Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

What your self-talk says about your chess

It's especially interesting reading this after one high-rated GM pondered aloud about their rating. What matters is what we play and how we learn, although for professionals there may be some pressure to perform well too.

It's especially interesting reading this after one high-rated GM pondered aloud about their rating. What matters is what we play and how we learn, although for professionals there may be some pressure to perform well too.

I would avoid the self-talk, but I understand people who have to deal with it.
Borrowing from Aurelius (not one of my favorites anyway), as it was mentioned and without bothering to judge the quote on its merit " Your mind will take on the character of your most frequent thoughts: souls are dyed by thoughts." the self-talk is something that happens anyway.

This is a caution in itself. When you blunder a piece or make a bad move, thinking to your self "only think about the next move" is worth little when you have already panicked.

Self-talk is not worth anything if it does not translate/make it into, your thought process, or to put it another way, saying the words to yourself, does not necessarily make it so.

Thinking comes before forming sentences and speaking, so to try it the other way around, at best assumes an imagined entity of authority that commands you and your thoughts. This in itself is a challenge, that for example certain free spirited types will object to on principle.

Its best to be a cold hearted calculating machine (preferably with no heart at all) when, if not playing, certainly when calculating [during playing] chess.

Feeling need not come into it and that is perhaps one of its merits, as you enter a world, where logic is absolute and logic is all you need and will ever need to achieve your objective. Its an easy world to live in, its certainly not what real life is about.

Having said all that, self-pump stuff, I find the best, never mind the result. So I would always be thinking "I am the best chess player that has ever lived", so that if I do win I will enjoy it more and if I lose I know it for what it was, a confidence booster. I would even brag about my games while at the same time point out where in those games I could have done better.

You cannot improve, if you do not want to improve. You cannot improve, if you do not study your own games, be that during or after play, and as for who is sitting at he table playing against your opponent, better make the best of it. Be the best chess player that has ever lived.

PS: Sorry if it seems that I "rained on your parade". I rarely comment if I am not to play "devils advocate".

I would avoid the self-talk, but I understand people who have to deal with it. Borrowing from Aurelius (not one of my favorites anyway), as it was mentioned and without bothering to judge the quote on its merit " Your mind will take on the character of your most frequent thoughts: souls are dyed by thoughts." the self-talk is something that happens anyway. This is a caution in itself. When you blunder a piece or make a bad move, thinking to your self "only think about the next move" is worth little when you have already panicked. Self-talk is not worth anything if it does not translate/make it into, your thought process, or to put it another way, saying the words to yourself, does not necessarily make it so. Thinking comes before forming sentences and speaking, so to try it the other way around, at best assumes an imagined entity of authority that commands you and your thoughts. This in itself is a challenge, that for example certain free spirited types will object to on principle. Its best to be a cold hearted calculating machine (preferably with no heart at all) when, if not playing, certainly when calculating [during playing] chess. Feeling need not come into it and that is perhaps one of its merits, as you enter a world, where logic is absolute and logic is all you need and will ever need to achieve your objective. Its an easy world to live in, its certainly not what real life is about. Having said all that, self-pump stuff, I find the best, never mind the result. So I would always be thinking "I am the best chess player that has ever lived", so that if I do win I will enjoy it more and if I lose I know it for what it was, a confidence booster. I would even brag about my games while at the same time point out where in those games I could have done better. You cannot improve, if you do not want to improve. You cannot improve, if you do not study your own games, be that during or after play, and as for who is sitting at he table playing against your opponent, better make the best of it. Be the best chess player that has ever lived. PS: Sorry if it seems that I "rained on your parade". I rarely comment if I am not to play "devils advocate".

Interesting topic. There are studies that suggest self talk does affect one's actions and attitude towards it.

I glossed over the 5th game you'd marked in the video, tbh I initially calculated 41. Qxb2 in my mind but then realized e2 square would not be accessible and so the entire sequence till Qe1+ came naturally right after Qf5, especially once I had discarded Qxb2 variation.

Those sort of discovered threats transitioning to a decoy is more common in lower rated levels.

It comes slightly as a surprise that the you missed the queen could be at e1 at the end, given d1 was covered by bishop, and as a consequence e2 square as well.

I understand however though that f6 and h6 were weak, and my first instict was to go Rc4 on move 37 when the rook moved away, a classic misreading of opponent's plans or failure to re-evaluate the position, something I struggle at my level. 1 minute later I see Rxf6 without the engine to my horror. I found the Qf7, Re8 plan after playing through in the analysis board.

