Psychology and Chess?  How are they connected?  In more ways than one?  Any examples from Chess to illustrate? 

A prime example was the famous game Fisher Spassky in 1972 played in Reykjavik Iceland, where Bobby Fisher forfeited, did not show for the second game and won upper handed the championship.

do a Google research and I am positive that you will find many examples of pschology used in chess games.

I have a chess psychology booklist if you are interested.

A lot of people say this and don't seem to realise that there were chess games involved.

Hahah

How is this psychological?  Please explain.

Yes I do and Fisher more than once in his games used indirect psychology not directed at the opponent, but a lot smarter, asking for conviences or set up changes such as lighting, cameras, private room away from the public.

All of these tactics are psychological one having an effect on your opponent's concentration, whether it be simply annoying which in turn detracts focus and concentration.Why did Spassky say at the end of the championship that Fisher had won the championship even before the games started?

And was Fisher's actions not part of the outcome?

I do not know, but I do use psychology  when playing online against opponents and can tell you that words are a powerful deterrent to concentration.

In other words, when you try to distract your opponent from his concentration on the game at stake, you are using psychological means to try to defeat her/him.

Think about it. You might agree!

Ok.  But this has nothing to do with Chess persay, but with all sports.  I am only interested in Psychology pertaining to Chess itself.

"All of these tactics are psychological one having an effect on your opponent's concentration, whether it be simply annoying which in turn detracts focus and concentration.Why did Spassky say at the end of the championship that Fisher had won the championship even before the games started?

And was Fisher's actions not part of the outcome?

I do not know, but I do use psychology  when playing online against opponents and can tell you that words are a powerful deterrent to concentration."

This is ridiculous.  This is not Chess.  This is ridiculous.  Be it as it may, i am not interested in this type of thing.  This has nothing to do with Chess.  But trickery...scheming...etc.  So it seems.

I honestly fail to see what part of psychology applies exclusively to playing a chess game.

Whether it be: perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior and interpersonal relationships or unconscious mind.

I do not believe that we yet have the tools or equipment necessary to study several if not all sports and games and family dealings and inter-relashionship communications, etc..., to be able to analyse, compare and draw positive conclusions that isolate the gene or thinking process that is exclusive to playing chess.

The analysis does not have to be exhaustive to include every thing under the sun, does have to include chess, but the data base must be large enough to draw unequivoccal conclusions

If anyone has suggestions on the psychology aspect that applies exclusively to chess, it certainly would shed some light on my perception.

Go look up some information.  There are things.  I am asking about them.  Don't make it seem as if nothing has been done in this field already.  Plenty has been done, plenty makes sense, plenty has value for us; i just am looking for help researching these things.  Thank you.

Bobby Fischer says a expert chess player has to be a master in it.

A master in what, psychology?  How was he a master in it, through trickery.  Manipulation of events?  What does that have to do with Chess - i think, nothing.

What you call ridiculous (twice), many people call legitimate psychological measures. However, perhaps the kind of thing you are looking for is the selection of moves that make your opponent uncomfortable. There are many examples of this, especially out of the opening. Your opponent is trying to play a simple, safe game and you play perhaps a worse line which introduces many complications. Or they're trying to play tactically and you play positional moves, turning away tactical ones which may provide you clear inroads at advantage. Furthermore, you might play positional moves when your opponenet expects you to play tactical ones (or vice versa) to get in their head; they second-guess themselves and think that maybe they have missed something, that you know something they don't.

The Fischer example is not a very good one because it's cheap tactics that have little to do with the game itself and everything to do with disrupting your opponent's pattern outside of the game.  Why stop there -- how about some itching powder in your opponent's underwear?  Maybe some lifesavers in the shower head?  None of this is psychology as it pertains to chess.

Psychology in the game itself would, to me at least, be a situation where you choose one move or strategy over another because of the psychological impact it has on a player.  Choosing a slow agonizing grind over a potentially faster tactical approach in part of a game that could call for either would be an example with the former likely taking more of a psychological toll on your opponent that could carry over to subsequent games.  If you can gainand keep the initiative this can also have an affect over and above the actual advantage it gives you on the board -- keeping your opponent on the defensive for a long period can change their mindset and how they approach the game and make them hesitant to attack.

I think examples such as these are what GaryMossu is looking for.

Yes, excellent example, and witty, entertaining, to-the-point intro. 

Any other examples?  On the web i found some studies...will post perhaps later.

I am looking now for original ideas from simply chess players as opposed to pyschologists.  How about how certain tacts or strategies in themselves are connected with certain particular think processes?  We need some understanding of pyschology and phrenology (perhaps) for this.

"Psychology of Chess" by Nikolai Krogius

"Think Like a Grandmaster" by Alexander Kotov

"Catalog of Chess Mistakes" by Andrew Soltis

Read these before leaping into the fray of chess and psychology.  At least then you will be forearmed.

- Zug

Could you quote any short (or long) passages from these books?  It is legal (i believe) as it falls under the category of being small parts for review purposes, before we go leaping into buying them.

This is one type of pyschology in Chess i find interesting.  Another examples i could think of is when Anand played the Scandanavian against Karpov.  Surprising him with that untraditional approach - rarely seen at master level.

The other type i previously mentioned though, i found even more intriguing (and maybe since it seems to me now, to be esoteric.)