|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Psychological Ploys in Our Favorite Gamein his first game, he had the black pieces against Smyslov. Smyslov was then at his peak, winning the Candidates Tournament at Zurich, and 5 years away from defeating Botvinnik for the World Championship. Korchnoi was able to play the defense he had prepared -- but by the 9th move found himself outplayed and in an inferior position. In six more moves Korchnoi had managed to equalize, thanks to an inaccuracy by Smyslov. How to win the game? Reasoning that the Contender for World Champion would be unlikely to accept a draw offer from a novice, Korchnoi offered a draw -- and Smyslov declined. Korchnoi's rationale: An opponent who declines a draw offer in an equal position takes on the obligation to play for a win: Within 3 moves, Smyslov started rejecting moves that were drawish, instead playing inferior moves that were more aggressive. Consequently, by the 24th move, Black, able to play prudently, enjoyed a position that now showed an advantage. Smyslov then attempted to equalize, and it just made the White position worse. By move 35, White was in time trouble, and this affected his next few moves. At move 51, Korchnoi won -- based on his psychological ploy at move 16: ==> that an opponent declining a draw offer in an equal position would feel an obligation to play for a win. Somewhat similarly, Bronstein would entice a drawish opponent to, say, snatch up a pawn and overextend himself, and then Bronstein's opponent would begin to play aggressively, coaxed way out of his comfort zone, and so squander the equality he had achieved . Wonder what other examples, from GM games or their own, that players have to share. . . . |
||
|
Something like that happened ... For you entertainment, here's the plot. White: MW Black: IAD Round 9. French Defence; Advance Variation. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3!? ... I had simply never seen this before, and, thinking nothing untoward, played as if something like 6.Be2 had been played. Not the best way to go as it happened. 6...cxd4?! 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.b4 a5? Already Black (me) was struggling. 9.b5 Nce7 10.a4 Nf5 11.Ba3 Bb4ch? 12.Bxb4 axb4 13.Qd2 Qa5 14.Qb2 Nge7 15.Nbd2 Rc8 16.Nb3 Qa7 17.a5 b6 Man this was looking horrible. I just couldn't seem to think straight. 18.a6 0-0 19.Be2 Rc4 Desperate, I offer the exchange, with the idea that if White declined it I could double rooks on the c-file. And if he took now, I would have a passed pawn couple on the 5th rank. But White had other ways to respond. 20.Nd2! Rfc8 21.Bxc4?! ... Probably taking with the knight was better. 21...dxc4 22.Qxb4 Nd5 23.Qa4 Nc3 24.Qb4 Nd5 25.Qa4 Nb6 26.Qb4 Nd5 w The position has appeared three times, and therefore is a draw. Well, no, actually. What I forgot was that to claim the draw, I had to notify that I was going to play 27...Nd5 and claim the draw on the basis that that move would yield the third repetition. My opponent could accept that, or it could go to the arbiter. Not really understanding how the thing worked (never having had this situation arise before, surprisingly enough), I made the move before claiming. The upshot was, my opponent objected to the claim, and the arbiter supported him. So now it was my opponent to play. Guess what... 27.Qb1?! ... Objectively, no worse than the other Queen move. It got the same response... But psychologically it led to disaster. 27... Nc3 28.Qc2?? Nxb5 In avoiding the draw he really ought to have grabbed with both hands whatever the damage to the amour propre, White walks into a nightmare. Black's pieces leap into frenzied action, and White seemed helpless in the face of the massacre that ensued. 29.Qe4 Bc6 30.d5? Bxd5 31.Qc2 Nbd4 32.Nxd4 Nxd4 33.Qd1 d3 34.0-0 ... Sheer desperation. I marked this as a mistake at the time, but White was already in a bad way... 34...cxd2 35.Qxd2 Nb3 36.Qb4 Nxa1 37.Rxa1 Qc7 38.h3 Qxe5 39.Qxb6?? Qxa1ch [0-1] Had I made the claim in full knowledge of the rules in order to induce a variation from the repetition, I would have been guilty of very sharp practice at best. In any case, at that point I would have been more than happy with the draw - after all, he was more likely to accept than decline (I thought). That he had come out of the opening well, and was the exchange ahead possibly led him to think he had the better of it. But then, why did he allow me the possibility of a legitimate claim? Go figure. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
baronderkilt 02-Nov-11, 20:19 |
Ion ... ******* According to the USCF rules, he needed to summon the TD to verify a 3 time repetition of position. At least if the opponent refuses to acknowledge occurance of a Draw; as I did, instead treating it as a Draw offer and refusing. At that time it was my policy in tournaments to never accept a Draw when an opponent went under 2 minutes, unless I felt I was definately losing and he might make Time Control. ....... There were several reasons for having such a policy during tournament play. First, the fact that the opponent did not use their time wisely, which is part of the game. Secondly, and more important, when a Time Trouble situation exists, then I felt a player should not be responsible for taking time to verify or discard a Draw claim. ...... Usually I would be in time pressure myself, so it would hurt me to do that. Alternatively, it would give the opponent