Maybe the alertness over the 6th rank was missed, earlier held together by the rook at c6, forgetting that might have caused the blindspot.

Interesting topic. There are studies that suggest self talk does affect one's actions and attitude towards it. I glossed over the 5th game you'd marked in the video, tbh I initially calculated 41. Qxb2 in my mind but then realized e2 square would not be accessible and so the entire sequence till Qe1+ came naturally right after Qf5, especially once I had discarded Qxb2 variation. Those sort of discovered threats transitioning to a decoy is more common in lower rated levels. It comes slightly as a surprise that the you missed the queen could be at e1 at the end, given d1 was covered by bishop, and as a consequence e2 square as well. I understand however though that f6 and h6 were weak, and my first instict was to go Rc4 on move 37 when the rook moved away, a classic misreading of opponent's plans or failure to re-evaluate the position, something I struggle at my level. 1 minute later I see Rxf6 without the engine to my horror. I found the Qf7, Re8 plan after playing through in the analysis board. Maybe the alertness over the 6th rank was missed, earlier held together by the rook at c6, forgetting that might have caused the blindspot.

@vishytheplayer said ^

Interesting topic. There are studies that suggest self talk does affect one's actions and attitude towards it.

I glossed over the 5th game you'd marked in the video, tbh I initially calculated 41. Qxb2 in my mind but then realized e2 square would not be accessible and so the entire sequence till Qe1+ came naturally right after Qf5, especially once I had discarded Qxb2 variation.

Those sort of discovered threats transitioning to a decoy is more common in lower rated levels.

It comes slightly as a surprise that the you missed the queen could be at e1 at the end, given d1 was covered by bishop, and as a consequence e2 square as well.

I understand however though that f6 and h6 were weak, and my first instict was to go Rc4 on move 37 when the rook moved away, a classic misreading of opponent's plans or failure to re-evaluate the position, something I struggle at my level. 1 minute later I see Rxf6 without the engine to my horror. I found the Qf7, Re8 plan after playing through in the analysis board.

Maybe the alertness over the 6th rank was missed, earlier held together by the rook at c6, forgetting that might have caused the blindspot.

I don't think I actually saw 37...Rc4 38.Rxf6 during the game, 37...Qd7 seemed good enough.
Unfortunately I totally forgot to check for my opponent's threats just when I'd done the hard work (or perhaps that's why I relaxed), so I thought 42...Bxe6 and 42...Qe1+ would both be good! When low on time, go for the simpler option and always blunder check :)

@vishytheplayer said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ogpFBucT) > Interesting topic. There are studies that suggest self talk does affect one's actions and attitude towards it. > > I glossed over the 5th game you'd marked in the video, tbh I initially calculated 41. Qxb2 in my mind but then realized e2 square would not be accessible and so the entire sequence till Qe1+ came naturally right after Qf5, especially once I had discarded Qxb2 variation. > > Those sort of discovered threats transitioning to a decoy is more common in lower rated levels. > > It comes slightly as a surprise that the you missed the queen could be at e1 at the end, given d1 was covered by bishop, and as a consequence e2 square as well. > > I understand however though that f6 and h6 were weak, and my first instict was to go Rc4 on move 37 when the rook moved away, a classic misreading of opponent's plans or failure to re-evaluate the position, something I struggle at my level. 1 minute later I see Rxf6 without the engine to my horror. I found the Qf7, Re8 plan after playing through in the analysis board. > > Maybe the alertness over the 6th rank was missed, earlier held together by the rook at c6, forgetting that might have caused the blindspot. I don't think I actually saw 37...Rc4 38.Rxf6 during the game, 37...Qd7 seemed good enough. Unfortunately I totally forgot to check for my opponent's threats just when I'd done the hard work (or perhaps that's why I relaxed), so I thought 42...Bxe6 and 42...Qe1+ would both be good! When low on time, go for the simpler option and always blunder check :)

@Toadofsky said ^

It's especially interesting reading this after one high-rated GM pondered aloud about their rating. What matters is what we play and how we learn, although for professionals there may be some pressure to perform well too.

Oh sorry, who was that?

@Toadofsky said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TamQipXq) > It's especially interesting reading this after one high-rated GM pondered aloud about their rating. What matters is what we play and how we learn, although for professionals there may be some pressure to perform well too. Oh sorry, who was that?

