The Unfortunate Urge To Act • page 1/1 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I've noticed that "patience" sometimes really IS "a virtue" in chess, at times.

I've seen an unfortunate urge in my own chess, and I've seen it in others: the unfortunate urge to "do something" in a well-balanced, even position.

It's as if, as the game drones on, it's a human tendency to get impatient and want "something to happen." And suddenly, our tactical sense begins to wither and, in its place, upwells a desire to trust to our own inherent worthiness and deservedness, in which we trust and do not doubt!

And a move is made! We will force things and make something happen! We will transform the position, by golly!

But, it seems to me, after too much observation, that for all but the best players among us the transformation turns out to be a foul explosion that leaves us shaking our head and wondering if we should get more sleep.

Bold (impatient) tactical adventures in a balanced, quiet position seem too often to end in disaster. Indeed, it is with that notion that the lovely Hippopotamus Opening can be played with surprising nonmonetary profit.

Can others think of recent episodes in which they (or their opponent) botched a good but balanced position through impatience that caused a temporary loss of tempered, sound tactical discipline?

Or am I merely trying to find a way to explain some hard losses.

I've noticed that "patience" sometimes really IS "a virtue" in chess, at times. I've seen an unfortunate urge in my own chess, and I've seen it in others: the unfortunate urge to "do something" in a well-balanced, even position. It's as if, as the game drones on, it's a human tendency to get impatient and want "something to happen." And suddenly, our tactical sense begins to wither and, in its place, upwells a desire to trust to our own inherent worthiness and deservedness, in which we trust and do not doubt! And a move is made! We will force things and make something happen! We will transform the position, by golly! But, it seems to me, after too much observation, that for all but the best players among us the transformation turns out to be a foul explosion that leaves us shaking our head and wondering if we should get more sleep. Bold (impatient) tactical adventures in a balanced, quiet position seem too often to end in disaster. Indeed, it is with that notion that the lovely Hippopotamus Opening can be played with surprising nonmonetary profit. Can others think of recent episodes in which they (or their opponent) botched a good but balanced position through impatience that caused a temporary loss of tempered, sound tactical discipline? Or am I merely trying to find a way to explain some hard losses.

Cieron

edited

#2

Every time, most especially in closed positions - my main concern is that I cannot find a "waiting move" to play, I am not sure if a move is a developing move or a tactical mistake. This is why I avoid closed positions. I know that I cannot fight well in those terrains, and therefore steer clear, even if that means trading all pieces by move 20.

I believe that unless you can keep your focus during the calculation-intensive middlegame through to the endgame, it is just about choosing what kind of position you want to play in, which of course alters the opening you will start with.

Tal was famous for being aggressive in his play style, making bold sacrifices and tactically dominating the other player. So unless I can think like Tal, I would mold the topography on the board to fit my needs. Also, being a good chess player will mean that you know when to be patient and not. When you see your opponent has made a mistake (them thinking it's a waiting move which turns out to be a disastrous blunder), you will have to capitalise by "act"ing on it. I do not yet have the board vision to see it!

By "making something happen" and that turning out to be a mistake, often we are to be blamed since we did not consider the possible moves our opponent may respond with. This is definitely the case for me - when I move a pawn, I completely neglect the square that is not protected by said pawn anymore, creating a comfortable outpost for the enemy knight or leaving a piece hanging.

Though having the urge to act I say is not necessarily a bad thing; if you have the adequate board vision and tactical awareness, I'd say it's a good thing because it puts the opponent under pressure, that mindset of "how do I respond to this?"

Time control will also matter. When you aren't racing against the clock to make a move, you become a little more patient as you have more time to spare. In chess, not only does the opponent put pressure on you, your own clock does also. In closed middlegames I often require extra time for calculations, which longer time controls provide. How long "long" and "short" time controls are would depend on you, I'd say.

Just my two cents.

Every time, most especially in closed positions - my main concern is that I cannot find a "waiting move" to play, I am not sure if a move is a developing move or a tactical mistake. This is why I avoid closed positions. I know that I cannot fight well in those terrains, and therefore steer clear, even if that means trading all pieces by move 20. I believe that unless you can keep your focus during the calculation-intensive middlegame through to the endgame, it is just about choosing what kind of position you want to play in, which of course alters the opening you will start with. Tal was famous for being aggressive in his play style, making bold sacrifices and tactically dominating the other player. So unless I can think like Tal, I would mold the topography on the board to fit my needs. Also, being a good chess player will mean that you know when to be patient and not. When you see your opponent has made a mistake (them thinking it's a waiting move which turns out to be a disastrous blunder), you will have to capitalise by "act"ing on it. I do not yet have the board vision to see it! By "making something happen" and that turning out to be a mistake, often we are to be blamed since we did not consider the possible moves our opponent may respond with. This is definitely the case for me - when I move a pawn, I completely neglect the square that is not protected by said pawn anymore, creating a comfortable outpost for the enemy knight or leaving a piece hanging. Though having the urge to act I say is not necessarily a bad thing; if you have the adequate board vision and tactical awareness, I'd say it's a good thing because it puts the opponent under pressure, that mindset of "how do I respond to this?" Time control will also matter. When you aren't racing against the clock to make a move, you become a little more patient as you have more time to spare. In chess, not only does the opponent put pressure on you, your own clock does also. In closed middlegames I often require extra time for calculations, which longer time controls provide. How long "long" and "short" time controls are would depend on you, I'd say. Just my two cents.

