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: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:04:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.163308.23617@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>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:

I posted a response, but it never appeared as far as I can tell.  So, trying
again from memory.

>>>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?

>I think he means any/all of the following (incomplete) list....
>1.  scowling (Walter B. has this mastered.)
>2.  slamming pieces
>3.  slamming the clock
>4.  moving unnecessarily aggressively.
>5.  leaning OVER the board
>6.  "smoke gets in your opponent's eyes" for the smokers out there.
>7.  comments, smirks, etc. about your opponent's moves.
>8.  comments to bystanders about the quality of your opponent's moves,
>     etc. (not about the actual game, obviously)

Well, I used Lasker as an example and referred to Benko's book.  Seems
to me that your list includes does not include anything of the
psychology that Benko focusses on, e.g., pinning a piece not because it
is "objectively" the best move but because it is the best move against
the current opponent.

>9.  any other unsportsmanlike action you might dream up.

Is this list closure?  Seems to be.  Seems prejudicial also.  Can't you
think of anything psychological that would be "sportsmanlike"?  Can you
imagine something psychological that does not clearly manifest itself
in action?

>I have been playing chess for 30 years, and have always felt that it was
>a "gentleman's game" devoid of this kind of crap.  However, I see this
>behavior sporadically in every tournament I have been around.

Well, then your "gentleman's game" does not exist.  You just try to
define away the parts of chess that you have difficulty with.

>Sort of like tennis, I guess.  The way I was brought up on tennis and
>the way current top players act are two different things....  perhaps I
>am thereby distorted in my view of sportsmanlike conduct.  I don't
>believe that intimidation is a part of the game of chess, but, rather
>something that someone introduces to offset/cover up a weakness that
>he/she has.

There it is again: psychology==intimidation.  What about just playing
the sort of game that troubles your opponent most?  What about the
things in your life that affect your play, including your will to win,
and that have nothing to do with your particular opponent?

I am not sure that this is going to get posted, so I will stop here.
Everyone should read Benko's book on *Winning with Chess Psychology.*

--Jim