♚COURSES
📚
📚 ||
♚ Play turn style chess at
♚ Play Chess vs. Kingscrusher and others:
♚ Subscribe to best Youtube Chess Video Channel :
👕 Get Kingscrusher T-Shirts!:
Play online turn-based chess at
Chess World.net presents: Do Chess Players falsify their ideas – akin to Research Scientists ?! Part 2 of 2 ►Subscribe for my regular chess videos: ►Support the channel by donating via PayPal:
♞ Challenge KC and others for turn style chess at
♚COURSES
I don't get the analogy with the research scientist. I would say philosophers rather than scientists. Cause in science if you have an idea you set up an experiment and test it against at least 2 controls (one positive and one negative) what makes it "scientific" is that you can test it against as many times you want and get the exact same result optimism/pessimism etc.have nothing to do with science man 🙂
but great chess video anyways 🙂
I tend to play always very forcing moves, every time I can, I took Silman's advice "never play a move hoping that your opponent makes a mistake" I still miss a lot of things when I play. Optimism is Bias. the same way rejecting a crazy looking move right of the bat. like Rxa3. There is a book that talks about that. is called "Forcing moves the key for better calculation" I recomended it has helped me alot
I noticed this interesting quote on Chessbase yesterday regarding optimist: "All this may be summed up by the hypothesis that Lasker had achieved an existential recognition of strategic masking that he unconsciously sensed the inadequacy of maintaining the inelastic outlooks characteristic of both idealism and skepticism." How existential recognition differs from "realized" I have no idea, but I like the notion of being cautious of inelastic outlooks.
the quote seems to be saying that he didnt realise anything – it states that this was at an unconscious level. But to be honest it doesn't really mean much… just means he was a genius that understood before his time that you had to be thorough and clinical enough to not just be optimistic, but also not be too scared to play moves that you need to, even if it may complicate matters.
Intuition can often make you lazy towards doing in depth calculation. I've noticed the more positional I play, keeping all the pieces connected & coordinated, the less I worry about tactics catching me out. This is bad thinking which leads to bad chess. Chess should be draining because you should calculate as many ideas as deeply as you can.
@BasicPawn You could also adopt a strategy of "infinite tension" and not do anything commital until you have to. Carlsen has worn down people just maintaining the tension until they become totally exhausted with calculation and then just drop their position with terrible mistakes.
@kingscrusher I will try and explore this approach which i used successfully in the last few rounds of Gibraltar earlier in the year. It was inspired by a lecture on Carlsen's many styles of play.
@cuevasdecamuy Optimism is biased. But in many club games, I reached winning positions or won games through taking risks – which generated a lot of pressure. This often works when the opponent is in time pressure.
I agree. for example(I'm a weaker player than you) If I play with optimism against you, I will pay for it even in time pressure. I will say it makes exiting games and optimistic moves tend to be creative moves which keep chess alive, but as a class player I try to be as objective as possible also as humans we are bound to optimism, a creative move if the opponent does not see it coming it will have some psychological impact,which may help your optimistic move.Optimism is a curse and a blessing
but what if the best move is not a forcing move? What if the best is to allow your opponent a choice with an idea about how to crush every line… I know it's really hard to attain that level of play but i think thats how GM's get so good, they have ideas about many lines that can be played and they know the strategic ideas as well as recognize the tactics that are available in every position.
the truth is the most forcing(literally) move usually looses, but is the one that needs to be looked at first. Forcing moves are defined as moves that limit counterplay and options in general. What you mentioned are called "quiet forcing moves" (paradoxical), they seem to do almost nothing but they are filled with tactics and they meet the requirements of the position and your opponent has to do something about them. Not all forcing moves are checks, etc. It depends on how you define "forcing"