The nature of losing positions

Are losing positions always simple or can they also be complex in nature?

Hi,

Losing positions can be simple or complex, often it can be relative to the skill of the players playing and subject to specific positions. For example, there can be simply lost positions with a one pawn advantage, such as many endgame positions that arise, and complex but lost positions with an extra piece advantage, often during middle games. It is all relative to the positions, pieces on the board still, and skill of the players playing. An example, see this game where my opponent struggled to consolidate his early winning advantage, and eventually lost. Hardest games to actually win are those where you have obtained an advantage and must see it through!

-Jordan

Losing positions can be simple or complex.

Balanced positions can be simple or complex.

Winning positions can be simple or complex.

A winning position IS a losing position.

the crux of the matter is this:      🥷

when losing, you must urgently throw every obstacle in your opponent's path or you shall surely perish...

All positions can be simple OR complex. It depends on the, well, position.

A position with a winning advantage is different to a won position.

What constitutes an obstacle in chess? How do you create an obstacle in chess?

"The hardest game to win is a won game" - Lasker