Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Is psychology in chess needed to become a stronger player ?

The fine line between legitimate psychology in chess and unethical behaviour has long interested me.

You mention draw offers in your text, and that's a great example. A draw offer can convey a message which is much more than just "I think the position is dead equal, shall we call it a draw?" Depending on circumstances such as timing or the position on the board or the history of the game so far, it can also say "You've thrown away your most of your advantage, haven't you?" or "You don't really think that active rook means you can beat me, do you?" or "I don't think you're a strong enough player to win this." Many players consider draw offers in a disadvantageous position, or in an equal position against a much higher-rated player, to be unethical because of the dubious message they are conveying. Other players don't see any problem or regard the message as a legitimate one to give.

The fine line between legitimate psychology in chess and unethical behaviour has long interested me. You mention draw offers in your text, and that's a great example. A draw offer can convey a message which is much more than just "I think the position is dead equal, shall we call it a draw?" Depending on circumstances such as timing or the position on the board or the history of the game so far, it can also say "You've thrown away your most of your advantage, haven't you?" or "You don't really think that active rook means you can beat me, do you?" or "I don't think you're a strong enough player to win this." Many players consider draw offers in a disadvantageous position, or in an equal position against a much higher-rated player, to be unethical because of the dubious message they are conveying. Other players don't see any problem or regard the message as a legitimate one to give.

@Brian-E said in #2:

The fine line between legitimate psychology in chess and unethical behaviour has long interested me.

You mention draw offers in your text, and that's a great example. A draw offer can convey a message which is much more than just "I think the position is dead equal, shall we call it a draw?" Depending on circumstances such as timing or the position on the board or the history of the game so far, it can also say "You've thrown away your most of your advantage, haven't you?" or "You don't really think that active rook means you can beat me, do you?" or "I don't think you're a strong enough player to win this." Many players consider draw offers in a disadvantageous position, or in an equal position against a much higher-rated player, to be unethical because of the dubious message they are conveying. Other players don't see any problem or regard the message as a legitimate one to give.

That is an interesting topic with examples in your comment. Thank you.
It reminds me of a fellow chess player that I would play casual games against. I know him pretty well in real life and on the chess board, and I know that he likes to attack, but later I learned that every time he offered a draw, which he usually does not do, it means that he does not feel very comfortable with the position on the board. And for me that became a sign to look at the board position again and see if I can squeeze a win out of out, or whether I overlooked some winning advantage for myself. And very often he went on to lose the game. This is also a thing : What do you do if your draw proposal gets rejected. Will you be able to look at the chess board objectively, and not lose your calm ? Some chess players do not manage that and sometimes lose very quickly after a rejected draw offer.

@Brian-E said in #2: > The fine line between legitimate psychology in chess and unethical behaviour has long interested me. > > You mention draw offers in your text, and that's a great example. A draw offer can convey a message which is much more than just "I think the position is dead equal, shall we call it a draw?" Depending on circumstances such as timing or the position on the board or the history of the game so far, it can also say "You've thrown away your most of your advantage, haven't you?" or "You don't really think that active rook means you can beat me, do you?" or "I don't think you're a strong enough player to win this." Many players consider draw offers in a disadvantageous position, or in an equal position against a much higher-rated player, to be unethical because of the dubious message they are conveying. Other players don't see any problem or regard the message as a legitimate one to give. That is an interesting topic with examples in your comment. Thank you. It reminds me of a fellow chess player that I would play casual games against. I know him pretty well in real life and on the chess board, and I know that he likes to attack, but later I learned that every time he offered a draw, which he usually does not do, it means that he does not feel very comfortable with the position on the board. And for me that became a sign to look at the board position again and see if I can squeeze a win out of out, or whether I overlooked some winning advantage for myself. And very often he went on to lose the game. This is also a thing : What do you do if your draw proposal gets rejected. Will you be able to look at the chess board objectively, and not lose your calm ? Some chess players do not manage that and sometimes lose very quickly after a rejected draw offer.

