| |
BGonline.org Forums
Opening roll - post Crawford
Posted By: Coolrey In Response To: Opening roll - post Crawford (Matt Cohn-Geier)
Date: Thursday, 20 November 2008, at 1:52 a.m.
Matt asked: One interesting thing that AFAIK has never been discussed is whether the stronger player should alter any his post-Crawford decisions to account for playing strength. Are there any opening rolls that are close to 50% where the game is shorter/longer on average than from initial position?
Ray says: It is intuitively obvious that the stronger player should alter ALL of his decisions either pre or post Crawford to account for playing strength, but it is done to excess imho.
I like to paraphrase the strategy thusly:
Let's see, you are a lousy player and I am a good one. So, to take maximum advantage of your general weakness I ought to make this here dumb play because you won't be able to handle the resulting complications!
Great theory. In practice? Not so hot, in my experience. Why play bad? Your opponent will be bad anyway... why not just play good and reap any resulting benefits?
IF I know the best play, then I just try to make it and get on with the game. Any blunders/mistakes my opponent makes will just be chocolate sauce on the ice cream... a treat!
This is a take, but I don't want you to win 4 points so I am going to make a blunder and pass... This sort of thinking tends to dilute any apparent edge that you have in the first place. Take that cube and REALIZE your advantage when your opponent plays chicken bringing it home. Otherwise you have no right to claim superiority the way I see it.
I suppose that there are plays that tend to shorten the game, those that lead to priming would tend to lengthen it... and complicate it. Conventional wisdom would indicate that the weaker player should seek smiple races and the so called expert should seek complications, but again those are just theories.
Making the best play isn't a bad idea if you are capable of it.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.