3 ms·
In Go, (and in competitive Starcraft, I've noticed) they talk about "overplay", making a move that's trying to claim too much, biting over more than you should
by vintermann 4y ago
In Go, (and in competitive Starcraft, I've noticed) they talk about "overplay", making a move that's trying to claim too much, biting over more than you should be able to chew. And if you spot it, and are good enough, you can "punish" an overplay. If you are playing with a handicap, you have to make overplays, and hope your opponent can't punish them. As the weaker player in a handicap game you know this, but you face a constant dilemma: do you think you know how to respond and punish, or do you play carefully, sacrificing a little of the edge of your handicap? What's best depends a lot on your confidence in your own strength.
Now in Chess, it's much harder to see what's an overplay or not, especially for us who aren't GMs. But the basic thing exists, it exists in all games. Players still have to make decisions about whether to concede a little of their edge (it starts off with white, but can change across the game) with a safe move, or go for a potentially risky counter.
Now imagine what suspectimg your opponent might on decisive moves have engine help, does with that
dilemma.
- tromp 4y ago> If you are playing with a handicap, you have to make overplays Some players may feel they have to, but others manage to refrain from making overplays, and just keep playing moves they consider objectively best, patiently waiting for their weaker opponent to make big mistakes. Usually such patience does get rewarded.
- vintermann 4y agoFor small handicaps, maybe you can see it that way. But it's harder to call a move "objectively best" when you're technically in a dead lost position.
- tromp 4y agoWith objectively best I refer to maximizing territory. A much stronger player of course realizes they're in a technically lost position throughout most of the game, but that doesn't make resigning objectively best.