Is believing in 'truth' in chess a bad idea? • page 1/4 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

What I mean is, is trying to play the absolute best move a bad idea?
I mean we are playing humans not robots...humans get nervous, stressed...
Is it simply better to play moves that will effect our opponents psychologically?
I think Lasker used this idea in his games and Tal certainly did....
An interesting quote from Tal:
"Later I began to succeed in decisive games. Perhaps because I realized a very simple truth. Not only was I worried but also my opponent"

What I mean is, is trying to play the absolute best move a bad idea? I mean we are playing humans not robots...humans get nervous, stressed... Is it simply better to play moves that will effect our opponents psychologically? I think Lasker used this idea in his games and Tal certainly did.... An interesting quote from Tal: "Later I began to succeed in decisive games. Perhaps because I realized a very simple truth. Not only was I worried but also my opponent"

SOJB edited

#2

https://lichess.org/0UKP7zf1yDL8

Something like this move 17 I should have protected n with c pawn but I took a risk that he would take knight with bishop so with misdirection of queen protecting f6 I took a huge gamble cause if he took knight with queen he had pretty much won.at my level sometimes it's good just to roll the dice and see what happens, I think at higher levels I would not get away with hoping the opponent might make a mistake. I would think if you don't have a plan try to make the best move! I hadn't won this game but I certainly improved my chance ,he was so annoyed with himself he resigned .

https://lichess.org/0UKP7zf1yDL8 Something like this move 17 I should have protected n with c pawn but I took a risk that he would take knight with bishop so with misdirection of queen protecting f6 I took a huge gamble cause if he took knight with queen he had pretty much won.at my level sometimes it's good just to roll the dice and see what happens, I think at higher levels I would not get away with hoping the opponent might make a mistake. I would think if you don't have a plan try to make the best move! I hadn't won this game but I certainly improved my chance ,he was so annoyed with himself he resigned .

SOJB

#3

Apparently it’s called ‘hope chess’ lol

MyBodyAteItself

#4

@SOJB said in #3:

Apparently it’s called ‘hope chess’ lol
I'm no GM but I wouldn't gamble with simple things like basic captures...way too risky

@SOJB said in #3: > Apparently it’s called ‘hope chess’ lol I'm no GM but I wouldn't gamble with simple things like basic captures...way too risky

SOJB

#5

Have you come across lefonging yet? lol xxx

Hagredion

#6

Believing in truth in is never a bad idea, neither in chess or in real life.

MyBodyAteItself

#7

@SOJB said in #5:

Have you come across lefonging yet? lol xxx
just googled it and yes I have done it many times....
it was actually recommended in an ebook about how to be good at bullet which I read about 20 years ago

@SOJB said in #5: > Have you come across lefonging yet? lol xxx just googled it and yes I have done it many times.... it was actually recommended in an ebook about how to be good at bullet which I read about 20 years ago

Gerundium

edited

#8

@MyBodyAteItself said in #1:

What I mean is, is trying to play the absolute best move a bad idea?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some chess books talk about this topic under the label "criticality assessment," which is supposed to mean precisely: deciding whether trying to play the absolute best move is a good or a bad idea in the given situation. It's clearly a way of reflective thinking that comes naturally to strong professionals and that amateurs are hardly even aware of.

@MyBodyAteItself said in #1: > What I mean is, is trying to play the absolute best move a bad idea? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some chess books talk about this topic under the label "criticality assessment," which is supposed to mean precisely: deciding whether trying to play the absolute best move is a good or a bad idea in the given situation. It's clearly a way of reflective thinking that comes naturally to strong professionals and that amateurs are hardly even aware of.

MyBodyAteItself

#9

A thumbs down from Colossuschess in my OP...interesting...what exactly is he thumbing down?

ArtofDefeat

#10

There is a certain rating (which varies with tactical ability) below which trying sacrifices on faith is a recipe for missing an easy + obvious refutation, especially in blitz. Try relying on your instincts + agressiveness and see what happens -- see if your ready to "play like Tal" or you need more rating or tactics practice. For me, at 1725 in 960, I'm generally better off trying to play as accurately as possible.