|
|||||||||
During time this view has changed greatly. However, It seems to me that nowadays people have gone to the opposite extreme, in that they grant the psychological angle too much weight. I have seen, both directly and through annotations of chess battles, a generation of young players who hold the notion that the crucial elements of chess are to deliver their opponent a message that they are calm and confident; to opt and to search for psychological ploys behind the most natural developing moves; to take the enemy off-balance by opening surprises, even of a dubious nature. All that, before they acquire a decent command of the basic skills of the game. Chess players follow the trend and listen closely to their models, the champions. Now, in a recent interview, some weeks before his world championship match vs. Kramnik, world champion Anand said this (Italics are by the author):
Anand and many others stress the importance of keeping a motionless poker face, not giving your opponent any clues about your thoughts and emotions. While this is certainly a worthwhile advice, we should remind ourselves that chess is no poker. In the latter (card) game, we have only a partial data: the cards of our rival are a mystery to us. In contrast, the relevant information in chess is in front of our eyes, completely open. There is a sense pretending in specific situations, but I’ve seen players make great effort to pretend as if they are happy in clearly lost positions, which I find ridiculous. All in all, the room for pretending in chess is rather limited, as the opponent usually base his decisions on an objective chess position.
To attain prominence, gaining strength and expertise in chess comes before everything else. First you learn the basic rules and principles. Then you understand them. Then you develop your skills. It is only somewhere along the 8th or, maybe the 11th place in the ladder of priorities, that the psychological angle should be dealt with.
Yet a new psychological jargon appears to delude people to think that they act cleverly, while this is not the case.
In the past, players who held an advantage avoided unnecessary risks, because they wanted to play it safe. In modern times one says with an air of importance: “I want to play for two results, not three” – and one feels (unjustly) more smart and sophisticated.
Or take “the theory of infinite resistance”, mentioned some years ago by GM Rogers in a “New in Chess” article. Apparently Rogers’ countryman Bill Jordan, believed that it is possible to put a stiff resistance on each and every move, no matter how desperate the position is. The implicit assumption here is that this never-ending resistance will eventually break the spirit of the advantageous side, who will let his superiority slip.
Now, the truth is that there is no “theory” here, just a single idea and a
minor one. Of course one may – and should – defend his position with
all one’s power; but on the vast majority of cases, this psychological
“spirit” will have no affect. If a position is untenable in a pure
chess sense, psychological tools in themselves will usually be of little
help.
I am the last person to downgrade the role of psychology in chess; after all, I wrote several books about the interface between the two fields. All I say is: to succeed in chess you have to be, first and foremost, a good player. And only after that – way after that – you should employ psychology.
To end this short article, here is a recently played endgame by Peter Leko. In a lost position, his opponent creates some pressure. He tries to scare Leko, to trick him, to mess things up. But the Hungarian GM just keeps finding the best moves, and this wins the day for him.
Leko – Gashimov
White to play
© 2006-2009 by Amatzia Avni and Chessville
|
Chessville
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
DER
SPIEGEL: What is the role of emotions?
