"... there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position... It is not enough to evaluate material, initiative, pawn structure and other structural considerations generically – these considerations should be held up against the characteristics of the two players. The style and personality of the combatants should be included in the decision process as well. This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board. The assumption that chess is played on a board and against pieces should be abandoned and replaced by an approach which acknowledges that chess is played between opponents and that the aim is to win the game against this particular opponent ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2005)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Foundations-Of-Chess-Strategy-77p3843.htm
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Foundations_of_Chess_Strategy.pdf
Hi,
I'm wondering about something that doesn't really seem to be discussed in any of the general chess literature:
At a low to moderate level of skill (chess.com rates me at 1295, but I'm not sure if this is accurate at all since I mostly have played the same few people so far), would most people suggest to always play the "most correct" moves, or is it accurate to sometimes play moves that may not be the best ones (as measured against an engine or a grand-master, who will likely find the best response) but may be the most likely to give me an advantage, because my opponent may be forced into an error or simply have a very hard time finding the one move that will give them an advantage (versus the many ones that may put them in trouble)
I am noticing that when I analyze my games, sometimes the engine complains about the one move the most, which in the specific game actually provided me the greatest advantage.
I'm not talking about speed-chess here, where those kinds of moves are probably constantly and purposefully made, but games with plenty time on the clock.
I know some of this may depend on my intention (winning at all cost versus learning) but still, how do most people play? How about grandmasters? Do they always play the best theoretical move they can find (all the analyses on YouTube and all the chess books I read seem to assume that) or do they ever decide on a move that they know is not the best, IF their opponent finds the ONE perfect response, but gives them an advantage if they use a more obvious, but not as advantageous, response?
Just wondering...