Define "Nerves." Also, can you strengthen your Chess Nerves? How?

This question is motivated by the just concluded WCC match between Fabio and Magnus.   There were expert pundit observations and commentary about Fabio's strong nerves, and Magnus's lack of nerves or Magnus losing his nerve.

This word "nerves" seems a bit nebulous to me, perhaps also ambiguous, and also a bit of a catch-all term.  I think I know what it mean, but maybe I don't.  So I'm inviting others to tell me what you think it means.  

I think it means "psychological disposition."  But maybe I'm mistaken.  Also, when I read that a certain player is in "bad form" or "good form", I largely attribute that to possessing "bad nerves" or "good nerves" which in turn means "psychological disposition" according to my tentative paradigm.

For example, I will never forget when I was a 1200 or 1300 player playing in large regional swiss over 35 years ago as a youth, and I was paired up against an 1800+ player in the first round.  Nobody told me that I was supposed to ignore rating.   I was scared!  I hated openings, and opening theory (still do kinda) and I had White.  So I said "Eff it, I'm just gonna do weird stuff."  So I fianchettoed both bishops, lol, and I ended up winning in a little over 20 moves, I think. 

In the postmortem, he looked at me, a young kid, and asked me, "What the hell were you doing in the opening?"  I told him I didn't know, and that I just wanted to get him out of the book.  He was fuming and upset that he lost the maximum rating points under USCF to a kid who was just making stuff up on the fly in the opening and playing general opening principles.

But here's the connection to my question about chess nerves.  When I went to the Wall Board to look up the pairings, I found out that my first round opponent had withdrawn from the tournament!!  I was like, what??  Why??  That entry fee wasn't cheap.  At least not to me.  Why play only one game, and then withdraw?  You're not getting your money's worth!

So much later, I just chalked it up to this:  He had bad chess nerves!  He was in a bad psychological state or poor psychological disposition after getting upset in the 1st round by someone rated more than 400 points less than him.  He was self-aware of his self-disgust, and that it would likely affect his subsequent chess play (i.e., losing more games) that he thought it was wise for him to withdraw so he doesn't hemorrhage more rating points.

Now am I right?  Is this not an example of Chess "Nerves"?  If not, then what exactly is Chess "Nerves"?

Moreover, can you strengthen chess nerves?  How?  What do you personally do?

I will take a moment and open up here in public.  In October i went to a hypnotherapist because i was having such a horrible issue with being afraid of losing.  I had gotten to the point that i felt like a failure, and thought that was how others viewed me if i lost a game of chess.  After a couple of sessions with the hypnotherapist, those issues are resolved.  So i guess, yes, you can say i strengthened my nerves.  It just took more than "Be a man..." to get it done.  All because of something i had been hanging onto that happened when i was 5.

Thanks for sharing this IMBacon.  It might help others who could be in a similar situation.  

For me, my chess performance definitely depends on my mental state, and emotional state.

As for mental state, some days I have it, and other days I just don't. And I usually don't know what the difference is. Sometimes, I do, for example lack of sleep. But there are times where for a week I just see everything clearly, tactics come easy, etc. And then the next week, it is gone, and I'm missing even the simple stuff. And I can have a good attitude during both!

Emotional state is the attitude part. I think that is what most people are talking about when they talk about nerves. I heard something once that really clicked with me. It may have been Joe Gibbs, coach of the Washington Redskins football team. They said that champions want to play against the very best. They thrive on that. Others fear playing the very best and would prefer to play against against lesser competition.

That really clicked with me. I now really like playing against higher rated players. The worst that can happen is I lose and then I can learn something about what I need to improve.

So I think there's somewhat of a tacit agreement (between us at least) that "nerves" are a mental and emotional state, or what I had termed a "psychological disposition."

I really like what you said about Joe Gibbs, who I actually remember because I'm an old guy, lol, and that it has led you to really like playing against higher rated players.  I have to say that I have mixed feelings about that.  On the one hand, I'm still a teensy-weensy intimidated by it, but on the other hand, the memory of pulling off my great upset still fuels me, and actually brings me to a happy state of pleasant memories.  I still chuckle and get a Cheshire Cat grin off pulling off an upset and disturbing someone's else's mental and emotional state.  Is that mean, or what?  

Seriously though, higher rated players hate losing to (much) lower rated players.   Generally speaking, that is.  Given that, I really should look forward to playing higher rated players.  After all, emotionally and mentally and psychologically, I have nothing to lose.  Whereas for them, the pressure to win is all on them!

And that internal pressure is "Nerves!"

I think good form and bad form are things that just happen.  For me, when I play online and I'm in good form I tend to calculate quickly and accurately, and spot good plans for both sides quickly and accurately.  For instance, in 3 + 2 blitz, my TC of choice, I had a few weeks of good form where I went from about 1750 to about 1885.  Then, (and currently), I'm on a huge run of bad form where my rating has dropped from 1885 to about 1710.  My calculation sucks.  I'm dropping pieces, transitioning into lost endgames, missing wins, etc.  I've suddenly lost the ability to play good chess and I have no idea why.  I had a recent streak of 2.5/14, which cost me about 70 rating points.

I think that form and nerves are totally different.  Form is basically "how are you playing right now compared to how you usually play".  Nerves has to do with how well you play in critical moments, like the last game of a world championship.  The question there is "how well do you play in critical moments compared to how you usually play".  Some people are clutch, others are choke artists, and some are so-so.  One is based on the current moment in time and the other is based on the current situation.

Form and Nerves are totally different?  I think there is a difference, but there may also be a distinct correlation between the two as well.  

Let's say that you have bad Nerves.  For whatever reason.  And both you and others who know your play attribute your current bad Form to having bad Nerves.   Because I see this explanation used quite a bit.  Or do you see the following happening:  A player could have Bad Nerves but still has Good Form and is winning games?   Don't you generally think it's Good Nerves, Good Form or Bad Nerves, Bad Form?

I guess I could see Good Nerves, Bad Form, but I never see, or hardly ever see, Bad Nerves, Good Form.

It's only a game. You forget about real problems for a while, get into the big blue, and simply do your best.

No, my bad play currently has nothing to do with nerves.  Why did my nerves have me peak at 1750, then 1885, and then drop me back to 1710?  That's form.  Currently, I'm losing games in every conceivable way: opening blunders, tactical oversights, dropping pieces, missing small combinations, and overlooking opponent's ideas (probably the biggest one).  

People who have bad nerves, i.e. struggle when the lights shine brightest, might be more prone to runs of bad form, but I still maintain the two are largely separate:

Form: how you are playing in the current moment

Nerves: how well you play in critical moments

Critical moments create pressure that doesn't exist is a normal everyday situation.  Nerves relates to how you handle the extra pressure of an important situation.  Form has nothing to do with this.

A player can have bad nerves and still win games, especially if his opponents make it easy on him.  One top player said to have bad nerves is Ivanchuck.  His play is subpar (for him) in Candidates tourneys and some analysts think this is why he has never been WCC (although he has been the rapid champ).  Even in my current funk, I beat a much higher rated player after he dropped a rook to a one move knight fork in a better position.  Lucky me  .

I would readily agree.  Some/Most folks could have bad form without any regard to their current state of Nerves.  The converse is also true:  Some/Most folks could have good form without any regard to their current state of Nerves.

So let's go with your definition:

"Nerves: how well you play in critical moments

Critical moments create pressure that doesn't exist is a normal everyday situation.  Nerves relates to how you handle the extra pressure of an important situation.  Form has nothing to do with this."

What can a player do, or what have players done before to improve and strengthen their nerves while experiencing the extra pressure of an important situation?

Or what have players done that has worsened their nerves?  And then having learned about these unhelpful behaviors, work on avoiding these unhelpful behaviors which only exacerbates the case of Bad Nerves.

P.S.  We have one possible solution.  See a hypnotherapist.

I think that nerves can be improved through experience and it may be possible to replicate to some degree the stress that comes from big moments, although this probably won't be perfect.

Another idea could focus on the scientific part of stress, like blood pressure.  BP can be artificially raised and then the player can practice under those conditions.  Physical and mental fatigue can be generated as well.

