Respect before engagment?

Im curious about the approaches of chess, for the balance of my mind.. How much is physchological? Do we intentionally make wishes of best intentions, or do we seek to destroy our opponent? And on a side note, how can I strengthen my resolve to keep emotion out of my game; yet use it as a controbution to my foundation? Let it stand, let it stand-least the gates be closed. Thank you very much!

Don't think of your opponent, kill that #$%#% king on the other side of the board!

Even though my degree is in philosophy, not 'physchology', I'll venture a guess. There is a lot of psychology to the game when humans play it. Your second question, I think you decide. Your third question and following statement leaves me a bit discombobulated, but I would say feeling emotional about a game is kind of neat, so I personally would not supress it.

Personally I simply consider the game to be a battle of wits.  Plain and simple. That said, I always say "hi" to  my opponent before the game starts (I only play live chess here) and if I get no reply, I'll go ahead an play the game, but if there's no basic politeness (good game after words,etc...) I'll usually not play a second game. 

We are all lovers of the game, naturally you respect your opponent as a fellow human being and being polite doesn't cost anything.Having said that you must remember that CHESS IS WAR (No prisoners taken).

I assume you're being funny.  Chess is not war.  Nothing is war but actual war.  Comparing chess, even on an emotional level, to actual war is an insult to humanity on a grand scale.  100's or 1,000s of people are being slaughtered evey day here on earth for one fked up war after another. Let's keep it real.

Thanks for being one of the wise.

My apologies, what I meant was wargame. War has many forms.On the chessboard you are not trying to "kill" anyone but you are nonetheless committed to conquer your opponent by your superior strategies and tactics.That is the nature of chess,live with it or kill dragons on your computer.

I dislike losing more than I enjoy winning. My goals are often modest. For example, I'd like to make it through a game without a mistake. Inaccuracies will probably have to wait until my next life.

I try to remember, all the best chess moves have already been made. However, it's fun to discover some of them on my own.

^ Never play the Sicilian when death is on the line.

Princess Bride fans? Great movie!

"Have fun storming the castle"

Thank you for your comments; though my feelings are still mutual. And as far as war goes when you pit a king against a king no likely priestlyhood or even civilization will dance... so history speaks again and even in the grand scheme of things. Thanks guys!! Completely enjoyable.

 Princess Bride fan...don't tell anyone.

Obviously it's not literally war.  It's a competition, and like any competition it's important to have a good mindset if you want to preform as best you can.  That may be a little different for everyone, but (taking about tournament here) I do try to destroy my opponent in the way you'd think of gutting a small animal -- not that all my moves are aggressive, but I do play to win.

After a good tournament game, win or lose, I usually feel something like rapport with my opponent, which is very un-war-like.  Later during the tournament I might even check up on them to see how their games are going or ask them what their standing is or even how their games went.  But during the game I am trying to crush them absolutely.  I think it's the same for any competitive person and probably all professionals.

I think there are a lot of different mental/emotional stratedgies and mindsets that allow for success in competitive situations.  I think it's very much an extreme oversimplification to assume that "any competitive person...all profesionals" are trying to absolutely "crush" their opposition.   From what I've read about, for instance "vishy" that's very unlikely to be his attitude.   When I think about atheletes like Tiger Woods, and many others I often hear them talking about how their toughest battle is the INTERNAL battle.  I've heard many strong players (unlike, say Emmanual Lasker) remark how they don't "play the man" but rather "play the board".  I guess my point is that I think you're making the classic mistake of projecting your competitive attitude/motiviation on other's around you.  Undoubtedly some are like you, but there are many, many who really are not; whether you believe it or not. 

I'd agree with polydiatonic's comment, that I don't think "crushing" the opponent is what most professional's mindset is. I think many try not to think of the opponent at all, knowing that is probably the best way to play their game.

It's all psychological in one way or another. Depending on the person, people typically do both. We wish our opponents the best, as that will force us to perform our best, and kind of forces ourselves to be on our toes so to say. There are many other reasons for wishing an opponent good luck, but this is probably one of the most common. Furthermore, we do typically seek to destroy our opponent at the same time. Thats one of the many beautiful dualities associated with this great game. 

I don't really see your examples as very convincing, but I don't disagree with your last sentence anyway.  The point I was trying to make about professionals is that the only way to get to that level is to be very competitive by nature -- I didn't mean to oversimplify it by saying everyone is trying to crush everyone else.  What I meant to say was they're all very competitive.  An internal struggle to bring out your best is a strategy aimed at winning -- or at least maximising your potential to do so.

On play the man vs play the board -- don't get me wrong.  Like I said my moves themselves aren't aggressive.  Actually I'm more of a safety first kind of guy, and go for lines where I feel I can form a concrete evaluation.  Still, my competitive attitude aims to win. 

Lasker's play wasn't as psychological as his contemporaries thought by the way... at least coming from some modern GM perspectives that I've read.