V1g1yy edited

#3

I can relate. I recall years ago I was playing a tournament game where I correctly figured I had an advantage of about plus four in a position where there was potential for play on both sides of the board and the center was open. The position was almost a fortress for my opponent and I had no idea how to make progress. If I made a mistake I would almost certainly allow a perpetual. After a long drawn out sequence of moves I became so frustrated as to intentionally allow the perpetual just to end it all. I wasn't sure if my opponent would find it and if they didn't they were going to get crushed, but it was obvious to me so it was no surprise he found it.

Later engine analysis showed that I was correct and that I had a winning advantage but it was indeed very complicated, and the odds of me finding this winning idea were not very good. I look back on it and I don't even feel bad. Most times a botched opportunity tends to sting; for whatever reason this one I just accepted as too difficult to convert, and I moved on.

In more conventional positions, I suppose you could call it impatience, but I think it is better described as frustration from not being able to calculate deep enough to understand the position. The example above is the only time I remember making a move which I knew in advance was bad. Most times I just make a bad move thinking it's good and my opponent shows me otherwise. That I just call being outplayed. I also don't think I 'could' get impatient if the time control is 15 minutes or less. And I selldom get to play longer games any more.

I can relate. I recall years ago I was playing a tournament game where I correctly figured I had an advantage of about plus four in a position where there was potential for play on both sides of the board and the center was open. The position was almost a fortress for my opponent and I had no idea how to make progress. If I made a mistake I would almost certainly allow a perpetual. After a long drawn out sequence of moves I became so frustrated as to intentionally allow the perpetual just to end it all. I wasn't sure if my opponent would find it and if they didn't they were going to get crushed, but it was obvious to me so it was no surprise he found it. Later engine analysis showed that I was correct and that I had a winning advantage but it was indeed very complicated, and the odds of me finding this winning idea were not very good. I look back on it and I don't even feel bad. Most times a botched opportunity tends to sting; for whatever reason this one I just accepted as too difficult to convert, and I moved on. In more conventional positions, I suppose you could call it impatience, but I think it is better described as frustration from not being able to calculate deep enough to understand the position. The example above is the only time I remember making a move which I knew in advance was bad. Most times I just make a bad move thinking it's good and my opponent shows me otherwise. That I just call being outplayed. I also don't think I 'could' get impatient if the time control is 15 minutes or less. And I selldom get to play longer games any more.

SimonBirch

edited

#4

Sometimes when all is lost ,or there's nothing to do, you just gotta say **** it! I'll move that piece and see what happens! xxx sorry for the language , no other way of putting it xxx

pet59

#5

i impose myself(correspondance) not to react. Therefore I leave the site or at least that game and have another look later.

The_Merry_Chesster

#6

@SimonBirch said in #4:

Sometimes when all is lost ,or there's nothing to do, you just gotta say **** it! I'll move that piece and see what happens! xxx sorry for the language , no other way of putting it xxx

Reminds me of a book I once saw: "Move First, Think Later" by IM Willy Hendriks. I haven't read it and don't know why it's called like that but I just found the title quite funny, sounds a bit like "shoot first and ask questions later" :)

@SimonBirch said in #4: > Sometimes when all is lost ,or there's nothing to do, you just gotta say **** it! I'll move that piece and see what happens! xxx sorry for the language , no other way of putting it xxx Reminds me of a book I once saw: "Move First, Think Later" by IM Willy Hendriks. I haven't read it and don't know why it's called like that but I just found the title quite funny, sounds a bit like "shoot first and ask questions later" :)

Noflaps

edited

#7

@The_Merry_Chesster , the book is even better than its eye-catching title, in my properly humble opinion.

It doesn't really seem to suggest turning off the brain -- it was written with a great deal of brains, I think. He's now one of my favorite authors -- I like everything he's written that I've seen, and i think I've acquired all of his books.

@The_Merry_Chesster , the book is even better than its eye-catching title, in my properly humble opinion. It doesn't really seem to suggest turning off the brain -- it was written with a great deal of brains, I think. He's now one of my favorite authors -- I like everything he's written that I've seen, and i think I've acquired all of his books.

tpr

#8

"When you do not know what to do, wait for your opponent to get an idea. It is sure to be wrong." - David Bronstein