3 ms·

> In other words, not losing is heavily prioritised over winning in top chess, currently. It's more that once you are in a losing position, winning is extremel

• mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Then why do we see superGMs constantly bail out for a draw when they're not losing, sometimes even in a better position? And consistently play quiet, safe openings, instead of sharper, if more dubious stuff. Sometimes the position is completely equal with plenty of play left and they instead manufacture a draw via repetition for no reason. Yet occasionally we see players throw out unsound openings and they work out just fine because they're so complex and sharp they're hard to refute. I understand how chess play works, being a tournament player myself. My point is not on the mechanics of chess, but the psychology of these players as a result of being brought up in a chess world where risk averse play is strongly awarded. Ultimately, the core problem here is that these players choose to play in a way that leads to more draws, not that they're so unbelievably strong that it's almost impossible for them to beat eachother. Just look at computer chess. They're way beyond human capability, and yet they still don't play perfectly. That should tell you how large the gulf is between current human play and perfect or even close to perfect play.