![Playing the player [and not the board]](/img/uisvg/forum-heading/only-chess.svg){kind=icon}
Hands up anyone who is guilty of this?
Anyone who has had games vs players much lower rated than them,
and so decide to take it easy and mostly play the first move that you see
knowing it will probably be good enough against your opponent who will
surely and inevitably make a blunder and give you the win...
...but then of course go on to lose, and quite soundly too.
I know I've done this, and will most likely continue to do so in the future,
although I do suspect that having a relatively high game load can be a factor.
Here's a recent example from the RHP championship,
which I hope will be at least a little instructive for some of you.
I play with the black pieces.
On the flip side of the coin, you could also be playing someone much higher rated than you,
and so play wild, unsound moves as if to say "well, i'm probably gonna lose anyway, so why not?"
If a person purely plays the board all the time, and ignores the rating of their opponent:
Will they play stronger, more natural chess, in the long run?
And by natural I mean play true to their style,
and not allow themselves to be swayed by their opponent in any way.
05 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessPraxisAs far as seeking openings that you know the opponent doesn't like - I thought everyone did this. One time [I forget which site] a guy tried to play the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy, which naturally I avoided with 8.a4. He said "next time we play the real Marshall" to which I just replied, "nope. 🙂"
You have to play the board first, IMO. Playing the man ala Lasker IMHO means that if your opponent struggles against the French, then play the French. If he has a line he is weak in, play that line. Nice game though and great notes. THx
I know authors like Silman frown on playing the man. Besides Lasker, Tal's style also strikes me as highly effective on a psychological level. He makes a sacrifice that probably isn't sound, but the position is so complicated that you can't find the refutation with the clock ticking away.
05 Jun 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem"A good sacrifice is one that is not necessarily sound but leaves your opponent dazed and confused."-Rudolf Spielmann
As far as seeking openings that you know the opponent doesn't like - I thought everyone did this. One time [I forget which site] a guy tried to play the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy, which naturally I avoided with 8.a4. He said "next time we play the real Marshall" to which I just replied, "nope. 🙂"
I know authors like Silman frown on playing the ma ...[text shortened]... t the position is so complicated that you can't find the refutation with the clock ticking away.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainPlay the position that's in front of you the best you can. Chess is not poker.
Hands up anyone who is guilty of this?
Anyone who has had games vs players much lower rated than them,
and so decide to [b]take it easy and mostly play the first move that you see
knowing it will probably be good enough against your opponent who will
surely and inevitably make a blunder and give you the win...
...but ...[text shortened]... n play true to their style,
and not allow themselves to be swayed by their opponent in any way.[/b]
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"If you meet Buddha at the board - kill him!"
My understand is that the application of Zen in chess and its culmination in the destruction of the ego as a delusion is that there is no opponent because there is no I, all that therefore remains is the juxtaposition of the chessmen.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps you miss the Zen reference - known since Linji and S.Suzuki?
Such violent thoughts is bound to result in negative Karma, chess is naught but meditation over objects and objectives!
Anyway such philosophical snake oil should not be required to lose your self in a game of chess.
As for the main subject: I think however much people talk about playing the board in reality they are playing the man.
06 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RagwortYes i was unaware of the Zen reference. What are we talking about when people say, 'they play the man?' Are they making reference to some habit that he has adopted, a particular opening, a particular style, positions that he is comfortable in or positions where he is not so comfortable? Is that playing the man? If so then its easy to see that all elements are directly traceable to the chessmen and not really the man at all.
Perhaps you miss the Zen reference - known since Linji and S.Suzuki?
Anyway such philosophical snake oil should not be required to lose your self in a game of chess.
As for the main subject: I think however much people talk about playing the board in reality they are playing the man.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think playing the board means looking at it in an almost a pure mathematical sense and trying to derive the best move to play objectively.
Yes i was unaware of the Zen reference. What are we talking about when people say, 'they play the man?' Are they making reference to some habit that he has adopted, a particular opening, a particular style, positions that he is comfortable in or positions where he is not so comfortable? Is that playing the man? If so then its easy to see that all elements are directly traceable to the chessmen and not really the man at all.
It never feels like that to me, particularly when playing OTB.
Each move the opponent makes suggests some strategical or tactical idea but of itself is your only clue to what that may be. You try and see what is in your opponent's mind by looking at what he is doing on the board and you do your best to find cogent answers. To me it always feels like you are in a fight, trying to gain some advantage, or fend off disadvantage, and in every sense playing the man. When your opponent starts shifting in his seat, forms beads of sweat, heavier breathing, or you start that yourself particularly if time trouble approaches or you sacrifice a piece it all adds to that feeling. Just my two penn'orth
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by bill718I sometimes wish it was, Bill!
Chess is not poker.
Maybe then people wouldn't call my bluff 🙂
Wolfgang, I can't say I considered much more than piece trades and pawn grab,
hoping to alarm my opponent and maybe get a draw.
I simply overlooked (or ignored) NxP, which leads to destruction.
Ragwort... where abouts do you live?
We need more people to join in the next Laikers clan meet up 🙂
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by RagwortSo what do you do when you are sitting opposite Micheal Adams and he calmly folds his arms and starts looking distantly at some point on the horizon and you know that before too long it will get roasty toasty?
I think playing the board means looking at it in an almost a pure mathematical sense and trying to derive the best move to play objectively.
It never feels like that to me, particularly when playing OTB.
Each move the opponent makes suggests some strategical or tactical idea but of itself is your only clue to what that may be. You try and see what is ...[text shortened]... e trouble approaches or you sacrifice a piece it all adds to that feeling. Just my two penn'orth