lichess.org
Donate

Don’t Be A Genius

"You don’t need to be a genius—just avoid being a fool." A great line and very good advice. I'll never forget a game I played where I had two ways of winning by a bank rank mate - one by simply moving a rook from e1 to e8, the other with a pretty combination involving a queen sac. I of course decided to go for the totally unnecessary and overly complicated queen sac, expecting my opponent to resign immediately, however he instead thought for a moment then calmly took my queen. I happily went to recapture it with my other rook and deliver checkmate, only to be confused when I couldn't pick up the piece. After a moment I realised that moving the rook would place me in check and was hence illegal, even if I was checkmating my opponent first. This resulted in me simply being a queen down without compensation and I had no choice but to resign in humiliation, knowing full well my opponent knew I had tried to show off and that it had backfired spectacularly. Avoid being a fool indeed.

"You don’t need to be a genius—just avoid being a fool." A great line and very good advice. I'll never forget a game I played where I had two ways of winning by a bank rank mate - one by simply moving a rook from e1 to e8, the other with a pretty combination involving a queen sac. I of course decided to go for the totally unnecessary and overly complicated queen sac, expecting my opponent to resign immediately, however he instead thought for a moment then calmly took my queen. I happily went to recapture it with my other rook and deliver checkmate, only to be confused when I couldn't pick up the piece. After a moment I realised that moving the rook would place me in check and was hence illegal, even if I was checkmating my opponent first. This resulted in me simply being a queen down without compensation and I had no choice but to resign in humiliation, knowing full well my opponent knew I had tried to show off and that it had backfired spectacularly. Avoid being a fool indeed.

Yet again experts armed with engines and hindsight line up to criticize players for not playing "simple" moves. There was nothing simple in a6, and Ian's loss is understandable if you actually look at the lines deeply: the path to the win was genuinely hard to find.

Dislike.

Not to mention that often chess does call for creative moves and "logical" moves are suboptimal, so the whole message smells like cherry-picking to me.

Yet again experts armed with engines and hindsight line up to criticize players for not playing "simple" moves. There was nothing simple in a6, and Ian's loss is understandable if you actually look at the lines deeply: the path to the win was genuinely hard to find. Dislike. Not to mention that often chess does call for creative moves and "logical" moves are suboptimal, so the whole message smells like cherry-picking to me.

its true, but its also boring.

its true, but its also boring.

Me too. My IQ is 169 and it's a problem for me. I don't find a response to a simple problem in chess (20% of my games) :(
I think practices for accuracy make perfect this problem for GENIUSES.

Me too. My IQ is 169 and it's a problem for me. I don't find a response to a simple problem in chess (20% of my games) :( I think practices for accuracy make perfect this problem for GENIUSES.
<Comment deleted by user>

@kimia_ashirley said in #16:

Me too. My IQ is 169 and it's a problem for me. I don't find a response to a simple problem in chess (20% of my games) :(
I think practices for accuracy make perfect this problem for GENIUSES.
169?!

@kimia_ashirley said in #16: > Me too. My IQ is 169 and it's a problem for me. I don't find a response to a simple problem in chess (20% of my games) :( > I think practices for accuracy make perfect this problem for GENIUSES. 169?!

I think it's simply about balancing risk and reward. Part of the reason so many games get drawn these days is because many high level players are very risk averse; they would rather aim towards a stable game they know they are unlikely to lose than play combatively and have a chance to lose in a double-edged, complicated position. However, leaning too much into stability also decreases your chance to win. Besides, if you continually lose these double-edged positions, perhaps the problem isn't that you shouldn't play them at all, but you should play them better! Nepo and Gukesh are excellent examples of this, among others.

Instead of saying don't do this at all, I think it's more accurate to say that this is a valuable skill to have as a player, that can and should be developed, just as the skill you mentioned is important to have. It's not about making the game more "exciting" either (though that is nicer for viewers than watching the Berlin play out). Objectively if you are better at this skill than your opponent, you will win more games than you would otherwise. Why would you risk a higher chance to draw if you are better at this than your opponent? Sure you might also incur losses against these same players, which "feels bad" but, if you are genuinely better at this, statistically you will have a higher win percentage. It's like making the proper bet in poker, sure sometimes things won't go right, but as long as you keep making the right bet, you will be more profitable in the long run. Sometimes the right bet is small, sometimes it's big, but it depends, and it's optimal to have the skill to know how and when to do both.

I think being a well rounded player is better than having a particular "style" which is something I think players get overly attached to on emotional grounds as well, whether or not that style leans towards stable or chaotic play. In this case, where Nepo is already all but guaranteed to win the match, I agree with you--there's no need for increased risk, as the reward simply isn't there, but.... do not forget the fact that a lot of the reason rewards are reaped by Nepo is because of his exceptional ability to play such positions. To that end, I would recommend that Nepo not be too attached to his style of play, and recognize that well-roundedness is where real strength lies, and to dial it back when called for. It's a constant balancing act that's not easy to do, but it is something I think we can all strive for.

I think it's simply about balancing risk and reward. Part of the reason so many games get drawn these days is because many high level players are very risk averse; they would rather aim towards a stable game they know they are unlikely to lose than play combatively and have a chance to lose in a double-edged, complicated position. However, leaning too much into stability also decreases your chance to win. Besides, if you continually lose these double-edged positions, perhaps the problem isn't that you shouldn't play them at all, but you should play them better! Nepo and Gukesh are excellent examples of this, among others. Instead of saying don't do this at all, I think it's more accurate to say that this is a valuable skill to have as a player, that can and should be developed, just as the skill you mentioned is important to have. It's not about making the game more "exciting" either (though that is nicer for viewers than watching the Berlin play out). Objectively if you are better at this skill than your opponent, you will win more games than you would otherwise. Why would you risk a higher chance to draw if you are better at this than your opponent? Sure you might also incur losses against these same players, which "feels bad" but, if you are genuinely better at this, statistically you will have a higher win percentage. It's like making the proper bet in poker, sure sometimes things won't go right, but as long as you keep making the right bet, you will be more profitable in the long run. Sometimes the right bet is small, sometimes it's big, but it depends, and it's optimal to have the skill to know how and when to do both. I think being a well rounded player is better than having a particular "style" which is something I think players get overly attached to on emotional grounds as well, whether or not that style leans towards stable or chaotic play. In this case, where Nepo is already all but guaranteed to win the match, I agree with you--there's no need for increased risk, as the reward simply isn't there, but.... do not forget the fact that a lot of the reason rewards are reaped by Nepo is because of his exceptional ability to play such positions. To that end, I would recommend that Nepo not be too attached to his style of play, and recognize that well-roundedness is where real strength lies, and to dial it back when called for. It's a constant balancing act that's not easy to do, but it is something I think we can all strive for.