This article correctly notes that those in the lead should play to conservatively extend their marginal advantage.
The corollary, for those in behind, is that they should attempt more gambits.
The principles of variance are strange. Sometimes, if you're in behind, you reduce your chance of losing by adopting what looks like a "losing" strategy (according to naive expected value calculations). With a wild all-or-nothing strategy, your chance of winning from behind likely won't exceed 50%, but by acting more like the 'risky amateur,' you might up your chances from 10% to 30%.
Comments
This article correctly notes that those in the lead should play to conservatively extend their marginal advantage.
The corollary, for those in behind, is that they should attempt more gambits.
The principles of variance are strange. Sometimes, if you're in behind, you reduce your chance of losing by adopting what looks like a "losing" strategy (according to naive expected value calculations). With a wild all-or-nothing strategy, your chance of winning from behind likely won't exceed 50%, but by acting more like the 'risky amateur,' you might up your chances from 10% to 30%.