Well, it seems common sense now that I've seen it. But that's the thing about common sense: it only seems obvious when it is seen. Before that, we can be quite blind to it. I had never made the distinction before about applying one of two different ways of playing to one or the other formats. I just tried to play faster when playing OTB, but still always looking for the best move. Must be my perfectionistic nature. But yes, I can see now it's common sense. My eyes have been opened!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by bassoAh, but the point is... the best game is not necessarily the one in which you find every single best move. The best game is the one in which you beat your opponent.
I am intrigued by this quote of Bobby Fischer's: "Don't worry about finding the best move. Just try to find a good move."
Some time ago I heard contrary advice, which was to, after finding a good move, try to find a better one. You can imagine what taking this maxim to heart did to my playing time here at RHP with it's unlimited playing time (virtually unl ...[text shortened]... ng off and just looking for a good move . . . but I must play the [b]best game I can![/b]
Richard
I have never seen these stats (or similar ones), but they make sense to me. I think that the each of the four types is addressed by different skills:
- forced: basic chess skills
- book: opening study
- best: tactics mainly
- discretionary: that's where strategy and planning comes into the picture. A 'discretionary' move can be best or less than best within a planning context.
Just my 2 cts on this.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI'll have to respectfully disagree, Richard. As much as I love winning, I would say a won game is not necessarily a best game, but certainly every won game would be a good game. My best game (if I ever play one) would be one in which every move was not necessarily the best, objectively speaking, but the best I was personally capable of making. Even if I lost such a game, I think I might still feel good about it. This is highly theoretical, as I don't recall having ever felt good about any game I lost.
Ah, but the point is... the best game is not necessarily the one in which you find every single best move. The best game is the one in which you beat your opponent.
Richard
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's very interesting. How clearly "best" must it be for it to be considered best? Is there an objective way to do it?
Kepler recommended to me the book How to Choose a Chess Move by Andrew Soltis and I brought it and it is incredibly helpful (thanks Kepler). In the Chapter "Reality Check" he brings up a fascinating point and some very interesting data from two detailed studies of GM games published in Chess Informant.
First, the point:
The g ...[text shortened]... ice I've ever read: Don't worry about finding the best move. Just try to find a good move.