Since the higher rated player is, well, higher rated, they should be able to play more accurately. Playing something slightly risky may be fine, but the higher and higher you go, the more likely your risk will be exploited.
Should a stronger player accept a draw from an equal position/line against lower rated opposition?
Sort:
Aug 15, 2021
0
#3
Is it a cheap to give perpetual check against someone 600 elo higher so i can just collect my +10 an move on lol
Aug 15, 2021
0
#4
KMWS wrote:
Is it a cheap to give perpetual check against someone 600 elo higher so i can just collect my +10 an move on lol
Considering the number of times I've done that I don't believe so.
No of course the stronger player should not accept a draw in an equal position, otherwise he could as well agree on a draw in the initial position, which is equal. The essence of chess is to play moves that do not lose and wait for your opponent to play a move that loses.
No one is equally strong in all phases of the game. If I were the higher rated player, I'd play on in the equal R&P endgame and see. (I have however played sharp lines vs Najdorf that in theory ended in a perpetual check and along the way looked for some deviation on the principle that defense is often harder than attack in sharp positions. )
Aug 20, 2021
0
#8
My advice? Continue playing until the position is played out, regardless of ratings.
You're there to play chess, after all. Otherwise, why did you even start the game?
In my experience they usually don't. They'll make a lower rated player prove they know how to hold before they accept a draw offer. Of course, that's the only way lower rated players learn to play solid endgames, so I think this is the proper attitude to take.
Aug 21, 2021
0
#10
Bramblyspam wrote:
My advice? Continue playing until the position is played out, regardless of ratings.
You're there to play chess, after all. Otherwise, why did you even start the game?
That is very true, I should really just focus on the game. Chess is undoubtedly a drawish game after all so at least if there were no inaccuracies, that's something to be proud of
Aug 21, 2021
0
#12
“The essence of chess is to play moves that do not lose and wait for your opponent to play a move that loses.”
That’s a sad way to play.
That’s a sad way to play.
Aug 22, 2021
0
#13
BlackKaweah wrote:
“The essence of chess is to play moves that do not lose and wait for your opponent to play a move that loses.”
That’s a sad way to play.
That’s a sad way to play.
Not really when that’s what all the GMs do.
Aug 22, 2021
0
#14
AunTheKnight wrote:
BlackKaweah wrote:
“The essence of chess is to play moves that do not lose and wait for your opponent to play a move that loses.”
That’s a sad way to play.
That’s a sad way to play.
Not really when that’s what all the GMs do.
That's not really what GMs do. They don't try to not-lose, they try to play the best move available. If you give them a slight edge, they'll press hard for a win.
If you "play for a draw" then you're playing for two results, and a win ain't one of 'em.
Let's say there was a 2500 playing a 2200 in an open tournament, the 2200 prepared the entire sharp theoretical line and possible deviations of like the Bg5 Najdorf... mid-game the 2500 realizes that by the end of this line it will fizzle out to a drawn rook and pawn endgame.
Should the 2500 play objectively the best chess and go for it, or try something risky for the win?
In another hypothetical situation, let's say a super-GM is playing a simul and the preparation of one participant was also just that good and should lead to equality by the end... Should the super-GM also be happy in this situation? This is a lower-stakes situation because no ELO points are at stake, but still an interesting situation nonetheless.
What do you think?