Answers.Body: <p>What you describe is called &quot;Hope chess&quot;. It is a very common beginner's mistake. To reach any reasonable standard of chess (like strong local club player) the player has to eliminate this basic mistake. So, no, master level players do not do this. If they play a move which looks like this then it was a blunder rather than a deliberate bad move.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-08-31T11:07:23.410Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-08-31T11:07:23.410Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p><a href="https://youtube.com/watch?v=N82pw7bhOHA" rel="noreferrer">Hans Niemann, in his post-Sinquefield Cup interview</a> (the end of his first super tournament) described himself on the opposite end of risk-taking compared to Wesley So, who is very risk-averse. Hans then says for future tournaments he needs to be more risk-averse, and that playing risky is influenced by playing lower rated players but causes unnecessary losses at the highest level.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-09-12T17:40:43.337Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-09-12T17:40:43.337Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: qwr
Answers.Body: <p>Is this <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/close,_but_no_cigar" rel="nofollow noreferrer">close even if no cigar</a>? I think of Carlsen in openings.</p>
  <p>Larry Kaufman says:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyXKHeQ7H0c" rel="nofollow noreferrer">'Magnus doesn't generally play such great openings, he strives to get the game out of book as early as possible usually.'</a>.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Of course, it's not always that an out of book move is far inferior to a book move.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-05-30T20:26:37.670Z
Answers.Text: If Carlsen skills are better then others when "out of book" then him getting the game out of book is likely sensible.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ian Ringrose
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-01-24T14:42:58.127Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-05-30T06:24:38.257Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-05-30T06:24:38.257Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.Body: <p>There have been some, Mamedyarov often plays offbeat moves like his G4 against Esipenko in 2022</p>
  <p><a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2210971" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2210971</a></p>
  <p>It almost never happens in classical OTB tournaments at a super GM level. But certainly there are examples at a GM level where downright losing (with perfect play) gambits are played.</p>
  <p>Anna Cramling's dad often played his Bellon gambit vs. the English which is considered very dubious albeit practical.</p>
  <p><a href="https://www.chess.com/blog/Jpatrick/introducing-the-bellon-gambit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.chess.com/blog/Jpatrick/introducing-the-bellon-gambit</a></p>
  <p>However, downright losing hope moves never really happen except maybe under time pressure.</p>
  <p>But since you asked the question I can't help feeling you want examples of openings or tricks that you can use in your own games:</p>
  <p>One that I know of is the Kadas gambit as black</p>
  <p><a href="https://www.chess.com/openings/Scandinavian-Defense-Modern-Kadas-Gambit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.chess.com/openings/Scandinavian-Defense-Modern-Kadas-Gambit</a></p>
  <p>It has a 1 d4. sibling the Tan gambit</p>
  <p><a href="https://www.chess.com/openings/Queens-Gambit-Declined-Marshall-Tan-Gambit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.chess.com/openings/Queens-Gambit-Declined-Marshall-Tan-Gambit</a></p>
  <p>You can reach a Kadas gambit like position when the Tan gambit is accepted by playing e4.</p>
  <p>Another one is the Halloween gambit which is super tricky to get right when playing against.</p>
  <p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce219v1r-Gk&amp;pp=ygUQaGFsbG93ZWVuIGdhbWJpdA%3D%3D" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce219v1r-Gk&amp;pp=ygUQaGFsbG93ZWVuIGdhbWJpdA%3D%3D</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-05-31T12:14:48.933Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-05-31T12:25:24.150Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-05-31T12:25:24.150Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Þorvaldur Rúnarsson
Body: <p>Three things I don't mean with super-risky:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Tal was a risky player but he could calculate extremely well and had reasons to believe that if a refutation of his sacrifices exist, the opponent wouldn't find it (only today's engines).</li>
  <li>In a lost position anything is fair game, so no point of thinking about the objective centipawn value of a move.</li>
  <li>In rapid games you can risk far more anyway.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>I thus define a super-risky move as a trap in about equal position in a tournament game that can be seen through by the average opponent (say, GM level) and ends up to the disadvantage of the trapper. (That's surely not 100% objective but shall suffice.)</p>
  <p>Have there ever be any GMs (especially including GM-strength players before the title existed) playing consistently super-risky? (I throw at least one suggestion into the room: Dawid Janowski.)</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-08-31T10:48:40.840Z
Comments.Text: That sounds a little like hope chess. I'm pretty sure you can't become a master by consistently doing that (you as a master probably know something about that ;) ). There are likely many GMs who do this **occasionally**, especially engine-backed opening prep. But *consistently*?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauptideal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-08-31T13:46:50.497Z
Comments.Text: could this be GMs whose ratings fluctuate rapidly
Comments.UserDisplayName: cmgchess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-08-31T19:22:44.847Z
Comments.Text: @Hauptideal: I certainly believe Brian that *nowadays* this is neigh impossible. But like I said, in the good old days?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-08-31T19:37:17.923Z
Comments.Text: I nominate Frank Marshall
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-12T23:09:18.660Z
Comments.Text: @HaukeReddmann, just btw, if you care, the "nigh" that you wanted to use has no "e" in its spelling. Best wishes! Thanks for your comments on this "stack"! :)  (Yes, your English is infinitely better than my German ever was or will be. :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: paul garrett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-12T23:33:55.250Z
Comments.Text: Before Steinitz, it was fashionable to play in an ultra attacking style.
Comments.UserDisplayName: qwr
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-13T07:44:03.037Z
Comments.Text: @paulgarrett: Neigh. Because in chess I love the horsies :-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Tags: <style>
Title: Have there been GMs playing consistently super-risky?
ThreadText: # Have there been GMs playing consistently super-risky?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-31)
  