I've noticed this interesting phenomenon in online chess, where some players seem to have a 'phobia' of higher-rated opponents. It's happened to me many times where I get paired with a 1700/1800 opponent who plays like a drunkard (way below their level), gets into a hopeless position in the opening, and then proceeds to tell me what brilliant chess I've played. When that happens, I check out my opponent's recent games against 'players of their level' and, very often, I find that they play very good, solid chess against people of their rating, not at all like the sort of chess they play against me.

Honestly, I'm a bit confuzzled about this. Personally, I feel more relaxed when playing against people who are higher rated than me, both online and OTB, as I have nothing to lose against them - it's their rating at stake. (There are exceptions to this. I once played a very strong player from my Lichess team who exchanged his rook for my knight in quite a double-edged position. I thought he must have calculated a winning sequence, which sent me into panic mode, and I suffered the worst case of tunnel vision ever. To cut a long story short, I ended up sacrificing my queen in exchange for his other rook because I thought I was going to get back-rank mated, but in reality, I had a rook on the back rank, which I completely forgot about (didn't even see it!), so there was no threat of back-rank mate ;)

When I play OTB with people from my local chess club and people from my school, I find that most people don't care about rating in the same way they do on Lichess. Most of the time, when I play with people who are quite a bit lower rated than me, they play decent chess and make me work for the win. This may be because when you play online, all you see is your opponent's username and rating, which makes the rating gap more salient (merely a speculation).

I've noticed this interesting phenomenon in online chess, where some players seem to have a 'phobia' of higher-rated opponents. It's happened to me many times where I get paired with a 1700/1800 opponent who plays like a drunkard (way below their level), gets into a hopeless position in the opening, and then proceeds to tell me what brilliant chess I've played. When that happens, I check out my opponent's recent games against 'players of their level' and, very often, I find that they play very good, solid chess against people of their rating, not at all like the sort of chess they play against me. Honestly, I'm a bit confuzzled about this. Personally, I feel more relaxed when playing against people who are higher rated than me, both online and OTB, as I have nothing to lose against them - it's their rating at stake. (There are exceptions to this. I once played a very strong player from my Lichess team who exchanged his rook for my knight in quite a double-edged position. I thought he must have calculated a winning sequence, which sent me into panic mode, and I suffered the worst case of tunnel vision ever. To cut a long story short, I ended up sacrificing my queen in exchange for his other rook because I thought I was going to get back-rank mated, but in reality, I had a rook on the back rank, which I completely forgot about (didn't even see it!), so there was no threat of back-rank mate ;) When I play OTB with people from my local chess club and people from my school, I find that most people don't care about rating in the same way they do on Lichess. Most of the time, when I play with people who are quite a bit lower rated than me, they play decent chess and make me work for the win. This may be because when you play online, all you see is your opponent's username and rating, which makes the rating gap more salient (merely a speculation).

@TeenageDimwit said in #4:

So, it happens that your opponents look at rating and then start playing below their level to have the game finished as soon as possible. I do not see that very often with my opponents (But I do get opponents discarding the game real soon). I actually know some chess players in OTB chess who do not manage to grab their chances against higher rated players that they "respect" for their rating and game history. Some of them even have this attitude like "I knew I would have no chance".

Sometimes in the past I would use Lichess "zen" mode to not see the name and rating of the opponent, and then during the games I would try to guess the opponent playing strength. That was very weird because it happened that I guess, say a 2100 rated player, for a 1600 rated player, but ... I am sure that some chess players on-line on Lichess play when they are really tired or intoxicated (If I remember correctly GM Keith Arkell even has some remark about that in his Lichess profile page).

Many years ago I read a book about chess and psychology by Krogius (Some chess trainer from the former USSR).
I don't know if there is any recent books or articles about this topic.

You know this story about a simul by the legend Bobby Fischer where a reasonably strong (Not titled but an okay player) played the Damiano defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?! 3.Nxe5! Qe7!) with black, pretending to be a real weaker player ?
Bobby got an advantage but then made a mistake and the game finished in a draw ! Funny story.
There used to be a chess website which had the game and annotation. Maybe it is still on-line.