For the most part though, I think it's something you have or you don't.  In sports, it's generally believed that some players are clutch and some aren't.  It may come from self-confidence, but some want the ball in their hand with the game on the line and some don't.  

If I was required to assist someone with bad nerves, my strategies would be trying to lift their confidence and practicing under as real conditions as possible.

As an aside, would you say that Fabi has bad nerves given how badly he played in the tiebreak?  From the rook ending in game one through all of game two he was pretty bad, yet his WCC form was good in classical.  Nerves?  Reminder that he had a lost position with white in game 12 of the classical.

"For the most part though, I think it's something you have or you don't."

I don't know.  Maybe you're right.  Or maybe the sports psychologists are right, and a player can improve their inner psychological disposition.

"As an aside, would you say that Fabi has bad nerves given how badly he played in the tiebreak?"

I didn't think Fabio had bad nerves in the tiebreak.  I actually think he played quite well in Game 1 to recover from his poor opening and get to a potentially drawn rook ending.  I actually thought he showed Good Nerves or Good fighting spirit to claw his way back into a draw late in Game 1.  

My patzer critique of Fabio (and his team of seconds) in Game 1 of the Rapids is that he should have known how much Magnus likes playing with the 2 Bishops advantage.   He gave it up on Move 9.  I felt this was a very bad strategic mistake on Fabio's part.  So then it didn't surprise me at all that Fabio got into time trouble.  He was playing right into Magnus's wheelhouse.  I thought that was really, really poor decision on Fabi's part.  All those Rossolimo's and Fabio still did not know how much Magnus loves playing with the 2 Bishops??  C'mon dude!!  WTF.

So for Fabio to claw back into a drawing position late in Game 1 was remarkable, and showed great nerves under both match conditions and time pressure.  I was just disgusted with him voluntarily giving up the 2 bishops to Magnus, and not having learned his lesson to not do that lightly.  And Fabio was justly punished for making such a poor decision.

I personally think nerves can affect people even when they don't play in the "critical" situations. Some golfers have terrible yips even in the most mundane situations.

But if so, then I think that is at least in part attitude. I play guitar in front of thousands of people over the course of a weekend when playing guitar at church. Looking out at a crowd of five or six hundred people is certainly enough to cause "nerves" in some people. However, I love it. I'm energized by it (although afterwards, I can be very tired). I know I'm not the best guitar player in the world. There are very likely some guitar players in the audience that are better than me. But it doesn't matter. I'm good enough. I've been doing it for many years.

Magnus and Fabiano were more than good enough to be on that stage. They belonged there and they had already proved it. They may or may not have had nerves. But they really had nothing to prove. Regardless of what happened, they were the two players who should be there on that stage.

I do agree that bad form is not the same as bad nerves, but bad form can lead to bad nerves and vice versa.  I think it's as simple as success breeds confidence.  It's no different than a hitter's slump in baseball.  Either the baseball looks as big as a grapefruit or as tiny as a golf ball respectively because of your past success or failure.

The same thing happens in pool when you're in dead stroke, not only does the object ball find the pocket like it had eyes, but the cue ball settles into a position like you placed it there by hand.  You aren't jerking or crabbing your stroke; it's natural.  All that goes away with nerves, feeling I'm going to miss this one, I'm going to miss the 9-Ball in that eponymous game and all my previous shots will have been for nought.  Add an order of magnitude if this is the last game of the tournament and it means everything to you; it's your life.

Though this description is of nerves in a physical game, pool is said to be 90 percent mental and thus this applies to chess as well.  Frankly, this explains Fischer's apprehension and actions just before the 1972 World Chess Championship. Remember he had never beaten Spassky, and I can just imagine what the loss of the first game did to him.  Being high strung and all, he must have been a wreck; he didn't show up and forfeited the next game.  It would have been all over if he'd lost the third or succumbed to Spassky's attack in the forth.  It was the firth that turned it around because he realized Spassky could blunder just like the rest of them.  That would give anyone confidence.  The next game was a smasher, and Fischer never looked back.  This is a good illustration of the interaction between nerves, confidence and form.

