4 ms·
My biggest improvement in chess came after comprehending The Theory of Steinitz [1]: 1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium. 2. Corre
by EdwardCoffin 7y ago
My biggest improvement in chess came after comprehending The Theory of Steinitz [1]:
1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium.
2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game.
3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning move.)
4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the attacking pieces and the attacker will then inevitably suffer disadvantage.
5. Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an advantage, caused by the opponent's error, that justifies the decision to attack.
6. At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error - a preliminary before attacking.
7. When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must attack or the advantage will be dissipated."
[1] http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz
- jstanley 7y ago> 2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game. Note that this is still not actually proven! But it is generally accepted.
- jay_kyburz 7y agoIt assumes both players are of equal skill I guess.
- jstanley 7y agoIt assumes both players are as highly skilled as it is possible to be (e.g. they can see right to the bottom of the decision tree in every variation). If the players are less skilled than this, i.e. they aren't going to play the best move every time, then any analysis you want to make about whether the starting position is a theoretical draw becomes moot because they aren't going to play the theoretical best moves anyway. But if you assume the game is a theoretical draw from the starting position, then any game you lose is ultimately down to you playing at least one suboptimal move (otherwise you would have been able to force a draw), and any game you win is ultimately down to your opponent playing at least one suboptimal move (otherwise he would have been able to force a draw). As it happens, I've just got home from playing a chess match in the local league. I lost, which means I made at least one suboptimal move, although I'm quite confident I made many!
- 131012 7y agoI feel that you have summarized the general meta of symetric warfare.
- justincredible 7y agoIn chess you have total information, so there are no covert operations.
- roel_v 7y agoThis applies word for word to jiu jitsu, as well...