Is Your EGO Costing You Your ELO?

[Scott Tortorice]

Here's a good article from Chessville:

Is Your EGO Costing You Your ELO?

We've all seen it. A chess player loses a game and then lectures their opponent on how "badly" they played and how lucky they were to win: "You were so busted I had you crushed!" And then under their breath they add, "How could I lose to this fish!?" while shaking their head in disgust.

​

What's going on here? Why is this player venting his frustration at the other player, rather than where it belongs: on himself. The answer can be summed up in one word: EGO. We all have one; and we all know that our ego loves to win. "Man, I'm good!" it crows with delight when we take down the full-point in a rated tournament game. And, of course, we can't wait to run and show our friends our latest "brilliancy."

​

However, what happens when we lose a game? After all, the reality is that nobody wins all the time....​

The article makes some good points, especially this one:

3. Get in the habit of putting up maximum resistance.

The idea of fighting hard in a "lost" position is something I learned by watching a friend of mine named Carl Hyne. Known as "the Great Carlini," he can be found most weekends at Santa Monica Chess Park playing blitz while kibitzing to his opponent and the surrounding crowd.

​

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen him pull out games where he was completely busted. I've seen him find a way to win in games where he was down a queen. He would simply continue to make threats with his remaining forces thus keeping his opponent under pressure. Often they would become flustered and either blunder a piece back or lose on time. I've seen him do this so often that I knew there had to be something different in his approach to the game.

​

When I asked him why he doesn't get rattled or discouraged like most players when he drops a piece he replied, "It's a fatalistic philosophy that, OK, you lost the piece. You accept it and move on."

​

...​

​

The only way to develop this "fighting spirit" is to practice playing on when down material. The more you do it the better you will get at putting up maximum resistance. Having incorporated this philosophy into my own game, I can tell you that it is indeed a sweet feeling to corm back from a losing position and pull out the win or a draw. It not only shocks your opponent, it also gives you confidence knowing that you didn't crack under pressure, but rather stayed tough mentally and fought hard, i.e. had a warrior's spirit.​

I couldn't agree more! You know how many games I've been in an inferior position but ultimately won because my opponent was so fixated on his weaknesses, that he lost sight of my greater weakness and resigned? Lots! That is why I always fight on, no matter how bad things look. If mate is clear and totally unavoidable, I will resign, but that is the only time I do so. As long as I can conceive of at least one saving move, made by either myself or by my opponent , I never give up the ship. This annoys some people (mostly those who are always in a rush to finish a game and move on), but so what? This is war! I'm not here to make your life easy! :headbang:

 

[Lurker]

I think that philosophy is particularly valid in blitz games, which tend to be a little sloppy and inexact anyway.

Internet games should be of a better quality, what with all the time to analyze, database access and reference material, etc, but I have found a surprising number of blunders in my games on the various sites I attend. It appears that many of the players just make moves based on the web screen board analysis without the benefit of setting up a real board and testing variations.

 

[kcdusk]

i can speak with confidence here. I'm often down a piece. Or two, or more ...

Often its because I make a mistake, rather than my opponent doing something good. So did i loose the game, or did he win? OK, maybe given enough time my opponant would probably beat me, but i loose it myself before he has a chance. Thats why i get frustrated at loosing a game.

I'm happy to be beaten in a game, but often i loose it first. I dont think its ego, its, stupidity that i suffer from!

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Cut yourself some slack! It's not stupidity. A lot of time it is just inexperience or "chess blindness" as termed by...I forget. Nimzovich? Anyway, "battlefield experience" counts more in chess than in any other wargame I can think of. You can read all the books in the world and you'll still lose a lot of games until you start to become familiar with certain basic positions and ideas through practical experience. And even then, you will still lose a lot of games because there is always someone more experienced than yourself.

Point is: just keep slugging away. Eventually, the pendulum will start swinging in your favor.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

I just found some inspiring quotes for everyone with the losing blues....