extra thinking time during his time pressure, if I took time to verify or discard a claim. However, when summoning a TD, he could have legitimately stopped the clock to do that, and make his claim. If he knew the Rules of play. ...... Now I feel bad for having won a game that way, even tho it was an important one. Last round or next to last. I cannot recall exactly, being from the mid-80's. But another factor I always considered is, a certain responsibility to other players in the tournament to try to maximize my results, since it may affect their finish and/or prize. [In this case, it probably did effect the outcome of the Under-prize. Fortunately, being a physician my opponent probably didnt need the cash, at least. But everyone likes a good result and the rating points, etc. It probably was an unwinnable position as well, except by the clock. The repetitions were rather forced, in fact. ....... I am wondering what you think of this matter, as far as the sportsmanship & ethics of play? And what others think as well, if they wish to offer an opinion, pro or con. I am actually still undecided on this situation if it reoccurred (despite feeling bad about winning in this "cheap" way. At the same time, does a player not have the responsiblity to know the rules, or ask the TD if unsure?). Tho that is unlikely reoccur, since I have played only one tourney in the last six years. *************** I agree completely with Korchnoi's thinking behind his Draw offer. I think that is very true, that many an opponent will then feel an obligation to at least TRY to win. Another factor being that he who Offers the Draw, probably knows how to do so. But if an opponent refuses, unless he simply wishes to "Test" the technique of his opponent to complete the drawing continuation, then it may well be that he who Refuse may understand the position less well. In my experience, That is a very important thing. EG In Postal Chess play over 15 years, everytime I offered a Draw to my opponent, and he refused, he then LOST the game. This was a stat that in fact amazes me, since often my position was quite inferior but holdable (I never offered a Draw in a Lost position, in Postal play.). So whether it be a matter of Understanding the position, or a psychological burden to Win being placed upawn them; Draw offers ARE a very Powerful Thing. Clearly. ............ Another weird stat, that has however almost always held True in OTB tournaments, was the Axiom stating: Someone will Blunder within 5 moves of a Draw offer. Strange, but true, in my experience of play and watching tournament games. Psychology? It must be, in some way. ************** }8-D PS/ In a later tournament, I did offer a Draw to another Doctor, when he got a call to go to surgery. He was a strong "A" player & a position of relatively equal chances. But of course, he would have Time Forfeit, had he left. And so might as well have Resigned, except for the Draw offer. In this case it did not affect the tournament except to lower my own place to split a prize with another, who would not have if I had won. So in this case, it seemed to me to be the thing to do. And my opponent accepted, saying "Thank You, that was very sporting". Another factor being ... he was strong enough and tactical enough that it could have been anyone's game, had we continued. But, by my own Chess for Blood rules I should have taken a time win. Maybe I was unfair to myself? The question seems to be: Does one play based on the Board position only; or Board plus clock; or Board + Clock + Rules ... to determine their results ? I am very interested in how others perceive that situation. |
||
|
baronderkilt 02-Nov-11, 20:34 |
Oh .... I do have say that in the area of Meta-Chess, opponents will often telegraph their intentions. And often their "behavior" becomes predictable. He who will always grab the material, or he who will play for actively, etc. He who scratches his nose, when he is thinking of moving a Center Pawn, or trading it ! (Yes, this happened once in a Mutual Of Omaha internal Chess tournament. And I said to my opponent & friend "You're thinking of trading that Center Pawn aren't you Steve?" To which a response of laughter & a bit of astonishment occurred. lol. "You're thinking, how can I defeat someone who is reading my mind?! " haha Not really, tho, just reading his "Tell" of nose scratching. Subconscious behavior) |
||
|
Tells and what have you... Korrchnoi's offer was probably legit - for a given value of legit. There's a bit of gamesmanship there, but at least the result did not hinge on a technicality. Before now I have mentioned to this or that player that where there is a large disparity in rating - or just experience for that matter - the draw can be used by the 'weaker' against the 'stronger'. That's fair enough, and that's what Korchnoi did, though in a manner perhaps more ... erm ... creative than I've been thinking about. After all, Smyslov could have called his bluff. In your case, I feel the result tended to hinge on a technicality. Apart from that, inexperience does lead to an unease about the rules. I have mentioned elsewhere about being the object of a much more experienced (and self-opinionated) player taking advantage of my being just out of school, and a stranger to the city (Auckland) and to the way chess clubs worked (never having been to one before). Mind you, I had pulled a fast one on him - having two pieces attacked, I put a third 'en prise', hoping he would take the wrong one. He did. But I justify that as a legitimate, if desperate attempt to create problems for my opponent. For mine, he failed to rise to the challenge, like the complete and utter snirp he is. Or was. I've never seen that snurge from that day to this, and for all I know, he has long been inhabiting the small subterranean chamber to which we are all destined... Cheers, Ion |
||
|
I get angry... So I don't think about it. Very often.... |
||
|
thereaper1 12-Nov-11, 19:28 |
The psychology of draws *************************** Now this business baronderkilt mentioned about not accepting the three fold reppition. I personally think I myself would not do something like that, but then I'm in a completly different position. Me being a very low level player and not often one to be in contention for prizes means that I'm not likely to lose much or even gain much by either not accepting the draw or accepting the draw. Others however are more competitve and I think that becomes more apparent the higher up you go. Perhaps I would have a completly different attitude if the results of the game were to change in any way. |
||
|
Gulkology Boris Gulko writes that he was "able to exploit this as a drawback" in Taimonov-Gulko (USSR Championship, Moscow 1976). At move 19, Gulko played 19...h6 and explains: <<"I continue my psychological battle. I am defending against threats that do not exist to give my opponent the impression that he has the advantage. . . If Black is on 'defense', then White must be on 'attack'. Therefore White played an unfortunate attacking move." >> . . . whereupon Gulko (as Black) began his counterplay, seizing the initiative by finding objects of attack, creating weaknesses in White's position, transforming his static advantage into a dynamic one, and won the game. |
||
|
offering a draw my offer. In order to win in a equal game (equally rated opponents) one has to take 'some chances' and that works to my advantage; my ability to spot tiny positional errors.Then i pounce!!! it does;t always work but most often it does. |
||
|
baronderkilt 26-Jan-12, 10:44 |
Haha ... I just thought of a DrawOfferGambitCounterGambit (after seeing his move, of course, if he has not yet made it, as is the proper way. Always. For I have seen many instances where the proposer has then Popped out some move as if "Anything Draws", if they have had to be asked to show their move before the offer is responded to. And somehow can manage to "Find" a losing move at that time.) But anyway, the Draw offer is declined there by me, in the drawish position. My opponent then has the Expectation that I will make some moves attempting to Win the game ... so what IF Instead, I now proceed to make all the level draw maintaining moves I can find?! Will my opponent become Outraged at a perception of insult to his abilities, and try winning or blundering himself? Or might he (or She ) be so amazed at my lack of technique, and overconfidently become the one to play the Win, and Lose It ?!? LOL [ brigadecommander My trouble with that was everyone ACCEPTING the DRAW OFFER when made to other Master/Expert level players, once the game was past the point of the "New Thing" someone was trying on the other guy, and that successfully played against. I guess it was the cost of postage. Did not lend itself to much techinque testing being done in master-class, beyond that. Tho in OTB I was Always getting Declined and tested by Masters> Could it maybe possibly be due to my being Class A in otb ?! [oh no, maybe not. hohoho] Or under 2100 anyway. And not as many years involved. lol My point here tho, that it IS nice to have the opportunity to Test out positions in online correpondence, that would never have been in Postal. And creating games from it that can be used to show technique to students of the game too. Without being months and months. ] |
||
|
baronderkilt 26-Jan-12, 11:03 |
I recall a fun Chess-psych-meta-game now It is something of a standard procedure for me that I get up and stroll about between many moves I make. See some other games, or think stategy, etc. And so also standard prx for me to Test the opponent reaction to me getting up. EG, if I rise will he snap out a move trying to keep me there? Or does it actually slow him down for me to go? This particular opponent was highly manipulable in Clock matters. If he was going to get up, I would reach, as if to move a piece, pulling him back in his chair. Not the piece I am thinking of moving either. So, Ah he has not considered That move eh? So he does. And starts to get up, so I reach. Or huddle up over the board with hands over eyes and head over board, as if intensely studying. And he stays. So I pre-write a move to study (which used to be legal procedure to do), that is Not the one i am looking at of course. And he looks at it too. So I cross it off, and write another which I cover with my Pen over the move. ACCIDENTLY the pen moves off of it. OH did not consider me Sac'g that piece?? Interesting, neither had I. Finally make my move. And hopefully by this time he is hopping on one foot, or at least squirming in his seat. (NEVER make "just one move" before needing the Facilities Chessfriends. It will always err. Better to lose the time, and get your focus back when you return!) The Art of Misdirection aor Opponent Manipulation can be more fun than the Chess sometimes. If you have a bit of a devilish streak in that way . . . }8-D |
