Only Chess
26 Oct 12
27 Oct 12
1 edit
I'm a little bit confused....
Our professor in psychology RJHInds stated on the 22 Sep 2012 Thread 148616
"....don't underestimate psychology in chess play OTB, which
can't be used in correspondence type chess. "
Yet in the notes to C.C. game, RJ v Kingshill:
"Perhaps there is a little psychology in there. "
"but then he would move his Bishop to b7 so a little psychology was in order."
"...but I have some more psychology for him..."
So can we use this new psychology in our C.C. games as well as out OTB games?
-----------
Hi RJ, you posted.
"The psychological tactics this article is referring to are things like blowing smoke
in your opponents direction, tapping on the table when it is his time to move,
kicking the opponent (accidently), making moaning, grunting, or other noises while
the opponent is thinking. I did nothing like these. "
These sounds like physical distractions to me, not mind games.
Do you know what psychology means?
Psychology does have it's part to play in the game.
You said:
"Giving up a pawn in the hopes of gaining a psychological advantage is not
considered cheating."
Of course it is not cheating, but it not psychological either.
You hope to gain a psychological advanatge by saccing a pawn.
Usually you give up a pawn for active play, misplace your opponents pieces
or cramp his development.
Four moves after your pawn sac.
I can see none of these factors in action for White.
Infact if anything White's pieces are misplaced after dropping the pawn.
So it appears your definition of psychological chess is obtaining a poor position
and 'hope' your opponent misplays it.
Yet you attach the word psychological to some good moves you played v Kingshill.
no wonder I and others appear confused.
Granted at the lower levels of the game the psychological factor that often comes
into play in positions like the one above is that the losing player starts firing on all
cylinders and the player with the plus drifts into making 3rd class moves or bad planning decisions.
I and I'm sure other player do not feel under any psychological pressure about
having a won game. But there again if your opponent starts wrigglng and
getting counter play then you will feel the pressure, but is this psychological
or is it just normal OTB chess players behaviour.
So if psychology (for the want of a better word) has any part to play in the actual
game then I reckon it's in the scenario above.
I'm sure I have written a note somewhere to this effect:
"White is under the psychological disadvantage of knowing he has a won
game but cannot see how to win it."
27 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHinds@ RJH I play the Schliemann because it's what I play OTB and I'm only here to work on my openings. I know it's suspect but it's not as bad as what I play against the Kings Gambit (1. e5 e5 2. f4 Nc6). That is even more unsound..!
I am not sure I used much psychology in this games you asked about. It seems easier to me to use psychology OTB where you have a continuous game. The clock can become a big factor for or against your psychologically.
I have played kingshill several times before and he has astonished me with his defensive capabilities when I have tried to play the Ruy lo ...[text shortened]... a8a5 {Bingo! Something has got to give and He resigns} 1-0
[/pgn]
I haven't renewed my subscription on here as I want to analyse and refine everything that I've played over the last year and then try to learn it. I need to look at our KID exchange game to see where I went wrong. I've played the KID for over 30 years and I've only ever lost 2 or 3 games to this very passive variation. Often the losses have been when I've tried to push too hard for a win as with dxe5 white is virtually giving up his advantage from the opening. The only people I know who play this are endgame expert or chickens who are playing stronger opponents.
27 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWow, you actually added some comments, thanks for that. Now i have a few questions. For clarity i thought i'd add them in with your analysis...
I am not sure I used much psychology in this games you asked about. It seems easier to me to use psychology OTB where you have a continuous game. The clock can become a big factor for or against your psychologically.
I have played kingshill several times before and he has astonished me with his defensive capabilities when I have tried to play the Ruy lo ...[text shortened]... a8a5 {Bingo! Something has got to give and He resigns} 1-0
[/pgn]
27 Oct 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't have a Phd in psychology and can't give you a course of instruction in it. Sorrowfully, I don't have a Phd in anything. I am not even an expert at chess. These are only my redneck ideas of what might be psychology. If my youngest son was still here, instead of teaching 7th grade science in California, I might have asked his opinion, since one of his degrees is in psychology. However, I did the best I know how and you are free to disagree if you wish. It is all in fun anyway. Isn't that one of the reasons we are here?
I'm a little bit confused....
