Greetings,

It has also been argued that, with reference to the Charge of the Light Brigade, Captain Nolan - who had carried the orders to Lord Cardigan and indicated the Russian guns at the end of the valley, rather than the captured British naval guns on the hill - drew across Cardigan, who was leading the charge, in a effort to prevent it, having realised that it was an error (they were heading towards the wrong guns) at which point he was killed by an artillery shell.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

I can't remember Lasker playing unorthodox openings like the ones LDZ loves so much. But I do remember Lasker being not that enthusiastic about the gambits LDZ mentioned.

Hello everyone!

This thread deals with psychology in chess. That is, how to win psychological battles at the chess board?

World Champion Emanuel  Lasker was a master of psychology. He would often make second-best moves, just to confuse his opponent. Then at the right moment, Lasker would strike back and win the game.
His was the first psychological approach to chess.

Bobby Fischer fought Soviet Russia on a chess level and a psychological level. He understood that the Soviets would try everything to keep the world chess crown in their hands.

The first Karpov-Korchnoi world championship match, Phillipines, 1978, was a psychological battle. Korchnoi's wife and son were detained in Soviet Russia as hostages while he, a Swiss citizen, played Karpov.

Today, psychology plays a key role in the choosing of an opening repertoire. If a player is of a conservative, take-it-one-step-at-a-time style, he will choose the Reti, the Queen's Gambit, the King's Indian Defense. But if a player is brash and brave, gambits will dominate his repertoire. King's Gambit, BDG, Evans Gambit, Danish Gambit, and so forth. Slashing attacks of the First Battle of Bull Run, Charge of the Light Brigade, will dominate the game.

FYI, the Confederate States of America won the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. Charge of the Light Brigade occured during the Crimean War of 1853-1856.

In my games, I have found that many players who play closed positions are not good at open positions. This is because the closed-position player tries to keep the position closed at all times. Thus, when the position is opened up, he/she will not know what to do.
By comparison, open-position players have some understanding of closed positions precisely because they have to play against it a lot.
For example, sometimes, instead of getting a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, I get a Pirc Defense. This goes 1 d4 Nf6 2 f3 d6 3 e4 g6 4 Be3 Bg7.

Now, I sometimes play the Hippopotamus, 1 e4 g6 2 d4 b6 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 e6 5 Nf3 Bg7 6 Bc4 a6 7 00 Bb7 . As I stated earlier, my familiarity with playing against the Pirc gives me an understanding of how to play the Hippo.

Playing unorthodox openings gives their practitioner a psychological edge over the conventional, standard-openings  opponent. It also allows you to know the theory, while your opponent does not.

What say you?