OTB Demeanor: What's Your's and What's Best?

Recently, I read an article by Jeremy Silman honoring the legacy of an incredibly interesting chess player, Steve Brandwein.  Then today I watched an interview with Garry Kasparov.   These two thing spark the following questions: 

What's your Over-The-Board demeanor when you face off in a competitive game?   Second, what do you think is best (in your humble opinion) for obtaining the best tournament results?

Let me elaborate.  Steve Brandwein was an incredible speed chess player.  He destroyed 2400 players.  And he took something like 20% of his games against Bobby Fischer.  Now Brandwein was a very humble self-effacing player.  Gentle, almost apologetic it seems like when playing a game of chess.  Very casual, pleasant.

On the other hand, the great (my favorite player actually) Garry Kasparov was an intimidator.  His body language, facial expressions, nonverbal behavior and attitude, you knew the guy wanted to hurt you bad over the chessboard.  He talks of beating guys psychologically before the first move was even made.

So we have a big contrast.  Some people approach it like War.  Others approach the competitive game as if it was like a Composition or an Artistic Conversation about the moves of the game, and like it's some weird paradox of Cooperation-and-Conflict mixed together to have an enjoyable Competitive Creation.  I haven't met many people like this, actually.  

Anyways, what's your demeanor over-the-board?  Do you try to intimidate the opponent?  Or do you not?  What works for you?  Is there anything you'd change about yourself?

Follow-on:  When your opponent tries psychological stuff on you, what do you do to neutralize it.  I'm thinking of players who put on sunglasses to block out Mikhail Tal's death stare.

Your thoughts, please.

My approach towards chess is to have fun, learn, and improve.  I will not treat my opponent rudely, i will offer a "good luck" and hand shake.  In all the years of playing i have ONCE had an opponent not shake hands, and not respond to my "good luck"  Did that unnerve me?  NO, i took it as either my opponent was trying psychological tricks, or just was having a bad day.  

In the end, i was able to play a great game, enjoy being around fellow chess players, seeing new sites, meeting new friends, meeting up with old friends, coming back to places i regularly play.  

No matter my score, it was well worth it.

In a rated OTB tournament game, your goal is to win at all costs, within all legal restrictions. Focus everything on the game in front of you, if that helps. 

Also, any experimentation I'd save for training games well before the tournament. 

Actually, I have no problem with that.  It's like the boxing game where, let's say, Mike Tyson, former heavyweight boxing champion, would stare down the opponent before the fight.   Well, actually, almost all boxers do that.  MMA fighters too.  

Chess players, even though it's an intellectual battle over the board, many of them don't do the Boxing, MMA, martial arts tactic of trying to intimidate the opponent before and during the match.  Some chess players do, some top grandmasters do, like Garry Kasparov.  I was wondering if this is something that people have witnessed much in OTB tournament chess, particularly in America.

I think it's best to true to yourself. Whatever keeps you in good form.

Maybe a better contrast (because they're both professionals) is Kasparov and Kramnik. Kramnik said he approaches it as a battle against himself (he tries to play his 100% best). He said he was excited at facing Kasparov because to play the strongest player is the best way to test himself.

I'm very calm, and I tend to completely ignore my opponent and my own emotions during a tournament. Maybe a benefit of this is rude things don't affect my play, I just ignore them. Or if my opponent plays very fast or slow, I really don't care, and just do my own thing. IMO a down side is I seem to lack a killer instinct for some positions. I tend to play it safe in some circumstances instead of really trying to rip their guts out. So recently I've been thinking an adjustment I need to make is being more emotional... have a less friendly attitude. Have it more on my mind that I'm there to win, even if that means being a little arrogant and possibly offending some people (in minor ways, nothing crazy).

I think to play well you need a certain amount of disdain for your opponents (even if they're objectively better than you).

Now that's what I'm interested in.  What I'm interested in is somewhat like the Trickle-Down Effect or CopyCat phenomenon.  For example, you see it in sports like basketball.  When Michael Jordan was playing, kids wanted to be like Mike and play like Mike, and his style.  Now we have Steph Curry and his quick release of amazing 3-point bombs.  So we now have kids and players emulating him.

In chess we have Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov who were very imposing at the chessboard with their ferocious game and at-the-board demeanor.  Their Grandmaster, Grandmaster!!, opponents would attest to this.  I mean, c'mon, I figure a grandmaster can't be intimidated by another grandmaster, but it happens.  

So I'm wondering, if there are people, kids, or adults even, who when hearing and learning about their hero's uber-competitive intimidating behavior, will seek (and successfully) adopt their chess hero's killer instinct and behavior.  

I think you can change from pussycat to tiger, but I was just wondering who's done it and whether their chess tournament results have benefited from it.

And, of course, it's perfectly great to be the gentle sportsman, who approaches the game and their opponent with kindness and grace, and yet who still has impressive tournament results.  

It's just that the most famous and well known chess greats (Fischer, Kasparov, Botvinnik, Tal, et al), were known to be intimidating at the board.