@TeenageDimwit said in #4: So, it happens that your opponents look at rating and then start playing below their level to have the game finished as soon as possible. I do not see that very often with my opponents (But I do get opponents discarding the game real soon). I actually know some chess players in OTB chess who do not manage to grab their chances against higher rated players that they "respect" for their rating and game history. Some of them even have this attitude like "I knew I would have no chance". Sometimes in the past I would use Lichess "zen" mode to not see the name and rating of the opponent, and then during the games I would try to guess the opponent playing strength. That was very weird because it happened that I guess, say a 2100 rated player, for a 1600 rated player, but ... I am sure that some chess players on-line on Lichess play when they are really tired or intoxicated (If I remember correctly GM Keith Arkell even has some remark about that in his Lichess profile page). Many years ago I read a book about chess and psychology by Krogius (Some chess trainer from the former USSR). I don't know if there is any recent books or articles about this topic. You know this story about a simul by the legend Bobby Fischer where a reasonably strong (Not titled but an okay player) played the Damiano defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?! 3.Nxe5! Qe7!) with black, pretending to be a real weaker player ? Bobby got an advantage but then made a mistake and the game finished in a draw ! Funny story. There used to be a chess website which had the game and annotation. Maybe it is still on-line.

I like that example of the player in Fischer's simul. Playing openings which are known to be inferior but are not quite so bad as their reputation is another good example of psychology, encouraging the opponent to get too confident and over-reach.

But perhaps the Damiano defence is a bit extreme on that front! LOL

I like that example of the player in Fischer's simul. Playing openings which are known to be inferior but are not quite so bad as their reputation is another good example of psychology, encouraging the opponent to get too confident and over-reach. But perhaps the Damiano defence is a bit extreme on that front! LOL

@Brian-E said in #6:

I like that example of the player in Fischer's simul. Playing openings which are known to be inferior but are not quite so bad as their reputation is another good example of psychology, encouraging the opponent to get too confident and over-reach.

But perhaps the Damiano defence is a bit extreme on that front! LOL

:)

Unfortunately I cannot find that blog post anymore, but I did search and find the game, and imported it in a Lichess study with Stockfish analysis done :

https://www.365chess.com/search_result.php?wid=138283&bid=82041&wlname=Fischer%2C+Robert+James&open=&blname=McGregor%2C+Robert+F&eco=&nocolor=on&yeari=&yeare=&sply=1&ply=&res=&submit_search=1#

https://lichess.org/study/5XYCY8sc/sMPZNULB#6

Results in that simul, Bobby Fischer lost 3x and 2 draws, with 27 wins :

Houston sim
Houston 1964
Date Players Type Elo Average Games Rounds
1964 32 Simul 31 1

Name ELO Points
Fischer, Robert James 27.0
Bone, Eric Dale 1.0
Jones, B. 1.0
Carbonell, Ross 1.0
McGregor, Robert F 0.5
Hale, K. 0.5
Michalopoulos, 0.0
Longcobe, E. 0.0
Moffitt, S. 0.0
Lynch, 0.0
Patteson, Bill L 0.0
Smith, George 0.0
Staight, G. 0.0
Schmid, AD. 0.0
Plaster, J. 0.0
Limoh, LC. 0.0
Peil, 0.0
Nuchod, J. 0.0
Heising, C. 0.0
Bone, CH. 0.0

