Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (91701)	9/15/2007 6:04:48 PM
From: LoneClone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 313046

You have chess 180 degrees wrong, unless you are talking about speed chess where there is no time to strategize. That why I think chess and poker require very different approaches. Compare what you describe for your poker playing compared to what I describe below, an approach with which I was very successful and which is followed by almost all good players. (Remember that good players are all good tactically -- it is their ability to analyze and to create sound positioning that separate the best from the not quite so good.) An experienced chess player playing normal chess loves nothing so much as an aggressive opponent. The aggressive player keeps busy wasting his or her time and energy employing tactical maneuvres for meaningless temporary advantages. In fact, when play such a person you try to shape the game in a way that encourages him or her to keep playing aggressively by offering up tactical possibilities, because it leaves the game ripe for the taking. I made quite a bit of money off aggressive players in my university days -- to my benefit they never seemed to grasp what how their approach hamstrung their game no matter how many times I explained it to them. The experienced player instead concentrates on building a sound position from which to attack and defend, and in arranging his or her pieces and pawns so they support each other in offence and defence and so that they control the important squares. Then, when the moment is right, you employ tactics to convert those advantages into a winning position. If you follow these principles, you can win a chess game by as small as advantage as simply holding the initiative and making your opponent react to what you do, or by having a sounder pawn structure. Complexifying a game to confuse the opponent is certainly a viable tactic, in fact one I frequently employed myself as I have the facility to analyze positions quickly, but all the complexifying in the world won't save you unless you have sound positioning. What I laid out above is even more true with go. The experienced go player concentrates on nothing else besides creating a sound position from which to control segments of the board. So often the less experienced player thinks they have the advantage until the experienced player make one simple move that shows how sound their own positioning is by destroying the opponent's unsound position with a single move. LC