At the elite levels, any type of advantage is important because there is money, fame and prestige on the line. Below that level, if you can win and be gracious at the same time you are a double winner!

Now that is hella funny.  You blundered, but you scared your opponent into thinking it was probably a deep positional sacrifice, and it resulted in a win.

That leads to the following related question:  Have you ever lost an Over-The-Board rated game because your opponent was intimidating and you let it rattle you even though you tried to combat it?   

I don't know if I have or not.  Because it's been so long.  But I don't remember playing anyone who had an imposing presence that scared me.  Most people are pretty nice.

I'll have to try that! It sure beats my normal response, which is usually "Dho!"

Whether we're talking Michael Jordan or Garry Kasparov maybe worth mentioning is that to us it's just a game, but for them it's their career and life's passion. I have to wonder if any person works on something full time for 20 years before the age of 30 if they'd end up being pretty passionate. I don't think it's about intimidation for its own sake, I think of it as the byproduct of their passion.

Whether or not it's useful for amateurs to adopt that sort of attitude is interesting through. I think it comes from the different place for us vs them, but yeah, it may be useful.

"Intimidation" and what lies behind it is a crutch, and a weakness that can be exploited.  See:  Kramnik allowing Kasparov to destroy himself because he just had to prove he could beat the Berlin.  See:  Kasparov promoting his new book which finally admits 20 years too late that Deep Blue flat out beat him.  See:  Korchnoi raging about being beaten by a Polgar.  Etc.

All in all though, you'd have to say that Kasparov and Korchnoi were phenomenally successful with their intimidation game.  Sure, not all players succumbed, but many wilted.  

To use a martial arts analogy, it's like a gentle tai chi super master who can ward off and defeat an aggressive tae kwon do or karate guy.  But there aren't too many tai chi super masters who can do that.  Most of the time, the aggressive tae kwon do guy will win.  

Not sure if intimidation mind-games is a crutch or a schtick.  Maybe.  But it crosses over into so many competitive endeavors.  Calling it a crutch since so many top-level competitors across a variety of athletic disciplines use it, doesn't seem to quite capture all of it.

What's clear is this:  all else being equal, the skilled player that doesn't get lead around by their own ego will beat one who does.  The problem lies in the fact that finding the drive to get to that skill level often involves pure ego.  Fischer and Kasparov being good examples.  Carlsen would be a good example of a player that doesn't seem to get bent out of shape or shamed merely by losing a game.

I approach OTB games like intellectual debates, which - in a sense - is exactly what a game of chess is. The player with the better ideas - less errors, better planning, better tactical vision, etc - is normally the winner. I'll offer a hand shake and good luck and after that I rarely let my gaze wander from the board. Those cases where I do stray from the game are either to use te restroom or maybe take a walk around the room or hall to stretch in longer time controls or if I feel extremely confident about the game with plenty of time left. If I know the player/have played them multiple times before, I may have a quick chat with them. I always offer post-mortems and they're usually accepted or offered before I even offer but mostly they're short - just touching on critical positions or tactics missed. Chess is a gentleman's sport to me. I don't try to intimidate anyone, I just simply ignore the person and play the board.

I haven't played OTB since 2005 or so, but back then I would be very friendly and casual. If I lost a game, I congratulated my opponent and thanked him for a good game. If I won a game, I would compliment my opponent for having been hard to beat. I also found that other players' demeanor didn't affect me in the slightest; I would focus on the game, and I wasn't afraid to lose anyway, I've always accepted a potential loss as a learning experience.

The only demeanor I was ever affected by is this: when a much older and stronger player than you acts condescending, like "Oh, yeah, you still have a chance to become an okayish chess player". I would want to punish them for their arrogance and end up making rash attacking moves, often costing me the game. But nowadays I'm probably much more mature and would get over these cheap psychological elements.

SeniorPatzer said;

On the other hand, the great (my favorite player actually) Garry Kasparov was an intimidator. His body language, facial expressions, nonverbal behavior and attitude, you knew the guy wanted to hurt you bad over the chessboard. He talks of beating guys psychologically before the first move was even made.

How absurd to not then actually play a psyche fun game the 'fair' way.

What does that mean?  I'm not clear on "how absurd to not then play a psyche fun game the "fair" way" means.  What do you mean, and how do you do the not absurd thing?

I always felt that intimidating behavior at the board influences your ethical behavior in real life.  I've coached high school teenagers who liked the slam their pieces down on the board while moving them, yell "check!" and slam their hand down on the clock, hoping their opponent would lose concentration.  I coached others who liked to humiliate players rated much lower than them - multiple queens, delaying mate, taking all their pieces, etc.

And those players displayed the the same behaviors in ordinary social situations and it did not help them make friends.

Maybe intimidators do win more games, like Kasparov and Fischer - who talks about intimidation on the Dick Cavett Show in the 1970's on a YouTube video.  I think I'll do fine without it, realizing the World Championship is not going to depend on me intimidating anyone.