Not only in chess, but I have been told by many that I tend to excel in psychology and bluffing; perhaps this is one reason I consider myself a slightly better OTB player. There is a lot of psychology/bluffing in online chess too, but I feel that this is amplified when there is another human being across the board rather than a lifeless computer/phone screen. This does not even begin to describe tournament conditions - anything from noise to the pressure of winning. In chess I often use psychology and bluffing (especially psychology), but I feel that this is more of a personal trait than a chess skill. Psychology/bluffing does not usually come into play until much higher level chess - specifically under the pressure that tournament conditions bring.
Two Important Topics: Psychology and Bluffing
Well, the OTB aspect could also be time control. What chess.com calls Daily Chess and what most others call Correspondence, the extra time, if people actually play Correspondence the way it should be played, will usually lead to a significantly lower success rate of bluffing.
The percentage of the time control remaining can also have a big impact on the psychology of your opponent. Recently, I played an OTB game against a lower rated opponent who let me end up with a 56min to 3min advantage in time with a very complicated position (only a piece each and a pawn of his had left the board). With that much of an edge, anything that doesn't blunder mate or a perpetual is basically winning.
Well, I can tell you that with a 15 second increment per move, at the time of the bluff, meaning after Black's 17th move, White had 64 minutes left and Black had 61 minutes left.
My 18th move, I spent 18 minutes, taking me down to 46 minutes left.
Black, after his 18...Ne5, still had 61 minutes left. Don't know the number of seconds, but he had 61 and change after the 17th move, meaning 61:59 at most, and 61 and change after the move, meaning minimum 61:00 after he had the 15 seconds added on, and so he spent less than a minute and 14 seconds to make his move, and I seem to recall it being within 20 seconds.
This case wasn't lack of time for Black. This was sheer stupidity of not using his time to figure out the issue. The problem with a hyper 14-year-old that clearly had ADD-type issues (hard to explain everything without you seeing him in person).
I took full advantage by playing the move that left the most room for error rather than what might have been the best move. Not sure what the best move was, didn't run it through a computer, but the reality of the situation superceded artificial intelligence here!
I have a friend who lives in charlotte with the last name Harris, just curious, does his first name begin with L and is 4 letters long?
I have a friend who lives in charlotte with the last name Harris, just curious, does his first name begin with L and is 4 letters long?
Si, Senor!
I loved going over this game and your annotations. Made me think that you're a 21st century reincarnation of Lasker. Which is quite impressive. Loved how you wrote down the time remaining on your scoresheet (unless you had a ply counter) to incorporate the time dimension.
But you know, 14-years old with a hyper-active behavior, but yet able to obtain a 1805 rating is remarkable too.
Great game, great annotations. Superb use of psychology.
I loved going over this game and your annotations. Made me think that you're a 21st century reincarnation of Lasker. Which is quite impressive. Loved how you wrote down the time remaining on your scoresheet (unless you had a ply counter) to incorporate the time dimension.
But you know, 14-years old with a hyper-active behavior, but yet able to obtain a 1805 rating is remarkable too.
Great game, great annotations. Superb use of psychology.
Every move I write the time remaining on the clock, i.e. 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 76 - 76 - 76 - 75 - 71 -71 - 71 - 68 - 66 - 66 - 66 - 64 - 64 - 46 - 42 - 42 - 41 - 40 - 40- 40- 40- 37 - 36 - 36- 34 - 34, for instance, was White's times, so you can see that 18-minute think on the 18th move (where it drops from 64 to 46).
For the record, Black's were 75-75-75-75-76-75-72-72-72-72-71-70-70-70-67-61-61-61-57-58-57-57-57-56-56-56-55-55-53-42 (The 11 minutes at the end was the time it took him to resign at move 30)
To quote Fischer: "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves."
Playing psychologically against your opponent might work if you're familiar with him/her and know their likes and dislikes at the board.
But much of the time you simply don't know your opponent. In those cases, playing mind games or bluffing could very well be fatal for your position—especially if your opponent is the kind of player who isn't concerned with psychological warfare, and purely focuses on playing good chess.
There's a lot of room for bluffing and trickery in online blitz and bullet, where your opponent generally doesn't have enough time to find the most accurate replies.
But in slow, OTB chess, I play with the assumption that my opponent will produce engine-level moves. I assume that they won't miss anything, and that they won't fall for any tricks. This way, I'm forced to play the best moves that I can find.
Bluff is still a factor in OTB chess. It mostly comes into play when you have a position that is theoretically lost, like White's possibly is after the errant 17th move.
At that point, playing the best move with an easy, 60 move win for Black may not be the best for the situation, and playing possibly a different move that leaves room for error is better.
You don't sacrifice good play for bluff and trickery under any circumstances, but if you are lost anyway, and the "best move" lets your survive 60 more moves instead of 23 more moves, but you lose either way, how is the "best move" best?
I hope you didn't read this as using the bluff as the primary weapon to win chess games. The bluff is still a last resort, but sometimes absolutely necessary if you are between a rock and a hard place.
Blunders? There was not a single blunder from either side in that game.
I beg to differ.
Black's 26...Rd8 is an outright, egregious blunder. A 1000 player should be able to see the Knight fork that follows.
White's 17.Bxf7 definitely warrants at least a single question mark (e.g. Bad move).
There were other moves that may not have been "best" and were rather "second rate", but White's 17th and Black's 26th really are bad moves. White has little excuse to miss the fact that 17...Bxh3 was very strong. I knew it was available and WOULD be played, but underestimated the consequences. There is even less of an excuse for what Black did. 26...Rd8 is just sheer stupidity!
When you are playing a rated game over the board against someone you see all the time and have played multiple times before, do you only take the position into consideration? Or do you take other factors into play? I think the following game goes to show that there is more to chess than what is on the board.
Black, in this game, is a 14-year-old kid. Every time he sits at a board with his back to a wall, he tilts the chair back and is always banging it on the wall. He constantly eats at the table except when directed by the TD to stop, and he eats very loudly, like chewing on lollipops or chips or something like that. During this game, it's lollipops, and it was like a chain smoker, finish one, start another.
Tack on the fact that I've seen his games. He plays nothing but super aggressive stuff, and the moment a position gets dull or a game takes too long, he crumbles. He's too reliant on cheap 1-move tactics. So simply not falling for them and combining his clear ADD type actions with his inability to focus on dull positions (he moves way to fast as well) lead to my choice of opening against him.
What this game will also feature is a successful Bluff. I (White) walk right into a trap due to under-estimation of a move by Black, and is the one mistake I make this game. That leads to the second topic in this post, Bluffing, which we will see in the game below on the 18th move.
So enough background information. Let's see how White wins using pure psychology and the bluff.