Pinched wholemeal (as opposed to piecemeal) from Irving Chernev.
“In a book called Chesslets (1928), by Dr. J. Schumer, all the games are annotated by quotations from various writers.
Here is one of the games, with comments by Shakespeare:“
— CHERNEV, Wonders and curiosities of chess
This last-round game sealed the 1925 British Championship for Atkins.
These are extracts from Simon Webb’s superb series of articles for Barry Wood’s old CHESS magazine. Simon showed a panel of players a position and recorded their spoken thoughts for ten minutes. The articles are well worth digging out: obviously there is much more in the articles than I can present here, but it will give you a flavour of the sorts of issues that can arise. The joy of this technique, of course, is that you can repeat the exercise with the same or different positions in your own club.
The positions are presented twice, one without commentary if you would like to attempt 10 minutes thought on them, and once with a comment cherry-picked from Simon’s much more detailed discussion.
I have also added a famous example of master’s thinking.
Click e7 to flip the board
Click e7 to flip the board
Click e7 to flip the board
“…Thus all the panellists seemed to make a judgement about the position instantaneously, and spent the rest of the time trying to find evidence to support this judgement, Clearly it is very difficult to approach chess in a truly objective manner — so much seems to be based on ‘instinct’.” — Webb
[Comment from DR: I might add, that a misjudgement of this sort might lead to much fruitless searching for a winning line if you think you are better. Blumenfeld used to advise trying to look again with a fresh eye at a position to see if you haven’t overlooked some simple tactical point, but no less important to make sure you don’t overlook some important positional point. I have known players ignore really key features of a position (a Pawn majority, and open file) because they thought they knew what the position was ‘about’. Positions in books are selected to be ‘about’ one clear theme. Positions in most games are usually more complex!]
Click e7 to flip the board
“…Although experience is an advantage in telling a player what to look for, it can also restrict you into considering only ‘normal’ moves.
“JM [237] ‘s idea of meeting 1. P-B5 with …PxP and …P-K5 (was) difficult to spot, because …PxP is an abnormal way of meeting the thrust P-B5. This also applied to RY[160] and RN [165], who didn’t `consider …PxP because it would have looked anti-positional to them. To AP [ungraded player], however, …PxP was the obvious reply…
[Comment from DR: I like this observation. It may be that stronger players actually consider more ‘stupid’ moves than weaker ones – dismissing most of them, but not ruling them out without a glance! It may be that this is the only possible explanation for, say, some of Tal’s moves…]
Click e7 to flip the board
“They all settled fairly quickly on a king move so as to be able to get the rook into play with …R-QB1 (…) The main problem in this position is whether to play …K-R1 or …K-R2. (…) Although having ten minutes to use up, two of the panel (of four — DR) gave scarcely any consideration to which was the better king move.” — Webb
[Comment from DR: de Groot’s research is also relevant here. What his tests seemed to show was not that masters analysed very much deeper, but they homed in on the critical lines and issues much more quickly than non-masters. ]
Click e7 to flip the board
“A striking example of the different depths to which the players analysed was provided by the move 1…P-QB4. GJ[112] considered this for about five minutes, but in general terms, without actually mentioning a reply for White. JW[155] and IC[149] got as far as 1…P-QB4 2. Q-B2 R-R7 3. QxBP Q-KB3 4. Q-KB5 before giving the line up, but RW[208] continued with 4…Q-N7 5. R-Q8 R-R8 6. Q-B8 Q-N8 7. RxNch K-R2 8. Q-KB5ch and mates. I had always thought that strong players don’t analyse much deeper than weaker players, but this is a clear example to the contrary.” — Webb
[Comment from DR: This belief is rather widespread. de Groot’s research certainly seemed to argue more for the importance of judgement than calculation, but there has been a lot of work since which shows the importance of seeing ahead.]
