Torr on Survey
Part 4. Sour Losers.

[The survey form] [1. The Mission] [2. Use a Database !] [3. Devote Yourself !] [4. Sour Losers] [5. Flexible concentration] [6. Holistic Chess] [7. Why move at all ?] [8. The Tutorr's 15 Guidelines] [9. Feedback page] [10. Downloads]


Act like a sportsman ! 

How do you feel about losing a chessgame ? Personally, I get pissed when losing... no matter the position, no matter the opposition...and exclaiming hundreds of poor excuses why I lost is not unknown to me. Familiar with this kind of scenario ? My guess is that the unpleasant experience of bad losers is quite common to chessplayers. However, the data from the chess player survey clearly demonstrate that chessplayers, weak and strong players alike, are well-behaved good losers (Table 19) and sportsmenlike good winners ! (Table 21). Even though the terms 'good/bad winners' were not clearly defined in the survey question 19, the answers give a clear picture of chessplayers being quite well-behaved sportsmen.

Surprised ? Well, the data suggest that one out of four players is a sour loser (Table 19), whilst only every tenth player is a poor winner (Table 21), whatever that may be. The figures differ only slightly through the five rating categories, thus illustrating similar personality traits with weak and strong players alike towards these questions, perhaps a rather unexpected finding.

Somehow I find the results above hard to believe ! Both when comparing to my personal experiences, and in particular when considering that most players state that winning and/or losing arouses strong feelings in them ! (Table 23). More than 75 % of the players in each rating group have serious levels of 'emotional' responses towards winning/losing. How can you be a good loser with steamy feelings ? Beats me ! Well, perhaps chess players are just good at subliming their feelings into the pursuit of the game...or perhaps into the analysis of their mistakes.  

Improve your chess via your lost games !
The survey data suggest that all players learn from their lost games and use their learings to improve their game (Table 20) ! However, there is a slight tendency that the experts (still, those rated above 2400) use their lost games more to improve their chess as compared to the weaker players. It should be emphasized that it is a slight tendency only, probably not significant enough for us to conclude upon. However, we will daringly formulate our experts' habit no. 5

Use your lost games even more
to improve your chess !

 

"Do serious analytical work"
Alexi Shirov, Fire On Board

 

Q20. I use my lost games
to improve my chess (2)


Rated sub-1600
Q20: rated sub-1600


Rated above 2400
        Q20: rating above 2400


Chessbase

Q22. It is very important to win (4)

    Rated sub-1600
             Q22: rated sub-1600

      Rated above 2400
        Q22: rated above 2400



Q18. Chess is part of my lifestyle (5)

    Rated sub-1600
             Q18: rated sub-1600

      Rated above 2400
        Q18: rated above 2400




FRITZ 5.32 from Chessbase       

Increase the importance of winning !
Let us talk about the games you win. Or rather, the games you would like to win....let's talk about the importance of will to success. The suvey data suggest that you should increase the importance of winning. The data in Table 22 are quite clear on this point: 44% of the experts (those rated above 2400) consider winning 'very important', whilst 35 % consider winning 'quite important'. The corresponding figures for the players rated below 1600 are 17 % (very important), and 38 % (quite important), respectively. The data in Table 22 show a clear trend:  the experts consider winning more important than the weaker players. Is this a point you would like to reflect on now ? Well, let us formulate the experts' habit. no. 6 :


Increase the importance of winning !



I was confident
that I could win
Alexi Shirov, Fire On Board






Get a life ! 
Get a chesslife !
Why do you play chess at all ? The survey question 18 examined the players' preferences towards this question. Contrary to what might be anticipated, very few players favor the answer 'to win' as their main reason for playing. Instead, the data (Table 18) clearly demonstrate that the low-rated players tend to play 'for fun' (40 %) and because they are 'addicted' to the game (31 %). The corresponding figures for the experts are 20 % (for fun) and 13 % (addicted), respectively. However, the very interesting result that appears in Table 18 is that the experts play chess because it's part of their lifestyle ! As many as 60 % of the experts prefer this reason for playing as opposed to 17 % of the players rated below 1600. The trend is quite clear: the higher the rating, the more chess is an integrated part of your life. This might be very logical - and for many reasons. However, you should not underestimate that the values of a person are very powerful, very powerful motivators. Thus, you might want to integrate playing chess even more in your life, that is, if you still want to improve your chess. The experts' habit no. 7 boils down to:

Make chess a part of your lifestyle !.    


I was 14 when I realized that chess was going
to be my life
Gary Kasparov, Kasparov's Fighting Chess




The next article will deal with the central issue of personal strategies (Part 5)

Click here fore the next article on the survey results !


TWIC...at The London Chess Centre
             

Disclaimer The data presented here and in the following articles can be analyzed and concluded upon in many ways (remember that the survey was scored on-line, and that the data may not be representative of all chessplayers alike). The conclusions presented here are mine entirely. Feel free to disagree, to have your own interpretations and to impove your chess in the manner that suits you. The full material of data will be published in the last article of this series. If you have questions prior to this, or other comments, feel free to mail me on torr@privat.dk

Copyright The contents on this page (graphical, textual) may not be reproduced without permission from the author. On citations or similar use, please credit the author Dr. Tor Rønnow, Denmark (mail: torr@privat.dk)