on Judit Polgar-
Judit Polgar is known for her aggressive playing style and her tendency to track the opponents' weaker points and attack them. In more than one interview, she emphasized the psychological aspect of the game saying she prefers learning the opponent's playing style so she can play intentionally against him, then playing chess in an objective manner.
It depends on the opponent. Some have weaknesses begging for exploitation; others deserve your best chess (playing the board).
One of my occasional opponents has so many psychological hang-ups that he begs to be toyed with, but I've had my best results against him when I play solid positional chess. When I play him, I've entered a dangerous world of marginal sanity to the detriment of my score.
Quite dangerous playing the person, at least at my level. I think it's entirely understandable when the masters and grandmasters do it. At my level, the opponent may find the right way out of a situation set up especially for him or her, as I don't have many different resources to fall back on. At the high levels, the masters and grandmasters can take chances, as their command of the game allows them to develope a much deeper strategy.
I agree with the point where you state some things are meant to be exploited, but that IS playing the board. The Judith Polgar thing is understandable, however, again, if you see a weakness, you're going after it, this is also playing the board.
Playing the man = assuming you know what the opponent will do and thereby sacrificing chess principles.
I see it a lot in lower rated games. The opponents become excited at thinking they understand the other person's mind and thereby take the bait on a move.This leads to their downfall shortly thereafter.
making traplike moves hoping your opponent will fall into them is not good chess. Choosing a theoretically even line because you know your opponent doesn't like those types of positions can yield very good results.
I think if by "playing the man" you mean throwing chess objectivity out the window, you're cruising for a bruising. OTOH, if you have two objectively equal moves and you know one of them will make your opponent far more uncomfortable than the other for reasons of style, temprament, or whatever, then by all means play the man and make your opponent uncomfortable. Psychology is a part of the game, but it doesn't trump making good moves on the board.
As for Judit Polgar, when you play the game at her level any edge (however slight) you can find against one of the other 2700+ super-GMs you play regularly is fair game. In practice, however, it might mean selecting certain openings for particular opponents based on her sense of their weaknesses and comfort levels, attempting to push them into the types of positions they don't handle as well as others. (There is no type of position a super-GM handles badly, just some that they don't handle quite as well by super-GM standards as others.)
Exactly, when a GM plays the man, it's a finely tuned, acute understanding of the term. Playing the man has to played within playing the board, otherwise, you sacrifice position which, against any strong opponent, leads to a demolition.
I think it's right to distinguish what GMs and non-GMs are doing. When a super GM has a very particular style, such as Karpov or Tal, for example, it makes sense to prepare specifically for that style. I don't think that style really matters much at my level of play. That is probably especially true when you're going to play a match against the person.
I remember seeing a game from 1979 (?) in which Bent Larsen beat the then-World Champion Karpov with a Scandinavian Defense, after concluding that Karpov did not respond to off-beat openings well.
In Magnus Carlsen's recent interview with Time he had something interesting and relevant to say:
Do you see chess as a game of combat or a game of art?
Combat. I am trying to beat the guy sitting across from me and trying to choose the moves that are most unpleasant for him and his style. Of course some really beautiful games feel like they are art, but that's not my goal.
In Magnus Carlsen's recent interview with Time he had something interesting and relevant to say:
Do you see chess as a game of combat or a game of art?
Combat. I am trying to beat the guy sitting across from me and trying to choose the moves that are most unpleasant for him and his style. Of course some really beautiful games feel like they are art, but that's not my goal.
Thanks for the link.
As to styles, like Tryst said, not at our level. I find it hard enough to avoid tactically lost positions -- I do my best when I play the board!
I think if by "playing the man" you mean throwing chess objectivity out the window, you're cruising for a bruising. OTOH, if you have two objectively equal moves and you know one of them will make your opponent far more uncomfortable than the other for reasons of style, temprament, or whatever, then by all means play the man and make your opponent uncomfortable. Psychology is a part of the game, but it doesn't trump making good moves on the board.
As for Judit Polgar, when you play the game at her level any edge (however slight) you can find against one of the other 2700+ super-GMs you play regularly is fair game. In practice, however, it might mean selecting certain openings for particular opponents based on her sense of their weaknesses and comfort levels, attempting to push them into the types of positions they don't handle as well as others. (There is no type of position a super-GM handles badly, just some that they don't handle quite as well by super-GM standards as others.)
What I don't get is, didn't fischer think psychology is very important? Yet he says play the board.
I play a chess game on my phone if I'm bored when I'm out. I know from experience that this program is fairly strong in open positions and quite weak in closed positions.
So if I'm after an easy win, I certainly don't play the board. :)
What I don't get is, didn't fischer think psychology is very important? Yet he says play the board.
He was probably comfortable enough following that advice (whenever he may have found the time to do it) because he was so much stronger than his competition.
On a related note, if you're fairly equal in strength to your opponent it helps to know what kind of positions favor him vs you. And not only in tactical vs quiet positions but also if he has a pet line in the dragon memorized out to 25 moves it helps to know to avoid it.
I don't really think we get to know our opponents that well...but I do have a poor habit of playing someone's "rating" instead of playing the board.
Picking an opening that is uncomfortable for your opponent, or pulling them into positions they dislike is a safe way of "playing the man". Playing traps left and right and just hoping they trip into a pitfall is certainly not.
In the second Botvinnik vs. Tal WC match, didn't Botvinnik take Tal into dry positions to avoid the kind of explosive complications that Tal excelled in?
Actually, you play both..you can't play other that what is on the board...and you should try to gain any advantage that you can against your opponent. I don't know when Fischer said that...but if you read his history he was proficient in beating opponents before the game ever started...just like Mike Tyson at his peak...scouting your opposition is very important especially at the higher lever...do you remember Carlsen waiting a full 2 mins. before he made his first move as white against Kramnik? What do you think he was doing? He was playing the man then....
I think Fischer had it right when he said to play the board. It just seems like too weak of an idea to play the man in as mathematical a game as chess. Eventually, your lack of attention to small nuances, which inevitably happens if you're playing mainly if not wholly mindgames, will add up and you will be hurt. Playing the board however offers an objective approach to the game; make the best move possible. Of course when you're a much better player than your opponent, you naturally have a read on how they will respond to your moves but this is irrelevant for at least two reasons: 1. If you play against his mentality, and it's a weak player, you will jeopardize your position because their moves are not as sound or calculated as a better player's would be and 2. You can never be certain that they will in fact make the move you predict, even if you are right an inordinate amount of the time.