4 ms·

> the strategy is not just to make objectively good moves, but also to give your opponent a chance to make mistakes. That's not true in classical chess, making

> the strategy is not just to make objectively good moves, but also to give your opponent a chance to make mistakes. That's not true in classical chess, making sup-par move in classical in order to throw off your opponent is a loosing strategy. That's why rapid and bullet formats are much more interesting, because those moves are viable. In those formats aggressive play is considered advantageous. In classical you will bounce off a hard wall defence with disadvantage. Current games are described as most accurate games in history of classical chess. Those guys are like machines in this time format.

codeflo 5y ago
I said "not just", not "not". It's a matter of degree. Picking a top three engine move instead of the top one, when it's only 0.01 worse, isn't a losing strategy. Even at this level, and especially if it takes a human opponent a lot of time to counter the move accurately. And from the analyses I've seen, that's precisely what seems to be happening in this world championship.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  hmmm... I am not sure if the two concepts really square. The thing is they don't see the exal table, and their candidate moves don't eval positions in 0.1 increments. So they cannot be sure if their weaker move will result in 0.1 or 1.0 advantage down the line. Maybe you are referring to playing off book continuations of known openings? Those kind of fit your comment. Though, those moves are heavily prepared before the games and advantage there is results of pre-game strategy, rather than a tactical decision to throw off/confuse the opponent. Anyway I think we are splitting hair at this stage
  - codeflo 5y ago
    We’re talking about the same thing I think: the context was pre-game preparation, where the teams of the contenders can (and according to every top GM commentary I’ve seen, extensively do) use engines to look for “off book” but good moves that pose some problems.

codeflo 5y ago

I said "not just", not "not". It's a matter of degree. Picking a top three engine move instead of the top one, when it's only 0.01 worse, isn't a losing strategy. Even at this level, and especially if it takes a human opponent a lot of time to counter the move accurately. And from the analyses I've seen, that's precisely what seems to be happening in this world championship.

me_me_me 5y ago
hmmm... I am not sure if the two concepts really square. The thing is they don't see the exal table, and their candidate moves don't eval positions in 0.1 increments. So they cannot be sure if their weaker move will result in 0.1 or 1.0 advantage down the line. Maybe you are referring to playing off book continuations of known openings? Those kind of fit your comment. Though, those moves are heavily prepared before the games and advantage there is results of pre-game strategy, rather than a tactical decision to throw off/confuse the opponent. Anyway I think we are splitting hair at this stage
- codeflo 5y ago
  We’re talking about the same thing I think: the context was pre-game preparation, where the teams of the contenders can (and according to every top GM commentary I’ve seen, extensively do) use engines to look for “off book” but good moves that pose some problems.