OTB: You See Name, Rating, Age, Appearance. What's Going On in Your Brain?

Scenario:  You're in an OTB tournament, classical time controls.  You see the pairing sheet.  You note the name and the rating, and whether you're playing Black or White.  (You've never met this player before).  You then go to where you're supposed to be.  You notice appearance of your opponent, and you make an estimate of age.

What, if anything, is going through your mind at this time?    For example, there's talk about assessing your position for strategic considerations?  Is there discussion about preliminarily assessing your opponent before even a single move is made?    Has a preliminary assessment of your unknown opponent ever affected your choice of openings?   If so, why?

Or are you like a computer?  You don't give a hoot, and you just play the board.  Or are you like Lasker, and play the Man even before the first move is even made?   If you have, what did you base it on?  

Eg., I have read comments about some people not wanting to play players from India.  I forgot what reason they offered, but I thought it was just kind of curious.  I can usually tell if I'm playing a person with Indian descent when I look at the name on the pairing sheet.  Would I make assumptions based on that?  I don't know.  Hence the question for the chess.com community:  Do you ever make preliminary generalizations at OTB play?  And does it influence your play?

The only assessment i make is if my opponents feet touch the floor.  If they do i know i have a chance, if they dont i know im going to lose.

If I see the pairing and I'm playing some old Yankee Patzer named Daniel, I'd fancy my chances - and it might be Gru-esome.

An age assessment.   This is probably not uncommon.  Just speaking for myself, I would generalize that they calculate tactics better (let's say 1600 rating or better) and so I might or probably would try to steer the game towards a quieter position. 

I used to be nervous. Later I realized just to not care, and focus on the chess. 

What kind of players made you nervous (either physical or psychological profile) and why?

And what led you to overcome these nerves?

I sometimes avoid looking at my opponent's rating prior to a game, and used to think this was a good idea. But often as not I'd end up looking and it never seemed to make a difference, so I don't worry about it so much anymore.

In a recent 9 round OTB tournament I played in, I finished with 4 wins against children, 4 losses against old men, and 1 draw against someone my age. Maybe coincidence, but I do seem to have a pretty good overall record against children and don't understand why the general consensus is that they are more likely to win. I tend to be a very slow player and one theory is that they sometimes get impatient and make mistakes against me.

Yasser Seirawan's book Chess Duel relates indirectly (originally in a book by Alburt and Lawrence) that Botvinnik preferred to enter a match with some dislike, or at least "psychological distance" from his opponent (the story then goes on to relate that Tal was the only person he couldn't make himself dislike). I think maybe sometimes in a effort to create this distance (and after all, most of us don't know our opponents in advance) we might latch on to something about our initial impression of our opponent that we dislike or that creates this distance from them, which is why I guess this story just came to mind as I was reading this thread.

As a last thought and perhaps precaution: I recently read in an article somebody shared around here that a blind study found that chess players were significantly more likely to play aggressive opening moves against female opponents. When they played the same pool of opponents but didn't know their gender, their play got more conservative. This led me to wonder a number of things - whether I had ever been guilty of this in the past, whether any female players aware of this trend had altered their repertoires in response, etc. It seems foolish/stupid that something like this would affect the game but I made a little mental note to be on guard against subconcious bias like this all the same.

Despite this very long-winded response, I would have to agree overall with Cherub - just focus on the chess.

Just twice did I let appearance effect my play.  When matched against a biker, I assumed that he would play aggressively and overstep his position.  The second time was against a 2000 "blind" player that I assumed would miss simple tactics.  Both times I was wrong.

 I usually ignore what my opponent looks like and try to ignore their rating; I like to emulate Bobby Fischer's statement "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." It gets easier to do this once I become highly focused on the board (during an OTB tournament game). In fact, once my opponent was eating some snacks during the game at the board (this is forbidden) and the tournament director had to come in and take the snacks away. I barely noticed what happened; I only truly realized what was going on when one of my friends told me about it after the round ended.

My opponents however sometimes seem to fail to ignore my appearance. I will verify that what Khalayx said is completely true; as a female player, I have experienced facing a hyper-aggressive opening from a male opponent (who usually plays much more conservative chess) firsthand.

Mainly higher rated players. I later realized that everyone up to 2300-2400 makes a ton of mistakes, some very simple, some more subtle, but basically they are very beatable by someone who performs decently. 

So basically I knew that none of my opponents were really anything to be that scared of. 

