From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Mandatory human-computer tournament play (was Re: US Open)
Keywords: computers, pairings
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:08:18 GMT

In article <Bt91MG.L97.1@cs.cmu.edu> rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.193622.13628@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP
>(James H. Coombs) writes:

>>Psychology is part of chess.  You are supposed to do things that disturb your
>>opponent.  Lasker knew this, and so have most of the top players since then.
>>Instead of elaborating, I will simply refer readers to Benko's *Winning with
>>Chess Psychology*, an important book and an interesting read.

>Before I get this book, could you just mention what sort of things you mean?
>Do you mean playing disturbing moves, like deviating from an opening, or
>playing aggressively when one's opponent is playing for a draw?

Absolutely these things.  In part, it means understanding chess as a
struggle and playing the human across the board instead of the position
on the board (human subsumes position).  It means playing the best move
for the struggle, which is not necessarily the best move "objectively."

>On the other hand, do you mean leaving the room to show the opponent that one
>is so confident that one doesn't care about the clocks?  Or do you mean things
>like banging pieces, leaning over the board, or leaning back with a smug,
>satisfied smile after making a sacrifice?

Well, do YOU mean these things?  Benko certainly discusses some
important extra curriculars in chess history, such as Fischer's
objection to tv cameras.

>The latter type of things I simply ignore.  If the disturbances are so severe
>that they affect my concentration, I would call the TD, and I would certainly
>prefer to play a computer than such an opponent; I would have more respect for
>it.

Well, if you would call the TD, then you don't ignore them: they are
disturbances that you are aware of and trying to ignore until you can
no longer convince yourself that you are successful.

Benko also addresses the interesting topic of difficulties in playing
women, and I think this gives a sense of the subtlety of the issues.
Few of us would object to the TD that the opponent is a woman, but some
men are more distracted by playing a woman than they ever would be by a
man slamming pieces down and circling the board.

This weekend, an SM was beaten by a 2100 woman, although I heard today
that she is a WIM.  Still the ratings difference was 400-500 points.
Also, the SM dropped out of the tournament after the loss, perhaps just
because he then had only 1/2 point after round 2 and no chance of
winning.  BUT, I watched her play, and I felt things that I never feel
when watching men play.  I felt things that I never feel when watching
class D and C women.  I felt, "you are only watching because I am a
woman"; I felt, "you are looking at me."  I watched her move her pieces
with attitude, not slamming them, but moving them with subtlety,
slowly, precisely.  I felt the air hanging heavy with attitude.  I
think there was a woman using every advantage she could muster.  Think
what you will, I can only say that I have not felt this from other
women who I know are better than I ever will be.  Read Benko.  It at
least helps make you aware of the possibilities.

Oh, yes, and I have seen class D men move their pieces and punch the
clock with ever so much skill, with a flourish even, that could only be
yet another sign of their mastery of chess.  I have even heard one
player object to this.

Do you really ignore these things?  But they are such fun.  One of the
peaks of my weekend was when my opponent said "shit"!  I would rather
have that outburst than the point and the rating.  For one thing, it
was a much better evaluation of my play than the cold, sterile point.
For another, it was human; it was sharing.

How could you have more respect for a computer than for a struggling
human being? even a human being who is so desparate that he/she resorts
to distractions to defeat you? or simply loses control a little? a
lot?

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer