> > That's total rubbish "Ron". You're obviously someone who doesn't know much
> > about the game of chess. Tal didn't set out to make errors, with the
> > lamebrain idea that this would somehow cause his opponents to make bigger
> > errors. Tal set out to create COMPLICATIONS for his opponents. Obviously Tal
> > desired for all of his sacrifices to be sound and forcing, but no human can
> > calculate everything to the end, so computer analysis has shown flaws in
> > many of his games. This is meaningless, because he wasn't playing against
> > computers.

> Have you read Tal's books?

> I have. There are many time when he says things like, "It's clear 36. f4
> was stronger," (Tal-Gligoric, Zagreb 59), or see his note to 5. ... Qc7
> in Tal-Olaffson, Bled 1961 (a move he describes as "bad" - but that he
> clearly made intentionally) or, say, 10. a3 in Tal-Bagirov,
> Dnepropetrosk, 1970, which he describes as "in no way stronger than the
> approved Re1."

> (I found these notes by basically opening "The Life and Games of Mikhail
> Tal" at random. Stuff like this is all over that book. You should try
> reading it sometime, before you talk about what Tal was, or wasn't,
> thinking. His book on his match with Botvinnik goes into even more depth
> on his thinking, again, and does a good job explaining the emphasis Tal
> put of psychology over soundness. And what is psychology, in chess,
> other than playing an inferior move which you think your opponent will
> respond badly too. In particular, I'd point you to his discussion of his
> 12th move of game 17.)

> It's clear from his notes that he doesn't care if his sacrifices were
> "correct" or not. He made a move - which he knew could well be unsound -
> with the expectation that in the resulting position his opponents would
> play incorrectly.