Ethics...

How do you guys feel about... psychology?

Some people may use words like deceitful, or furtive, or even low.

I prefer savvy.

My point is; have you tried to/do you condone players using "reassuring" dialogue during a game, in means for the opponent to fall into a trap? As you can see, I'm, obviously, very supportive of this. Chess is a game for the mind, and the challenge should not be limited to the play.

Example: I hung a knight in order to open a file for me to grab an easy back-rank checkmate. If they went ahead and captured the free knight, the game is mine. But if they had taken the little bit of time to assess the situation, I'm sure most 1400 players would have noticed. Anyway, I played my move (this is on echess, not live) and wrote in the messaging box,

"shit! I didn't even mean to hit submit yet! lol.   Well you blundered in the other game, so I guess we're even now. haha"

And the game was mine. >=)

Also, this can be/is utilized in OTB scenarios as well. Something like above, spoken, or even the simple *sigh* or "Uuughh...." is suffice, and I'm "guilty" of both.

Anyway, please discuss the topic however you will. I'm sure I'll get a good number of intellectuals who will agree with me that my ploy was completely sound or fair, and plenty others who'll resort to words like "scaly, rotten, low-life swindler" ... I can't wait. ;)

~Dakota Clark

i dont believe in psychology

If you feel good about winning that way, I guess that's okay. It's a little juvenile in my opinion.

It depends on what role you want to play in life, author. 

I've never in online chess, but I've let a couple subtle sighs, while playing over the table.

Also when I have a nice combination or something on say the kingside, I always try to look at the queenside while my opponent is thinking. Hoping maybe they will unknowing read my face and look for something on queenside and missed the combination on the kingside.

I can never understand how people can find joy in winning in these kinds of ways. Sure if it's between a paycheck and a tote bag, knock yourself out with your psychoanalysis; but really, why don't you just play lower rated players if you are so keen on simply winning. You mentioned "deceitful, furtive, and low" as words to describe your strategy, and those would not be accurate at all since it is indeed legitimate and quite straightforward. I'd much rather use the word pathetic.

I wouldn't call that psychology so much as chicanery.  It's a cheap tactic -- I personally wouldn't do it.

My usual OTB opponent is a big fan of what he calls deceptive "emoting" and, although I see through that BS pretty darn well now, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it.

I once had a book that instructed beginners on how to play squash, and there was a whole chapter called "Deception and Decoys" - focusing on how to use false body language to mislead your opponent about your intentions.  Is faking anguish during the deployment of a trap in chess so different?  :)

One thing though:  if your game hinges on ploys like this, I'd tend to think that your acting skills might be stronger than your chess.

Chess is a cerebral battle, and any psychological edge you can get then do it (within reason).   I played in a tournament this past January, and there were 4 "dudes/bros" hanging out outside slamming there Red Bulls.  I was paired with one of them in the first round.  He was so wound up from drinking Red Bulls, that every time he made a move he had to get up and move around.  His leg was constantly jumping, and he couldn't sit still.  So after he made a move, and right as he would stand up i made my move.  He had to keep sitting back down and was obviously annoyed at doing so.  Long story short i beat him.  And i think alot of the reason was due to him being amped up on energy drinks, and moving fast so he couldn't keep leaving. 

 Precisely another "excuse" that I considered including; Poker players do things like this aalll the time. It's just an everyday tactic. I'm a respectful gentleman when I play, in regards to "smack talk" or bragging, but I still see no wrong in using this tool.

You have crossed the line into weasel territory. Remember Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space"? I can see him doing that.

I like psychology in chess... I completely agree that you have to do what you have to do to win. If that means "juvenile" behavior according to KyleJRM, well, let's just say that's one reason his rating is below mine. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to win, while he's saying it's juvenile.

He's in a completely losing position, but he gets his ego up by saying, "Ha, that's a juvenile, cheap tactic, check2008. I'd win no doubt if you'd stop your childish chatting." Well, maybe, KyleJRM, you lose against a chatty opponent because you simply can't handle it. Call it juvenile, call it whatever you want. But if you lose because of it, it's because you can't handle it.

Then again, I won the theatre award for my class, so I'm pretty good at acting... and I'm a big fan of poker and the bluff as well... the "check" in my username refers to a poker check actually, not a chess check.

I think youre missing the point of chess and this post.  Being a jerk doesnt make you a great chess player..it makes you a jerk that doesnt know how to act.  And it reflects badly on you and the game.  Thats why Terrell Owens has a million dollar body, and a ten cent head.

Let's see, when faced with a contrary opinion, Check2008:

1) Makes it personal, attacking the person with the contrary opinion rather than the opinion itself, i.e. the logical fallacy of ad hominem

2) Gets into a e-peen comparison contest about ratings, i.e. the logical fallacy of appeal to false authority

3) Grossly exaggerates what I said and makes up hypothetical situations that do not exist and generally lies by putting words into my mouth, i.e. the classic strawman fallacy

Yeah, I'd say that my assessment that such tactics are reserved for juvenile people has been pretty much supported by your post.  Without looking, I'm guessing late high school or early college. Certainly pre-Intro to Philosophy, where they would have taught you the basic logical fallacies to avoid. 

I think all kinds of twitching, huffing and puffing, farting and chatting 'tactics' are a bit juvenile simply because I don't expect them to be very effective. Clever chess players aren't  easily distracted.

Wasn't Karpov accused of trying to distract Kasparov through slow play?

i would sometimes offer obuscure draw offers sutch as when the game is tight genrally always refused but in the back of my oppoments mind i am telling them i think the positons fine you can't beat me ha ha which makes them play unsound feeling they have to go for the win

It's bush league: Chee Z tactics that work against weaker players but make better players roll their eyes.

@tonydal "if you have to rely on being Brando to win, maybe you oughta do a little more studying (and leave hamming it up to poker players)"

Yeah, I tried some weak theatrics while playing in Vegas -- god I paid the price too, they saw thru me like I was glass.

Nothing wrong with any of the stuff said here from what I can see. 

Amazing the number of oh so sensitive people here. 

" "shit! I didn't even mean to hit submit yet! lol.   Well you blundered in the other game, so I guess we're even now. haha"

And the game was mine. >=) "

Game won, respect lost.