Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Anand-Gelfand: Psychology

  • WGM Natalia_Pogonina
  • | May 29, 2012
  • | 19342 views
  • | 202 comments

In chess, like in any other sports, psychology plays a critical role. One doesn’t become a world champion having a weak character. However, even the bravest and most self-confident player isn’t guaranteed anything. The higher the stakes, the more nerves matter. Vladimir Kramnik mentioned while commentating on the match that probably the main difference between the very top players and the top-100 grandmasters is that the former can handle stress better. The game is not decided only on the board; it’s a clash of minds, personalities. One can be better prepared in the opening, generally play chess better, but still lose due to being overemotional. Even the best of the best falter sometimes.

I don’t know for sure what Anand and Gelfand are feeling, but even by observing them one can gather food for thought. From the psychological point of view the match can be broken down into two parts: before game 8 and after. Clearly, Anand is not in his best shape. One can tell that both by the way he is playing and by the way he looks. During the first 8 games Vishy gave the impression of an unconfident and passive person. He was hiding in his shell and avoiding answering questions during the press conferences. And I don’t think that was due to trying to save energy. Moreover, Gelfand had excellent preparation with Black, and this contributed even more  to Anand’s psychological problems. Game 7 (which he lost in a terrible fashion) became a true shock for the World Champion. Many analysts were expecting him to pull himself together after the defeat, but that wasn’t the case. However, luck was on Anand’s side at this point: Gelfand blundered a queen, and the score became equal again.  Now Vishy became way more relaxed and concentrated than before. For example, in game 9 he was defending a fortress against Gelfand’s queen. Having made a few quick and strong moves, he offered a draw to his opponent. Usually the stronger side is supposed to offer a draw, so this was a psychological trick in some respect. During the press conferences Vishy started smiling and making jokes, as well as answering the questions before Boris, not after.

Maybe Anand’s sapless play is connected with his lack of motivation. He has defended his title twice already. What else does he want to achieve in chess? When preparing for the match against Gelfand, Vishy was playing rather mediocre chess in tournament, apologizing shyly before his friends on Twitter. Probably he lost focus, and his thoughts were elsewhere. Alas, Caissa is a cruel goddess that rewards only her most loyal servants. By playing in an energy-saving mode one risks forgetting what it feels like to give 100% of yourself to the game. Not to mention losing self-respect by being a World Champion who doesn’t win the tournaments he is playing in.

On the contrary, Boris Gelfand knows no rivals when it comes to preparing himself for top tournaments. For him it is the very first WCC match, and he is clearly enjoying it. He is clearly more motivated to win than Anand, and it can be seen from the way he is playing. Boris dismissed a question about him not being experienced enough and being unused to handling the pressure of such a match by saying he doesn’t feel any special pressure. He is not afraid to answer even the most provocative questions. His opening repertoire is more flexible too. While Vishy is playing for a draw with Black and a minimal advantage with White, Boris is ready to seize the initiative with any color.

The critical point of the classical part of the match was game 8. Boris was obviously feeling that Anand had lost his balance. He decided to finish his opponent off: it’s very hard to come back after two losses at this level and in such a short match. After having played the opening in a creative way, he got into a situation where he had to play very precisely in order not to get a significantly worse position. Looking quite satisfied, he played the horrible move 14..Qf6?, thus implying that he thought he was winning. Anand reacted almost instantly; he had seen the trap coming a while ago.  Nonetheless, one has to give credit to Boris: he wasn’t demolished by such a blunder.

Summarizing, before game 8, psychology was on the Challenger’s side. Now Gelfand and Anand are about equal in this respect. This will make the tie-break even more exciting. Who do you think will win?

Today I would like to annotate for you game #7. Anand’s loss was caused by his lack of self-confidence. In a somewhat inferior position he talked himself into believing that he was hopelessly lost already and started making one bad move after the other, not even trying to put up any defense.



Comments


  • 12 months ago

    hitman4204

    gxtmfa,why dont you shut up...none of us here can imagine the pressure that these guys went through...suggesting that a player should retire when he is in the middle of a tense and critical match is wrong..i'm sure anand will know better than us when it is his time to leave...every top player goes through a loss of form at some time or the other...look at topalov...the point is we don't know if anand's loss of form is temporary or permanent...and i'm sure when anand realizes that he can no longer play at the level that he is used to, he will leave in a quiet and dignified manner(and without miss pogonina having to tell him so). 

  • 12 months ago

    vijay55

    Skandji, the article as such is not biased. But the comments which Natalia Ma'am made( i don't know with so many comments u will find them in page 3 and page 4) are definitely biased. In which she talked about the format( which is not appropriate according to her).

  • 12 months ago

    jesterville

    "Anand is lucky that Gelfand was the one who challenged him. If the Candidates Matches in Kazan were held using the 6-6-8 system (6 games in the ¼-final and ½-final, 8- in the final), Gelfand’s chances to make it to the WCC match would be minimal. Somebody else would have played against Anand, and he could have actually won. For example, Grischuk. Not to mention that Carlsen would have been playing."

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I was unaware that Kasparov was learned in physics...and specifically "special and general relativity"...of course I am refering to going back in time. The problem with his theory is that once anything changes in the past it causes a multiple of ripples in the flow of time, and the new future cannot be predicted. So for instance...Let us say that Grischuk does win The Candidates...in this future branch who knows, maybe on the way to Game #1 he is involved in a fatal accident...or he is so excited the day of the Match he has a fatal heart attack...or he contracts some virus before the Match and plays very poorly. The point is that no one can accurately predict the future outcome by changing a past variable.

  • 12 months ago

    Byron8

    Maybe I am blind, but I see no such insinuation.

