@1
"when I try to set a trap for my opponent I am operating under the assumption that they might miss the handful of moves that could save them and I can capitalize on those oversights."
++ Chess is not about traps, but about logic. So you set a trap and hope he falls into it, and accept to lose if he avoids it. That is not logical.
"to set something up based on my opponent’s past behavior on the board"
++ 'When you sit down to play a game you should think only about the position,
but not about the opponent.' - Capablanca
"the analysis goes under the assumption that any player should be expected to make the best possible moves in any situation" ++ Yes, and rightly so.
"this is an artifact of my relatively low level of play"
++ Yes, your level will rise if you abandon hope chess and aim for logic.
'Chess is a very logical game and it is the man who can reason most logically and profoundly in it that ought to win' - Capablanca
"higher level players have to assume that their opponents see everything they do" ++ Yes.
"the analysis is geared toward improve my playing" ++ Yes.
I don’t pay for any kind of premium anything, so what I’m talking about is the basic free analysis you get after completing a game - whatever depth that is. I love looking at the alternative moves and lines that the computer says would have been better.
something I can’t help noticing though, is that often the only moves of mine that the analysis determines are ‘mistakes’ or even ‘blunders’(!) usually seem to be moves that were instrumental in securing a checkmate often just a few moves later!
I kinda wonder why that is… my understanding is that when I try to set a trap for my opponent I am operating under the assumption that they might miss the handful of moves that could save them and I can capitalize on those oversights. sometimes (rarely…) I am even clever enough to set something up based on my opponent’s past behavior on the board - things I managed to notice that they missed, or something showing that they overvalue a certain piece… I think the analysis goes under the assumption that any player should be expected to make the best possible moves in any situation, which is far removed from how games actually play out in my experience.
surely this is an artifact of my relatively low level of play. I assume higher level players have to assume that their opponents see everything they do, and more. and I suppose the analysis is geared toward improve my playing, hoping that I might someday become one of those higher level players (I appreciate the encouragement but you’re gonna be hoping for a long time, friend…)
just my observation, idk