Chess World.net presents: Do Chess Players falsify their ideas – akin to Research Scientists ?!

♚COURSES
📚
📚 ||
♚ Play turn style chess at
♚ Play Chess vs. Kingscrusher and others:
♚ Subscribe to best Youtube Chess Video Channel :
👕 Get Kingscrusher T-Shirts!:

►Play FREE online chess at

Chess World.net presents: Do Chess Players falsify their ideas – akin to Research Scientists ?! ►Subscribe for my regular chess videos: ►Support the channel by donating via PayPal:
♞ Challenge KC and others for turn style chess at
♚COURSES

14 Comments

  1. I read that paper a while ago and it's intresting. I think what we can learn from it is that ones falsification depth needs to be atleast as deep as your opponents calculation depth in the position. It might even be better to falsify even deeper because your opponent might find the refutation of your move half way through the moves and get the first few by intuition or luck. Very intresting subject. I personally need to falsify ALOT more in my own games.

  2. Ok, 03:21…

    At a guess, I'd say 1. f5 exf5 2. gxf5 Bh5 Skewering Queen & Rook. Is f5 not a blunder? I'm probably wrong. Let's see…

  3. 1.f5 exf5 2.e6 fxg4 (if 2… fxe6 then 3.Qxe6 winnig the Bishop) 3.Qxg4 if 2…Re8 Qg2

  4. I am thinking after f5 that he will take, otherwise if he moves the bishop back to h7, I will get my rook on the 7th rank after taking on e6. So 1.f5 exf5, but then after 2.gxf5 he can play Bh5 and attack my queen (and rook). Now is that necessarily bad? How about moving my queen with 3. Qg2 attacking his rook and also the pawn on g7? If then Bxd1 then 4. Qxh3 threatening 5. f6+ in the next move. Hmmm… that´s just some thoughts on the move 1.f5 from the top of my head (only 1250 on IFCS).

  5. Hi all – thanks for your comments and analysis so far. Please could you also include any chess ratings you might have to put the analysis and insight in context a bit.

  6. I started off looking at the position and noticing it was pretty equal. Blacks trump is control of the h-file and white's is the bishop pair and potential dark squared control.

    f5 didn't really appeal to me to start with because it didn't address either of those two points and i didn't look much further after seeing the skewer and noting that the move also weakened control of e5.

    Rf3 on the other hand challenges the h-file & gains control over a3, c3, e3 & g3 with a potential Rb3 to follow.

  7. To make false – i.e. to prove the hypothesis incorrect. To break it.

  8. Saw the rook move, did not see the next queen move – ie incorrectly falsifying a true hypothesis. if you're interested in hypotheses, I think this might be a "type 1 error".
    if f5, exf5, the bishop could be moved out of harm's way by taking the knight, Rx, then continue with the sequence. but probably still uncomfortable for white.

  9. 1400. I would have just quit haha…how can i improve calculation? Only puzzles???!!!

  10. could you provide a link to the original article?

  11. I paused the video as instructed and took a look at the position. My chess rating is not high so please be charitable as to what I may say. It seems that for white, the white bishop and the queen can be used together to attack queen side and attack the king from there. White can start by pushing f5, retake with g4 and put a queen on g4 to attack the bishop, rook, and king. Maybe the white bishop can then be used later to help the queen attack the king on the white diagonal.

  12. Continuing what I was saying since I ran out of characters. For black, its seems that there is pressure on c3. If black can somehow get the black bishop off that square, maybe black can sacrifice his knight by playing c3, forking the queen and rook, forcing to take with pawn. Rook recaptures from h3 and can help the queen attack the king from the ripped open position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *