A slightly better king position is a perceived advantage. It does not mean it is a winning advantage.
Yet a slight advantage may lead to a bigger and bigger advantage. You are simply forcing your opponent to make more and more concessions. Patience and technique, rather than taking the easy way out.
And with enough integrity, you won’t care if you lose because you didn’t go for the draw. It improves your game and your confidence.
A slightly better king position is a perceived advantage. It does not mean it is a winning advantage.
Yet a slight advantage may lead to a bigger and bigger advantage. You are simply forcing your opponent to make more and more concessions. Patience and technique, rather than taking the easy way out.
And with enough integrity, you won’t care if you lose because you didn’t go for the draw. It improves your game and your confidence.
We agree on this. I even played for a win vs grandmasters and very high rated players.[and teams] Even challenged a high rated team to an internet game which lasted almost a year!?
Confidence in sports makes a difference and sometimes in chess--it can make a difference!?
I tried to tell that to a lower-rated player in another forum, but to no avail: he insisted that despite one’s confidence the position over the board doesn’t care about one feeling confident. As if the game was played by two robots...
He only reluctantly backed off when I used Kasparov example, who admitted that when he was insecure, his playing ability diminished: at that point, he would apply the principle ‘fake it ‘till you make it’: he would begin to feel he was invincible. Soon enough, his playing style and the actual game would tourn around in his favor.
He is going to write a book on mental toughness, although this is no secret: he long considered it to be one of the most important features of his success.
Even though, he considered Fischer to be tougher than him!! Precisely because he would not accept playing for a draw just because it was enough to win a tournament , something Kaslparov admitted doing many a time.
However, when it comes to sports in general, even in chess for that matter, there is something quite opposite to confidence that all those who succeeded had, including Kasparov and Fscher.
In any domain, not just sports, to make it all the way to the top, there is something quite surprisingly different than confidence that everybody who went all the way had. That’s because there is always opposition, and so confidence at some point will be shaken. At that point, this thing kicks in.
But, while this gives one success, as a human being he will be destroyed, consumed by its negative effects, which explains the failures in relationships of celebrities.
i could guess, but i will bite--what is it?
No, please, guess first.
Willingness to find your mistakes [or weakenesses or shortcomings] and to improve from this?
Well, yeah, that is obvious if you look at both Fischer and Kasparov, and also other great athletes and their commentaries, and even non-athletes for that matter, at the highest levels in their respective fields.
But no, that couldn’t be what I had in mind once I added that it destroys them as human beings, which honesty never does. Because that comes down to this: to be brutally honest with yourself, and the best of the best share this quality of not minding doing it in public. They lack the most popular negative feature of being ashamed of their mistakes. On the contrary, they welcome mistakes, as Michael Jordan once similarly put it.
I know very well this, because for ten years I worked solely at improving one physical skill. Surrounding that specific skill others were developed, with new discoveries added all the time. And so I know from direct experience that errors are the best teacher we have. At least in a physical skill, no human can beat the muscle feel. And no human can show you the perfect muscle feel—the best is learning from errors, in relation to what one wants to accomplish through those skills.
But no, there is something else, which goes against confidence, in a wider field.
overconfidence but that is not the opposite of confidence.
overconfidence but that is not the opposite of confidence.
Correct. What IS the opposite of confidence?
opposite of confidence includes doubt and/or distrust and/or fear.
A slightly better king position is a perceived advantage. It does not mean it is a winning advantage. Often, going for the win in a drawn position equates to playing for a loss.
Sure, but how often is having the opposition, which is the slightest of "king position" advantages (a half move), entirely decisive?
Often enough. But more commonly, it is not because there is a win that I decline draws, but simply to see if my opponent will make a mistake. Then ... I go and make a mistake or two.
I made a mistake here, but fortunately my opponent ended up making more. https://www.chess.com/live/game/2766928049
what does solve mean
like the best moves?
"Solve" means determine if the game is a forced win for either side, or a draw, with best play.
Wouldn't the terms "solve" and "best play" be the same thing? It seems like it's unnecessary to say solve means figuring out the game with best play because there is no other way to figure it out. It seems unlikely chess will be solved with ordinary play, good play, or even great play. The moment best play ever happens for an entire game, chess will be solved at that same moment.
"Solve" is clearly defined result. Read about it on Wikipedia under "solved games". Google is your friend.
elementary my dear
"Solve" is clearly defined result. Read about it on Wikipedia under "solved games". Google is your friend.
I totally agree. solved is a definite result. I guess I dont see the point in saying "solve with best play" since I dont think there is any other way to solve a complete game of chess. It seems redundant to me. Starting from the beginning of the game I dont think chess can be solved with poor play, average play, good play, or even great play. I think the best, and only the best, move each turn is the only way it will ever be solved.
Yes.