Chess is a battle of wills, right? Steely determination wins the day?
But I´ m guessing if you can´t match your opponent on the board all the bluffing comes to nothing. You have to deliver on the board. So I guess the better you get the less it matters?
Well, most time people think they can run the 100 meters 3s faster due to sheer psychology. No. It's overrated and can give only very GOOD players an edge but not on noob level.
Chess is more a science than an art. The advent of supercomputers and today's engines proves this. The computer has 0% psychology, 100% deep calculation.
It may be that the extent to which human psychology plays a factor is the extent to which humans are introducing error into the equation.
"So I guess the better you get the less it matters?" Honestly, I think the consensus is the opposite. Look at Nakamura vs Carlsen (Naka has something like a 0-10 score against Carlsen, with 14 draws) and we can see a potential example of psychology at work among these top players.
At your relatively low level, I recommend extricating psychology completely in favor of learning to spot tactics. Maybe some foundational opening theory and/or endgame studies. :)
#2 said it more succinctly.
Well said and thanks to #3! Actually I've had to look up the word succintly - evrything alright! :D :D :D
There is psychology online (you can feel your opponent break in a long series of bullet for example, after that he/she is free points).
But OTB I think it most definitely is a battle of wills. A mental combat taking place largely on the energy level.
I remember the last tournament I played, I concentrated on keeping my own "space" cool, I tried not to be shaken by anything to create an aura where I trust my own style and my own choices. There were 2 distinct games where I felt the effects of psychology and energy greatly.
1 was vs a NM I knew to be a dangerous player, fast and accurate (we were playing 1h time control so I was intimidated by knowing he is fast). I let this affect my "space" and played from a submissive mindset, not from the mindset of absolutely trusting my abilities. Though it was not easy for my opponent, I lost. And I knew I did not play my best game, because I was intimidated.
2nd game was the last game, I had 3 points out of 4 previous rounds, I knew if I won, I would win the whole tournament. I tried my best to forget this fact because I knew it would affect my performance. My opponent was a berserk attacker and he had white, I could feel his aggressive energy and it shook me up a bit, so I made a too passive move in the opening which led to him getting the initiative and I could only defend.
I defended, defended, then defended some more, it was like sitting in a sauna. Then finally, I saw that the attack dried up and I knew I could hold the position, this is a draw now I thought and I was glad. But then, my opponent kept attacking! And it was a mistake in that position, it was an over-extension, I knew I would get the edge if he keeps attacking, he did and I got a winning position where he blundered a rook. And it was all over! My opponent lost that game (which should have been a draw) because of psychology, he was unable to let go of his attacking mindset even though the position didn't anymore allow attack.
So much psychology! It felt like everything was about psychology!
But it was a happy ending, I won the tournament with 4/5 points. The NM I lost to finished 3rd (he drew vs some players I won).
So I say, the better you get, the more psychology matters!
It is important. There are may examples.
In Saint Petersburg 1914 Lasker had to win with white against Capablanca. Unexpectedly he chose a drawish variation of the Ruy Lopez and he won with it.
In the 1972 Match Spassky - Fischer, a team of Soviet grandmasters had been pumping opening theory into Spassky, who otherwise had no interest in opening theory. Fischer surprised him with openings he had never played before and won easily.
