- Joined
- 23 Nov 09
- Moves
- 136558
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt`s not psychology. It`s called giving up pawn for nothing (looks like a stupid blunder) and you did not lose only because your opponent sucks at chess, like you do.
Here is another game, played last night at the Columbia Chess Club, in which I use psychology is used to obtain a winning position.
I have white against Chris Labrecque, USCF rating 1574.
[pgn]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nb3 O-O 8. Be2 e6 9. O-O d5 {I know he is expecting 10.exd5 so I start my psycological plan ...[text shortened]... makes things easier for me} 30. b3 Qc8 31. Bd5+ Kf8 32. bxc4 Qc5 33. Re6 {Black resigns}
[/pgn]
I don't really see what psychology has to do with anything here, giving someone a material advantage in the hope that they will somehow get delusions of grandeur and over reach is just flat out bad chess. Giving up a pawn for some sort of tangible compensation is of course fine, but i see no benefit for white. Black simply messes up and allows his Nc6 to get pinned. He has a number of very simple was to deal with this but decides to play ..Bb7, which is a mistake. He would probably have made a similar mistake anyway, even if he wasn't up a pawn up..
Originally posted by RJHindsPlease elaborate, other than just posting the moves, how psychology helped you to win this game.
Here is another game, played last night at the Columbia Chess Club, in which I use psychology is used to obtain a winning position.
I have white against Chris Labrecque, USCF rating 1574.
[pgn]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nb3 O-O 8. Be2 e6 9. O-O d5 {I know he is expecting 10.exd5 so I start my psycological plan ...[text shortened]... makes things easier for me} 30. b3 Qc8 31. Bd5+ Kf8 32. bxc4 Qc5 33. Re6 {Black resigns}
[/pgn]
Mike
There was another thing i was wondering about, please excuse me for bringing it up here instead of the 'wins in under 20 moves' thread but i don't want to ruin that with a discussion.
You replied to one of my games with the following comment...
That is a good game for you. I enjoyed it. Except I wish he had not lost his queen so quickly. However, then it might have went more than the 20 moves. The gambit idea was one I don't recall seeing before (added for clarity..this is the gambit, the Queens gambit no less, probably the most common gambit i chess. 1.Nf3 ..d5 2.d4 ..Nc6 3.c4). Perhaps your opponent was surprised by it too.
P.S. I don't know where my head is, that is a delayed queens's gambit. I haven't went to bed yet and it is 6;15 AM here. I guess I need to take a break but I fell asleep in th chair a little while ago and thought I had gotten enough sleep.
I'm slightly confused, you said you'd not seen the idea before, but after i noticed that you occasionally play 1.Nf3 (and 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, going into numerous different openings, colle included, a VERY diverse repertoire indeed!) Now, i found the notion that you hadn't seen this before a little ridiculous, having played 1.Nf3 for over ten years now, the most common response i get is 1..d5, from which there are a lot of openings, most of them involve a pawn on c4 at some point. I wondered, has RJhinds never played c4 at any stage? Well the answer is yes, you've played the same idea numerous times yourself...
Game 8653988
Game 8640583
Game 9351174
Game 8557804
Game 8557800
Game 8441551
That is a lot of games to forget, but if i was to play any one of these games they'd be approaching unforgettable. Particularly this one Game 9351174, a very hard fought struggle with one of the best players on the site (who you've beaten more than once!)
I would recommend you try playing 1.Nf3 in your next club match, perhaps your results will improve...
Hi RJ.
Using psychology over the board against your opponent?
There is 'psychological offer of a draw.' which can throw the onus on a player
to attempt to win the game if they refuse.
It can backfire, the player offering the draw in what he thinks is a dead postion,
(in the case the offer was not psychological) he then tries to win the game to punish
his opponent for refusing the draw. 'The Psychology Refusal of a Draw!'.
Lasker said something like the best move you can play is one that
upsets your opponent. (giving checkmate is pretty upsetting.)
There are a few cases of him not playing what was deemed not the best move
to steer the game into positions that he thought were unsuitable to his opponent.
Getting the Queens off against an attacker, or even attacking a known aggressive
player. (Lasker followed this path against Marshall a few times.)
