Hello chess experts,
Do you ever think about the psychology of chess? What I mean, do you
have any psychological tricks or ideas about how to pressure an opponent
into mistakes, or perhaps how to boost yourself when things are looking
grim?
On 2024-03-13 09:38, D wrote:
Hello chess experts,
Do you ever think about the psychology of chess? What I mean, do you have
any psychological tricks or ideas about how to pressure an opponent into
mistakes, or perhaps how to boost yourself when things are looking grim?
I played a horrible game in the new years tournament two years ago, going from two pawns up to an exchange down. I specifically went for a K+R vs K+B endgame counting on that he didn't know how to win that. He didn't =)
Always try to go for the most difficult win if you are losing ...
/C.
D wrote:
Hello chess experts,
Do you ever think about the psychology of chess? What I mean, do you have
any psychological tricks or ideas about how to pressure an opponent into
mistakes,
One trick used by strong players is to voluntarily get into time pressure. The opponent is likely to then move quickly so that the player won't "Think on their time".
I won perhaps my most absurd victory in this way, if unintentionally. I don't know what was wrong with me that day, but by move 22 I was two pawns down and had a terrible position, plus ten minutes to make move 40. My opponent had just under two hours left. He had played well.
I was thinking of resigning, but he began to move quickly. I awoke from my lethargy. Now it was a speed game, and I was pretty good at that. He resigned as soon as it was clear we had made time control.
If you know your opponent you can try to steer the game into areas he does not like. In his first match against Steinitz, Lasker traded queens early in most games. Steinitz was, of course, one of the best endgame players in the world, but his real strength was in the middlegame, and he wasn't that keen on endings. It's difficult to play your best in a position you don't like.
In his match against Blackburne (at least in those games I have seen) Lasker kept the queens on. Blackburne was also one of the best endgame players of his day, though probably not better than Steinitz (I think) but he was happy to play endings and was at his best in them.
or perhaps how to boost yourself when things are looking
grim?
First, I remind myself it's just a chess game.
Second, I remind myself of all the "won" games I have lost. If it can happen to me, it can happen to my opponent. The first few moves after the opponent gains a winning position are often an opportunity. There is often a rush to win, overconfidence. After all, if you have played so badly to this point, the opponent feels, this should be easy. Make it not easy. As Lasker said many times, there are always resources, even in terrible positions. But you won't find them if you have mentally conceded defeat.
And if things are really grim, seek complications at any cost. Might as well go out with a bang, and it's surprising how often this works. Even a tiny reverse can upset someone who thinks he has the game in the bag, leading to further mistakes.
Even if this doesn't work you can profit.
I was losing a game against a strong master when I re-energized my kingside attack with an unclear sacrifice. He spent almost all of his time finding the refutation, and I did lose, but at least the game had a certain amount of class, rather than being a routine crush. And it left me in a better mood for later games with him (I did eventually start scoring, but he remained vastly the better player).
How a loss affects your mood in the next game can be important, especially if the next game comes soon. After a particularly bad loss, an acquaintance, who had been winning both the game and the tournament, fell apart and scored no more wins. Over the next few months he dropped 250 rating points. Petrosian dealt with post-loss depression by making sure to draw the next game, Tal said that after a loss the next game would be anything but a draw.
If a loss depresses you, find a way to deal with it. Tal's way is probably only good for Tal (I'd probably just lose a second game, extending the problem) and most of us non GMs don't know how to play for a draw (at my strength playing for a draw means playing for a loss), but find a way to shake it off.
You don't need the moves to my crap games, but for lessons in holding a poor or lost position you could do worse than look at Lasker's games.
The Soltis collection is extensive and readable.
It occurs to me that someone should publish a deeply annotated book of lost games won. John Nunn, are you listening?
William Hyde
I won perhaps my most absurd victory in this way, if unintentionally. I >don't know what was wrong with me that day, but by move 22 I was two
pawns down and had a terrible position, plus ten minutes to make move
40. My opponent had just under two hours left. He had played well.
I played a horrible game in the new years tournament two years ago,
going from two pawns up to an exchange down. I specifically went for a
K+R vs K+B endgame counting on that he didn't know how to win that. He
didn't =)
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:57:18 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I won perhaps my most absurd victory in this way, if unintentionally. IMy most absurd ever was years ago my last game before Christmas one
don't know what was wrong with me that day, but by move 22 I was two
pawns down and had a terrible position, plus ten minutes to make move
40. My opponent had just under two hours left. He had played well.
year and I was directing (and playing) in a club event.
