TITLE: Strategy Under Time Constraints
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: June 22, 2015  3:27 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
<TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="0" CELLSPACING="0"
       STYLE="float: right; margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 1em; margin-bottom: 2em;">
<TBODY><TR><TD>
<IMG SRC="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog-images/chess/chess-clock.jpg"
     ALT="an old analog chess clock"
     WIDTH="250"
     ALIGN="center" />
</TD></TR></TBODY>
</TABLE>

In
<A HREF="http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/">
   Proving Too Much</A>,
Scott Alexander writes this about a rhetorical strategy that
most people disapprove of:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 Because here is a fundamental principle of the Dark Arts --
 you don't need an argument that can't be disproven, only an
 argument that can't be disproven in the amount of time your
 opponent has available.
</BLOCKQUOTE></EM>

This is dark art in the world of ideas, where truth is more
important than winning an argument.  But it is a valuable
strategy in games like chess, which are often played under
time constraint.  In competition, winning sometimes matters more
the beauty or truth.

Suppose that my opponent has only a few minutes or seconds left
on the clock.  Suppose also that it's my move and that I have
two possible moves to make.  One is objectively better, in that
it leads to the better expected outcome for me in theory, but
that it is easy for my opponent to find good responses.  The
other move is weaker, perhaps even allowing my opponent to get
an advantage over me, but that it would be hard for her to find
the right path in the time available.

In this case, I may actually want to play the weaker move,
because it maximizes my chance of winning in the circumstances
of the game.  My opponent has to use extra time to untangle
the complexity of the position, and even if she finds the right
move, there may not be enough time left to execute the plan.
This approach is more volatile for me than playing the safer
move, as it increases my risk of losing at the same time that it
increases my chances of prevailing.  But on balance, I am better
off.

This may seem like a crazy strategy, but anyone who has played a
lot of speed chess knows its value.  Long-time world champion
Emanuel Lasker was reputed to have employed a similar strategy,
sometimes playing the move that would most unsettle the
particular opponent he was playing that day, rather than the
absolute best move.  (Wikipedia
<A HREF="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emanuel_Lasker#Playing_strength_and_style">
   says, though</A>
that this reputation may have been undeserved.)

There are chessplayers who would object to this strategy as much
as people object to its use in argumentation.  There is truth in
chess, too, and most chessplayers deeply appreciate making
beautiful moves and playing beautiful games.  Some grandmasters
have sought beautiful combinations to their own detriment.  For
example, Mikhail Tal may have been able to retain or regain his
world title if not for a propensity to seek complication in
search of beauty.  He gave us many brilliancies as a result, but
he also lost just often enough to keep him on the fringes of the
world championship.

Much of the time, though, we chessplayers are trying to win the
game, and practicing the dark arts is occasionally the best way
to do so.  That may mean making a move that confounds the opponent
just long enough to win the game.
-----