  Three things I don't mean with super-risky:
  
  * Tal was a risky player but he could calculate extremely well and had reasons to believe that if a refutation of his sacrifices exist, the opponent wouldn't find it (only today's engines).
  * In a lost position anything is fair game, so no point of thinking about the objective centipawn value of a move.
  * In rapid games you can risk far more anyway.
  
  I thus define a super-risky move as a trap in about equal position in a tournament game that can be seen through by the average opponent (say, GM level) and ends up to the disadvantage of the trapper. (That's surely not 100% objective but shall suffice.)
  
  Have there ever be any GMs (especially including GM-strength players before the title existed) playing consistently super-risky? (I throw at least one suggestion into the room: Dawid Janowski.)
  
  **Tags:** style
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: That sounds a little like hope chess. I'm pretty sure you can't become a master by consistently doing that (you as a master probably know something about that ;) ). There are likely many GMs who do this **occasionally**, especially engine-backed opening prep. But *consistently*?  
  > **username_2**: could this be GMs whose ratings fluctuate rapidly  
  > **username_0**: @username_1: I certainly believe username_6 that *nowadays* this is neigh impossible. But like I said, in the good old days?  
  > **username_3**: I nominate Frank Marshall  
  > **username_4**: @username_0, just btw, if you care, the "nigh" that you wanted to use has no "e" in its spelling. Best wishes! Thanks for your comments on this "stack"! :)  (Yes, your English is infinitely better than my German ever was or will be. :)  
  > **username_5**: Before Steinitz, it was fashionable to play in an ultra attacking style.  
  > **username_0**: @username_4: Neigh. Because in chess I love the horsies :-)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2022-08-31. Score: 6
  
  What you describe is called "Hope chess". It is a very common beginner's mistake. To reach any reasonable standard of chess (like strong local club player) the player has to eliminate this basic mistake. So, no, master level players do not do this. If they play a move which looks like this then it was a blunder rather than a deliberate bad move.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2022-09-12. Score: 5
  
  [Hans Niemann, in his post-Sinquefield Cup interview](https://youtube.com/watch?v=N82pw7bhOHA) (the end of his first super tournament) described himself on the opposite end of risk-taking compared to Wesley So, who is very risk-averse. Hans then says for future tournaments he needs to be more risk-averse, and that playing risky is influenced by playing lower rated players but causes unnecessary losses at the highest level.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2023-01-24. Score: 1
  
  Is this [close even if no cigar](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/close,_but_no_cigar)? I think of Carlsen in openings.
  
  Larry Kaufman says:
  
  > ['Magnus doesn't generally play such great openings, he strives to get the game out of book as early as possible usually.'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyXKHeQ7H0c).
  
  Of course, it's not always that an out of book move is far inferior to a book move.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: If Carlsen skills are better then others when "out of book" then him getting the game out of book is likely sensible.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2024-05-31. Score: 0
  
  There have been some, Mamedyarov often plays offbeat moves like his G4 against Esipenko in 2022
  
  <https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2210971>
  
  It almost never happens in classical OTB tournaments at a super GM level. But certainly there are examples at a GM level where downright losing (with perfect play) gambits are played.
  
  Anna Cramling's dad often played his Bellon gambit vs. the English which is considered very dubious albeit practical.
  
  <https://www.chess.com/blog/Jpatrick/introducing-the-bellon-gambit>
  
  However, downright losing hope moves never really happen except maybe under time pressure.
  
  But since you asked the question I can't help feeling you want examples of openings or tricks that you can use in your own games:
  
  One that I know of is the Kadas gambit as black
  
  <https://www.chess.com/openings/Scandinavian-Defense-Modern-Kadas-Gambit>
  
  It has a 1 d4. sibling the Tan gambit
  
  <https://www.chess.com/openings/Queens-Gambit-Declined-Marshall-Tan-Gambit>
  
  You can reach a Kadas gambit like position when the Tan gambit is accepted by playing e4.
  
  Another one is the Halloween gambit which is super tricky to get right when playing against.
  
  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce219v1r-Gk&pp=ygUQaGFsbG93ZWVuIGdhbWJpdA%3D%3D>
  
  
  ---
  
  