<TheFocus: <offramp> <theFocus editorialized> No. I presented it as it was presented.>

Well, Karpov says, "[Polugaevsky] couldn’t understand how I could save myself. Of course he couldn’t — he was looking for something that wasn’t there..." By which I think he means there was no win for Polugaevsky but Polu was looking for one. But SOMEONE has a different opinion of whatever game it was:

<TheFocus: <Like dogs who sniff each other when meeting, chess players have a ritual at first acquaintance: they sit down to play speed chess> - Anatoly Karpov.>

to this quote

<TheFocus: <I know Kasparov as well as I know anyone. I know his smell. I can read him by that. I recognize the smell when he is excited and I know when he is scared. We may be enemies, but we are intimate enemies> - Anatoly Karpov.>

to create this quote:

<When I first encountered Anatoly Karpov we sniffed each other like dogs and I could smell from his intimate areas that he was scared> - Gary Kasparov.

So the "saving a lost position" story line is consistent.

It certainly is confusing because I thought Karpov was saying that he was NOT lost.

<[He] couldn’t understand how I could save myself. Of course he couldn’t — he was looking for something that wasn’t there>

like this:

Karpov believed he was lost but looked so calm that Polu tried to understand it. In fact, Polu likely kept on finding <wins> all over the place, but could not find the variation that supposedly had Karpov acting so calmly. This is what rattled him. He could not find the <save> that was not there.

Karpov thought he was lost. That is why your paraphrase < he was looking for a win that I knew wasn't there.>

I am not absolutely certain... [on a second reading that doesn't make sense: I'm certain but then not absolutely certain] But your case is so persuasive that I think that I have got it wrong.

It's not a big deal... But I think you are fantastic and I am going to add you to my favourites! [And that is a very short list!]

So often people discuss how Karpov emerged shortly after Fischer's World Championship win. But what Karpov did see wasn't a shadow of Fischer, but a possibility to become a great of our game.

And he became a chess great. Says a lot about Karpov's qualities. Uncompromising, mentally strong, goal-centered when so required.

That's a minefield of smoke and mirrors and potential major missteps, that represent a debilitating distraction from game focus. Cold, hard deep, accurate, calculation is needed, and or application of principles, or exceptions to them, to win.

Watching your opponent's physicality to "find the right move", which coincidentally, is the name of a Karpov-based book, is beyond risky. It's ridiculous and stupid into the bargain.

Maybe such reads on an opponent are not the balderdash you make them out to be.

White offered the following insight into the tells even a world champion has been known to offer in C H Alexander vs Alekhine, 1938, to wit:

<I remember a curious incident in one of my games with Alekhine. Someone told me that when Alekhine was worried about his position he always twisted his hair with his fingers. In 1938 I played Alekhine in the Margate tournament and he made what looked to me like a weak move in the opening; I made my reply with a nervous feeling that I had probably overlooked something. What was my delight to see Alekhine, after a minute or two’s reflection, start to twist his hair.

This was about 10.0 a.m., and from then till 2.30 (it was the last day of the tournament and no adjournment for lunch allowed) Alekhine sat without leaving the board, and through all the turns of a complex game continued (to my great moral support) to twist his hair.

At 2.30 I made a slight tactical error and let my advantage slip; Alekhine moved, took a comb out of his pocket, ran it through his hair, got up, and walked up and down the tournament room. My own judgment (that my advantage was gone) was thus confirmed as clearly as if he had told me so, and I took an immediate opportunity to force a draw before worse befell me.>

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<That's a minefield of smoke and mirrors and potential major missteps, that represent a debilitating distraction from game focus....>

It can very well be a false trail, when not based on acute observation and knowledge of one's opponent.

<Cold, hard deep, accurate, calculation is needed, and or application of principles, or exceptions to them, to win.>

It would seem that if in a chess game one spends too much time (how much is too much depends on a lot of factors) trying to find a tell, or looks for a known existing chess player's tell, without finding it, it could be a terrible case of wasted energy and time that cannot be gotten back during the game.

Karpov had a fake tell, or perhaps just a bluff of nonchalance that many observed during his match with Polugaevsky, and it might well not have flummoxed Polu had he not been focusing too much on it.

I am curious if in poker you observe these fake tells. Do players in either chess or poker find it worthy to develop fake tells?

Real tells are subconscious, body language you aren't even aware you are putting out there. You can always see what someone's intent/state of mind is from their body language. Unless they are deliberately covering/changing it, then hopefully you can see through that and wonder what they are hiding.