Sometimes you have only one chance in life for the big prize. Therefore, if you get that chance, you must give 150% of yourself to fight hard each and every game and not be afraid to lose. No guts, no glory. Believe in yourself! Go big or go home!
This is my belief from personal experience as a competitor and a coach. What is your take? Do you agree or disagree?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I don’t agree. I think you must be cautious and not take risk.
It all depends on the situation. If you are in a must win situation, then yes, go for it! Generally, I think you should mix things up by playing solid some games and throwing in some interesting variations in others.
I totally agree with you, Susan. You have to want to win badly, much more than not want to lose badly.
Yes , so it is .
Sometimes you have a second chance then you can do it better and use everything you have learned the first time …
Dorin
I agree. I think it is a great attitude that works well but only if you have a great support from your coach and perhaps family and friends.
Yes , so it is .
Sometimes you have a second chance
and then you can use everything you have learned the first time …
Dorin
I agree. It’s a great attitude but I think it requires that you have great support from your coach and perhaps family and friends. It’s very hard to be confident otherwise.
If one player is “twice as strong” as another, it means he/she will win 66.7% of the points. To become twice as strong in Susan’s equation means giving 200% effort.
Hence giving 150% effort means becoming “one-and-one-half times as strong” as your previous self—which is also the level of your opposition in a close game. This corresponds to winning 60% of the points.
In the Elo system, winning 60% corresponds to a rating difference of 69–76 rating points, as indicated in this table. Now a scientific result of my work is that getting such a difference is not hard to do. That is, 75 points is less than even one standard deviation as projected by my player model over a typical 5–10 game performance, let alone two standard deviations—which is the standard definition of “margin or error” in presidential polls and etc. Note that I’m not merely referring to deviations in TPR (tournament performance rating) that are observed in practice—these wide error bars are ingrained projections of my model, and hence are like a mathematical theorem in force before you even sit down to play.
Thus what Susan is saying is not hyperbole—you can give “150%”, and indeed the closer-than-I-expected “proximity” of higher performance is one of the general implications I’m reflecting on even just in my own life…
There is no other word. Go is all it needs to be.
I think it would be best if players could play to create not to win. Unfortunately, players need to just crank out some wins in order to get the opportunities to play at more demanding levels. Unless players could get in a position to shun competitions and just report their findings, but that would need something like independent means.
Put it on the line. How many times have adults wished this and that. Just go with all your guts and you should be ok is what I think.