Chess and risk taking - Chess Forums - Page 2

bong711

Feb 24, 2020

0

#21

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

"Sometimes you go for a certain setup and hope your opponent will fall for it and so you take the chance they will fall for it in that regard."

That is called Hope Chess. It is a horrible way to play, as it creates bad habits.

Chess is ALWAYS hope chess when one plays to try to win. Otherwise we can play the most boring and unadventurous chess ever.

I agree. Many of Tal's sacrifices can be easily refuted by engines. If Tal would play like Karpov, chess fans would never enjoy Tal's games.

lfPatriotGames

Feb 24, 2020

0

#22

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

"Sometimes you go for a certain setup and hope your opponent will fall for it and so you take the chance they will fall for it in that regard."

That is called Hope Chess. It is a horrible way to play, as it creates bad habits.

Chess is ALWAYS hope chess when one plays to try to win. Otherwise we can play the most boring and unadventurous chess ever.

I totally agree. I have never played a game of chess that wasn't "hope chess". That's because I'm not good enough to beat people better than me. If I was, I would just go ahead and win, no need to hope. Often I get in a position, almost always in the middlegame, where I have no clue where to move. So I just take my best guess. I know I'm not making totally random moves and there is some reason put into it, but I AM hoping it's the best move.

JeffGreen333

Feb 24, 2020

0

#23

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

"Sometimes you go for a certain setup and hope your opponent will fall for it and so you take the chance they will fall for it in that regard."

That is called Hope Chess. It is a horrible way to play, as it creates bad habits.

Chess is ALWAYS hope chess when one plays to try to win. Otherwise we can play the most boring and unadventurous chess ever.

No, you're missing the point. Hope Chess means playing unsound tactical moves and hoping for your opponent to mess up. As opposed to solid chess, which is playing sound moves and having good chances to win no matter what your opponent does.

JeffGreen333

Feb 24, 2020

0

#24

bong711 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

"Sometimes you go for a certain setup and hope your opponent will fall for it and so you take the chance they will fall for it in that regard."

That is called Hope Chess. It is a horrible way to play, as it creates bad habits.

Chess is ALWAYS hope chess when one plays to try to win. Otherwise we can play the most boring and unadventurous chess ever.

I agree. Many of Tal's sacrifices can be easily refuted by engines. If Tal would play like Karpov, chess fans would never enjoy Tal's games.

The overall competition in Tal's era wasn't quite as good as it is now, because of computers. Tal wouldn't even have attempted most of his sacs against today's elite computer-trained players, because those tactics wouldn't be available. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, more GM's made slightly inaccurate moves in the opening and middlegame, which is what set Tal up for his sacrifices and tactics. I'm not talking about champions such as Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Fischer and Karpov, but more about his average competition vs average elite players today. There were far fewer 2700 players back in those days.

Nicator65

Feb 24, 2020

0

#25

Solid chess, huh?

In a way, even GMs have to guess in unfamiliar situations. That said, they've worked to make their "guess" pretty accurate by examining the position and inferring what's going on. Some amateurs, on the other hand, don't enjoy the "work" part and play by intuition, which is a nice word for "whatever".

JeffGreen333

Feb 24, 2020

0

#26

Optimissed wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

I'm sure that this must have been said already, but you are describing "hope chess" which is the wrong way to play. Chess is all strategy and no luck, if played 100% accurately. The problem is that, as humans, we're not capable of playing 100% accurately. So, play the best, most accurate, solid moves that you can play and then try to take advantage of the inaccuracies of your opponent. If you play hope chess (cheapo tactics and unsound sacrifices, while hoping for your opponent not to see something), you'll never break the 1800 level and probably won't break the 1500 level.

OK Jeff. What if someone's strategy is to play very aggressive stuff in uncommon lines that have been well analysed? Even in slow chess OTB that can be a way of maximising one's results at, say, a level up to about FIDE 2200. I tend to play that way as black rather than as white. I play more solidly with white.

I wouldn't necessarily classify that as hope chess, if the moves are sound and you can beat Experts with them. I'd need more specific details on the moves in question, in order to make that determination though. Have you analyzed any such moves with Stockfish? If Stockfish can easily refute them, then it's probably hope chess. However, if Stockfish has to play perfect, computer-like moves to eek out a victory, then probably not.

JeffGreen333

Feb 24, 2020

0

#27

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

"Sometimes you go for a certain setup and hope your opponent will fall for it and so you take the chance they will fall for it in that regard."

That is called Hope Chess. It is a horrible way to play, as it creates bad habits.

Chess is ALWAYS hope chess when one plays to try to win. Otherwise we can play the most boring and unadventurous chess ever.

I totally agree. I have never played a game of chess that wasn't "hope chess". That's because I'm not good enough to beat people better than me. If I was, I would just go ahead and win, no need to hope. Often I get in a position, almost always in the middlegame, where I have no clue where to move. So I just take my best guess. I know I'm not making totally random moves and there is some reason put into it, but I AM hoping it's the best move.

That's why I only play higher-rated players in daily chess, where I have plenty of time to analyze the positions and work out the variations of each of my candidate moves, before choosing the best one.

JeffGreen333

Feb 24, 2020

0

#28

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

IMBacon wrote:

"Sometimes you go for a certain setup and hope your opponent will fall for it and so you take the chance they will fall for it in that regard."

That is called Hope Chess. It is a horrible way to play, as it creates bad habits.

Chess is ALWAYS hope chess when one plays to try to win. Otherwise we can play the most boring and unadventurous chess ever.

What i mean by "hope chess" is playing a move that is bad, but hoping your opponent doesn't see a reply that wins.

I won a game like that in the last season I played in the local leagues here. For some reason I was completely outplayed on the black side of a Modern Benoni by a weaker player who made a long series of accurate moves. This game was one of the reasons I've switched to the QGD .... more and more people understand something about the M.B. I was down to less than 2 minutes in a 90 minutes for each player league game but I'd spotted a way I could open it up completely by giving up a piece. I was already two pawns down with no real hope of saving the game in normal circumstances but I blitzed a series of moves and my opponent blundered because he foolishly tried to play fast so I went a rook up and the chap was so rattled he resigned even though I was down to less than a minute and conceivably he could have won on time because my win was nearly 20 moves away. That was hope chess.

Well, when you're obviously losing and don't see any other way out, sometimes it's worth a shot. Especially if your opponent is low on time. I guess there are a few exceptions.