that’s fair
I feel like +1 positions and +3 positions can be just as complicated, but +2 positions are really confusing.
“+2”: The Hidden Danger of “Nearly Winning”
Sort:
Can't relate to that more…. I think I just had a game like that but I lost….
Oh yeah, this one:
16 days ago
0
#5
Is this platform truly fair? In the game I was originally tied, but at that moment, my connection dropped. My internet connection was functioning normally, with no issues. Then, when my screen showed that my opponent had one second left, I reconnected, and suddenly their time had jumped to 18 seconds, while I had only 4 seconds left. Ultimately, I went out of time.
16 days ago
0
#6
Sometimes +2 is very clear. It’s just that there are still enough resources and all those things for the opponent. Let’s say you are up a piece (~+2.00) but your opponent can win a pawn in 3 - 5 moves. Or you are up a piece but your opponent is overall a bit more active. Or you are up a piece but you have trippled isolated pawns. Or you simply are way more active and your opponent will need to sacrifice material later on. Engines make their evaluation out of such factors.
16 days ago
0
#8
Sometimes being a bit ahead can breed complacency. You fail to spot the opponent's traps. It isn't really over till it's over. In a recent game I was getting hammered but resisted the impulse to resign and the overly aggressive opponent stalemated. In another recent game I lost two minor pieces and nearly resigned, then the opponent's Queen was left hanging.
16 days ago
0
#9
Steve-K wrote:
Sometimes being a bit ahead can breed complacency. You fail to spot the opponent's traps. It isn't really over till it's over. In a recent game I was getting hammered but resisted the impulse to resign and the overly aggressive opponent stalemated. In another recent game I lost two minor pieces and nearly resigned, then the opponent's Queen was left hanging.
Very true, though the point of this for me is specifically the dangerous "+2" one, which I think has this awful balance of being better but not as clearly as you'd like to make it easy!
16 days ago
0
#10
DoYouLikeCurry hat geschrieben:
Steve-K wrote:
Sometimes being a bit ahead can breed complacency. You fail to spot the opponent's traps. It isn't really over till it's over. In a recent game I was getting hammered but resisted the impulse to resign and the overly aggressive opponent stalemated. In another recent game I lost two minor pieces and nearly resigned, then the opponent's Queen was left hanging.
Very true, though the point of this for me is specifically the dangerous "+2" one, which I think has this awful balance of being better but not as clearly as you'd like to make it easy!
No offense, but I am sure it’s part of beeing human (Or untitled).
DoYouLikeCurry wrote:
We’ve all been there in chess. We’re reviewing a game after a tough loss or draw, and the engine picks a point where it claims you had a +2 advantage.
So why is this? Why is this evaluation so misleading?
The answer for me lies in the evaluation itself: a plus two advantage is supposedly the equivalent of two pawns. However, this is a strange evaluation to give if the material balance doesn’t actually reflect that idea.
+1 is easy to understand: we have either a clear extra pawn, or have a slight edge through positional means or the initiative.
+3 is easy to understand: we normally are up a piece, have a winning tactic, or our opponent has had to weaken their position too much to avoid a loss of material etc.
But +2? That’s the engine saying it thinks you’re winning - you SHOULD be winning - but that it’s not clear enough for it to be “a piece-worth” sure. That’s a dangerous position to be in.
Perhaps you’re up material, but your opponent has a lot of counterplay. You might lose that position.
Perhaps you’re positionally dominating, and feel that you are, but because of this feeling of strength you rush or overestimate your chances. You might lose that position.
+2 for me is the dangerous evaluation, and when you see it after your game, have a look at exactly why the position was tricky to capitalise on.
Id be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this, as this is not a fully-fledged idea, rather just my thoughts following the repeated instances of this exact phenomenon occurring.
There's a point when you're nearly winning and that's when you get too cocky and think you're gonna win and then you blunder and resign...
DoYouLikeCurry wrote:
We’ve all been there in chess. We’re reviewing a game after a tough loss or draw, and the engine picks a point where it claims you had a +2 advantage.
So why is this? Why is this evaluation so misleading?
The answer for me lies in the evaluation itself: a plus two advantage is supposedly the equivalent of two pawns. However, this is a strange evaluation to give if the material balance doesn’t actually reflect that idea.
+1 is easy to understand: we have either a clear extra pawn, or have a slight edge through positional means or the initiative.
+3 is easy to understand: we normally are up a piece, have a winning tactic, or our opponent has had to weaken their position too much to avoid a loss of material etc.
But +2? That’s the engine saying it thinks you’re winning - you SHOULD be winning - but that it’s not clear enough for it to be “a piece-worth” sure. That’s a dangerous position to be in.
Perhaps you’re up material, but your opponent has a lot of counterplay. You might lose that position.
Perhaps you’re positionally dominating, and feel that you are, but because of this feeling of strength you rush or overestimate your chances. You might lose that position.
+2 for me is the dangerous evaluation, and when you see it after your game, have a look at exactly why the position was tricky to capitalise on.
Id be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this, as this is not a fully-fledged idea, rather just my thoughts following the repeated instances of this exact phenomenon occurring.
I actually find this quite interesting because this clearly reflects how different our playing styles are.
What you have highlighted is that often this “+2” involves a lot of positional compensation, which I have not really struggled with too much. However, if you give me a +4 position where I am up a piece but the opp has a lot of things to throw at me, I actually find these positions more difficult than the +2 positions!
