Bobby Fischer is quoted for saying, "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." What is your take on this issue? Personally, I'm in 50% agreement with Fischer here. For example, if I'm playing an opponent that I know well, I try to play openings that are uncomfortable for them. If they are positional players, I make the game complex and open (Grunfeld Defense). If they are tactical, I like closing the position up and playing positionally (French Defense). Against universal players I just play with whatever I'm most comfortable with. But during the game, I just focus on the best moves, whether it opens or closes the position doesn't matter much to me. Do you think playing slighlty inferior moves to rattle your opponent is worth it?
I look at it this way, Fritz is often considered one of the best players in the world. Does Fritz ever play to your weaknesses? No. He/She just makes the best move according to the position. Of course, as humans, we have the advantage of challenging our opponents knowlege, but I'd keep it to the opening.
Yes, that is how I play today. To me the only way to win a game is by opponents mistakes. Computers aren't perfect yet. They aren't the best positional players, as Kramnik and Kasparov have shown in their matches. Kasparov is a good example. He is a tactical monster, but he decided to play against the computer's weakness and play positional chess.
So in order to maximize your opponent's mistakes, you must not only play objectively strong moves, but also play your opponent? Kramnik had some good interviews on Kasparov and it relates to this. I will see if I can find them.
Originally posted by Zander 88Chess players who dont believe to psuchology in chess are limiting their options.
Bobby Fischer is quoted for saying, "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." What is your take on this issue? Personally, I'm in 50% agreement with Fischer here. For example, if I'm playing an opponent that I know well, I try to play openings that are uncomfortable for them. If they are positional players, I make the game complex and open ...[text shortened]... to me. Do you think playing slighlty inferior moves to rattle your opponent is worth it?
there is some psycology in chess for example when you are playing a 2000 player and your 1700 or something of the sort or 1200 playing a 1500 player you almost know you are going to lose so you may not play as well for an outcome. when i was young i use to get scared of kids in the state tournaments because i knew thier ratings were way above mine. hence that made me lose a number of games.
Originally posted by Zander 88I think he's entirely right for him, because he was that good, that psychology didn't matter.
Bobby Fischer is quoted for saying, "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." What is your take on this issue? Personally, I'm in 50% agreement with Fischer here. For example, if I'm playing an opponent that I know well, I try to play openings that are uncomfortable for them. If they are positional players, I make the game complex and open ...[text shortened]... to me. Do you think playing slighlty inferior moves to rattle your opponent is worth it?
I think the broader implication - that if you think about psychology for more than a few moments during a game, you're losing the psychological battle - is also true for most of us. Of course in correspondence it matters less, because people can research to compensate for their unfamiliarity - I mean OTB more than anything.
On the other hand, you can certainly make quick psychological decisions about opening especially. If you know an opponent plays in a certain way, or doesn't like something - do it. Kasparov did this in his great win v Topalov in 1999 for example, choosing certain moves that were hard for Topalov to predict, because he knew this would unsettle Topalov. In reality it was just a move order thing of course. And then this psychological choice had nothing to do with the brilliant combination that won the game.
So... I agree with Fischer, maybe about 90%.
Originally posted by Zander 88I disagree. Of course 'tis most important to make good moves, but I still think psychology is an important factor in any game. You are a lot more likely to make those good moves and win if you have a good morale. 'Tis not as true for CC games, but it applies for OTB chess.
Bobby Fischer is quoted for saying, "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." What is your take on this issue? Personally, I'm in 50% agreement with Fischer here. For example, if I'm playing an opponent that I know well, I try to play openings that are uncomfortable for them. If they are positional players, I make the game complex and open ...[text shortened]... to me. Do you think playing slighlty inferior moves to rattle your opponent is worth it?
Maybe Fisher was lying to make himself seem stronger and more invincible and so gain a further psychological advantage against his opponents. Or perhaps he was just denying the effects of psychology and didn't want to think about it. Surely all the shenanigans in Iceland had a psychological effect on Spassky. So for someone who didn't "believe" in psychology he certainly used it a lot - intentionally or otherwise. If he was happy to simply "play good moves" he might have defended his title and still be playing now - what a contribution to the chess world that might have been.
Psychology and people are inseparable so the question really is weather you can use an objective understanding of psychology to your advantage in a game. So then there are two elements to consider: firstly - can you help yourself to play your best chess and secondly can you gain an advantage over your opponent by playing to what you think might be there psychological weaknesses.
Not supplying any answers here I know - but they are good questions🙂
if computers could observe people and convert that into a quantifiable value, it would be written into it's search process immediately. and in a way, computer opening books already contain such information, making them use lines that suit them better than humans.
I don't know what was the background of that fischer quote, but it's clear that he went to great lengths to mess with his opponents' minds.
From the book "Bobby Fischer: Su Vida y Partidas", Pablo Morán, Colección Escaques, Spain.
Game #49.
M. M. Botvinnik x Robert J. Fischer
Varna, 1962 (Olympiad)
Position after 45 ... Rc5 (sealed move).
The Soviet GMs studied the position until 4:30 AM to save the World Champion. But Botvinnik did an "extra move". He always used cofee Thermos flask during their tournaments, but, next day, to continue the game, he wasn´t with his bottles, like: "I will resign soon...".
Fischer did his analisys, too, of course. When he returned, he played faster!
Let´s see the continuation...
46. Rf7 Ra5 47. Rxh7 Rxa4 48. h4+ Kf5 49. Rf7+ Ke5 50. Rg7 Ra1! 51. Rf3 b5 (?)
'You´re too much previsible, Bobby... Gotcha!!!'.
52. h5!!
"My opposite at this moment put himself pale, and thought long. The game can really be considered finished at this moment" (Botvinnik).
Draw at move #68.
Psychology, luck, hard work and politics!
I believe Psychology is a huge part of chess. You can really throw a player off by changing the pace or style of the game. It really frustrates me when i spend a couple minutes looking through a line because i think its his best reply and then he simplifies or throws and in an in-between move.
I guess the real topic is: Should you make an "inferior" move just because your opponent dislikes it or for whatever psychological reason you have? I think it's quite obvious that psychology exists in chess as everywhere else, no question about that.
As for the question: Since games are played with a clock and the clock always limits you from finding the best moves, you must add in other factors too, such as your intuition for the move. Sometimes a move might be "odd", but finding its refutation over the board is just not possible.
In CC however, I think any such kind of moves moves can mostly be analysed to death. You can move the pieces and calculate basically every line of play until the disadvantage of the move is found.
But apart from these moves, perhaps one or two for each game, you should try to find the move you think is best, IMHO. Playing a daring move must of course also be followed up consistently.
Originally posted by GolubGood post and this is exactly what has been causing me problems with my OTB play. I play well in CC because I can spend a good deal of time evaulation positions and doing analysis and when it's time to play a tourney game OTB, I almost always get into time pressure because I cannot find the correct move fast enough.
As for the question: Since games are played with a clock and the clock always limits you from finding the best moves, you must add in other factors too, such as your intuition for the move. Sometimes a move might be "odd", but finding its refutation over the board is just not possible.
In CC however, I think any such kind of moves moves can mostly be analys ...[text shortened]... ou think is best, IMHO. Playing a daring move must of course also be followed up consistently.
What I'm trying to do is develop three different mind sets for when I play blitz, regualr time controls, and CC so that I better manage my time and hopefully avoid losing on time or making stupid blunders because of time pressure.