The 'screw it' principle

After 6 months of study and observation, I've come to the conclusion that masters play with a 'screw it' philosophy:

"Screw it if I win, screw it if I lose"

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

That was not Sergei Karjakin's attitude recently when he drew 17 consecutive games and was accused by Carlsen at the Shamkir tournament of not playing to win.

Go for it....for even if you lose, feel free that you've risked everything to gain your advantage - Mikhail Tal

He think he's trying to say, speculate more (using your instincts)....if you lose ?....so what........ 

Yeah, there are exceptions to everything of course.

But if you look through the history of war, you will see, that it is this all or nothing attitude that usually wins out. And when it comes down to it, chess is war. If you are not willing to put yourself on the line, you will never make it as an A or A+ player.

+1 for Tal!!!!

Yeah, that all-or-nothing attitude has been really successful in war.  I mean, if it weren't for Pickett's charge the south might not have won the U.S. civil war.

It worked in Vietnam.

And Afghanistan.

And the Alamo.

And the American War for Independance.

Hahahahaha. Now that's even funnier. I noticed the thread got deleted & then this one shows up in its place. Were you able to edit your threads by the steps I pointed out?

And in England when they fought the Nazis.

Yes, but it was still deleted. \

Funny how language makes a differnece. Now nobody seems interested in responding.

Where would the world be without Britain ..by winning the Battle of Britain the Nazis were kept at bay and could not invade British shores . In 1944 the allies launched their own invasion of continental Europe from British shores and with the help of the Soviets in the east defeated the evil that was Nazi Germany.

Pretty sure the Alamo is the only one that fits your argument.  Vietnam?  WWII Britain?  Really? 

I guess, if you consider playing defense an "all-or-nothing attitude".

When you draw against a superior opponent, you have won.

I used to believe that BS that England was 'saved' by The US until I actually read some history and realized they did great to hold a superior force at bay by themselves.

You should consider actually reading some history before you belittle the British and the North Vietnamese.

BTW - In case you didn't know, the North Vietnamese actually chased the US out of Vietnam. So, it is hardly a 'devensive' position.

What the hell are you talking about?  How did I belittle the English and North Vietnamese?  By arguing that they followed pragmatic battle plans--which anyone who has read some history--knows wins wars?

In the pre-nuclear world, wars were won by the defenders.  Not by folks ascribing to "all-or-nothing" strategies.

I've never believed that England was "saved" by the U.S.  Since I didn't write anything like that, I'm left with the conclusion that  reading histories would not help you much, as it's obvious you can't comprehend the words you read.

If you don't think guerilla warfare is a defensive war, you're not only dense, but delusional.

Oh yeah, I sense a grudge chess match about to happen. 

YOu can draw these thin imaginary lines between defense and offense and win and lose whereever you like. But the facts are the facts. Defensive or otherwise, it was the all or nothing spirit that won out over superior forces for both the North Vietnamese and the British.

Besides, when it comes to chess, Tal, apparently, is on my side in this issue.