Bravery In Chess

Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - and I believe this starts right from the first moves you make.

Obviously, 1. d4 c4 and Nf3 players are not really stating their intentions to play a risky game so can be forgiven for this as you know right from the outset that a positional outlook is required in these games and they will be won or lost by the building up of slight advantages.

But sometimes there are players who make themselves out to be big shots but actually are also dodging the danger by their play...

For instance, there are some players who will stick religiously to sharp theory which might make them look like a bold attacker but since they are never straying into unknown territory until much later in the game (and by then they probably know how to get an advantage) they are actually not as daring as an onlooker might believe them to be.

Also, there are those who will start off with a brave attack but quickly turn the game into a slow grind when the going gets tough - therefore killing off almost any good tactical exchanges. c3 Sicillian players are a good example of this - steering a normally exciting game into a slow squeeze where the only chances black gets are to defend against whites nusences.

I am sure there are other examples too and I urge you, the peoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

I shall expose something else for you to see. But not here, in real life only.

Ohhh, are you a girl. If yes I accept your exposal...

Sometimes you must play a slow grinding game to win... but I agree that this is not the case in the opening phase.

The funny thing here is that your post speaks of bravery with just admiration but in reality it is simply gamble.

Would your post sound same if you replaced bravery with gamble?

I for one don't play bravely, but I definitely play with a lot of gamble (or is it stupidity?)

There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity - I think it tends to be judged retroactively depending if you met with success or faliure.

I think true bravery in chess is to leap into the unknown and delve into the billions of positions that have never been played, with only your instincts to guide you. It is also a bit more fun to play that way too - sure it is nice to grind somebody down the same way every time with an exchange ruy lopez or english system but there comes a point where you are not really learning anymore, and certainly dont feel pressured in any way.

Playing the Opening is much like making love to a woman...You've gotta open up before you thrust forward,prod and probe to expose a weakness and if it goes t**s-up keep pushing until the wind changes direction.............

I hate when people use the word bravery when talking about a board game. Unless of course the game is played by outsiders in a school yard or street, in a drug infested inner city neighborhood. Playing in a war zone with a fire fight in the area would qualify also.
It's kind of like calling Soccer a sport when it's actually an activity. 😀

Or like calling football soccer 😀

Originally posted by hamltnblue
I hate when people use the word bravery when talking about a board game. Unless of course the game is played by outsiders in a school yard or street, in a drug infested inner city neighborhood. Playing in a war zone with a fire fight in the area would qualify also.
It's kind of like calling Soccer a sport when it's actually an activity. 😀

But playing a move you are not certain about when you really care about the game is the bravest thing you can possibly do.
The trouble is, too many people think of chess as just a sideline and not really that important to their lives - if soldiers or police took that view of their occupations then they would not last very long and it is the same in chess, just people can lose more then once in chess and eventually they get used to it so stop caring.

I guess the question is whether you can use the word bravery for a game. I mean unless there is money or world championships on the line there's not much on the line to lose.

For example, I'm currently playing about 20 games on RHP. I definitely take LOTS of chances but I'm not being brave because nothing happens if I lose.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - ...[text shortened]... eoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

Hi, i think that the answer is not so much psychology as simply good strategy, because winning is fun, losing is not, so for example one must decide quite early on whether one is heading for an endgame, or an attack on the king, if the former then one MUST exchange pieces, try to simplify the position and thus head into an endgame, if the latter, then one MUST try to keep his pieces on the board until such times as there is a successful mate on the king, this has nothing of course to do with bravery, but strategy, what do you think? is it not so?

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - ...[text shortened]... eoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

I perfer the slow, grinding games. I've beaten many stronger but
impulsive players with them!
🙂

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - ...[text shortened]... eoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

The main purpose of the game is to win. And each player should play in the manner which gives him the most chances to win. Each chess player has right to have his own style and it would be really boring if all players would play in one style.

Your bravado statements is nothing more than trying to glorify style in which you are playing (or at least trying to play) and to belittle players which dont play in this style.

By the way - "slow grind" opening does not obligatory mean careful play. I would suggest you to check out opening repertoire of Tal to see that Tal have been played not only your favorite open Sicilians, but also openings which you would consider as "slow grind". But even in these "slow grind" openings he have been played very interesting chess.

Also I have been played many interesting games started with "slow grind" openings. Here is good example from our blitz games.