What next? Tic Tac Toe?
chess a game of errors ?
Sort:
the point is everyone is trying to play perfect, while its an non perfect game.
That would be a great one for game theory i think.
forkypinner wrote:
What next? Tic Tac Toe?
I was going to bring that up actually. :)
Someone (maybe Tarrasch) said that the winner in a game of chess is the person who makes the second-to-last mistake.
I've been comparing my games to GMs (they're not even in the same ball park) and one thing I noticed right off is how conservative they play when playing each other. I play very aggressive ... might explain why rank is so low. All their moves seem so timid like they're waiting for there opponent to slip up and then pounce.
Wesso wrote:
I've been comparing my games to GMs (they're not even in the same ball park) and one thing I noticed right off is how conservative they play when playing each other. I play very aggressive ... might explain why rank is so low. All their moves seem so timid like they're waiting for there opponent to slip up and then pounce.
I think they play cautious because they have the ability to see so far ahead tand they'll only attack if they are sure it's going to work. They don't want to take any risks.
I think this is exactly correct, and I say this because I noticed something a few days ago which was a bit revelatory for me, being only a low-level intermediate player.
Whenever YOU make a move, the computer eval bar can only go down, and it's the same for your opponent. If you make the correct follow-up move to consolidate their error, the eval bar will not change.
The best you can do is to capitalize on your opponent's mistakes, and to not create weaknesses that your opponent can take advantage of.
Apr 23, 2023
0
#10
Most openings aren't perfect moves (plenty have inaccurate eval moves, some even mistakes) and yet they are played at the World Championship even though the players know the eval. So chess isn't a game purely about minimizing errors. At the high levels chess is a game of coming up with ideas & trying to prove your idea is best whilst thwarting your opponent, play wont be perfect but the better idea is more likely to win. At the lower levels where players make single moves its not the first to make a mistake as both players will make many mistakes.
A friend of me described chess as a game of mistakes.
Your just waiting for the first oponent mistake to happen.
I wonder if he's right on this, as for example computer analyses always show people make errors. There always seam to be better moves. A perfect game would end in stalemate or a draw, but all other games are won based on error, is he right i wonder ?
Or are those computer analyses a bad way of looking at the game, computers dont understand positional play it seams so maybe those analyses are just ehm for a big part crap, and a game which depends on errors and time pressure, psychology etc, is a real game. In other words there is no perfect game chess is based on human errors, its human error game ?