Originally posted by Marinkatomb The psychological genius this displays is only over shadowed slightly by that moustache. Perhaps his opponent wasn't schooled in the caterpillar defence...
Id rather watch the backyard professor than some IM boring me to death over some
GM game.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Yes [b]never give up your Queen to checkmate your opponent![/b]
No, I do not say never. But it was not necessary in this case. I did not feel a need to demoralize the young fellow nor did I see the idea at at the time.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 You need to find this guy and play him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvzw21_3Hs4
A battle of two great minds!
Now, that's what I'm talking about! That guy has learned something about Chess Psychology that most of you numbnuts don't understand. Although he did not play error free chess, he learned to recognize that it was his own psychological thoughts that was interferring with his game and he overcame them to go on to win the game.
P.S. My own psychology has caused many losses in OTB Chess for me and I still suffer from the "not enough time" psychological syndrome.
Originally posted by RJHinds Now, that's what I'm talking about! That guy has learned something about Chess Psychology that most of you numbnuts don't understand. Although he did not play error free chess, he learned to recognize that it was his own psychological thoughts that was interferring with his game and he overcame them to go on to win the game.
I hate to feed the troll, but I think a word search of all his posts would reveal that his favorite words/phrases are "Praise the Lord", "Hallelujah", "Holy" (repeated 3 times), and ..."numbnuts".
Originally posted by RJHinds Now, that's what I'm talking about! That guy has learned something about Chess Psychology that most of you numbnuts don't understand. Although he did not play error free chess, he learned to recognize that it was his own psychological thoughts that was interferring with his game and he overcame them to go on to win the game.
I don't think anyone suggested that there is no psychology in chess, a lot of people are battling with your interpretation of what psychology is and how it applies to chess. I don't think giving someone a pawn for free really qualifies. Giving them a pawn that gives you a dangerous initiative would qualify, because your opponent might break under the pressure of your attack. If someone gave me a pawn in the position you posted i'd probably think "Great, a free pawn" and start finding a way to reach an ending with it still in tact...
Originally posted by Paul Leggett I hate to feed the troll, but I think a word search of all his posts would reveal that his favorite words/phrases are "Praise the Lord", "Hallelujah", "Holy" (repeated 3 times), and ..."numbnuts".
Originally posted by Marinkatomb I don't think anyone suggested that there is no psychology in chess, a lot of people are battling with your interpretation of what psychology is and how it applies to chess. I don't think giving someone a pawn for free really qualifies. Giving them a pawn that gives you a dangerous initiative would qualify, because your opponent might break under the pre ...[text shortened]... nk "Great, a free pawn" and start finding a way to reach an ending with it still in tact...
You are not the young fellow I played. He is not to that level of experience yet. Can you really argue with success?
Originally posted by RJHinds You are not the young fellow I played. He is not to that level of experience yet. Can you really argue with success?
I'm not sure we're on the same page on this. In fact, i'm not really sure we're on the same planet...
Edit: Hold on, i think i understand. You played the move because you were playing a weak opponent, not because it was a strong move. Do i have it right? I still think it's a bad move. I played a club game a number of years ago where i turned down winning material on a number of occasions because i thought i was building up a big attack. My opponent found a couple of accurate moves and i found myself in a lost position. My opponent then offered me a draw when they had the win in the bag. After that i just played the strongest moves i could find, if material is on offer and i have time to capture it, i do. Same goes for giving away material.. never underestimate your opponent.
Originally posted by RJHinds That is because you don't understand Chess Pcychology. There are different types and phases of psychology. There was a gradual buildup of the effect that resulted in this young man's over-confidence and his rush in for the attack with his two center pawns until he became aware that I had a real counter threat that he must stop. Under the psycological pres ...[text shortened]... etter on some opponents than others, and it is best never to try it against a chess computer .
Copied and pasted word for word from Cheating at Chess at Wiki.
Commonly cited instances of cheating include: collusion with spectators or other
players, linking to remote computers, rating manipulation, misuse of the touch-
move rule, the pre-arranged draw, and the use of psychological tactics to
unsettle an opponent.
What ever psychological tactics you are using RJ it's against the rules.
Copied and pasted word for word from [b]Cheating at Chess at Wiki.
Commonly cited instances of cheating include: collusion with spectators or other
players, linking to remote computers, rating manipulation, misuse of the touch-
move rule, the pre-arranged draw, and the use of psychological tactics to
unsettle an opponent.
What ...[text shortened]... ou are using RJ it's against the rules.
I think the TOS need to be altered to take into account this new phenomena. In a fluid and dynamic game such as chess, where new ingenious ways to cheat are being invented by the hour, admin should keep abreast of such psychological tactics with the utmost urgency!
Copied and pasted word for word from [b]Cheating at Chess at Wiki.
Commonly cited instances of cheating include: collusion with spectators or other
players, linking to remote computers, rating manipulation, misuse of the touch-
move rule, the pre-arranged draw, and the use of psychological tactics to
unsettle an opponent.
What ...[text shortened]... ou are using RJ it's against the rules.
The psychological tactics this article is referring to are things like blowing smoke in your opponents direction, tapping on the table when it is his time to move, kicking the opponent (accidently), making moaning, grunting, or other noises while the opponent is thinking. I did nothing like these.
Giving up a pawn in the hopes of gaining a psychological advantage is not considered cheating. If so, Paul Morphy would have to be considered a cheater for starting many of his games with a pawn or even a piece down. Perhaps he was a master of psychological chess too.
Rj how would you feel about adding some comments to this game? Game 9351174 It'd be really interesting to hear a little about the psychological tactics you employed.. 🙂
27 Oct '12 00:111 edit
Chess Psychology
Back to Top