I find I play better if I ignore the ratings of my opponents and myself. I'm rated in 1600's here, 1500's in blitz in playchess.com, 1400's in blitz in ICC and 1800's USCF otb. So what does it all mean? What I should be doing is playing the best I can in each game (in the time given) and not worry about losing ratings points. A lot of people (including me) are plagued with the FOL disease (fear of losing). I've actually seen people visibly trembling as they make a move on otb play. Why? Because of FOL disease. Why not look at the position carefully and make your best move, knowing that you're going to screw up sometimes and learn from your mistakes. Congratulate your opponent and get on with your life. Anybody acquainted with classical Greek, know the word for "losing"? Then we could make it a true phobia, subject to examination by psychiatrists.
Originally posted by buddy2I play in alot of tournies and am also 1800 USCF, and oh man, I know what you mean! People have the shakes worse than anything! It's so funny. That's sometimes what makes me turn it up. If people are scared of you or losing and you put the pressure on them they almost always bust!
I find I play better if I ignore the ratings of my opponents and myself. I'm rated in 1600's here, 1500's in blitz in playchess.com, 1400's in blitz in ICC and 1800's USCF otb. So what does it all mean? What I should be doing is play ...[text shortened]... ld make it a true phobia, subject to examination by psychiatrists.
and how about FOL!!
I played a tournament about 5 months ago. First round the guy plays Caro-Kann to my e4. He was not expecting me to know how to play this opening, but before you know it, we're both on move 10 of a standard book variation....and going! When I say he wasn't expecting me to know this variation, I know it because he started to tremble hard. I made some gross ??'s but that didn't stop him from shaking with his hands over the pieces...and yes, that's when you turn on the heat, as I found out. I started throwing pieces around his uprooted king at that point and he was simply lost (in his head)...and then lost otb.
Yea, it's pretty tough in regular tournaments. At the master level I guess you have to have a good measure of sang froid if you want to survive. People who know nothing about chess, simply don't understand the tremendous pressure chess players are under and why they actually lose weight in a match. They probably wonder why we do it at all. Which poses another interesting question. The high you get after winning a hard-fought chess game is like nothing else in sport, in my humble opinion.
I agree about what you just said about the high of winning. But the low of losing REALLY sucks!!
Still, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. Thats chess, and thats LIFE!! So we just gotta suck it up. Just like the Fear Factor i just watched tonight. They put a rat in a blender, ground it up, and those people had to suck it up. That is the closest thing of an analogy to losing I can find. Sometimes you just gotta drink the rat, and then lose your cookies and move on. If you love chess enough, nothing will ever stop you.
Kingisdead, you really should find some better entertainment than watching people eat ground up rats. I swear I haven't watched more than 5 seconds of that stuff before switching to another channel. We have enough people in the world actually eating rats (and sometimes paying for the privelege). Also, watching a number of buxom lassies sticking their heads into a tub of maggots and saying, "oooh, it's icky" somehow doesn't amuse me as much as it might if I were younger and had more time to waste.
I brought this up in another thread, but I will ask it again. Suppose you see a move that will devastate your opponent on your followup move or after some small number of moves later (for instance, winning a queen), but IF your opponent can see what is coming and acts accordingly by making just the right response, the move you are contemplating is less than the best move (for instance, maybe it weakens your pawn structure). If your opponent has a low rating, wouldn't it be a temptation to go ahead and make the move that can be refuted, and just hope that your opponent will not see what you have up your sleeve?
Originally posted by Paul DiracYes. In the short term playing the aggressive "devestating" move will work most of the time. Especially over the board and especially against lower rated opponents.
I brought this up in another thread, but I will ask it again. Suppose you see a move that will devastate your opponent on your followup move or after some small number of moves later (for instance, winning a queen), but IF your opponent can see what is coming and acts accordingly by making just the right response, the move you are contemplating is less t ...[text shortened]... that can be refuted, and just hope that your opponent will not see what you have up your sleeve?
But, in the long term, that's the exact wrong move to make. Better opponents will see it coming a mile away anyway. And the really sad thing for me is that they've usually seen another response that I've completely missed. Usually some subtle little in-between move that throws my whole plan out the window.
An example of when not to play the "best" move: when you're in a basically lost position, and you try a cheap trick to get some chances back. The "best" move would probably lose just like any other move, but maybe a bit more slowly, and it wouldn't maximize your opponent's chance to screw up.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGood tip--I'll have to remember that.
An example of when not to play the "best" move: when you're in a basically lost position, and you try a cheap trick to get some chances back. The "best" move would probably lose just like any other move, but maybe a bit more slowly, and it wouldn't maximize your opponent's chance to screw up.