Bravery In Chess

Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - and I believe this starts right from the first moves you make.

Obviously, 1. d4 c4 and Nf3 players are not really stating their intentions to play a risky game so can be forgiven for this as you know right from the outset that a positional outlook is required in these games and they will be won or lost by the building up of slight advantages.

But sometimes there are players who make themselves out to be big shots but actually are also dodging the danger by their play...

For instance, there are some players who will stick religiously to sharp theory which might make them look like a bold attacker but since they are never straying into unknown territory until much later in the game (and by then they probably know how to get an advantage) they are actually not as daring as an onlooker might believe them to be.

Also, there are those who will start off with a brave attack but quickly turn the game into a slow grind when the going gets tough - therefore killing off almost any good tactical exchanges. c3 Sicillian players are a good example of this - steering a normally exciting game into a slow squeeze where the only chances black gets are to defend against whites nusences.

I am sure there are other examples too and I urge you, the peoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

I shall expose something else for you to see. But not here, in real life only.

Ohhh, are you a girl. If yes I accept your exposal...

Sometimes you must play a slow grinding game to win... but I agree that this is not the case in the opening phase.

The funny thing here is that your post speaks of bravery with just admiration but in reality it is simply gamble.

Would your post sound same if you replaced bravery with gamble?

I for one don't play bravely, but I definitely play with a lot of gamble (or is it stupidity?)

There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity - I think it tends to be judged retroactively depending if you met with success or faliure.

I think true bravery in chess is to leap into the unknown and delve into the billions of positions that have never been played, with only your instincts to guide you. It is also a bit more fun to play that way too - sure it is nice to grind somebody down the same way every time with an exchange ruy lopez or english system but there comes a point where you are not really learning anymore, and certainly dont feel pressured in any way.

Playing the Opening is much like making love to a woman...You've gotta open up before you thrust forward,prod and probe to expose a weakness and if it goes t**s-up keep pushing until the wind changes direction.............

I hate when people use the word bravery when talking about a board game. Unless of course the game is played by outsiders in a school yard or street, in a drug infested inner city neighborhood. Playing in a war zone with a fire fight in the area would qualify also.
It's kind of like calling Soccer a sport when it's actually an activity. 😀

Or like calling football soccer 😀

Originally posted by hamltnblue
I hate when people use the word bravery when talking about a board game. Unless of course the game is played by outsiders in a school yard or street, in a drug infested inner city neighborhood. Playing in a war zone with a fire fight in the area would qualify also.
It's kind of like calling Soccer a sport when it's actually an activity. 😀

I guess the question is whether you can use the word bravery for a game. I mean unless there is money or world championships on the line there's not much on the line to lose.

For example, I'm currently playing about 20 games on RHP. I definitely take LOTS of chances but I'm not being brave because nothing happens if I lose.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - ...[text shortened]... eoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - ...[text shortened]... eoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
Hello friends, for my latest lecture I would like to look at a psycological aspect of the game rather then something tangible like theory or tactics.

I was thinking, although it is less of a feature in correspondence chess (what with there being no time pressure for people to be nervous about) there is still an element of bravery in the game - ...[text shortened]... eoples of this forum, to bring them to our attention so that they may be exposed for all to see.

By the way - "slow grind" opening does not obligatory mean careful play. I would suggest you to check out opening repertoire of Tal to see that Tal have been played not only your favorite open Sicilians, but also openings which you would consider as "slow grind". But even in these "slow grind" openings he have been played very interesting chess.

Also I have been played many interesting games started with "slow grind" openings. Here is good example from our blitz games.