Playing the player [and not the board]

64Squares,
What is wrong with 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Qxd6 gaining a pawn?

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
64Squares,
What is wrong with 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Qxd6 gaining a pawn?

That was something else white could have done, yes, I probably overlooked (ignored) that also.
Goodness knows what I was doing with that silly e pawn...

I was probably playing the Vodka and Coke Gambit, which isn't advisable

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So 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?

An unlikely scenario as I bash around at the ECF 150 (1800) level and such players as Adams are not seen on the county league circuit.

There, you have some players who are and always will be buccaneer types. Every move is a two or three move tactic, they offer gambits and use the resultant pressure to encourage mistakes. Others truck along happy to exchange material without conceding anything. They are often quite lethal against weaker opposition because they wait until the late middle game when there are only two or three pieces on the board. At this point there are fewer possibilities in the simpler position but they see them with greater clarity than the hapless opponent. They then outplay the opponent eventually forcing a losing concession and game over. This technique can work quite well on RHP if you take on a fast open tournament with a number of lower rated players.

Players rated significantly higher than me will play in either fashion but with greater intensity. At various phases in the game they will present you with strategical choices to make. The ramifications are murky and difficult to assess. You lose your way in the complications and make decisions that are likely to be poor, accepting weaknesses for joyrides against a well defended King for example. They then clean up. This is how a good human used to be able to outplay weaker players who used engines until engines became too strong. But my feeling is that in every sense all these approaches are playing the man.

Originally posted by Ragwort

Others truck along happy to exchange material without conceding anything. They are often quite lethal against weaker opposition because they wait until the late middle game when there are only two or three pieces on the board. At this point there are fewer possibilities in the simpler position but they see them with greater clarity

I see myself leaning towards this style of play more,
not trying to force anything in the opening/early middle game
but instead aim to force an advantage towards the end.

The only problem is I'm still not that good,
and so I occasionally keep getting my fingers trapped in the till.

My point of this thread was showing how playing the man and not the board can have its problems,
and theorises that one would get better results by ignoring such elements
and focus purely on what's in front of them.

I suppose if you are really good at long-calculation, then by all means, play the man.
But for patzers like myself who usually miss something along the way,
stopping and starting analysis between moves is probably best.

Perhaps a reduced game load would be more suitable for this,
as I often have more than 30 on the go.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
I see myself leaning towards this style of play more,
not trying to force anything in the opening/early middle game
but instead aim to force an advantage towards the end.

The only problem is I'm still not that good,
and so I occasionally keep getting my fingers trapped in the till.

My point of this thread was showing how playing the man and ...[text shortened]... ps a reduced game load would be more suitable for this,
as I often have more than 30 on the go.

Whenever I have self destructed against a so called weaker player it is normally because I have played neither the board or the man. I have a few losses to 1300's here as proof. How it usually goes is that I make a superficial assumption, apply limited or no calculation, especially "the move after" beloved by chess authors. Alternatively I am inveigled into some transaction that I know to be "risky" or downright bad on general grounds because I "assume" or "it looks like" I'm getting a winning attack when the truth is those "positional assessments" are the result of a lazy brain unwilling at that moment to make an effort. Anyone who wishes to improve should never be frightened by "missing something on the way" because it is only by doing so and analyzing the consequences that we can learn to play to avoid such "mishaps" in the future.

In many cases people shy away from repeated effort of this sort. Either because it is too hard, other things in life matter more, or they are happy to plough a furrow at the level "natural talent" and whatever study they did as a spotty teenager has brought them to. In no way is it wrong to come to this conclusion about chess, one just needs to be aware that makers of chess software, books, etc are creating a need for "improvement" to sell to, which can be safely ignored if one wishes. If the results of vodka and coke gambits bother you that much you'll eventually make the effort, but if relaxed enjoyment with the tipple of choice is a nice way to forget the troubles of the day as well as an easy option for a tired brain, good on you and "cheers!"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So 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?

You proceed to play the position in front of you to the best of your ability. You may get slapped around, but at least you'll get to ask him why he played the moves he did, and learn from it. (Then look at your hands and be thankful you still have all your fingers!) 😀

Originally posted by Ragwort
If the results of vodka and coke gambits bother you that much you'll eventually make the effort, but if relaxed enjoyment with the tipple of choice is a nice way to forget the troubles of the day as well as an easy option for a tired brain, good on you and "cheers!"

Haha yes, to be fair I don't make as many alcohol fueled mistakes as I once did (since starting work!)
but the odd ones do still creep in there somehow.

It's all good fun at the end of the day 🙂

The discussions raised in this thread add further weight to just how great the game of chess is,
as everyone has their own unique styles, approaches and even philosophies.

Edit: I hope your move back to Yorkshire is a fulfilling and fruitful one 🙂

Originally posted by Ragwort
An unlikely scenario as I bash around at the ECF 150 (1800) level and such players as Adams are not seen on the county league circuit.

There, you have some players who are and always will be buccaneer types. Every move is a two or three move tactic, they offer gambits and use the resultant pressure to encourage mistakes. Others truck along happy to exchan ...[text shortened]... came too strong. But my feeling is that in every sense all these approaches are playing the man.

My point was that its illogical and irrational to let the presence of someone like Adams have any effect on ones disposition. How many games are lost before a pawn has been even moved because someone is in awe of some chess Illuminati. It seems to me to be much more psychologically healthy to adopt the position of the destruction of the ego and adopt the posture that there is no opponent because there is no I and all that ultimately matters, win or lose is the chessmen. This will save one from all kinds of despair and heartache in defeat and will provide one with a sense of perspective in victory.

All of these scenarios, the tricky tactical player, the slow positional grinder are mere reflections of persona on the chessboard. They may appear as individual qualities of the player before you but at their very basis they translate simply to the arrangement of chessmen.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My point was that its illogical and irrational to let the presence of someone like Adams have any effect on ones disposition. How many games are lost before a pawn has been even moved because someone is in awe of some chess Illuminati. It seems to me to be much more psychologically healthy to adopt the position of the destruction of the ego and ado ...[text shortened]... player before you but at their very basis they translate simply to the arrangement of chessmen.

I understand your interpretation of Zen's non duality arguments, to some extent Johnathan Rowson has gone down this route in some of his writings. I believe chess is a game that rewards thought, problem solving, interpretation of the opponent's thinking using the clues given in the moves made, despite many these days trying to make the game as subliminal as possible with all the various drills. Properly absorbed in the game I'm sure the master loses some sense of ego (similar to Douglas Harding's "On having no head" ). But, as the ten Ox herding Pictures show, the Zen Master has to return to the market place, having learned not to become attached to the negative thoughts and emotions that arise, and that may allow them to simply play the game which could amount to the same thing, I don't know.

Quite frankly I have lately thought that adding an extra layer of interpretation to existence such as Zen, is unnecessary baggage in itself and something of a paradox in a philosophy that seeks to simply life away from the constant stream of sometime irrational thought we apply to it. If you just think about the game you are playing you do that anyway, no need of dojo's, altars or incense or other BS. Again, an opinion piece.