What jangles my nerves is the ticking clock.  Because I'm such a perfectionist, I have lost on time, or came damn close to it, on numerous occasions.  I improved my time management through learning mating patterns thoroughly, and greatly improving my tactical acuity by naming and practicing tactics. This aided my visualization and calculation, but Dan Heisman's rules for examining what's right in front of you, the honing of one's board vision, may have been even more important. By looking for checks, captures and threats, in that order, I know I'm not going to make some dumb oversight and ruin my game. This has been a big confidence booster.  Practicing if not mastering these tools have allowed me to concentrate on a strategic plan.  That right there is a step up confidence-wise, thus nerves-wise.

Lastly, we know Caruana is not the natural talent Carlsen is, but he has worked very hard to get to where he is.  Still that doesn't explain a 3-0 drubbing in Rapids tie-break.  I think failing to draw the first game must have taken a toll on his nerves -- he always seemed with his short, clipped speech and deer in the headlights look a more nervous character than he lets on -- but only he can answer that but probably would never say so.

P.S. there was a book published in 1960 and still in print today that, in essence, deals with the subject for form and nerves titled Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz

Nerves are defined as "a person's mental state, in particular the extent to which they are agitated or worried."

My advice is to take on the mentality of "If I lose, I will learn something from my game to win more games in the future." Also, if you're playing a stronger opponent, think of it as a challenge to win but not a must win. If you constantly pressure yourself to win, you will lose. Go into the game with a mindset of "I will try my best and learn something if I lose." Finally, don't be overconfident when playing a weaker player. Overconfidence leads to underestimation, and underestimation leads to blunders because you will feel that you don't have to play your best. If you lose by blundering a lot against similar rated players or lower rated players and you get nervous about losing, it's because of overconfidence. Don't be afraid to lose because you will learn from it. However, play your best because you only win by playing your best. I hope this helps.

Bam!  I think the inexorable chess clock plays a huge role on chess player's nerves.  So many times, So Many Times (!) I have heard the chess commentators say that Fabio is 20 minutes behind on time or something like that.  Time pressure is huge, even in Classical Chess.  Time pressure leads to Nerves!  Or Bad Nerves to be precise.

I'm exceedingly pleased that you took active steps to cure yourself of time trouble.

Where do you go to watch Viktor Korchnoi's preparation.  

P.S.  Both I and Yasser Seirawan would have loved to have seen Korchnoi upset the great Karpov for the WCC crown!  The old man beating the younger man 20 years his junior!!

Regarding the ticking clock, the nervousness doesn't always come when you're on the defensive and in a jam, sometimes it's because you have an abundance of riches.  In other words, you have many good plans at your disposal but you demand of yourself the plan that is not only winning but one you'll be aesthetically pleased with later.

Being a perfectionist with an aesthetic sensibility -- a deadly combination when not tempered by practical considerations -- you just piss your time away trying to make up your mind and blow what could have been a decent if not perfect game.

It's obvious few can be an Alekhine, a Tal, a Kasparov and surely not the chess assassin, Rashid Nezhmetdinov, but striving to turn out a memorable game is sometimes worth the time pressure ... if you just don't screw up a good thing.

Me too, but also because of the politics and the treatment his family received when Korchnoi defected in 1976.  The Colorado State Chess Association brought him to Denver for a simul to help raise money for him, but I unfortunately missed it.

I imagine more that a few of you remember the real horrorshow of the 1978 Championship.  That match, the 1981 repeat match and Fischer's inspired the musical, Chess, as well as the 1984 Swiss-French film, Dangerous Moves.

As a tribute to Mr. Korchnoi there's this.  You know what they say, never mess with a Holstein.

I'm just thinking out loud through the time pressure connection to chess nerves, however tenuous or solid it may be.

Let's say that you're self-aware that being in time pressure makes you "nervy" and prone to blunder.  In that case suppose someone gave you the counsel to make the best move you can in a timely fashion so as to avoid time pressure.  In other words, be pragmatic with regards to balancing your time, calculating concrete variations, and analyzing/evaluating the position strategically.  If you don't finish all the calculations, and analytical evaluations, so be it.  Just make what you think is the best move under your self-imposed time constraints so that you don't get into time pressure trouble!  

Would that be reasonable counsel?  It's worth trying, at least, don't you think?