@Brian-E said in #6: > I like that example of the player in Fischer's simul. Playing openings which are known to be inferior but are not quite so bad as their reputation is another good example of psychology, encouraging the opponent to get too confident and over-reach. > > But perhaps the Damiano defence is a bit extreme on that front! LOL :) Unfortunately I cannot find that blog post anymore, but I did search and find the game, and imported it in a Lichess study with Stockfish analysis done : https://www.365chess.com/search_result.php?wid=138283&bid=82041&wlname=Fischer%2C+Robert+James&open=&blname=McGregor%2C+Robert+F&eco=&nocolor=on&yeari=&yeare=&sply=1&ply=&res=&submit_search=1# https://lichess.org/study/5XYCY8sc/sMPZNULB#6 Results in that simul, Bobby Fischer lost 3x and 2 draws, with 27 wins : Houston sim Houston 1964 Date Players Type Elo Average Games Rounds 1964 32 Simul 31 1 Name ELO Points Fischer, Robert James 27.0 Bone, Eric Dale 1.0 Jones, B. 1.0 Carbonell, Ross 1.0 McGregor, Robert F 0.5 Hale, K. 0.5 Michalopoulos, 0.0 Longcobe, E. 0.0 Moffitt, S. 0.0 Lynch, 0.0 Patteson, Bill L 0.0 Smith, George 0.0 Staight, G. 0.0 Schmid, AD. 0.0 Plaster, J. 0.0 Limoh, LC. 0.0 Peil, 0.0 Nuchod, J. 0.0 Heising, C. 0.0 Bone, CH. 0.0

Very interesting psychology there in that game.

Fischer would have been hardly likely to have studied the opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? in any depth. And while in a normal game he could certainly have been expected to spot that the c-pawn did not need defending at move 8 because the black queen would be trapped if it captured it [ EDIT my mistake, not trapped, but in difficulties and White would be fine ] , in a simultaneous display that's quite another matter.

And the final move 26...Rxe3 is maybe another piece of psychology. The engine analysis indicates that Black doesn't have enough for this exchange sacrifice, and to my eye there doesn't seem much to justify it because Black's position looks sound and there's no objective need to sacrifice (correct me if I'm wrong!). But Fischer must have been demoralised with this particular game, seeing that his opponent was much stronger than he thought following the rubbish opening Black played, and this final exchange sacrifice must have shaken him up into offering a draw.

Very interesting psychology there in that game. Fischer would have been hardly likely to have studied the opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? in any depth. And while in a normal game he could certainly have been expected to spot that the c-pawn did not need defending at move 8 because the black queen would be trapped if it captured it [ EDIT my mistake, not trapped, but in difficulties and White would be fine ] , in a simultaneous display that's quite another matter. And the final move 26...Rxe3 is maybe another piece of psychology. The engine analysis indicates that Black doesn't have enough for this exchange sacrifice, and to my eye there doesn't seem much to justify it because Black's position looks sound and there's no objective need to sacrifice (correct me if I'm wrong!). But Fischer must have been demoralised with this particular game, seeing that his opponent was much stronger than he thought following the rubbish opening Black played, and this final exchange sacrifice must have shaken him up into offering a draw.

@Brian-E said in #8:

Very interesting psychology there in that game.

Agreed.

Fischer would have been hardly likely to have studied the opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? in any depth. And while in a normal game he could certainly have been expected to spot that the c-pawn did not need defending at move 8 because the black queen would be trapped if it captured it [ EDIT my mistake, not trapped, but in difficulties and White would be fine ] , in a simultaneous display that's quite another matter.

Yes, maybe. I bet it is possible that Fischer did know about the Damiano defense because "Fischer plays like a machine, he sees everything, he knows everything" (Loosely quoting GM Taimanov after the 0-6 match loss versus Fischer in 1971) and because Fischer used to read everything he could read on chess, he even knew about the female chess player games in North America (!) which was astonishing to some other chess player at that time. But that, assuming Fischer knew all about the Damiano defense, is just my guess.

And the final move 26...Rxe3 is maybe another piece of psychology. The engine analysis indicates that Black doesn't have enough for this exchange sacrifice, and to my eye there doesn't seem much to justify it because Black's position looks sound and there's no objective need to sacrifice (correct me if I'm wrong!). But Fischer must have been demoralised with this particular game, seeing that his opponent was much stronger than he thought following the rubbish opening Black played, and this final exchange sacrifice must have shaken him up into offering a draw.

