Hope Chess and Swindles

I know Hope chess is bad but what about if you are in a already losing position trying to plan on because you think your opponent cant push his advantage.

He might blunder later on because he is not sure himself how to force a win or he might fall for your traps aka a Swindle

Do you guys think hope chess is a good thing if you think you could pull a swindle and have a decent chance of getting away with it? I mean tons of grandmasters pulled swindles in lost positions so it should not be bad if normal chess players do that too right?

No way.

If you are going to play for a blunder on your opponents part, you should work to create a situation where he is under pressure.

If your opponent has an advantage, and can't turn it into a win, and you are going to continue, you are obligated to make it as difficult for him as possible. Tricks that intend to swindle have one very bad quality' If spotted, the opponent can often take advantage of your inaccurate play to gain an advantage.

You should always assume your opponent is going to make the strongest move possible. To assume otherwise will get you more lost games.

I'm not sure that swindles are a regular part of grandmaster play. Perhaps they do it to play with weaker opponents during casual play.

I don't think that's hope chess because the opponent can't push the advantage.

Hope chess is making a move and hoping that your opponent does not make a threat that you cannot meet. - Dan Heisman

So, if this is the definition you use, I think you are right. He must be thinking the other chess where you set traps and hope your opponent doesn't see them. (Even though your opponent can SEE all the same pieces and formations you can.)

With that definition, everyone plays "hope chess", don't they? Otherwise why would we play? Aren't we playing moves based upon our calculating abilities against our opponent's calculating abilities? Isn't an error in our calculations also known as our opponent making a move which is a "threat that you cannot meet"?

Playing for swindles, stalemate tricks etc is sensible in my opinion.

Even the best players fall for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindle_(chess)

Playing to make accurate moves often doesn't let your opponent make mistakes, if you're lost why not trap.

I like hope chess anyway, especially if the move is fairly good regardless e.g. 14...Bd6.

I agree with scottrf,

When you are objectivly lost even heisman would say complicate the game and make it hard to win. Hope chess concerns making moves that lead to disadvantage. Do not play obvious crap your opponent will see and take advantage of,

but many great players are "trappy" and dont always play the objective best moves. If you are in a lost position yes you are "hoping" to some extent, the way heisman uses the term is more specific.

I suppose, to some deep extent, you are on to something. But I think that defination was meant to apply to those who ONLY move and hope the enemy does not come up with some surprise move. I think by the time you reach a certain level, you are not as often surprised by your opponents moves.

You mention Dan Hesiman, but then mis-define hope chess. 

Dan Heisman has the definition that hope chess is about makeing a move and hoping your opponent does not come up with some threat that you cannot counter or match. 

yes you are right on that kleelof. that is Hesiman's definition.

 My point stands. Im just saying that even though he advises against hope chess he is not against complicating the game when you are losing, even if that means playing a doubious move.

Hi Dave,

I once watch Magnus analyzing a game against Nakamura where he was lost and he pulled a win. He said: "On each move my goal was to make the game last one more move!"

http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/