Our professor in psychology RJHInds stated on the 22 Sep 2012 Thread 148616
"....don't underestimate psychology in chess play OTB, which
[b]can't be used in correspondence type chess. "
Yet in the notes to C.C. game, RJ v Kingshill:
"Perhaps there is a little psychology in there. "
"but th ...[text shortened]... isadvantage of knowing he has a won
game but cannot see how to win it."[/b]
After 8.Bg5 you write, "Marinkatomb: Ok so far this is all simple opening choices, there's littl point in analysing all this because its all been played before."
I haven't done any analyzing up to this point. I have only been pointing out what the opening is called and the variations name so you can find analysis if you wish to look it up. If you knew all this before, then fine. But here I thought you might want to know why I made this choice over the much more popular 8.Qxd8.
As you write after 14.Rfd1 I have a "SLIGHT" positional advantage, but not a winning advantage. You can not win with a "SLIGHT" positional advantage, because things can quickly change.
After 19...b5 I do have a clear advantage, but not a winning advantage. So I do not want to appear over-confident that I am going to win this game. After all I have experience with kingshill's defensive capabilities and I only feel confident that with good play from here that I should have at least a draw. I felt lucky he did not play 19...bxc5. I still have much work to do, psychology, you know.
After 28.Qa2 you write, "Marinkatomb: There are a lot of white pieces moving to the a file. Why? What is the exact plan here?
I don't recall my exact plan, but I think it must have had something to do with psychology. I needed to give him something to worry about on his queenside to pull him away from planning an attack on my king. The move 26.Ra8 was to entice him to move his bishop back to b7 to attack my rook so that I could pin it with 27.Ra7 and then maybe bring my queen to a2 for support of the rook, but as you see that did not work. After his 26...Nf6 that attacked my e4 pawn, I could no longer continue with 27.Qa2. So seeing his Queen has double duty defending his e5 and c6, I decided to attack his c6 with 27.Na5. He then plays 27...Nd7 overprotecting his e5 pawn but releasing my queen from the protection of my e4 pawn, so I now can move 28.Qa2 which will give support for my rook and also prevent his f-pawn from advancing.
After 30.Ra7 you write, "Marinkatomb: Perhaps you could comment on exactly what is going on here? Why Ra7?
The purpose of 30.Ra7 is to pin his bishop, because I already had this psychological idea in my head.
After 31.Qa5 you write, "MArinkatomb: What about here? Why Qa5?"
I believed that this move restricts his queen and prevents it from returning to c7.
After 33.Bh3 you write, "MArinkatomb: Again, what were you thinking specifically by playing h4 and Bh3?"
Again I don't recall my exact thoughts, but I believe I had realized that I had put all the pressure I could on the queenside and a little psychology was in order again. These moves were to get that bishop into a an attacking position.
After 36.Bc1 you write, "Marinkatomb: Wow, i see that you continue by putting the bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal but why via c1? Why not Bd2-Bc3? There has to be some sort of reason you chose Bc1-Bb2?
I remember what I was thinking here. I thought he might attack my undefended e4 pawn with his knight and I wanted to leave d2 open for one of my knights.
After 44...Rxe6 you write, "Marinkatomb: WHAT?? COME OUT FINE?????? Are we looking at the same board?
You have the benefit of hindsight, knowing about my next move. Black is a pawn up with passed pawns to boot and he is double attacking another one of my pawns and his pawns are all defended. If I had not seen 45.Qh1 he would have probably won the endgame.
After 48.Qh3 you write, "Marinkatomb: Threatening Bxf6 ..Rxf6 Ra7+ ..Ka3 Qc8 with mate on h1. <-- This is the sort of comment this move should have after it..
I thought that threat was obvious, since kingshill defended against it.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsRj, while you've clearly put a lot of effort into this response, you've forgotten one vital fact. This is a chess forum, full of chess players. The likely hood that you can pull the wool over our collective eyes with a few short observations of a VERY complicated position, with responses such as...
[pgn]
[Event "March 2011 Mini Banded Threesomes 1900-1950"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2012.06.17"]
[EndDate "2012.07.08"]
[Round "3"]
[White "RJHinds"]
[Black "kingshill"]
[WhiteRating "2264"]
[BlackRating "2392"]
[WhiteElo "2264"]
[BlackElo "2392"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "9351174"]
1. Ng1f3 Ng8f6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bf8g7 4. Nb1 ...[text shortened]... since kingshill defended against it.