Some time around move 20 I hung a piece and I >REALLY< wanted to go
home but couldn't as I was the TD so decided to hang in there another
10 moves before resigning.
Half an hour later I wasn't down a piece but an exchange - so decided
to resign in another 1/2 hour
Half an hour after that I was a pawn down and actually had (probably
phantom) counterplay on the other side of the board - so another 1/2
hour....
By which time I had a positional crush and he resigned in disgust.
Now I wouldn't have hung in there except he was a longtime friend who
knew my style very well and was on very good terms with (he is a
former CFC president - that's Chess Federation of Canada for you
MurrCans) and some 200 pts above me. I thanked him for his Christmas
gift (knew I could say that without enraging him) and we watched the
few games and wished him a Merry Christmas and called it a night after
we put away our gear...
Naturally he beat me soundly in the New Year!
D wrote:
Wow, thank you William, great post!
Why someone else? Maybe you are the one to publish such a book? =)
So you're not a GM, but are you an IM?
Not even remotely.
I once was half-terrible, now am about three quarters terrible.
But I understand more about chess than I did then.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
Wow, thank you William, great post!
Why someone else? Maybe you are the one to publish such a book? =)
So you're not a GM, but are you an IM?
Not even remotely.
I once was half-terrible, now am about three quarters terrible.
But I understand more about chess than I did then.
William Hyde
And what is it about chess that kept your interest all these years despite >> not being a GM? What dimensions is it that you appreciate? =)
Good questions. I don't know the answers.
Like many here (at least when there were many here) chess fascinated me from the first time I saw it. But other things did also, and still do.
Perhaps if I'd grown up in a land with a deep chess culture it would have dominated the others, but it didn't.
I am uninterested in team sports, and bored by solo sports like boxing (unless A. J. Leibling is writing about it) or tennis. So chess and similar games are interesting as an outlet for competitive feelings.
Chess gives some consolation for real world problems. If after 110 years there is still no consensus about Lasker's f4 in his game with Capablanca at St Petersburg, our failure to figure out whether supersymmetry is valid after 50 years doesn't look so bad.
Chess has a rich culture, you can lose yourself for months in its literature and apocrypha. As with the house in Crowley's "Little, Big", the farther in you get the bigger it is.
William Hyde
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:29:21 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chess gives some consolation for real world problems. If after 110You want "real world problems" - try directing chess tournaments.
years there is still no consensus about Lasker's f4 in his game with
Capablanca at St Petersburg, our failure to figure out whether
supersymmetry is valid after 50 years doesn't look so bad.
Chess has a rich culture, you can lose yourself for months in its
literature and apocrypha. As with the house in Crowley's "Little, Big",
the farther in you get the bigger it is.
People bring all sorts of "problems" to tournament halls and part of
the attraction is dealing with one's own issues at the board in a
socially acceptable way.
Chess gives some consolation for real world problems. If after 110
years there is still no consensus about Lasker's f4 in his game with >Capablanca at St Petersburg, our failure to figure out whether
supersymmetry is valid after 50 years doesn't look so bad.
Chess has a rich culture, you can lose yourself for months in its
literature and apocrypha. As with the house in Crowley's "Little, Big",
the farther in you get the bigger it is.
I have directed tournaments, very small ones in Canada, somewhat larger
ones in Texas.
A good friend had been directing and playing in local events. I don't
like playing in weekend events, so I took on the directing and he gained
200 rating points despite being at an age where ratings decline rather
than advance.
I ran a few evening events which attracted strong players we generally
never saw - I am not the only person with a dislike for these weekend
events.
Our weekend events when I arrived in College Station were one day
tournaments with eight players. By the time I left we were pushing 60
and I would have had to upgrade my TD certification for the last one but
for the fact that a person with that qualification moved into the area.
This change came about because I guaranteed a prize fund of $500
personally. There was not the slightest chance I would ever have to pay
- entry fees always allowed me to raise the prize fund. People wanted
chess, but would not drive a hundred miles without a guaranteed prize fund.
