Emanuel Lasker was famous/feared/dreaded for his ability to defend impossible positions that contained no counterplay: the psychological effect was devastating, his opponents realizing that the tide was turning in his favour
So it seems like some people see chess as a sort of competitive sport where you try to win for the sake of winning, by any means, including flagging, fishing for blunders, and hoping the other team will run into IRL problems. These are the non-designers.
As I see chess, you should play for the sake of improvement, and learning. This means not fishing for superficial wins, as it wastes your opponents time. Now if you have real chances of winning with a good attack, then by all means play on. But if you have no real winning chances if your opponent were to not make a blunder then just resign. And don't play for the sake of a stalemate blunder either.
Basically, you should be trying to win from your own skill, because you actually learn and improve that way, rather than feeding off of your opponent's mistakes, which would indicate that you're playing for the satisfaction of winning rather than to enjoy the strategy of chess.
As I see chess, you should play for the sake of improvement, and learning. This means not fishing for superficial wins, as it wastes your opponents time. Now if you have real chances of winning with a good attack, then by all means play on. But if you have no real winning chances if your opponent were to not make a blunder then just resign. And don't play for the sake of a stalemate blunder either.
Basically, you should be trying to win from your own skill, because you actually learn and improve that way, rather than feeding off of your opponent's mistakes, which would indicate that you're playing for the satisfaction of winning rather than to enjoy the strategy of chess.
"Basically, you should be trying to win from your own skill, because you actually learn and improve that way, rather than feeding off of your opponent's mistakes"
As we just said, if no one errs, every game will be a draw. Winning by "your own skill" must mean outplaying your opponent, making less errors, or less significant ones, than they do. That's a simple fact.
"not fishing for superficial wins"
There is nothing necessarily superficial about a come from behind win, nor forcing a stalemate or draw. It can take great skill, as well as an error by the opponent, to force a draw or stalemate with an otherwise losing position. Playing stockfish, a stronger opponent than anyone here, I learned the trick of drawing with a rook versus queen. You have to get in at close quarters, then if they align their king and queen on the same file, you force a sacrifice of your rook such that when they take it your king can't move. If they don't take it you take their queen, again forcing a draw. It's a skillful dance of pieces, with the odds heavily against you; what is wrong with using all your skill to try for it? Getting a perpetual check: who said it takes less skill when you are disadvantaged than getting a checkmate when material is even?
Don't talk about "winning by any means" including flagging and IRL problems. That is a cheap straw man argument which makes it seem as if you want to win the argument by any means. I'm talking about playing chess to the best of one's ability, including knowing how to force a draw or stalemate from a disadvantaged position, knowing how to counterattack when down material, and how to force your opponent to use up his clock, which great GMs have written about.
As we just said, if no one errs, every game will be a draw. Winning by "your own skill" must mean outplaying your opponent, making less errors, or less significant ones, than they do. That's a simple fact.
"not fishing for superficial wins"
There is nothing necessarily superficial about a come from behind win, nor forcing a stalemate or draw. It can take great skill, as well as an error by the opponent, to force a draw or stalemate with an otherwise losing position. Playing stockfish, a stronger opponent than anyone here, I learned the trick of drawing with a rook versus queen. You have to get in at close quarters, then if they align their king and queen on the same file, you force a sacrifice of your rook such that when they take it your king can't move. If they don't take it you take their queen, again forcing a draw. It's a skillful dance of pieces, with the odds heavily against you; what is wrong with using all your skill to try for it? Getting a perpetual check: who said it takes less skill when you are disadvantaged than getting a checkmate when material is even?
Don't talk about "winning by any means" including flagging and IRL problems. That is a cheap straw man argument which makes it seem as if you want to win the argument by any means. I'm talking about playing chess to the best of one's ability, including knowing how to force a draw or stalemate from a disadvantaged position, knowing how to counterattack when down material, and how to force your opponent to use up his clock, which great GMs have written about.
Yup.
And I guess, the reason why it's fine to hope for errs is because it is what chess really wants you to do (and it's how you really enjoy it, maybe).
Our rating (Elo), indirectly is telling us how often we make mistakes in a match (when timed). The higher your Elo is, the lesser. (Sorry I'm a little full of mistakes cause I'm rated 1700 but I'm tryin' lol ) so you if you happen to win a game, you know just why; there's an error which you've taken advantage of. You might not see where exactly it originates; This is why we analyse games to see these errors and correct ourselves. But one must play with the goal to win. It's basically all you need to last in every match.