'Again I don't recall my exact thoughts, but I believe I had realized that I had put all the pressure I could on the queenside and a little psychology was in order again. These moves were to get that bishop into a an attacking position.'
Lots of words. Zero content.
Be honest, did you use an engine to play this game? At this point a little honesty wouldn't hurt, because it's blindingly obvious to me and anyone else who cares to read all this that you really don't have a deep enough understanding of the game to play and find the moves in this game unaided.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by MarinkatombI don't have total recall. Sorry, if I can't satisfy you, but I did try since you asked. But now I resent the fact that you just asked these question not to learn something about the game, but to accuse me of cheating. That is a disgusting and despicable thing to do in my opinion. So don't expect me to answer any more of your questions. Just like the Duchess put me on her/his ignore list, I am putting you on my ignore list.
Rj, while you've clearly put a lot of effort into this response, you've forgotten one vital fact. This is a chess forum, full of chess players. The likely hood that you can pull the wool over our collective eyes with a few short observations of a VERY complicated position, with responses such as...
'Again I don't recall my exact thoughts, but I believ ...[text shortened]... a deep enough understanding of the game to play and find the moves in this game unaided.
- Joined
- 23 Nov 09
- Moves
- 140241
28 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe problem is that there is NOTHING to learn from your comments! You don't not know what you are doing or saying because you are not making these moves yourself. End of story.
I don't have total recall. Sorry, if I can't satisfy you, but I did try since you asked. But now I resent the fact that you just asked these question not to learn something about the game, but to accuse me of cheating. That is a disgusting and despicable thing to do in my opinion. So don't expect me to answer any more of your questions. Just like the Duchess put me on her/his ignore list, I am putting you on my ignore list.
Even I, a mere 1300+ player here can see/feel/smell you are a cheat; just by reading your inane rambling about psychology moves or looking at your annotations.
28 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsTo be fair, had your answers displayed some understanding, i would have learned something and i wouldn't be accusing you of cheating. While i appreciate you don't like the conclusion i've come to, i've come to it as a result of your answers. What other conclusion is it possible for me to come to? While i'm no Grandmaster, i do have a reasonable grasp of how the game is played, i've spent years talking with other chess players, on here, at my club, playing for my county. You out grade me by 400 points, yet you never give an explanation of a move beyond it's immediate threat. Chess players think a bit more than one move ahead. 2250 players think very deeply about a position, they have to. There is simply no depth of understanding to anything you've said, so again, what other explanation is open to me to explain this win other than you using an engine?
I don't have total recall. Sorry, if I can't satisfy you, but I did try since you asked. But now I resent the fact that you just asked these question not to learn something about the game, but to accuse me of cheating. That is a disgusting and despicable thing to do in my opinion. So don't expect me to answer any more of your questions. Just like the Duchess put me on her/his ignore list, I am putting you on my ignore list.
Thread 143005
Scroll down to David Tebbs comments on page one. They are detailed, give some insight into various variations that the game could go into. This is what well thought out analysis looks like...
EDIT: One further thing. I, unlike a lot of people on here, don't really feel any personal animosity towards you personally. You seem like a nice enough guy. There's really no shame in having a low grade. This forum is a means for players to talk and learn from each other. Set up another account, stop using an engine for your moves and become a regular contributor to this forum. Fresh start.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHinds"The purpose of 30.Ra7 is to pin his bishop, because I already had this psychological idea in my head."
[pgn]
[Event "March 2011 Mini Banded Threesomes 1900-1950"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2012.06.17"]
[EndDate "2012.07.08"]
[Round "3"]
[White "RJHinds"]
[Black "kingshill"]
[WhiteRating "2264"]
[BlackRating "2392"]
[WhiteElo "2264"]
[BlackElo "2392"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "9351174"]
1. Ng1f3 Ng8f6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bf8g7 4. Nb1 ...[text shortened]... since kingshill defended against it.
Pins are not psychological ideas - they are a well understood chess construct or theme. Krogius' wrote the classic text on this years ago - I don't recall him taliking about "pins" being a psychological ploy or motif.
Originally posted by KeggeIt was meant for fun. Can't you guys laugh?
The problem is that there is NOTHING to learn from your comments! You don't not know what you are doing or saying because you are not making these moves yourself. End of story.
Even I, a mere 1300+ player here can see/feel/smell you are a cheat; just by reading your inane rambling about psychology moves or looking at your annotations.