I half way agree. The best move is always the best. So psychologically speaking pure domination is the best intimidation.
The importance of getting players out of preparation
Sort:
Aug 20, 2015
0
#3
Lets see a opening that no one can prepare for and has 'slightly inferior moves''
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=949150227
Unless youre a titled player, trying to get players "out of book" is rediculous.
stuzzicadenti wrote:
Also, I think it was Lasker who advocated the approach of "play the man, not the board". Psychology, nerves, emotions, and fatigue are factors that can affect the outcome of games when humans play chess against other humans. This is what highlights chess not only as a form of art and science but also as a sport, where athletes often exploit every little detail, even those unrelated to the sport/game, to strengthen their performance and gain a psychological advantage over their opponents.
Fischer advocated the complete opposite, "All that matters on the chessboard is good moves".
Fischer is one of kings of psych warfare. He may have preached that quote but he did not practice it
Charetter115 wrote:
stuzzicadenti wrote:
Also, I think it was Lasker who advocated the approach of "play the man, not the board". Psychology, nerves, emotions, and fatigue are factors that can affect the outcome of games when humans play chess against other humans. This is what highlights chess not only as a form of art and science but also as a sport, where athletes often exploit every little detail, even those unrelated to the sport/game, to strengthen their performance and gain a psychological advantage over their opponents.
Fischer advocated the complete opposite, "All that matters on the chessboard is good moves".
I like Mato Jelic's opinion on this topic:
"When you play the most popular move, your opponent is, most of the time, ready to meet that move or that variation...
...choosing a move that is not the most popular or most played, may be a very good idea because you may catch your opponent by surprise."
I know it seems obvious, but I like the way he worded it. He described opening surprises as another tool in the chess player's tool box rather than something that you must do or something you should never do. In addition, his points are so basic that you can't really argue with them.
I want to add though that you don't have to play awful moves or completely strange moves to catch your opponent off guard. When people think of "catching your opponent off guard" they often think of 1: g3 or 1: Na3 or similar stuff. But the game mato commented on when he said that quote went like this:
The surprise didn't have to be something incredibly wierd or hypermodern, he just played the simply 6: f6 instead of 6: Be3 and it was enough to change the game very much.
I think many players overemphasize to how unpopular their moves should be to be surprising. The move doesn't have to be 1: Na3 to be surprising or 1: e4 e5 2: h4. I also think that while playing "silly" lines such as that show a patzer just trying to throw his opponent off guard because that's the only trick he knows, the more subtle lines found by the players themselves show chess players who understand chess and the positions they are modifying much better.
Does anyone here think that you're going to get better by memorizing Fritz and then playing bullet?
If you're going to be a GM, then prove it in standard, not in a 1 minute game using 1. Nf3 g5? just because you can.
The problem is that against an equal player, the better opening crushes.
Carlsen is 2880, my coach (Fritz) is 3300. I'm learning middlegames from Fritz and distilling its knowledge into new theory that is about 250 points stronger than any human player on earth.
Right now I'm giving away pieces and crushing 1800s. I'll be GM in three years at this pace.
I think every player should ditch their repertoire just to see what it's like to play without one, but longterm a diet of garbage openings will be bad. I'm doing it now as a middlegame training exercise which is different.
I feel it is really important to confuse your opponent in the opening. Instead of playing book lines and typical moves, you can play slightly inferior moves on purpose to put you at a psychological edge.
Chess at the highest level demands preparation, but for most chess players, this recommendation is a good one.
What is your opinion of this?