85743 - Transcription: Analysis is one thing, and combativeness is another

N. Lygeros
Translated from the Greek by Athina Kehagias

When you are observing  a strategic game from a distance or even merely as an observer, even if you are close, you tend to assume that you have a good picture, you see the two players playing in one way, you analyze the data, you are cool, you don’t assume that there is some time pressure, whereas the others have a chronometer and that allows you to see a little clearly what is going on. But you simply shouldn’t forget that at that moment, you don’t obtain the combativeness of the players, you also don’t have the excitement that a move produces when it’s successful and when it’s chosen, not only decisively, but also in an intelligent manner and consequently this neutrality does not allow you to understand how the players are functioning playing inside the chessboard actively. That is important and we do it often anyway during training, when we change positions and see how the opponent sees the data. But an outside observer has a tendency to make everything neutral, he assumes that because he sees it in a phase of Peace he is not concerned with the concept of Freedom and he is under the impression that he has a better point of view. As the popular saying goes, try walking in my shoes, you know. So what’s the idea? It’s the same in the case of a strategic game, even if it’s directly regarding geopolitics. We ought to be much clearer, because when we are out of the context, we have the impression that our point of view is superior, our point of view can explain many moves, but in the end, as we often see with analysts, when we are actually playing, we see that they are surprised by some moves played by the players themselves and cannot secure all the explanations with their analysis. Consequently, retrospectively, they can explain what happened. This is very important to keep in mind, so that we don’t stay outside the chessboard, outside the Goban, and to assume that we see everything, because very often we see everything correctly, but in retrospect.