@ar1s said ^

I would avoid the self-talk, but I understand people who have to deal with it.
Borrowing from Aurelius (not one of my favorites anyway), as it was mentioned and without bothering to judge the quote on its merit " Your mind will take on the character of your most frequent thoughts: souls are dyed by thoughts." the self-talk is something that happens anyway.

This is a caution in itself. When you blunder a piece or make a bad move, thinking to your self "only think about the next move" is worth little when you have already panicked.

Self-talk is not worth anything if it does not translate/make it into, your thought process, or to put it another way, saying the words to yourself, does not necessarily make it so.

Thinking comes before forming sentences and speaking, so to try it the other way around, at best assumes an imagined entity of authority that commands you and your thoughts. This in itself is a challenge, that for example certain free spirited types will object to on principle.

Its best to be a cold hearted calculating machine (preferably with no heart at all) when, if not playing, certainly when calculating [during playing] chess.

Feeling need not come into it and that is perhaps one of its merits, as you enter a world, where logic is absolute and logic is all you need and will ever need to achieve your objective. Its an easy world to live in, its certainly not what real life is about.

Having said all that, self-pump stuff, I find the best, never mind the result. So I would always be thinking "I am the best chess player that has ever lived", so that if I do win I will enjoy it more and if I lose I know it for what it was, a confidence booster. I would even brag about my games while at the same time point out where in those games I could have done better.

You cannot improve, if you do not want to improve. You cannot improve, if you do not study your own games, be that during or after play, and as for who is sitting at he table playing against your opponent, better make the best of it. Be the best chess player that has ever lived.

PS: Sorry if it seems that I "rained on your parade". I rarely comment if I am not to play "devils advocate".

Hmm interesting, I sort of get what you mean. I suppose it's finding the balance between improving pure chess skill and questioning our own thought processes during games and thinking about how to improve it, different ways work for different people

@ar1s said [^](/forum/redirect/post/EIsL5SqY) > I would avoid the self-talk, but I understand people who have to deal with it. > Borrowing from Aurelius (not one of my favorites anyway), as it was mentioned and without bothering to judge the quote on its merit " Your mind will take on the character of your most frequent thoughts: souls are dyed by thoughts." the self-talk is something that happens anyway. > > This is a caution in itself. When you blunder a piece or make a bad move, thinking to your self "only think about the next move" is worth little when you have already panicked. > > Self-talk is not worth anything if it does not translate/make it into, your thought process, or to put it another way, saying the words to yourself, does not necessarily make it so. > > Thinking comes before forming sentences and speaking, so to try it the other way around, at best assumes an imagined entity of authority that commands you and your thoughts. This in itself is a challenge, that for example certain free spirited types will object to on principle. > > Its best to be a cold hearted calculating machine (preferably with no heart at all) when, if not playing, certainly when calculating [during playing] chess. > > Feeling need not come into it and that is perhaps one of its merits, as you enter a world, where logic is absolute and logic is all you need and will ever need to achieve your objective. Its an easy world to live in, its certainly not what real life is about. > > Having said all that, self-pump stuff, I find the best, never mind the result. So I would always be thinking "I am the best chess player that has ever lived", so that if I do win I will enjoy it more and if I lose I know it for what it was, a confidence booster. I would even brag about my games while at the same time point out where in those games I could have done better. > > You cannot improve, if you do not want to improve. You cannot improve, if you do not study your own games, be that during or after play, and as for who is sitting at he table playing against your opponent, better make the best of it. Be the best chess player that has ever lived. > > PS: Sorry if it seems that I "rained on your parade". I rarely comment if I am not to play "devils advocate". Hmm interesting, I sort of get what you mean. I suppose it's finding the balance between improving pure chess skill and questioning our own thought processes during games and thinking about how to improve it, different ways work for different people

@datajunkie said ^

It's especially interesting reading this after one high-rated GM pondered aloud about their rating. What matters is what we play and how we learn, although for professionals there may be some pressure to perform well too.

Oh sorry, who was that?

Not to name names, but their name starts with N and ends in "igel". Their comments were strange although their first comment was about fixating on their own rating.

@datajunkie said [^](/forum/redirect/post/i0SNlLR6) > > It's especially interesting reading this after one high-rated GM pondered aloud about their rating. What matters is what we play and how we learn, although for professionals there may be some pressure to perform well too. > > Oh sorry, who was that? Not to name names, but their name starts with N and ends in "igel". Their comments were strange although their first comment was about fixating on their own rating.