Body: <p>The following is, unfortunately, a very common experience'o'mine:</p>
  <p>Chess book. Grandmaster game. Diagram.</p>
  <p>I (after 1 microsecond): Play Nxe6, willya?</p>
  <p>scrolldown, author: &quot;Nxe6 was the decisive mistake.&quot; Oh bother.</p>
  <p>Now, it is a very obvious explanation that mistakes made even by a GM must be very tempting mistakes for a FM patzer like me too, but &quot;obvious&quot; doesn't mean &quot;proven&quot; (and moreover, my style could be a critical factor here too). Thus this is clear science fodder: Collect 100 GM and 100 patzer blunders, give the positions to a GM and a patzer group, count how many of them get repeated. Has such an experiment (or, more general, a treatise on what makes a blunder tempting) ever been done? (Books specializing on blunders exist, for starters, but rather tend to research the reasons.)</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-07-09T20:11:56.617Z
Comments.Text: @HaukeReddmann Very interesting idea! I presume the datasets exist at Chess.com and Lichess, although they may or may not be API-queryable. (For tactical puzzles of a given difficulty you could see the distribution of moves tried by different rating bands, e.g. FM vs GM.) Just a thought. (I know you're looking for better; I've bookmarked too)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-07-10T17:40:22.397Z
Comments.Text: I'm curious what the diagramed position was.
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Chernoff
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-07-12T08:48:58.247Z
Comments.Text: @JohnChernoff: 100% made up. I was tempted to write "kangaroo z0" instead to show it's made up, but that would have been too silly. ;-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Tags: <psychology><blunder>
Title: Tempting bad moves
ThreadText: # Tempting bad moves
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-07-09)
  
  The following is, unfortunately, a very common experience'o'mine:
  
  Chess book. Grandmaster game. Diagram.
  
  I (after 1 microsecond): Play Nxe6, willya?
  
  scrolldown, author: "Nxe6 was the decisive mistake." Oh bother.
  
  Now, it is a very obvious explanation that mistakes made even by a GM must be very tempting mistakes for a FM patzer like me too, but "obvious" doesn't mean "proven" (and moreover, my style could be a critical factor here too). Thus this is clear science fodder: Collect 100 GM and 100 patzer blunders, give the positions to a GM and a patzer group, count how many of them get repeated. Has such an experiment (or, more general, a treatise on what makes a blunder tempting) ever been done? (Books specializing on blunders exist, for starters, but rather tend to research the reasons.)
  
  **Tags:** psychology, blunder
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: @HaukeReddmann Very interesting idea! I presume the datasets exist at Chess.com and Lichess, although they may or may not be API-queryable. (For tactical puzzles of a given difficulty you could see the distribution of moves tried by different rating bands, e.g. FM vs GM.) Just a thought. (I know you're looking for better; I've bookmarked too)  
  > **username_2**: I'm curious what the diagramed position was.  
  > **username_0**: @JohnChernoff: 100% made up. I was tempted to write "kangaroo z0" instead to show it's made up, but that would have been too silly. ;-)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  