At the lower levels I've often said (in jest after seeing the amount of won
games lost) It can be be a good ploy to give your opponent a won game because
then he really is in trouble.
You appear to have blundered/sacced a pawn and got some play for it.
Your opponent was not up to the task, slipped in a few bad moves and you won.
You are right in saying:
"I believe he may become overly confident of his winning chances..."
He should have tidied up his position, brought the Rooks into the game and
if needs be, sac the pawn back.
You could argue that this was down to psychology but I'd go along with
inexperienced chess play. At that level any psychology introduced into the
game will be superseded by a few clumsy moves on both sides.
Psychology is, I think anyway, is how you feel before a game and the inner
psychological battles that goes on within yourself when you play.
BTW you missed a neat wrap up.
Instead of grabing the Knight with 32.bxc4 how about...
Originally posted by RJHindsYou should write a book.
Here is another game, played last night at the Columbia Chess Club, in which I use psychology is used to obtain a winning position.
I have white against Chris Labrecque, USCF rating 1574.
[pgn]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nb3 O-O 8. Be2 e6 9. O-O d5 {I know he is expecting 10.exd5 so I start my psycological plan ...[text shortened]... makes things easier for me} 30. b3 Qc8 31. Bd5+ Kf8 32. bxc4 Qc5 33. Re6 {Black resigns}
[/pgn]
Play Like a Moron
(The Art of Dragging Your Opponent Down to Your Level and Beating Them With Experience)
Originally posted by Dewi JonesLOL, the annotations were brilliant, its like Ronald Judas Hindus has a mind ray hidden
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
These annotations are even worse than mine!
in the arm of his chair and he wills his opponents to make good moves so that he can
mess with their heads with his mind ray!
Originally posted by MarinkatombThat is because you don't understand Chess Pcychology. There are different types and phases of psychology. There was a gradual buildup of the effect that resulted in this young man's over-confidence and his rush in for the attack with his two center pawns until he became aware that I had a real counter threat that he must stop. Under the psycological pressures to find the most accurate moves, it was understandable that he might fail. I, on the other hand ,needed only to find the moves that would keep up the psychological effect until I had the winning position. By that time he had become so effected by the psychology that he continued to make more inaccurate moves than myself. Of course, psychology works better on some opponents than others, and it is best never to try it against a chess computer .
I don't really see what psychology has to do with anything here, giving someone a material advantage in the hope that they will somehow get delusions of grandeur and over reach is just flat out bad chess. Giving up a pawn for some sort of tangible compensation is of course fine, but i see no benefit for white. Black simply messes up and allows his Nc6 to ...[text shortened]... istake. He would probably have made a similar mistake anyway, even if he wasn't up a pawn up..
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't know whether to laugh or cry.
That is because you don't understand Chess Pcychology. There are different types and phases of psychology. There was a gradual buildup of the effect that resulted in this young man's over-confidence and his rush in for the attack with his two center pawns until he became aware that I had a real counter threat that he must stop. Under the psycological pres ...[text shortened]... etter on some opponents than others, and it is best never to try it against a chess computer .
Originally posted by MarinkatombI was apparently not wide awake at the time I first viewed that game, but I did correct myself after I took another look at it. Yes, I am now 68 and that may have something to do with my short memory. However, I do not try to memorize openings anymore. It probably would not stick like it did in my younger days.
There was another thing i was wondering about, please excuse me for bringing it up here instead of the 'wins in under 20 moves' thread but i don't want to ruin that with a discussion.
You replied to one of my games with the following comment...
[i]
That is a good game for you. I enjoyed it. Except I wish he had not lost his queen so quickly. Howev you try playing 1.Nf3 in your next club match, perhaps your results will improve...
I am curious as to why you threw in the first game against vkim, which was a loss for me and the last game that was a timeout? I don't recall ever playing the Reti opening OTB. But my memory of all the openings is not as good as it was in 1982. When playing on RHP, I have my 4 opening books and the internet to consult, so I do not get into opening trouble. The Reti is a good opening and perhaps I should try it OTB to see what happens. However, this opening seems to give more chances for Black to play his favorite defense.