Mm, not for me. I checked my games - I had one like this in May, one in February, not a high ratio. The one in February was a pervasive misapprehension, true; the one in May just a single move I thought was good that was bad (my opponent was fooled too though and didn't take advantage.)
I analyze my games after with Fritz, so if I had missed something in the ones where I thought I was better, so did Fritz... Perhaps I need to upgrade to Rybka?
I tend to underestimate my position not overestimate it.
Much more common for me is to think I've been strugging throughout then afterwards, when I play through the game (with or without fritz), everything seems fine all along.
If you think that you are in a good position when actually you're not but your opponent failed to find the crushing line against you, then you were right after all.
Because your opponent's ability to find the inferiority in your position ( assumed superior as the question posited )plays a defining role in what is actually inferior or superior. I think that's why players intentionally play openings that are unexpected of them and by their opponents. I could play an assumed inferior line against an opponent who is known to have problems with it, and still feel that I have the superior position...because he doesn't know how to play it. So, there is also the chance that when one concludes that he's got a good position that he is also right ( not mistaken as the quotation has it )I think one can't just look at the position and judge it inferior/superior per se...to what and against whom? Can he actually find the right way? I hope I have not confused the matter/question. Sounds like I am rambling...not had coffee yet...
9 comments:
Mm, not for me. I checked my games - I had one like this in May, one in February, not a high ratio. The one in February was a pervasive misapprehension, true; the one in May just a single move I thought was good that was bad (my opponent was fooled too though and didn't take advantage.)
Certainly it can be true that the point at which you realise you have the worse position is the point at which you really screw up.
Angus.
I think that often the belief that you have a better position is a sign that you are missing something.
I analyze my games after with Fritz, so if I had missed something in the ones where I thought I was better, so did Fritz... Perhaps I need to upgrade to Rybka?
I'm not sure either Fritz or Rybka is a reliable guide as to who is better.
I tend to underestimate my position not overestimate it.
Much more common for me is to think I've been strugging throughout then afterwards, when I play through the game (with or without fritz), everything seems fine all along.
If you think that you are in a good position when actually you're not but your opponent failed to find the crushing line against you, then you were right after all.
Why would having a worse position mean your opponent had a "crushing move" available?
Because your opponent's ability to find the inferiority in your position ( assumed superior as the question posited )plays a defining role in what is actually inferior or superior. I think that's why players intentionally play openings that are unexpected of them and by their opponents. I could play an assumed inferior line against an opponent who is known to have problems with it, and still feel that I have the superior position...because he doesn't know how to play it. So, there is also the chance that when one concludes that he's got a good position that he is also right ( not mistaken as the quotation has it )I think one can't just look at the position and judge it inferior/superior per se...to what and against whom? Can he actually find the right way? I hope I have not confused the matter/question. Sounds like I am rambling...not had coffee yet...
Post a Comment