  • 12 months ago

    zzgloo

    She is not baised...nor does she disrespect Anand....but the article without any justification,insinuated that Anand is old and should retire ,right in the middle of the match.

  • 12 months ago

    Prakashkv

    Well we had a lot of discussions and except for one or two persons most of the people are of the opnion that the article is not biased. 

    I think we should leave it at that and enjoy the victory of Anand!

  • 12 months ago

    gxtmfa

    Viky, shut up. You're embarrassing yourself. Pogonina has expressed disappointment in how Anand played because she believed (and rightfully so) that Anand himself was capable of playing better. You are the biased one. You are disappointed someone said that your dear national hero wasn't playing up to his full potential. 

    You don't get it. This is what Natalija doesFor a living. Chess is her job. She has credentials. She is not from the country of the challenger, nor of the defender, so she isn't wrapped up in national pride. Anand himself expressed the same views as GM Pogonina. 

    For all intents and purposes, she was paid to write this article, and what she has written has been supported by the subjects of the article themselves, as well as other GMs and even former World Champions. 

  • 12 months ago

    Stanya

    lovely article. i do wish the best to anand, naturaly.

  • 12 months ago

    Skand

    @Aksh1: I re-read my comments - and you are absolutely right Smile

  • 12 months ago

    pkkushwaha

    @its_viky

    Dear Sir,

    Very nice hit; to all uselessly jealous of Anand's victory. The crying that "Anand is not this or that"; "he has lost touch" is not enough to hide the jealousy. The fact is that no one can be Champion for ever. Every champion has to quit one day or the other. The great thing is that Anand is very much aware of this, which perhaps the earlier ones were not, and the media is certainly not aware of this reality. What do they (media) expected of Anand?? Should he have handed over the crown to Gelfand by 0-12!!

  • 12 months ago

    bishshoy_das

    @Aksh1

    that was epic. :D

  • 12 months ago

    bishshoy_das

    @im pfren

    With due respect Sir,

    How could a deteriorated player hold his WCH title for the fifth time?

    Why did luck favour him in 15 out of 16 games?

    If Anand, the world champion, is unmotivated, then what about the rest of the world?

    Anand studied Gelfand's games more than any other player did. Maybe it was his discrete decision not to be too much aggressive with him. Who knows, this might be the secret of his success? Aggression in chess does not always guarantee victory. And the world champion is supposed to know it. I think he knows this better than any of us.

    Please don't say I am wearing Indian goggles. I just didn't like the way this article was over-assessing the potential of a chess legend. Please re-read the quotations from this article I made in my previous post. Those lines made by the author are too over-confident to be true.

  • 12 months ago

    ori0

    Good article thank you.

  • 12 months ago

    Aksh1

    Skandji,
    It reminds me of the way we used to write down 'WHAT DOES THE POET MEAN BY THE FOLLOWING LINES..?? Good One..!!

  • 12 months ago

    Skand

    My take on these comments (in blue). Please note that I am not Natalia's attorney, I am just putting my interpretation of what Natalia wants to say and why she is saying what she is saying :-)

    "Maybe Anand’s sapless play is connected with his lack of motivation." Natalia has grown up seeing Anand destroying his opponent. For her this type of game is lifeless (sapless) as far as Anand is concerned. She is trying to figure out why Anand is playing that way and she conjecturing that he is lacking the kind of motivation that he used to have earlier.

    "He has defended his title twice already. What else does he want to achieve in chess?" Again, she is trying to figure out why is Anand not playing his trademark attacking chess. She thinks aloud - may be because Anand has conquered all there is to conquer, he is not that hungry anymore...

    "Vishy was playing rather mediocre chess in tournament" Because Natalia holds Anand in very high esteem, his playing just at the level of Gelfand is 'mediocre' by Anand's high standards.

    "Probably he lost focus, and his thoughts were elsewhere" I see nothing derogatory in such a statement. It can happen to anyone. Even  Schumacher and Gavaskar who are fabled for their concentration have lost concentration and if this happened to Anand - well he is human after all - and if a writer mentions it, it can't be taken as an insult to the man.

  • 12 months ago

    eugene_p_needlemeyer

    most retarded thread ever. tracking, off.

  • 12 months ago

    zzgloo

    The fact is,the Chess has changed....The computer has changed CHESS drasticaly...The Era of Those facy moves are gone...

    Today's top chess players admit,such games require " Risks " now...as more and more chess players play like a " Computer ".....

    And no body does it better than Anand. 

  • 12 months ago

    pkkushwaha

    The fact is that statistical probability and chance play great role for winning any title. So is the case with Anand or Kasparov; Anand does have luck in his favour. But the bias is: when Kasparov wins the credit goes to Kasparov but when Anand wins the credit is put to luck or the "looser". I never wished that Anand win the title. I would have been equally happy had Gelfand won. Chess is a game the role of luck and chances are inherent and equally applicable to all. Personal attack on Anand is unjustified. It is actually not important to win the game technically, it is far more important to win it psychologically and Anand has succeeded psychologically.

  • 12 months ago

    rkrules

    Good points Skand !

  • 12 months ago

    zzgloo

    I am not an Indian.....talking about being objective ?

    The fact of the matter is, there is talk among some chess players, that they want more " Action " in chess...not too many draws !, not a passive game....etc,etc.....and they just do not like Anand's style....thats about it.

    Talking with your firends about such issues are  fine...but,not as an Journalist...not for an international audience.....not during a world chess championship........not when ,there are  no body yet,who can beat this so called boring player......

    If, thier visions of Anand,were right,some body should have come and proved Anand wrong......

Back to Top

Post your reply: