points for the title. and the proposition that it can happen in chess.
What about répertoires? or deeper and deeper traps pursuit?
I confuse the 2, but it does seem to assume the double delusion that this might be what chess is about: deep line imbalance preparatory knowledge, but which has the population (cohort of same hot repertoire belief, of the moment) effect of following the same main line. Now I should read and look at the chess of your blog.
I do like the other titles of your blogs. some of them are intriguing. The psychology aspect of them.
PS: btw I don't know if intended but clicking on the board leads to the following place:
draft.blogger.com/#
What about répertoires? or deeper and deeper traps pursuit?
I confuse the 2, but it does seem to assume the double delusion that this might be what chess is about: deep line imbalance preparatory knowledge, but which has the population (cohort of same hot repertoire belief, of the moment) effect of following the same main line. Now I should read and look at the chess of your blog.
I do like the other titles of your blogs. some of them are intriguing. The psychology aspect of them.
PS: btw I don't know if intended but clicking on the board leads to the following place:
draft.blogger.com/#
1...Qe5 2.Nxf4 Qd4+ 3.Qg2 Rf8 4.Bxg4 Rxf4 5.Be6+
There are two typos here which make this difficult to follow.
It should read:
1...Qe5 2.Nxf4 Qxd4+ 3.Kg2 Rf8 4.Bxg4 Rxf4 5.Be6+
There are two typos here which make this difficult to follow.
It should read:
1...Qe5 2.Nxf4 Qxd4+ 3.Kg2 Rf8 4.Bxg4 Rxf4 5.Be6+
Doesn't this make perfect sense? If players are equal, their ability to see moves is equal. Therefore if a move is beyond t heir ability, they will both miss it. That is exactly why i take a careful look after every move that i think is crushing me.
And also this is why chess is so fun regardless of how strong you are: if both players miss a move, they just keep playing equal exciting chess as if that move doesnt exist.
And also this is why chess is so fun regardless of how strong you are: if both players miss a move, they just keep playing equal exciting chess as if that move doesnt exist.
#2 - Thanks1 The board link is not intentional, but I don't know how to change it.
#3 - Thanks! The typos are now fixed.
#4 - You do have a point, but your example is technical - if you don't have the skills required to spot a move, you won't see it. But, if you have the skills, and still don't see it, then it's a psychological thing that prevents you. It happens all the time, even to grandmasters, and that's what makes chess so fascinating!
<Comment deleted by user>
@Gyllenstierna said in #7:
I fail to see the distinction tbh. Like, you can say "qg5 is completely fine so I don't need to calculate" is a psychological delusion, I can say that the person just didn't have the technical skill ingrained down to a reflex of just being instantly aware how can their piece be attacked on the square they're about to move it to
Right, so like if you move your queen and your opponent attacks it and you say "oops I didn't see that" - how is that not lack of technical skill?
Regardless the results the same, the higher rated you are, the fewer mistakes you make.
And yeah, I'm actually irritated that you can lose the game due to one blunder. What I am fascinated with is that you can have fun in chess even making several game ending blunders per game lol
I fail to see the distinction tbh. Like, you can say "qg5 is completely fine so I don't need to calculate" is a psychological delusion, I can say that the person just didn't have the technical skill ingrained down to a reflex of just being instantly aware how can their piece be attacked on the square they're about to move it to
Right, so like if you move your queen and your opponent attacks it and you say "oops I didn't see that" - how is that not lack of technical skill?
Regardless the results the same, the higher rated you are, the fewer mistakes you make.
And yeah, I'm actually irritated that you can lose the game due to one blunder. What I am fascinated with is that you can have fun in chess even making several game ending blunders per game lol
@Negmek said in #9:
True, the difference between technical and psychological errors can be hard to see, but it's a real thing for sure! Take a look at one of your own games, and look for a position where you've just made a blunder. Now, ask yourself "why did I make that move?", and try to recall the emotions you had when the truth dawned on you. If it was like "this was a position I didn't understand, and I was unable to find a good move", then it's a technical thing. However, if was "how could I make such a move when I really should have seen that it was wrong?", then it's all psychology.
There's much more on this in my blog (The Ordeals of a Club Player), there's a link at the end of the article.
True, the difference between technical and psychological errors can be hard to see, but it's a real thing for sure! Take a look at one of your own games, and look for a position where you've just made a blunder. Now, ask yourself "why did I make that move?", and try to recall the emotions you had when the truth dawned on you. If it was like "this was a position I didn't understand, and I was unable to find a good move", then it's a technical thing. However, if was "how could I make such a move when I really should have seen that it was wrong?", then it's all psychology.
There's much more on this in my blog (The Ordeals of a Club Player), there's a link at the end of the article.