The Winner's Psychology Part 1
Win and loss are both parts of chess. It is often said that loosing does not matter, chess is a game and one is supposed to have fun while playing, not while boasting over one's victory! Only a fool would run around shouting: "I won!" At least that is how I used to think. The fun of chess after all, is to try and solve complicated problems that arise from certain chess positions. The kick here is mental. It is a game of the mind. But the cruel truth is that when it comes to solving a problem, just like in mathematics, there are only two states:
either
1. you solve the problem ...
or
2. you mess the problem ...
And what fun can you have when you realise that you have failed in your own mental game. This type of disappointment does not arise from competition against the opponent, it arises from the wish to play good chess. You may call it your "personal chess-ambition". Your opponent in the end is yourself.
So winning does matter even it serves only as a proof of dedication or "certificate" of knowledge in this sport.
I recently came to a point asking myself the following questions: "Why can't I play good chess?" or even better "Why can't I play better chess?". "Why, despite of all my training and reading for the past month, do I so often mess things in the endgame?"
What makes one a good chess player after all?
Actually, these questions were not meant so desperate as they might sound here. I am well aware (or not so well aware) of what it takes to be good at this game. It takes a lot of practice and we are talking here about years of intense daily practice. In the end, my chess life does not consist more that four years, and that was when I was in high school. Can you create a mirracle in just a few months? Well maybe, if Kasparov is training you!
So what is beyond practice? Is it reading?
Reading can take you only up to one point. Especially if you are not a strong player. Knowing a few basic openings can save you time and give you a better insight into the way things can but not necessarily have to develope. Reading also trains the mind into learning by heart what the board looks like, which the positions of the pieces on the specific squares are etc. Chess works through mental visualization and whatever trains that faculty of the mind is good. I suppose even doing mathematical calculations without the use of a paper can train this faculty. Learning a hundred variations by hearth though, without really understanding them is quite useless. Reading slowly allows you to "see" more things on the present and future state of the chessboard.
But what about talent?
Thats it. Talent is what makes everything possible. Talent in my opinion is not an inherent easiness in doing something. It is an inherent love of doing something. Love implies dedication, dedication impies hard training. But talent also implies self-confidence. This is the last but not least most important ingredient of a winner.
To be continued ...
either
1. you solve the problem ...
or
2. you mess the problem ...
And what fun can you have when you realise that you have failed in your own mental game. This type of disappointment does not arise from competition against the opponent, it arises from the wish to play good chess. You may call it your "personal chess-ambition". Your opponent in the end is yourself.
So winning does matter even it serves only as a proof of dedication or "certificate" of knowledge in this sport.
I recently came to a point asking myself the following questions: "Why can't I play good chess?" or even better "Why can't I play better chess?". "Why, despite of all my training and reading for the past month, do I so often mess things in the endgame?"
What makes one a good chess player after all?
Actually, these questions were not meant so desperate as they might sound here. I am well aware (or not so well aware) of what it takes to be good at this game. It takes a lot of practice and we are talking here about years of intense daily practice. In the end, my chess life does not consist more that four years, and that was when I was in high school. Can you create a mirracle in just a few months? Well maybe, if Kasparov is training you!
So what is beyond practice? Is it reading?
Reading can take you only up to one point. Especially if you are not a strong player. Knowing a few basic openings can save you time and give you a better insight into the way things can but not necessarily have to develope. Reading also trains the mind into learning by heart what the board looks like, which the positions of the pieces on the specific squares are etc. Chess works through mental visualization and whatever trains that faculty of the mind is good. I suppose even doing mathematical calculations without the use of a paper can train this faculty. Learning a hundred variations by hearth though, without really understanding them is quite useless. Reading slowly allows you to "see" more things on the present and future state of the chessboard.
But what about talent?
Thats it. Talent is what makes everything possible. Talent in my opinion is not an inherent easiness in doing something. It is an inherent love of doing something. Love implies dedication, dedication impies hard training. But talent also implies self-confidence. This is the last but not least most important ingredient of a winner.
To be continued ...
posted by admin at 8:13 PM
3 Comments:
I remember from my psychology studies an experiment they did with chess vs. non-chess players. The non-chess players had great difficulty recreating a board constellation they had just seen. But the chess players were very good at it. The conclusion was that chess players perceive constellations of pieces, and not the individual pieces. Maybe that is how perception works with blind chess.
I guess the result was expected because non-chess players would even have trouble recognizing what the pieces represent, the constellations that you mention being much more difficult to contruct.
Or did you mean it was without chess pieces the constellation?
I started to write this posting wanting to express something different, but I ended up writing the reasons that made me think that what I wanted to write :)).. hahaha
If I recall right the chess positions had to make sense, for them to be remembered. (I meant the constellation of chess pieces - how they were placed on the board)
Post a Comment
<< Home