“Korchnoy played 12. N-KN5! (-K4-B5), a move not considered by any of the panel…
“JN[236] thought almost exclusively in terms of concrete variations, whereas GJ[112] went to the opposite extreme… RW[208] and SJ[165] also gave very few concrete variations, and this may be more a question of style than strength…
“IC[149]… seemed to have the best-organised thought processes (…) It is not clear, however, whether this logical approach is necessarily all that effective, for it could be argued that if IC had adopted the RW approach of looking at moves twice he might have spotted 1. P-K4 B-N5 2. P-Q5 N-Q5! which seems good for Black” — Webb
[Comment from DR: This position illustrates for me quite nicely Kotov’s notion of ‘candidate moves’: Korchnoi’s actual choice wasn’t even considered by the panellists. Korchnoi may even have reviewed, and rejected, other moves that were not considered by them.
Kotov expands his approach to analysis by saying once the list of candidate moves is drawn up, each branch should be considered once and once only. IC has clearly read and believed, and this player may be more efficient because of it, but at least while we are improving this may be at the cost of accuracy. de Groot used to describe an approach of ‘progressive deepening’, and this may not just a more common approach but a more appropriate one for positions which are not highly tactical.]
“JN[236] and RW[208] had far more idea what they ought to be doing than the others, and this supports the widely held supposition that the greatest difference between stronger and weaker players is in the endgame.” — Webb
[Comment from DR: Howard Staunton complained that only the ‘magnates’ of the game were really skilled at endgame play, and this remains true!
But Capa advised, that chess study really should begin with the endgame.]
Chess master and psychologist de Groot gave this position to Alekhin, Keres, Euwe and other GMs at the 1938 AVRO tournament, as well as to a number of weaker, but still expert, players.
All the GMs except Flohr quickly found the win with 1. Bxd5 (1…exd5 2. Qf3 Qd8 3. Rfe1 Kg7 4. Ng4 Nxg4 5. Bxe7). They also analysed other forcing continuations like 1. Nxc6, which Alekhin considered just as strong and which Flohr actually preferred.
Hardly any of the other players suspected there was a forcing solution (even after 15-20 minutes, much longer than the GMs. For the most part, they opted for safe positional moves like 1. Rfe1 or 1. Bh6; nothing alerted their antennae to a concrete solution.
Every solver thought: White has an isolated d-pawn, so endgame problems, so attack now. But only the GMs chased it down to a line 4/5 moves deep. The lesser masters seemed unable to overcome two barriers to seeing the tactic: the safe appearance of the Black position, and the anti-positional appearance of 1.Bxd5.
“It is by no means easy to detect these chance factors which are not based on obvious strategic factors“, conclude Pfleger and Treppner, rather gloomily.
Oh, Flohr’s idea? Looking for something even better than Bxd5, he hatched 1.Nxc6 bxc6 2.Bxd5 cxd5 3.Bxf6 Bxf6 4.Nd7, winning the exchange… but it is only the ghost of the knight that goes to e7!
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
This is nearly always
Black’s fourth move in the Sicilian, to force the N on b1 in front
of the c-pawn. Left alone, White may play c2-c4, stopping
counterplay with d7-d5 or b7-b5, and removing danger on the c-file.
5. Nc3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7. f4 Qc7 8. O-O Be7 9. Kh1 Nc6 10. Be3 Nxd4
11. Qxd4 O-O 12. Rad1 b5
Already making use of the minority. The
move b7-b5 is sometimes a way of threatening the e-pawn, but more
often keeps the c-pawn backward on an open file.
13. e5 !? 13…
dxe5 14. Qxe5 Qb8 ! 15. Qxb8 Rxb8 16. Ba7 Ra8 17. Bb6 Bb7 18. a3
Rfc8!
Chess magazines are full of quick White kills against the
Sicilian. Why do players bother with it, then? Because the longer
games where the attack founders and Black wins the endgame are too
long for magazines. Watch…
19. Ba5 g6 20. h3 ? 20… h5 21. Bf3
Bxf3 22. Rxf3 h4
Now White has a weakness on g2 as well as c2.
23. Rd2 Rc4 24. b3
Rc6 25. a4 b4 26. Ne2 Rac8 27. c4 bxc3 28. Rxc3
The weakness has
been replaced by one on b3.
28… Nd5 29. Rxc6 Rxc6 30. Rb2 Bf6 31.
Ra2 Rc8 32. Bd2 [32. b4 Rb8] 32… Rb8 33. Nc1 Nb4 34.
Bxb4 Rxb4 35. Rf2
The risks of the h2-h3 move are now clear.
35…Be7 36. Rf3
36… Bd6 37. Ne2 Re4 38. Rd3 [38. Rf2 Bc5] 38… Bc5 39.
Rc3 Bf2 40. Rc2 Kg7 41. Ng1 Rxf4 42. Nf3 Bg3 43. Kg1 Re4 44. Kf1 Re3 45. Rb2 e5 46. Rb1 e4 0-1
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2
a6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 Be7 9. f4 d6 10. Qe1 O-O 11. Qg3 Bd7 12. e5
dxe5 13. fxe5 Nxe5 14. Bf4 Bd6 15. Rad1 Qb8 16. Rd3 Ne8 17. Ne4 Bc7
18. Rc3 Nc6 19. Bxc7 Nxd4 20. Bd3 Qa7 21. Nc5 Bb5 22. Be5
Nc6
White’s initial lead in development and control of the centre has
has got better and better.
23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Rf4 f6 25. Rh4+ Kg8 26. Qh3
Nd8 27. Bd4 b6 28. Nxe6 Nxe6 29. Qxe6+ Qf7 30. Qe4 g5 31. Rh6 Ra7
32. Rch3 Qg7 33. Rg6 Rff7 34. c4 1-0
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2
Qc7 7. O-O Nf6 8. Kh1 Bb4 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. f4 O-O
[10… Bxc3 11. bxc3 Nxe4 12. Qd4 Nf6 13.
Ba3]
11. e5 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Nd5 13. Rf3
[13. Bf3] 13… c5 14. c4 Ne7 15. Rb1 Nf5
16. Bd3 Bb7 17. Rh3 g6 18. Bd2 Rab8 19. Rb3 d5
Always this blow in the Scheveningen. White is tempted by a
King’s-side attack, but this soon comes to an end because the bad
Bd2 cannot help.
20. Bxf5 ? 20… exf5 21. Rbg3 f6 22. exf6
[22. Qh5 Qg7] 22… d4 23. Rb3 Rxf6 24.
Qb1 Re6 25. Rhg3 Re2 26. Qd1 Rbe8
the difference in the power of the two bishops is enormous, and
White will never be able to play a light-squared bishop to f3 to
exchange off the Bb7
27. h3 Qc6 28. Rbf3 Qe6 29. Rb3 Bc6 30. Kh2 Qxc4
0-1
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3
Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O
White intends to hold the centre and attack the King.
There is a recipe fr these attacks: play Bh6xg7, h2-h5xg6, Qh6 and
Qxh7 mate! Black has got about ten moves to arrange an upset
in…
9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. O-O-O Nc4
13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. h5 Nxh5 15. g4 Nf6 16. Nde2 Qa5 17. Bh6 Bxh6 18.
Qxh6 Rfc8 19. Rd3
The first new move of the game! All this was known to theory.
19… R4c5 20. g5 Rxg5 21. Rd5 Rxd5 22. Nxd5 Re8
23. Nef4 Bc6 24. e5 Bxd5 25. exf6 exf6 26. Qxh7+ Kf8 27. Qh8+
1-0
Karpov’s team later claimed they had worked out the whole
game beforehand in analysis!
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3
Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12.
O-O-O
a typical Dragon line
12… Nc4 picks up a bishop
13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. g4 b5 15. h5 b4 16. Nd5 e6 17.
Nxf6+ [17. Nxb4] 17… Qxf6 18. hxg6 hxg6
19. Qh2 Rfc8 20. Rd2 e5 21. g5 Qd8 22. Nb3 [22.
Nf5] 22… Qc7 23. Kb1 a5 24. Qf2 Rc6
you can see the potential of the half-open c-file when White
castles Q-side
25. f4 ?
allows opening of long diagonal
25… a4 26. Nd4 b3 27. f5 exd4 28. Qh4 bxc2+ 29.