Possible. I would say that after Rxe3 maybe black offered a draw (Normal in OTB chess is to make a move and then offer draw) but I think we do not know that for sure. I think it is fair to say that with such a huge rating gap, and despite that this was in a simul, usually the amateur chess players would only play for a win when there is a really serious advantage. To me the Rxe3 exchange sacrifice is because the amateur chess player saw that this : 1) simplifies things 2) leads to a draw and therefore the amateur player can be happy, because 1) a draw in a simul against a much stronger player can be seen as a good result 2) it was a moral victory after opting for the unsound Damiano defense.

Also, it is possible that Fischer got distracted by other simul games that night. He lost 3 and drew 2.
And sometimes even a won game can distract the simul giver, because for instance the opponent makes very unusual moves, or shows very unusual behavior. All these little distractions can add up. This week I was thinking about a simul a few years ago in my town. The GM won most games, but lost one game against a young blind chess club fellow. I know that several chess players have told me that playing against a blind chess player can be a challenging thing. Maybe it also distracted the GM during the simul.

Anyway, I think the simul game and its history is a fun story in my opinion. And thanks for your comments, appreciated.

@Brian-E said in #8: > Very interesting psychology there in that game. Agreed. > Fischer would have been hardly likely to have studied the opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? in any depth. And while in a normal game he could certainly have been expected to spot that the c-pawn did not need defending at move 8 because the black queen would be trapped if it captured it [ EDIT my mistake, not trapped, but in difficulties and White would be fine ] , in a simultaneous display that's quite another matter. > Yes, maybe. I bet it is possible that Fischer did know about the Damiano defense because "Fischer plays like a machine, he sees everything, he knows everything" (Loosely quoting GM Taimanov after the 0-6 match loss versus Fischer in 1971) and because Fischer used to read everything he could read on chess, he even knew about the female chess player games in North America (!) which was astonishing to some other chess player at that time. But that, assuming Fischer knew all about the Damiano defense, is just my guess. > And the final move 26...Rxe3 is maybe another piece of psychology. The engine analysis indicates that Black doesn't have enough for this exchange sacrifice, and to my eye there doesn't seem much to justify it because Black's position looks sound and there's no objective need to sacrifice (correct me if I'm wrong!). But Fischer must have been demoralised with this particular game, seeing that his opponent was much stronger than he thought following the rubbish opening Black played, and this final exchange sacrifice must have shaken him up into offering a draw. Possible. I would say that after Rxe3 maybe black offered a draw (Normal in OTB chess is to make a move and then offer draw) but I think we do not know that for sure. I think it is fair to say that with such a huge rating gap, and despite that this was in a simul, usually the amateur chess players would only play for a win when there is a really serious advantage. To me the Rxe3 exchange sacrifice is because the amateur chess player saw that this : 1) simplifies things 2) leads to a draw and therefore the amateur player can be happy, because 1) a draw in a simul against a much stronger player can be seen as a good result 2) it was a moral victory after opting for the unsound Damiano defense. Also, it is possible that Fischer got distracted by other simul games that night. He lost 3 and drew 2. And sometimes even a won game can distract the simul giver, because for instance the opponent makes very unusual moves, or shows very unusual behavior. All these little distractions can add up. This week I was thinking about a simul a few years ago in my town. The GM won most games, but lost one game against a young blind chess club fellow. I know that several chess players have told me that playing against a blind chess player can be a challenging thing. Maybe it also distracted the GM during the simul. Anyway, I think the simul game and its history is a fun story in my opinion. And thanks for your comments, appreciated.

Ah yes, I didn't actually notice that 26...Rxe3 forces a draw as White cannot escape the perpetual because of the hanging rook. So the engine labelling the move inaccurate indicates that the engine considers Black's position superior. Well then, naturally Black will have been delighted with a draw against Fischer.

Thank you too for your comments and for finding that instructive simul game.

Ah yes, I didn't actually notice that 26...Rxe3 forces a draw as White cannot escape the perpetual because of the hanging rook. So the engine labelling the move inaccurate indicates that the engine considers Black's position superior. Well then, naturally Black will have been delighted with a draw against Fischer. Thank you too for your comments and for finding that instructive simul game.