What ability do I need to

@aVague said in #20:

... I not running for safe quick moves to save time, It's all just about I see something good or not, I f I don't I make move that doesn't hurts my position much maybe

After finding (in ~1 second) the move 39...a6 that didn't hurt your "position much maybe", wouldn't it have been a good idea to do a little checking to see if there was something (like 39...g5) that would have been a lot better than 39...a6 ?

@tpr said in #19:

... Tudka managed to lose a drawing position.

Isn't that a pretty common way for a loss to happen?

@aVague said in #20: > ... I not running for safe quick moves to save time, It's all just about I see something good or not, I f I don't I make move that doesn't hurts my position much maybe After finding (in ~1 second) the move 39...a6 that didn't hurt your "position much maybe", wouldn't it have been a good idea to do a little checking to see if there was something (like 39...g5) that would have been a lot better than 39...a6 ? @tpr said in #19: > ... Tudka managed to lose a drawing position. Isn't that a pretty common way for a loss to happen?

tpr

"Isn't that a pretty common way for a loss to happen?"

Yes, it is the essence of chess.
You do not win a game by good moves, you lose a game by a bad move.

"Isn't that a pretty common way for a loss to happen?" * Yes, it is the essence of chess. You do not win a game by good moves, you lose a game by a bad move.

kindaspongey edited

@tpr said in #22:

... You do not win a game by good moves, ...

I think that there is a general belief that good moves can have something to do with it. Notations like "!" are commonly used.

@tpr said in #22: > ... You do not win a game by good moves, ... I think that there is a general belief that good moves can have something to do with it. Notations like "!" are commonly used.

tpr

'There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator.' - Hübner

CG314

There may be surprising (to humans) or asthetically pleasing moves, and that is what ! and !! have traditionally be awarded to, but these are entirely subjective concepts... The objective truth about the position is that either its the correct move, or it is not...

Indeed, there is no such thing as a good move... There is the correct move... There are moves that are functionally correct (i.e. close enough to correct that they do no measurable damage to your positions, at least against human opposition), and there are mistakes (of varying degree of severity). There may be surprising (to humans) or asthetically pleasing moves, and that is what ! and !! have traditionally be awarded to, but these are entirely subjective concepts... The objective truth about the position is that either its the correct move, or it is not...

kindaspongey edited

@tpr said in #24:

'There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator.' - Hübner

Is there any indication of the chess world adopting the Hübner point of view?
"!" - Practical Chess Openings (2025) by Martyn Kravtsiv

@CG314 said in #25:

... there is no such thing as a good move ... There may be surprising (to humans) or asthetically pleasing moves, and that is what ! and !! have traditionally be awarded to, but these are entirely subjective concepts... The objective truth about the position is that either its the correct move, or it is not...

Is there such a thing as a difference in quality between 1 e4 and 1 h3 ?
"... In the Sinquefield Cup 2025 much more 1 e4 e5 than 1 e4 c5. ..." - tpr (~8 months ago)
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-opening-do-people-usually-play-for-best-results
How many examples of 1 h3 ?

@tpr said in #24: > 'There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator.' - Hübner Is there any indication of the chess world adopting the Hübner point of view? "!" - Practical Chess Openings (2025) by Martyn Kravtsiv @CG314 said in #25: > ... there is no such thing as a good move ... There may be surprising (to humans) or asthetically pleasing moves, and that is what ! and !! have traditionally be awarded to, but these are entirely subjective concepts... The objective truth about the position is that either its the correct move, or it is not... Is there such a thing as a difference in quality between 1 e4 and 1 h3 ? "... In the Sinquefield Cup 2025 much more 1 e4 e5 than 1 e4 c5. ..." - tpr (~8 months ago) https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-opening-do-people-usually-play-for-best-results How many examples of 1 h3 ?

CG314 edited

Positions after 1.e4 are generally viewed as more pleasent/intuitive/easy to play by humans than positions after 1.h3, which explains why it is more popular.... in practical play, you might argue because of this that h3 is a mistake.... I would say that is too harsh, but that is a subjective opinion... If you want to call 1.h3 a mistake, I dont have a problem with that... What you cannot do is argue that e4 is a good move... If h3 is a mistake, it is not a correct move, and you should not play it. You should play e4 (or d4, or c4, etc.) instead, because they are the correct choice.

