think his conclusion is valid. If anything I might focus more when ahead because I would be more embarrassed to lose a game I'm winning than one that was equal. Here are a couple more common and practical examples: when someone is clearly ahead, a commonly used strategy is to trade material down to simplify the position. A computer may judge these to be mistakes in loss of value, but to the person, they are making errors on purpose that will still lead to a position they can win, with less risk of an unintentional error in a more complex position. Conversely, a player who is losing may, as a desperation play, launch a speculative attack that a computer judges to be a big mistake, but that causes complexity that may induce the opponent to make an error. On a practical basis this may be the only way that player can win, but the computer measures an error.

I would generally agree with the first part of your separate question. One example is an endgame with bishops on opposite colors, these are usually even and very difficult to mess up if you know what you're doing. Another example is the Giuoco Piano opening. Gambit openings and positions with many imbalances are more difficult to play.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.