I left and returned six years later. The tournament now drew about
twelve people. Nobody was guaranteeing a prize. I did not resume my >activity.
I could go on with stories about problem players, but with your greater >experience you could doubtless top them. And I invite you do so so.
The Great Hall at HH was the site of many weekend events. It is no
longer used for dining, but somehow also not used for chess. It seems
to be unused about 90% of the time, so you'd think it could be rented
for a weekend swiss at a reasonable rate. Perhaps it is too small for
modern events. It would hold about 100 boards, more in summer.
That is also where I met Keres, when he gave a simul in 1975.
Until recently I played regularly in their Tuesday night bridge
tournaments which have grown spectacularly over the past decade due to a >dedicated organizer and director. There still is a chess club, but it >doesn't have its own room, as student space has been crowded out by >administration.
https://www.harthouseregistration.ca/Program/GetProgramDetails?courseId=78bb9b75-63a4-491d-933c-670d5c16efc0&semesterId=0d2b7698-f912-4876-b962-0d1423747ea5
Good news.
So the great hall is good for 110 boards, more or less as estimated,
while the debates room is good for 50 (the Toronto closed+reserves at 24 >boards didn't fill half the room) and the music room for 50 more.
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:13:50 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.harthouseregistration.ca/Program/GetProgramDetails?courseId=78bb9b75-63a4-491d-933c-670d5c16efc0&semesterId=0d2b7698-f912-4876-b962-0d1423747ea5
Good news.
So the great hall is good for 110 boards, more or less as estimated,
while the debates room is good for 50 (the Toronto closed+reserves at 24 >>> boards didn't fill half the room) and the music room for 50 more.
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge. >>>
William Hyde
Glad you're pleased - I'm in Vancouver so it's a bit more
difficult....
That's always our problem in Canada. Nine out of ten times the event you want to see or play in is over a thousand kilometers away.
I've never actually been able to play in the Canadian Open when it
has been held in Toronto. But I had the time and money to play in
Ottawa and Quebec city (and almost, almost, Vancouver, but alas not
quite).
Even at shorter distances transport can be a problem for chess players.
One year Billy Oxygen shared first place at a tournament in Bellville, Ont. He had traveled by taxi from his home in Kitchener, for $160.
Which was probably more than his prize.
The next year he did not show up at the event. Word was he didn't
have the taxi fare. IIRC there is no bus service between the two
towns.
Dave Ross, an Ottawa master, saved money by hitchhiking to a Detroit tournament. He showed up for round one not having slept at all,
but somehow won the event anyway.
William Hyde
That's always our problem in Canada. Nine out of ten times the event
you want to see or play in is over a thousand kilometers away.
I've never actually been able to play in the Canadian Open when it
has been held in Toronto. But I had the time and money to play in
Ottawa and Quebec city (and almost, almost, Vancouver, but alas not
quite).
One year Billy Oxygen shared first place at a tournament in Bellville,
Ont. He had traveled by taxi from his home in Kitchener, for $160.
Which was probably more than his prize.
Dave Ross, an Ottawa master, saved money by hitchhiking to a Detroit >tournament. He showed up for round one not having slept at all,
but somehow won the event anyway.
My guess would be that he recalled it very well.
In September of that year Spassky played at the CNE open in Toronto.
Had I won my first four games I might have been paired with him, but
I fell just three games short of that target.
Most unusually for the time, the event featured six GMs, with
Benko and Byrne winning at 6-0. Canadian players scored some
upsets, with Day drawing with Spassky, Lipnowski beating Browne,
and Delva beating Bisguier.
Toronto was cursed for Browne. In my second weekend Swiss Browne
finished 3.5/6. As he insisted he was winning the adjourned
round 5 position he was paired up for the last round. But he was
meeting Ivan Theodorovic who was 5-0. What he didn't know was
that Theodorovic always won his last round game if he went 5-0.
A mere GM couldn't break that streak.
I only attended one round of the 76 open in Toronto, just in time to see >Browne storm off after losing to Amos (the game is here: >https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/the-1976-canadian-open-in-toronto/).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:46:49 |
| Calls: | 6,694 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,346,450 |
| Posted today: | 1 |