This is to say that we all have our comfort zones. I’d happily play out a dry +1 or +2 position without too much difficulty in contrast, but would also struggle with seemingly more winning but sharper positions
16 days ago
0
#13
rook_fianchetto_37 wrote:
DoYouLikeCurry wrote:
We’ve all been there in chess. We’re reviewing a game after a tough loss or draw, and the engine picks a point where it claims you had a +2 advantage.
So why is this? Why is this evaluation so misleading?
The answer for me lies in the evaluation itself: a plus two advantage is supposedly the equivalent of two pawns. However, this is a strange evaluation to give if the material balance doesn’t actually reflect that idea.
+1 is easy to understand: we have either a clear extra pawn, or have a slight edge through positional means or the initiative.
+3 is easy to understand: we normally are up a piece, have a winning tactic, or our opponent has had to weaken their position too much to avoid a loss of material etc.
But +2? That’s the engine saying it thinks you’re winning - you SHOULD be winning - but that it’s not clear enough for it to be “a piece-worth” sure. That’s a dangerous position to be in.
Perhaps you’re up material, but your opponent has a lot of counterplay. You might lose that position.
Perhaps you’re positionally dominating, and feel that you are, but because of this feeling of strength you rush or overestimate your chances. You might lose that position.
+2 for me is the dangerous evaluation, and when you see it after your game, have a look at exactly why the position was tricky to capitalise on.
Id be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this, as this is not a fully-fledged idea, rather just my thoughts following the repeated instances of this exact phenomenon occurring.
I actually find this quite interesting because this clearly reflects how different our playing styles are.
What you have highlighted is that often this “+2” involves a lot of positional compensation, which I have not really struggled with too much. However, if you give me a +4 position where I am up a piece but the opp has a lot of things to throw at me, I actually find these positions more difficult than the +2 positions!
This is to say that we all have our comfort zones. I’d happily play out a dry +1 or +2 position without too much difficulty in contrast, but would also struggle with seemingly more winning but sharper positions
+1 for me is conversely easier than +2, and I think that’s what I’m getting at here! +1 is an easier advantage for me to manage, as it’s normally a little more clear-cut
DoYouLikeCurry wrote:
rook_fianchetto_37 wrote:
DoYouLikeCurry wrote:
We’ve all been there in chess. We’re reviewing a game after a tough loss or draw, and the engine picks a point where it claims you had a +2 advantage.
So why is this? Why is this evaluation so misleading?
The answer for me lies in the evaluation itself: a plus two advantage is supposedly the equivalent of two pawns. However, this is a strange evaluation to give if the material balance doesn’t actually reflect that idea.
+1 is easy to understand: we have either a clear extra pawn, or have a slight edge through positional means or the initiative.
+3 is easy to understand: we normally are up a piece, have a winning tactic, or our opponent has had to weaken their position too much to avoid a loss of material etc.
But +2? That’s the engine saying it thinks you’re winning - you SHOULD be winning - but that it’s not clear enough for it to be “a piece-worth” sure. That’s a dangerous position to be in.
Perhaps you’re up material, but your opponent has a lot of counterplay. You might lose that position.
Perhaps you’re positionally dominating, and feel that you are, but because of this feeling of strength you rush or overestimate your chances. You might lose that position.
+2 for me is the dangerous evaluation, and when you see it after your game, have a look at exactly why the position was tricky to capitalise on.
Id be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this, as this is not a fully-fledged idea, rather just my thoughts following the repeated instances of this exact phenomenon occurring.
I actually find this quite interesting because this clearly reflects how different our playing styles are.
What you have highlighted is that often this “+2” involves a lot of positional compensation, which I have not really struggled with too much. However, if you give me a +4 position where I am up a piece but the opp has a lot of things to throw at me, I actually find these positions more difficult than the +2 positions!
This is to say that we all have our comfort zones. I’d happily play out a dry +1 or +2 position without too much difficulty in contrast, but would also struggle with seemingly more winning but sharper positions
+1 for me is conversely easier than +2, and I think that’s what I’m getting at here! +1 is an easier advantage for me to manage, as it’s normally a little more clear-cut
I also don’t find +2 positions too difficult either however
We’ve all been there in chess. We’re reviewing a game after a tough loss or draw, and the engine picks a point where it claims you had a +2 advantage.
So why is this? Why is this evaluation so misleading?
The answer for me lies in the evaluation itself: a plus two advantage is supposedly the equivalent of two pawns. However, this is a strange evaluation to give if the material balance doesn’t actually reflect that idea.
+1 is easy to understand: we have either a clear extra pawn, or have a slight edge through positional means or the initiative.
+3 is easy to understand: we normally are up a piece, have a winning tactic, or our opponent has had to weaken their position too much to avoid a loss of material etc.
But +2? That’s the engine saying it thinks you’re winning - you SHOULD be winning - but that it’s not clear enough for it to be “a piece-worth” sure. That’s a dangerous position to be in.
Perhaps you’re up material, but your opponent has a lot of counterplay. You might lose that position.
Perhaps you’re positionally dominating, and feel that you are, but because of this feeling of strength you rush or overestimate your chances. You might lose that position.
+2 for me is the dangerous evaluation, and when you see it after your game, have a look at exactly why the position was tricky to capitalise on.
Id be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this, as this is not a fully-fledged idea, rather just my thoughts following the repeated instances of this exact phenomenon occurring.