Kc1 Qb6 30. Qh7+ Kf8 31. Rdh2 gxf5 32. exf5
32… Qxb2+ 33. Kxb2 dxe3+ 0-1
Let’s look at the finish again:
34. Kc1
[34. Qxg7+ Kxg7 35. Rh7+ Kf8 is lost]
34… Bb2+ 35. Kxb2 Rb8+ 36. Ka1 c1=Q+ 37. Rxc1 Rxc1#
0-1
1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. e4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6.
Nc3
We have arrived at a Sicilian by transposition from the
English; White has played Nc3 behind the c-pawn. White has more
space, which he will try to maintain by preventing Black from
playing freeing moves like …b5. Then, when Black is passive and
White is fully developed, he will move to the attack.
6…Nxd4 7. Qxd4 d6 8. Bg5 Bg7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. Bd3
a5 11. O-O a4 12. Rac1 Be6 13. Qc2 Nd7 14. f4 Rc8 15. b3 axb3 16.
axb3 Nf6 17. Kh1 Qa5 18. f5 Bd7 19. Nd5
White invites the exchange of Knights, which would only serve to
open lines of attack for the Bishops and Rooks.
19…Qd8 20.Qf2 Bc6 21.Qh4 Bxd5 22.exd5 Re8
23.Rf3 Nd7 24.Rcf1 Bf6 25.Rh3 Nf8 26.fxg6 fxg6 27.Bxg6 hxg6 28.Rxf6
1-0
After a season of mixed results, it is time to go back over some of the more painful losses, and ask: `Why did I lose?’, and `how can I avoid this in future?’ Here I divide up losses into three basic types, and to avoid too much self-pity, my examples begin with those where my opponent was the loser!
There are many ways of losing a game of chess. Ever popular is the blunder. At the beginning of a game, this can provide a few extra hours at the bar, or in less extreme cases, a long wait until your opponent manages to finish things off.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Ne2 Bb7 6. a3 Be7 7. Ng3 c5 8. d5
8…O-O? 9. d6!
More irritating are those at the end of games, four hours of careful strategic manoeuvring ruined by one stupid move!
“Write the move down first” (Webb?)
“Sit on your hands” (Lasker)
Not much to add to this, you just have to look around you, one more time, immediately before moving.
[See also An important note about Blumenfeld’s rule — DR]
A less obvious losing technique, avoiding the embarrassment of a blunder, is the total misunderstanding of the opening position in front of you. This leads to positional style errors, perhaps only discernable to the elect, but leading to a definite loss without any undue effort.
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. a3 c4 7. Nbd2 f6
White now has to deal with the attack on his centre. One approach is to exchange on f6 and c5, leaving black with a loose centre, but good chances of turning it into a mobile monster. Attacks, such as 8. Nh4 look dangerous, but 8. … Qc7 9. Qh5+ Kd8 10. Qf7 Nh6 11. Qh5 fxe5 is messy. Instead white decides to leave a pawn on e5, in the hope of cramping the black position.
8. Be2 fxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Qc7
White’s plan of cramping black would be better attained without the exchange of knights. Instead his e5 pawn is looking weak, and the positional error is now made, opening up the black diagonal, forcing white to waste time trying to block it before castling. Meanwhile, black gets on with developing and attacking the centre.
11. f4? Bc5 12. Nf3 Ne7 13. Nd4 Qb6 14. Bg4 O-O 15. a4 Bxd4 16. Qxd4 Qxd4 17. cxd4 Nc6 18. Be3 Nxd4
winning a pawn, as 19. Bxd4 Rxf4 forks the bishops.
This depends upon how bad a loss, or series of losses, you get. Severe losses are best answered by a change of opening. If you get good results in other variations, then some homework is needed on the kind of position you do not understand. (It is important not to confuse this category with defeat by a much stronger player!)
