Timeline for Why is 1.e4 e5 2.d4 Qh4 a blunder?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2021 at 4:10 | comment | added | user21820 | @JiK: See the post I linked above for how one can program a chess AI to favour traps although in a sense still playing optimality. In particular, note the linked follow-up comment in chat that many current chess engines play badly when they are losing badly because they don't set traps. | |
| Jan 25, 2021 at 4:09 | comment | added | user21820 | @PatrickM: It is in fact possible to quantifiably identify and favour traps without sacrificing optimality. | |
| Jan 25, 2021 at 3:01 | comment | added | Patrick M | @JiK I would agree with that, unless you're so screwed that you require your opponent to make a big mistake. (Maybe you're down a rook in the middle game). At that point, it might be better to sacrifice material to set a trap. | |
| Jan 24, 2021 at 22:11 | comment | added | JiK | "The computer is never going to care" And humans will neither when analysing. As a beginner it's tempting to try to set traps to your opponent, but you'll play much better if you have the patience to always assume your opponent sees everything you see and plays the best move. | |
| Jan 24, 2021 at 14:51 | vote | accept | MetaColon | ||
| Jan 24, 2021 at 14:49 | history | answered | D M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |