Is believing in 'truth' in chess a bad idea?

Stating the obvious here, but one situation where you should definitely play to maximise the chances of profiting from an opponent's mistake is if you are losing. Setting a trap, or playing wildly, is then the way to go. On the other hand, if you are clearly winning then obviously you should play soundly so you don't jeopardise the win.

If neither player is clearly winning then all sorts of factors come into play concerning whether you should play as correctly as you can or go for an unsound continuation which is tricky for the opponent.

Believing in absolute truth is like believing in Santa Claus. You're going to stay up late on a lot of Christmas Eves before you actually see him. But if you don't mind a reasonable facsimile, you can find him easily enough at the shopping mall.

Chess is about decision making. To be more precise, it's about making decisions when the clock is ticking and you can't remember all the theory that you have studied and the tactical complexities extend beyond your horizon.

There was a Canadian master, (I think it was Jon Berry, BICBW) who only got as far as as Fide Master in OTB play, but became a GM in correspondence. He accomplished this despite a somewhat peripatetic life. (This was in the days before WIFI, e-mail and hotel rooms with internet connections. But hey, if sending postcards from an airport before you leave for another country seems crazy, remember that postal service in the old Soviet Union wasn't such great shakes either) I recall his annotations to one of his games, a crazy tactical brawl that took him and his partner over a year to play. At one point, he commented that he had calculated all that he could, and couldn't decide what to do. Usually when he couldn't see a clear line of play, he would trust his intuition to decide what to do. Sadly, in that position, his intuition told him the game required exact calculation.

Tal said something once about a hippopotamus in a swamp. If you can't lift it out, you may as well let it sit there. I think this man was talking about the same thing, with of course the very exasperated regret that the hippo couldn't be lifted. Fortunately, most games only require that kind of energy at a few decisive moments. For much of the time, you can get by on your intuition/memory/judgement. But how do you know when the choice you face is in fact a critical decision? I certainly don't know, but masters and GMs do have a nose for those critical moments.

So you push yourself when you think the situation requires it, and try to extend that horizon as much as you can, knowing there will be blind spots. But before you give it up as hopeless, make certain you have tried your best to calculate as exactly as you can, and have evaluated the resulting positions as honestly as you can. And then you can commit yourself to a move.

@verylate said in #12:

Believing in absolute truth is like believing in Santa Claus. You're going to stay up late on a lot of Christmas Eves before you actually see him. But if you don't mind a reasonable facsimile, you can find him easily enough at the shopping mall.

Chess is about decision making. To be more precise, it's about making decisions when the clock is ticking and you can't remember all the theory that you have studied and the tactical complexities extend beyond your horizon.

Father Christmas doesn’t come if you’re not asleep like a good boy/girl. Sometimes blind faith is better
As with chess sometimes you gotta back yourself, blindly, good decision or not xxx

To piggyback on what Brian-E said, the clearest example I can think of is a dead lost endgame where one has a choice between setting up a stalemate trap or prolonging the number of moves one can stave off checkmate a few more moves. A computer will choose the latter, as it takes for granted the position is lost anyway, but the former is still the only real choice against a human opponent.

I think the main problem with that sort of thing is that it's all so pompous and pretentious. And you're likely to find Truth (with a capital T) far more common in books than it is in real life.

It can interfere with your practical results as well. One thing that considerably improved my play was to stop trying to play some Immortal Masterpiece all the time and worry a little bit more about bailing my ass out (whenever it turned out that I had screwed up yet again!). Damage control should always be a major concern for the practical player. :)

@MrPushwood said in #15:

I think the main problem with that sort of thing is that it's all so pompous and pretentious. And you're likely to find Truth (with a capital T) far more common in books than it is in real life.

It can interfere with your practical results as well. One thing that considerably improved my play was to stop trying to play some Immortal Masterpiece all the time and worry a little bit more about bailing my ass out (whenever it turned out that I had screwed up yet again!). Damage control should always be a major concern for the practical player. :)
"Pompous and pretentious"

@MyBodyAteItself said in #1:

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"

My personal philosophy is to always try playing the best move. You don't play your best (something I like) and most importantly you don't improve if you play hoping for an opponent's mistakes. If a beginner always tries Scholar's mate in the opening he will achieve some with his peers, but he won't learn to play normal openings and as he improves nobody will fall into his Scholar's mate and he will be disadvantaged.

When you have few time, or in very rapid time controls, it's a whole different thing. Those are different from normal chess.

@MyBodyAteItself said in #1:

... is trying to play the absolute best move a bad idea? ...
Perhaps worthwhile to ponder whether or not there is likely to BE an “absolute best move”. If a position is drawn, the quality of a choice is apt to depend on subjective factors.
“... Evans’ Gambit ... is attributed to a Captain Evans around the year 1830 ... For the rest of the 1800s it was practically the main line of chess, but it almost died out around 1900 due in part to ‘Lasker’s Defense’. ...” - GM Larry Kaufman (2011)
So, at one time, after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5, the move, 4 b4, was a good try for an advantage. Now, not so much.
"... there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position ... It is not enough to evaluate material, initiative, pawn ­structure and other structural considerations generically – these considerations should be held up against the characteristics of the two players. The style and personality of the com­batants should be included in the decision pro­cess as well. This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board. The assumption that chess is played on a board and against pieces should be aban­doned and replaced by an approach which acknowledges that chess is played between opponents and that the aim is to win the game against this particular opponent ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2005)
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Foundations_of_Chess_Strategy.pdf

@MyBodyAteItself said in #1:

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

Good players make moves because they have a plan bro ...

The truth is sacred and valuable, but at the same time scary.
Like when you and your opponent play the best moves and... eval bar says 0/00

"If there was no art, the truth would kill man"