Prospect v. Elk Grove (2): Hope Chess vs. Real Chess

According to NM Dan Heisman, "hope chess" is being played when a player makes a move without trying to anticipate his opponent's best response, i.e., the player simply hopes that he will be able to find a way to deal with it when it appears on the board. "Real chess" is being played when the player considers all the possible responses to his move before making it and only makes a move if he is satisfied that he can deal with his opponent's best response.


Coaching high school students, I see lots of hope chess being played. Sometimes it is inexperienced players who have a hard time anticipating the possible responses to their moves. Just as often, however, it is practiced by players who have decent tactical vision and could probably figure how their opponent might respond if they took the time to do so. Stopping their opponent's plans just doesn't seem to provide them as much pleasure as pursuing their own.

I firmly believe that all chess is good chess and that players should play the game in the way that brings them pleasure. As for me, I don't enjoy being surprised by my opponent's moves (although it happens regularly). I really enjoy games in which I manage to anticipate thwart my opponent's plans so well that he is not quite sure why he lost afterwards. I think that players of hope chess might find they enjoy real chess if they tried it.


Prospect's Peter Dimoupolous has never lacked attacking instincts, but he has developed the ability to anticipate and thwart his opponent's plans as well. On 1st Board against Elk Grove, he took advantage of Nick Estrada's passive opening to take solid control of the game without allowing his opponent any real counterplay. On 2nd Board, Tejas Shah played real chess to recover from a passive opening but then let Calvin Cheng off with a draw when he played hope chess in the ending. On 3rd Board, Mike Zwolenik played too optimisticly against Elk Grove's Javier Morales.