-We need to play to win until we tie (hmm). That is real chess for us, I think.
And I guess, the reason why it's fine to hope for errs is because it is what chess really wants you to do (and it's how you really enjoy it, maybe).
Our rating (Elo), indirectly is telling us how often we make mistakes in a match (when timed). The higher your Elo is, the lesser. (Sorry I'm a little full of mistakes cause I'm rated 1700 but I'm tryin' lol ) so you if you happen to win a game, you know just why; there's an error which you've taken advantage of. You might not see where exactly it originates; This is why we analyse games to see these errors and correct ourselves. But one must play with the goal to win. It's basically all you need to last in every match.
-We need to play to win until we tie (hmm). That is real chess for us, I think.
@sprocketAce and others, that's not about "hope for errors", that's about playing it Nakamura-style, like, R vs R or Q vs Q. Besides, it's about keeping on playing in a hopeless position when you're down a Q, let's say, or about a R, and all your chances come down to opponent's time, when you're trying to flag him feverishly.
Such games never ever fall into the category of "conventional games", where we could analyse, look for mistakes and so on.
Those games are shame and disaster for chess. Flagging an opponent in an unclear position is one thing, but that "don't resign" philisophy in positions where you are Q vs Q or something like that or down drastically is another.
Such games never ever fall into the category of "conventional games", where we could analyse, look for mistakes and so on.
Those games are shame and disaster for chess. Flagging an opponent in an unclear position is one thing, but that "don't resign" philisophy in positions where you are Q vs Q or something like that or down drastically is another.
@Dat_Das, fishing for errors (and blunders), flagging your opponent, along with the satisfaction of winning (or at least not losing) it's the essence of a fight --and for some of us chess is a fighting game. I think your opinion, although interesting, may be in fact the main issue which prevents you form improving because winning or defending any type of positions, continuously searching for solutions, is not something that you enjoy. Do you have any idea about how many amazing moves have been played in "hopeless" positions? How many studies, puzzles, compositions, how many examples in how many books? It doesn't matter anyway. The idea is that such kind of brilliant creations are possible because of those who enjoy analysing and searching for hidden resources, not vice versa. Chess tactics has plenty of deep hidden elements in relation to which, usually, our ignorance is multifaceted. If you don't believe me it's alright, keep resigning.
I believe my bullet rating increased by 200 points when I stopped resigning after losing a rook/queen. I've self-stalemated myself, flagged my opponent, or even swindled a victory countless times. (Source: Was 2100, now 2300.)
Of course if it's classical chess, and you blunder your queen early, I'd recommend resigning to save energy (and your opponent's energy) for the next game. Unless you have infinite energy and never get bored-- then don't resign :P
Of course if it's classical chess, and you blunder your queen early, I'd recommend resigning to save energy (and your opponent's energy) for the next game. Unless you have infinite energy and never get bored-- then don't resign :P
In my opinion against U 2000 there is more than 50/50 chances of winning after blundering a knight or a bishop, no matter how early in the game, and no offence but 35-40 % after blundering the queen. Therefore it's quite understandable why some people get so frustrated and thus starting such topics looks like a necessity.
Just to reinforce the last comments: Did you ever look at the advantage graph of a typical game? When the players are sub 2000 you will USUALLY see SEVERAL spikes, indicating that the player with the advantage blundered by allowing an opportunity to the disadvantaged to equalise, which that player then missed (hence the spike down and back up). But EVEN 2200 TO 2300 players usually have at least one such spike, sometimes more. I know, because I occasionally check the games from which puzzles were generated, and even high-rated players make several such blunders. That is: typical amateur games are replete with opportunities for the disadvantaged to equalise or win. Yesterday I swindled a game OTB down two pieces! (His king was vulnerable). Today I almost rescued a game down a piece and a pawn in the late end game; actually I should have gotten the draw but played incorrectly, thus missing an opportunity to take his pawn and leave a N versus K draw. You guys are not GMs, not masters, not master candidates and not even candidates to be master candidates. Down a piece, down even a queen in the middle game? Learn how to fight. To repeat, there is nothing more noble, lofty, "true" or sublime about the initial gaining of advantage - which might have derived from the dumbest blunder on your part - than your imminent recovery.
New swindle, down 5 pieces + Q to 2 pieces + Q, against a 2230 rated player:
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.