At first, I didn’t understand much about the discussions in this blog. Afterwards, and by reading a few pages of the blog, I started to study and slightly understand this discussion. Now I hope to understand a little more!
All this to tell you that you express yourself on the ideal of chess and compared to players all ranked at well over 2500 points, that is to say to players who do not make any more mistakes.
On the contrary, such players would be crushed by engines with ratings of 3400, so they can make many errors (just not as many as you and me!)
I, who only have a little more than 1100 points I see reality, my reality of chess, from a completely different angle, even if theoretically I would beat, according to the ranking of Chess.com, more than 81% of the players on this site. My reality is to beat the opponent, not necessarily by playing the best chess game at 100%, but by being cunning and in knowledge because I know that my opponent has for example "only" 1250 points. I can feint it with a sequel that he probably does not know and win ten or even twenty moves compared to a "perfect" game that would take more than 100 moves. I could never do this sequel against a player over 1800 points, but against him, I try. My final score will then be maybe 75- 80% with 2 to 4 great shots. This is very useful in my case because I would not finish the game by winning in time if I had to do it in more than 70 or 80 moves. And in the end, the goal is achieved.
So understand that the subject of the perfect game is dependent on the level of the players who compete against it. The more beginners they are, the more they can make a falsely "perfect" and fast game by making a few mistakes, but by being smart and getting not necessarily terrible percentages. It all comes down to the level of the players who compete. In the end, the winner will have done a rather imperfect part (between 60 and 75% positive), but fast and decisive.
In the end, everything is relative. Is it better for a player with 1100 points, not very fast, to play games with the perfect movements, but not to finish it and therefore to waste time in the game, rather than to play with imperfect movements, but subtle in comparison to an opponent more imperfect than him, and end up in time and with a victory?
What do you think?
Yours truly
In this forum "perfection" is play that could not be faulted by any player, even one stronger than any player that currently exists. I hope that helps.
...
At first, I didn’t understand much about the discussions in this blog. Afterwards, and by reading a few pages of the blog, I started to study and slightly understand this discussion. Now I hope to understand a little more!
All this to tell you that you express yourself on the ideal of chess and compared to players all ranked at well over 2500 points, that is to say to players who do not make any more mistakes. I, who only have a little more than 1100 points I see reality, my reality of chess, from a completely different angle, even if theoretically I would beat, according to the ranking of Chess.com, more than 81% of the players on this site. My reality is to beat the opponent, not necessarily by playing the best chess game at 100%, but by being cunning and in knowledge because I know that my opponent has for example "only" 1250 points. I can feint it with a sequel that he probably does not know and win ten or even twenty moves compared to a "perfect" game that would take more than 100 moves. I could never do this sequel against a player over 1800 points, but against him, I try. My final score will then be maybe 75- 80% with 2 to 4 great shots. This is very useful in my case because I would not finish the game by winning in time if I had to do it in more than 70 or 80 moves. And in the end, the goal is achieved.
So understand that the subject of the perfect game is dependent on the level of the players who compete against it. The more beginners they are, the more they can make a falsely "perfect" and fast game by making a few mistakes, but by being smart and getting not necessarily terrible percentages. It all comes down to the level of the players who compete. In the end, the winner will have done a rather imperfect part (between 60 and 75% positive), but fast and decisive.
In the end, everything is relative. Is it better for a player with 1100 points, not very fast, to play games with the perfect movements, but not to finish it and therefore to waste time in the game, rather than to play with imperfect movements, but subtle in comparison to an opponent more imperfect than him, and end up in time and with a victory?
What do you think?
Yours truly