Thoughts on using Psychology to win games?[Rant]

As a beginner/amateur chess player, I've come across people who've played using psychological factors, or 'mind games' (outside of the actual game of chess) to win a game, or use it to their advantage. Perhaps I am a little biased, for I recently lost points to an opponent who I believe is probably rated below me due to these factors, but I'm interested in what other people's opinions on these are? And whether I should start studying psychological tactics, as well as chess tactics v.>

Here's a link a website which I think explains the rough gist of what I mean by 'psychological tricks' much better than I can explain: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Psychology-to-Win-Chess-Games 

And also: http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/psychological-tricks-in-chess

These are the types of 'psychological factors' that I often fall to. (Not the ones listed there specifically, but I think you get the idea). 

And I'm just wondering if those are important to the game, and whether I should start studying those. Because I find myself losing to them. 

(mini-rant) It also feels kind of unfair when that happens, because I feel like the player is trying to cheat me or mislead me or something. But idk, maybe I'm just irrationally angry, which in that case, ignore this thread ^^" 

"Psychology" in chess is usually overrated. If you keep in mind that there is no information available but the moves being played and the time being spent on them, it should be clear that much of psychologizing is simply made up, It happens in your mind only and has no relation with reality.

The best antidote is to build up self-confidence, which comes with skill and experience. If you are able to objectively judge if a move is good or bad, and if you are confident in your judgment, you are no longer prone to see things which aren't there.

i suffer from psychology, can't win against a guy 300 points lower than me OTB but beat everyone else in the club

Just play good Chess and don't go there if you play psychological mind games and try screwing with people it can badly backfire on you if your opponents are alot better at it than you are and starting hitting back.

There's what's called chess LOGIC, and like concrete math and science, she's one cold, hard b****!

You must have her by your side at all times in chess, regardless of opponent. Even if you use 'psychology' or any other supposedly subliminal mind games on your opponent, have that supplement her.

Get a list of some of his games and look for his weakenesses in the openings.

Psychology is never overrated, it's always a great weapon. The chance that you're going to lose against a higher rated player will greatly increase if you feel intimidated, the same way the chance of losing to a lower rated player greatly increases for underestimating.

But in the end, if you really focus on your work and try not to be susceptible to influence from opponent moves, good move is all that counts.

Good moves > any psychology in the world, in the end. Might not be easy to put into practic but it's the reality.

Against my better judgement, I actually looked at the wiki article on using psychology to win chess games.  Here are a few highlights:

"Take ten moves to do what you could do in two. This makes your opponent begin to lose his caution. He finds no meaning in your last six moves, and gives up looking"

Oh yes, by all means, please take ten moves to do what you wish to accomplish in two.  I'll be so confused that I won't know how to gain any sort of advantage while you're stalling. 

"Use fake outs over the board. This includes not looking at the part of the board you're actually thinking about, pretending to concentrate when your opponent has forgotten to hit the clock so that he doesn't notice his time running"

Yeah, because thats how I want to win...by hoping my opponent doesn't notice his time is running.  In fact, I'm not at all interested in sportsmanship.  Maybe I should apply super-glue to his seat before he sits down.  That way when he needs a bathroom break, he won't be able to go and I'll gain an edge. 

"Older players tend to rely on their knowledge of positional chess and they play a tough opening and a tough ending. If you play a closed positional/space game they will defeat you easily. Try and open up the position and get them into a game that is all "Tactics" because this is where they break down and make mistakes in calculations or they just "miss" seeing a few threats"

Oh, I see.  Older players can't handle tactics.  Got it.  Silly me, I've been trying to just play the best moves I can, one at a time.  Little did I realize I could have short-cutted years of study and analysis by just playing "open" positions. 

Good grief.  Seriously, OP, if these are the sorts of tactics that are working against you or the sort of tactics you think you need to employ in order to improve, you're playing a far different game than I. 

Leave psychology to the psychologists and chess to the GMs and you'll be fine.

Psychology is a valid approach to competition, but it won't, as several have pointed out, substitute for good solid play.

The mileage varies on the wikihow list of psychouts. "Use fakeouts over the board" strikes me as more likely to distract yourself from finding good moves. But tailoring a game to your strengths and against your opponent's weaknesses is something most players do to some extent.

Like it or not, there is truth to the generalization that older players are better at positional than tactical chess.

In one of the early Fischer-Tal games, while Fischer was pondering his move, Tal was looking at the board from lower and lower angles until his eyes were practically flush with the tabletop.

True, Tal was eccentric, but clearly this was a goofy attempt to rattle the young American fresh on the international scene.

how's the mikhail tal face done?

Ah ok, I think I'll just try to keep my cool and that'll be it ^^ 

A good example for this matter is Emanuel Lasker. He is known for his pshychological approach to chess. Sometimes he even purposely played inferior moves to confuse his opponents.

For example:

He knew 15.Qf3 was the standard move in the Marshall attack, but insisted to play 15.Qe2??. Sadly for him, his opponent knew this opening well and didn't fall for Lasker's trick.

Fischer was asked whether he uses psychology and he responded.

" No, I play good moves."

He's right. I've played chess 50 years and only used pschology once that I can remember. My opponent had me crushed and I didn't feel like playing any more. I thought the cluttered board might give me a chance. So I move a pawn that was between our unprotected Queens. He focused on the pawn and took it where upon I played QXQ and won. 

I can't think of any modern accounts of world champion matches and candidate matches which don't mention the psychological strategies used by these top grandmasters.

I wouldn't want to take anything away from Fischer's astonishing chess skills, but he was also legendary for his ability to intimidate his competition.

It's one thing to win your candidate matches. It's another thing to blow through them 6-0, 6-0, 6.5-2.5. Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian weren't chumps. Some of that was psychological.

Many GMs spoke of the psychological rigors of facing Fischer over the board.

You can't let the other person mess with your focus.

On my high school team we didn't have much money for tournaments, so we played a lot of matches between ourselves. The guy who won top board was unrated when we went to a regional championship. He won and he came out of his first tournament with a 2008 rating.

Now he was a good high school player but he wasn't that good. Part of it I believe was intimidation. He came out of nowhere like Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name. Unlike most teenagers he was calm and expressionless as he played, which gave him an implacable air. He got a winning streak going and by the end of the tournament he was knocking off or drawing A players.

Of course he couldn't keep that up. After his next tournament he droppped almost 200 points and never played seriously again.

"Rant," just about sums it up.