?

OTB is not all about eye contact. It's about making good moves, the same as it is online. You can stare me down all you want, but if you don't understand the position as well as I do, you're going to lose.

For some people who are not natural competetors, you might get a little help from tactics that increase their awareness of pressure. I'm skeptical that intimidation has much effect on anybody though. In poker there is so much incomplete information that people can help people into fooling themselves about your hand range, or to giving you information about theirs, but I don't see how this could translage to chess when all the information is right there on the board.

Spend more time on your game, less on this nonsense.

?

?

The thing is, chess contains a wide variety components, of which finding the correct move is only one.

The OP has an interest in psychology, as related to chess? Well, he's in good company, along with Reuben Fine.

You can't tell people what they should spend their time on. Next you'll be advising me that I will be a better player if I move away from weird and bizarre opening lines. You'll probably be correct, but my interest is not in becoming a better player, it's in weird and bizarre opening lines. See what I mean?

?

At the state championship tournaments I play in, I always seem to play against a player who will try to psyche me out.  I have seen people dressed up like the mafia, mad bomber hats, full suits, and even people in poker glasses. 

I just about laughed when I played the guy in the poker glasses.  To me it just seemed he was hiding behind his glasses.  Throughout the whole game he would just stare at me.  The only thing is that I focus so hard on the board that I pay very little attention to his antics.  I ended up playing  a better opening and won a piece.  He seemed unnerved that I would never flinch from his stare and began to fidget. When I was coming in for the kill, I saw his head began to sink and the glasses came off. 

I called his bluff.

My point was, that there are many facets to chess, (including psychology, and bizarre openings too, and many, many more) and nobody shoild have the right to tell you discard one facet, just because it is of no interest to them.

And yes, you can influence opponents online, I choose to do it with surprising openings, others with using or abusing vacation privilages, others with verbal abuse, or constant draw offers, and many behaviours that may not be tolerated OTB. If these had no effect, why do people get so mad about it?

Rooperi you make some valid points. If such tactics have no effect why do people get so mad about it.

I play to improve my chess knowledge and not my rating. I accept that the more games I win the more my rating increases. I have no problem playing against weird and or bizarre openings, and have fun playing these types of games.

I know of many chess players who get intimidated by the content of an opponent's messaging and resign. The opponent's rating increases with a win, the loser feels all sorts of emotions but doesn't care about his or her rating.

Since online chess is limited to reading about an opponent and instant messaging. Can you influence or intimidate an opponent online?

An opponent who resigns as a result of the content of an instant message is evidence that you can intimidate an opponent.

This is an excellent point. He should do as he pleases and I should leave him to it. I admit that I should have stuck to saying that I don't believe psychology has any real effect on a game compared to tactical strength for example.

I'm going to ignore all of the personal comments from axlbcy or whatever it's supposed to be other than to say I clearly made him upset when I wrote what I did and I'm sorry that it was taken personally.

But I'm not sure chosing openings could even count as psychology. You still have to know the theory better than your opponent. But, as you pointed out, we should be sticking to the original topic, which listed body language, eye contact and instant messaging as being the primary methods you use to gain an edge. And I can't imagine how any of that could give any sort of advantage.

What was that about Reuben Fine?

Hey fox31, nothing personal taken and none meant. Simply a demonstration that words can influence an opponent to play better or worse.

When you play an opponent and it is your first move of the game, do you have a preconceived game plan? If you are white do you already know what opening or type of opening you will play? If you are black, do recognize your opponent's intended opening strategy and play a recognized defense?

When you start a new game do you look up your opponent's profile or rating?

i wonder what was the psychology behind this comment...

FYI

Psychology of the Chess Player, Reuben Fine (1967). You can read about Reuben here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Fine

One of my personal favourites is Psychology in Chess, Nikolai Krogius (1976). Nikolai was one hell of a GM and just happen to have a PhD in Psychology.

You certainly did prove that words can make people emotional enough to retaliate to percieved insults. But my impression is that unless it was all an act, you were the affected party, not me, and if it was an act, then I suppose your point was not proven after all.

When I am white, I play d4 because I enjoy the games that arise and I decided I would try to learn it by playing it consistently. As black, I usually play Nf6 against d4 and c5 against e4 (the last, mostly out of stubborness because I still don't really understand the ideas in the Sicilian despite reading about it and playing it more than any other opening.) I don't look up any information about my opponent. If he's taking longer to move, I might look at how many games he has going or see what time zone he's in, just out of curiousity.

Basically, I have only heard second hand of people resorting to psychology, and I'm a skeptic that it is of any use when you compare it with the benifits of more traditional practice like endgame theory etc.

I know from Waitzkin's tutorials on Chessmaster that he's a believer in psychology and that many great players worried about it (or at least their coaches did). But he's talking about stuff like kicking your opponent under the table and things that seem more like bad sportsmanship than a legitimate psychological tool. He also talks about making the position more concrete when your opponent would prefer to keep things abstract but then he emphasizes that you can only do that if that's what the position calls for... so... really you're just playing the position anyways.

Finally, because this post is already fairly long, I know a lot of strong players and teachers talk about psychology or are interested in it and would like to apply it to chess, but I don't think that you can say there is a causal relationship there. Some chess players enjoy cricket, I'm sure.

I guess, until someone "intimidates" me by their body language during a game, I'll stick to the tactics trainer.

Some people are more easily influenced than others.

"Spend more time on your game, less on this nonsense."  <--- Very true this.

Psychology plays a part to a certain extent in OTB play. 

Korchnoi thought Karpov was getting signals from his team based on nothing more than him getting a blue yogurt. 

Benko wore mirrored glasses against Tal because he thought he was being hypnotized.

Korchnoi also wore them.

Fischer wanted the squares on the chess board to be a certain size.

Players have always done everything they can think of to gain any kind of perceived psychological advantage real or imagined.

Baseball caps low so there opponent cant see there eyes.

Its only a psychological advantage if you allow it to become one. We are our own worst enemy.

Obviously psychology must play some role in chess. I know many GMs give their opponents plenty of opportunities to blunder, or at least make mistakes, because that is an easy way to win. Since players only blunder because of some lack of attention or other abnormality, it is certainly conceivable that annoying behavior could increase the chances of this.

However, as pointed out, chess is not poker. Poker is a game largely about determining the other players' cards, and one important part of this is reading their reactions, not just their bets. In chess, it is usually not very important to read your opponent's mind. Of course, sometimes players are concerned that their intentions might be "too obvious," but for the most part the best move will be played regardless of the opponents' presumed understanding.

The one area where reading the opponent is critical is in laying traps, playing irregular openings, or making unsound sacrifices. These all depend on the opponent not understanding a position, and the only way to know if the player will understand is to know something about her.  These moves are often intended to "bait out" certain reasonable-looking-but-bad reactions, or throw the game into complications that will disturb an opponent who likes simple chess. These would appear to depend more on psychology than other situations.

I wonder which one of these games Tal won?

Well, he probably won both... but still.