And yes, Huebners point of view is completly mainstream... Lichess adopts that view, as does every computer program...

In terms of well known players.... For example:

World correspondence champ Purdy "The use of exclamation marks is a disease. If a move is good, the analysis should show why it is good. Sticking a label on it saves the annotator the trouble of thinking, and prevents the reader from thinking at all."

Lasker: "The execution of a combination, even if it spans many moves and contains sacrifices, is not 'brilliant'—it is merely the logical operation required by the position. To praise it with exclamation points is like praising a mathematician for solving an equation correctly."

Watson: "We are leaving the era of 'brilliant' moves. A move is either correct or it is an error. The exclamation mark is a human invention to express our surprise at a consequence we failed to foresee; the board itself does not care about our surprise."

And one could go on and on and one with similar quotes... I remember reading similar views by Nunn, Solstis, Tartakower, ...

It depends... Objectively, in terms of mathematical truth, there is very little difference between 1. e4 and 1. h3.... The position efter each move is with very, very, high probability, objecively a draw... Positions after 1.e4 are generally viewed as more pleasent/intuitive/easy to play by humans than positions after 1.h3, which explains why it is more popular.... in practical play, you might argue because of this that h3 is a mistake.... I would say that is too harsh, but that is a subjective opinion... If you want to call 1.h3 a mistake, I dont have a problem with that... What you cannot do is argue that e4 is a good move... If h3 is a mistake, it is not a correct move, and you should not play it. You should play e4 (or d4, or c4, etc.) instead, because they are the correct choice. And yes, Huebners point of view is completly mainstream... Lichess adopts that view, as does every computer program... In terms of well known players.... For example: World correspondence champ Purdy "The use of exclamation marks is a disease. If a move is good, the analysis should show why it is good. Sticking a label on it saves the annotator the trouble of thinking, and prevents the reader from thinking at all." Lasker: "The execution of a combination, even if it spans many moves and contains sacrifices, is not 'brilliant'—it is merely the logical operation required by the position. To praise it with exclamation points is like praising a mathematician for solving an equation correctly." Watson: "We are leaving the era of 'brilliant' moves. A move is either correct or it is an error. The exclamation mark is a human invention to express our surprise at a consequence we failed to foresee; the board itself does not care about our surprise." And one could go on and on and one with similar quotes... I remember reading similar views by Nunn, Solstis, Tartakower, ...

kindaspongey edited

@CG314 said in#27:

... Positions after 1.e4 are generally viewed as more pleasent/intuitive/easy to play by humans than positions after 1.h3, which explains why it is more popular ...

Perhaps, there is a similar explanation for the use of "!".

@CG314 said in#27:

... What you cannot do is argue that e4 is a good move ...

"Fischer: 'e4 best by test' and ..." - tpr (~8 years ago)
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/1e4-vs-1d4

@CG314 said in #27:

... And yes, Huebners point of view is completly mainstream... Lichess adopts that view, as does every computer program ...

"!" - The Lasker Method (2021) by IM Welling and FM Giddins
"... The table below shows the expected points cutoffs for various move classifications. ... Good ..."
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8572705-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-etc

@CG314 said in #27:

... World correspondence champ Purdy "The use of exclamation marks is a disease. If a move is good, the analysis should show why it is good. Sticking a label on it saves the annotator the trouble of thinking, and prevents the reader from thinking at all."

Sounds to me as though Purdy DID believe that there is such thing as a good move. ("... If a move is good, the analysis should show why it is good. ...")

@CG314 said in#27: > ... Positions after 1.e4 are generally viewed as more pleasent/intuitive/easy to play by humans than positions after 1.h3, which explains why it is more popular ... Perhaps, there is a similar explanation for the use of "!". @CG314 said in#27: > ... What you cannot do is argue that e4 is a good move ... "Fischer: 'e4 best by test' and ..." - tpr (~8 years ago) https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/1e4-vs-1d4 @CG314 said in #27: > ... And yes, Huebners point of view is completly mainstream... Lichess adopts that view, as does every computer program ... "!" - The Lasker Method (2021) by IM Welling and FM Giddins "... The table below shows the expected points cutoffs for various move classifications. ... Good ..." https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8572705-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-etc @CG314 said in #27: > ... World correspondence champ Purdy "The use of exclamation marks is a disease. If a move is good, the analysis should show why it is good. Sticking a label on it saves the annotator the trouble of thinking, and prevents the reader from thinking at all." Sounds to me as though Purdy DID believe that there is such thing as a good move. ("... If a move is good, the analysis should show why it is good. ...")

CG314

If you choose to tefuse yo understand, that is your choice... All these people clearly agree that ! And !! Aare meaningless, which is the point... They are using the word good in some cases instead of correct. This is colloquially equivalent, but less precise...

kindaspongey edited

@CG314 said in #29:

... All these people clearly agree that ! And !! Aare meaningless, ... They are using the word good in some cases instead of correct. ...

Is this true because CG314 says so?
"Fischer: 'e4 best by test' and ..." - tpr (~8 years ago)
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/1e4-vs-1d4

@CG314 said in #27:

Lasker: "The execution of a combination, even if it spans many moves and contains sacrifices, is not 'brilliant'—it is merely the logical operation required by the position. To praise it with exclamation points is like praising a mathematician for solving an equation correctly."

"... whenever an achievement claims our attention. There must be reality to it. The task must be real; ..." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (~1925)

"... Subtle as well as strong! ..." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (~1925), commenting on 26 h4 in a 1924 game between Bogoljubow and Romanovsky
https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=2644298

"... An ingenious manoeuvre ..." - Lasker commenting on 23...Bb4+ in an 1895 game between Chigorin and Pillsbury
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036397

@CG314 said in #27:

... I remember reading similar views by Nunn, Solstis, Tartakower, ...

"!" - GM Nunn, commenting on 16 Nb6 in a 1973 game between Kuzmin and Sveshnikov
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1163173

"!" - GM Soltis, commenting on 26...Bxg2 in a 2005 game between Anand and Leko
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1327794

"A fine move," - Tartakower, commenting on 14 Qf3 in a 1918 game between Capablanca and Marshall
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025

"!" - IM Watson and FM Burgess, commenting on 10 Qb3 in the line, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb6 7 d5 Ne7 8 e5 Ng4 9 d6 Nxf2

@CG314 said in #29: > ... All these people clearly agree that ! And !! Aare meaningless, ... They are using the word good in some cases instead of correct. ... Is this true because CG314 says so? "Fischer: 'e4 best by test' and ..." - tpr (~8 years ago) https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/1e4-vs-1d4 @CG314 said in #27: > Lasker: "The execution of a combination, even if it spans many moves and contains sacrifices, is not 'brilliant'—it is merely the logical operation required by the position. To praise it with exclamation points is like praising a mathematician for solving an equation correctly." "... whenever an achievement claims our attention. There must be reality to it. The task must be real; ..." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (~1925) "... Subtle as well as strong! ..." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (~1925), commenting on 26 h4 in a 1924 game between Bogoljubow and Romanovsky https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=2644298 "... An ingenious manoeuvre ..." - Lasker commenting on 23...Bb4+ in an 1895 game between Chigorin and Pillsbury https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036397 @CG314 said in #27: > ... I remember reading similar views by Nunn, Solstis, Tartakower, ... "!" - GM Nunn, commenting on 16 Nb6 in a 1973 game between Kuzmin and Sveshnikov https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1163173 "!" - GM Soltis, commenting on 26...Bxg2 in a 2005 game between Anand and Leko https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1327794 "A fine move," - Tartakower, commenting on 14 Qf3 in a 1918 game between Capablanca and Marshall https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025 "!" - IM Watson and FM Burgess, commenting on 10 Qb3 in the line, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb6 7 d5 Ne7 8 e5 Ng4 9 d6 Nxf2