Try to play stronger opponents - they will punish you for your mistakes, so you will learn to identify them and be less likely to make them. – Dan Heisman

To be a winner in chess you must first become a loser to stronger players. – Ken Smith


Don't be afraid of losing. Be afraid of playing a game and not learning something. – Dan Heisman

You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player. – Jose R. Capablanca

 

[2054172]

Scott your to nice as usal! We all have to learn and yes getting beat at times does make a better player. If one loses due to the superior play of an opponnent or the persons OWN sloppy play the result is the same YOU LOSE!:bite: People need to quit whining and start being good sportsmen.... isn't this what we are really talking about here?
I hope to be back in the chess saddle again good to see you guys around. Happy New Year and God bless.

2054172(wayne):smoke:

 

[kcdusk]

i offered a game to a stronger opponant (phfff!) the other day. The game is progressing ...

I have a quote for you all.
"Its not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog".

 

[Lurker]

"Its not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog".

Yes indeed!

I suggest always holding your own counsel as well. Learning techniques and strategies from books and others is great (and vital), but when it comes to openings make your own decisions. I've seen too often in tournament play an arrogant condescension toward openings considered 'inferior', where players parrot the elite in opening selection as the only way to play.

There will typically be fads in openings, where some go in and out of favor only to be revitalized some years later by creative independent thinkers. What this means is that the opening should never have gone out of favor in the first place; it was merely a lack of insight by the detractors, often based on the results of a single game. A can't see the forest through the trees effect. In other words always think for yourself and don't take the opinions of others as gospel.

 

[kcdusk]

A bit off topic.

I've played 20 games now at chess.com. I have won 10 and lost 10, my rating is 1473 which puts me at 74% in the rankings.

I know its only 20 games, but i am almost in the top 25% of the 56,000 players registered. Does this make me a gun?

 

[Scott Tortorice]

A bit off topic.

I've played 20 games now at chess.com. I have won 10 and lost 10, my rating is 1473 which puts me at 74% in the rankings.

I know its only 20 games, but i am almost in the top 25% of the 56,000 players registered. Does this make me a gun?

Yes it does.

 

[kcdusk]

Is anyone here playing only black, to get practice in as that colour?

And i guess the opposite question, is anyone trolling through game invites looking for games to play and only choosing to play if you can play as white?

I took on 2 games recently because i could play black, and have lost one of them while the other is still going. It pissed me off a little (EGO) to loose. But i have since accepted a game invite where i could take on two games (one as each colour).

 

[Scott Tortorice]

I don't prefer either color. In fact, when I issue a challenge,I usually set it to "random color". I like to be surprised.

 

[kcdusk]

I signed up to play 2 games against a girl last night. She takes her full alloted time of 3 days to make each move. I checked out her schedule, and found she has 20 games on at once.

That cant be healthy, right?

I try and limit myself to 4 games at once, otherwise its impossible to track the ebb, flow and what your trying to do in each game.

 

[Lurker]

I checked out her schedule, and found she has 20 games on at once.

That cant be healthy, right?

I had 50 going at one point. That was a bit overwhelming and caused a lot of sloppy play from rushing out moves. Fortunately for me many of my opponents made even sloppier moves!

 

[Scott Tortorice]

50?!? Holy smokes! I think the high for me was 30 or so and that almost killed me. Right now, I think I have about a dozen over at Chess.com and another four spread out over other sites.

 

[kcdusk]

to rooksbaily ... can you see the text in our current game? I'm away for two days but might be worth a read.

 

[dwardzala]

I usually only have about 6-12 games going at once and lately I haven't been playing too much. That changed earlier this week when the second round of the 1401-1600 tourney started - got 6 games going now (one opponent timed out on his first move in all his games).

 

[Lurker]

I'm down to 27 games now.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

to rooksbaily ... can you see the text in our current game? I'm away for two days but might be worth a read.

It is an interesting position. I think we can forget option 2. Option 3 is a possibility, but I think it might be too early to call a truce as my sword is still sharp. :bandit::halo:

 

[kcdusk]

How does chessdotcom determine points for games when you win or loose? Does it take your opponants rank/score at the start of the game or at the end?

My guess would be it takes both your points value at the start of the game (?).