Kids are more likely to play fast, so I know I'll likely be behind on time -- so I go to the bathroom before I go to the board!  Other than that, I play the same openings and same style no matter what.

I think a large majority of chess players will notice something about their opponent's appearance.  After all, if you're going to sit across from someone for what could be hours, it's hard not to flick your eyes upwards and glance at your opponent's face and attire during the game.

There are a lot of posts and threads about playing higher and lower rated players.  Rating is something that chess players often use to make evaluations of their opponent.  Hence the caution, "Play the position, not the rating!"

"Botvinnik preferred to enter a match with some dislike, or at least "psychological distance" from his opponent"

LOL, makes me think of the common phrase used so often nowadays:  "Haters gonna hate."  I'm sure there's some sort of stereotype, whether true or not, that can be used to generate psychological distance.

"... a blind study found that chess players were significantly more likely to play aggressive opening moves against female opponents."

Hmmmm, I've never played a girl or woman in OTB games.  Honestly, I might be uncomfortable.  I'm thinking that if I lost, I'd feel worse than if I lost to another man.  Forgive me if that sounds bad.  I'm just thinking that.  Of course, I'm glad that Hou Yi Fan got a draw with Magnus.  And so if Magnus doesn't feel bad, why should I?  Although I kinda wonder how Magnus would have felt if he had lost to Hou Yi Fan.  And as far as I know, Judit Polgar never beat Garry Kasparov when he was World Champion.  

But I do think the day is coming when a woman beats a sitting World Chess Champion in an OTB tournament game.

LOL, it doesn't matter who I'm playing; I'm going #1  (and #2 if I have to)  before I sit down and play a game.  Hard to concentrate when Nature is calling.

was playing an away match , got to venue , team went to bar to get refreshment , there was a person thereknocking back shots of whiskey , turns out i got him , was an easy game for me , he had too much dutch courage

I did not mean that literally; I was just emphasizing that my opponents, upon seeing that I am female, sometimes decide to play much more aggressively than they usually do. They thus judge how they're going to play and how I'm going to play based on my physical appearance. I clearly also notice what my opponent looks like; I however do not append it with their playing style.

By the way, I too have heard about how Botvinnik has to dislike his opponents. From what I've seen/heard, some players have to hate their opponents in some way while others are more diplomatic (e.g. Paul Keres was generally nice and courteous; Tal was also considerably more outgoing/friendly than Botvinnik).

Oh, I understand now.  Thanks for the clarification.  BTW, did you ever read an article posted by BatGirl about how this one girl loves chess and how she kept on looking at her male opponent's blue eyes in enchantment during a game.  It was quite a good article.

If I know absolutely nothing about my opponent other than his name, age, facial features, etc, I do one of two things:

1) Simply play my game - if it's a serious tournament, and I'm still in the running for a near the top position, I'm going to play what I know best.  So, if I've got Black against him, and he plays 1.e4, I'll play the French.  1.d4?  King's Indian.  The exception to this might be if I recently got bashed in that same tournament and psychologically, I'm screwed and need something different.  Then I'll execute one of my backup defenses, the Caro-Kann, Petroff, or in the case of 1.d4, the Nimzo-Indian or QGD.

2) If I am playing a meaningless game at a 1-day tournament with $20 entry fee playing for $100 maybe an hour and a half from the house, and I don't know what he plays, I do tend to stereotype a little.  If he's old, I try to play something really, really complicated.  If he's a kid, and he's Asian, I again go for complicated lines as they tend to prefer to tread calm waters and usually tend to be endgame specialists.  If he's a kid and is not Asian, I would tend to look for something as boring as possible.  Most of them tend to be 1.e4 players, and I'd probably be quick to whip out the Petroff or Caro-Kann.  If I go 1...e5 and the play the King's Gambit, I'll decline it with 2...Bc5.  Take the fun out of White's game!

"I don't know what he plays, I do tend to stereotype a little.  If he's old, I try to play something really, really complicated.  If he's a kid, and he's Asian, I again go for complicated lines as they tend to prefer to tread calm waters and usually tend to be endgame specialists.  If he's a kid and is not Asian, I would tend to look for something as boring as possible."

Now that's what I'm thinking that people actually do!   I think age profiling is an understandable tactic.  Even some modest amount of ethnic profiling is understandable.  For example, anecdotally speaking, it seems to me that Filipino players are tactical and like sharp play.  So I might want to make the game more positional or "boring."