Quote:If chess was about trying to predict what the other player will do, there would be more literature on how to do this. I'd say that chess is hard enough by itself, but don't let me keep you from loosing a game because you under/over estimated your opponent's intelligence :lol:
A chess game between 2 amateurs really is just looking at the board. However, a game between 2 players who are either very high level, I'd say IM and higher, OR a game between two ppl who've played each other on numerous occasions, does indeed require "reading" the other person or at least knowing them from a psychological standpoint. There's been numerous occasions in chess world championship when this was evident. Karpov - Korchnoi, Botvinnik - Tal, just to name a couple. In fact, many of Tal's opponents thought he was playing mind games with them or even hypnotizing them. World politics is also a very high level game, just like championship chess. What you see on the table is rarely what you are going to really get, with absolutely no strings attached. Sure, it'd be great if you could always rely on others to be completely truthful and forthcoming, but in RL politics it simply does not work that way.
ps. If you or anyone else is interested in a great tournament chess book, my personal favorite (and I've read a good 2-3 dozen chess books when I was playing... and no, I was not great, just pretty good), I suggest reading "Zurich International Chess Championship 1953" by David Bronstein. Probably the strongest fielded Tournament ever, with awesome commentary by the author who was also one of the top finishers (and perhaps one of a handful of players who were on par with champions but just never quiet got there), and featured sseveral former and future world champions.
Yes, I am trying to hijack the thread. It has gotten to an annoying level now.