If the above two categories look almost trivial, pointing up areas of carelessness or inadequate preparation, and easily rectifiable in consequence, this category provides the deepest benefits in terms of self-improvement. The sort of losing technique I am referring to is that often met with after the gain of a pawn, or some other positional `advantage’. You think away, working out possible winning tries, make some moves, … and suddenly find your position falling apart before your eyes! Typically, in my case, this is accompanied by increasing time pressure.
Once we recognise these losses as examples of mistaken thinking, we can see them as the most instructive. Why? Because the error is not due to a lack of ability or foresight. Instead, the wrong mental attitude leads to self-doubt in considering some lines of play, and blindness when considering our opponent’s resources in others.
Let us work through:
1. e4 e6 2. d3 c5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O Nge7 7. Nbd2 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. Re1 Rb8 10. a4 a6 11. Nc4 b5 12. axb5 axb5 13. Ne3 Qb6 14. Nc2 b4 15. d4 b3 16. Na3 cxd4 17. cxd4 Nxd4 18. Nxd4 Bxd4 19. Be3 Bxe3 20. Rxe3 Ba6
(Note that 18. … Qxd4 19. Qxd4 Bxd4 20. Rd1 or 19. … Nc6 20. Nc4 embarrass d6.) We begin with this position: Black seems to have a winning position in terms of a pawn advantage and the advanced b- pawn. The bishop holds the knight at a3, at least for the moment. The only disadvantage is the relative weakness of d6. White would like to play 21. Bf1 to exchange the bishops, but 21. … Bxf1 22. Kxf1 f5! opens the f-file, removes the e4 pawn, and allows Nd5, eg: 23. Rc1 fxe4 24. Nc4 Nd5 25. Re2 Qa6 and … e3. Instead white attacks the b- pawn, and tries for c-file pressure.
21. Rc1 Rfc8 22. Rec3 Rc5 23. Rxc5 dxc5 24. Nc4 Bxc4 25. Rxc4
Things are not entirely in black’s favour here, as his Q-side pawns are weak. Further, they are not very mobile, as the c5 pawn is backward. “Nevermind”, thinks black (me!), “if I take my time I can get my knight to d4, defending b3, and my king to d6, defending c5. The Rook and Queen can then investigate the a-file. Of course, white may play e5, freeing his bishop, and stopping the king defending c5, so …”
25. … e5?
There are many things wrong with all this, and white manages to demonstrate them!
26. Qc1 Rc8 27. Bh3! Rc7 28. Qc3 f6 29. Qd3! Kg7 30. Qd8 Qa5 31. Bd7 Qa7? 32. Qxe7+ Kh6 33. Qf8+ and checkmate follows.
… e5? actually gave white’s bishop a diagonal to use, that from h3-c8. White’s queen moves took the initiative, attacking pawns and occupying the open d-file. The knight died on the square it developed to on move 6.
What should black have been thinking of? Essentially his plan was too passive. First and foremost the knight needs developing to take an active role, in particular it needs an outpost square to assert itself against the bishop, and this was identified accurately as d4.
Therefore, 25. … Nc6 26. Qd6 Rd8 27. Qxc5 Qxc5 28. Rxc5 Rd1+ 29. Bf1 Nd4 and white is in big trouble. eg: 30. Rc4 e5 with Rb1/d2xb2 to follow.
If instead, 26. Qc1 Nd4 27. Kf1 Qa6 or 27. Bf1 Qb7 and if 28. Bd3 Nf3+ -e5 xd3 and Qxe4 is threatened, or if 28. Qe3 Qa7 with Qa1. This last line retains black’s advantage, with attacks on the white king and b2 to compensate the loss of c5.
Apart from the miscalculations, the error here was in not `suppressing the opponent’s counter-play’. The initial appraisal of the kind of options open to the opponent was lacking, in particular the open d-file and the fact that advancing the central pawns will weaken them and the surrounding white squares. From this, and an honest recognition of our weaknesses, we come up with a counter-plan. The passivity of black’s pieces could largely be rectified by developing the knight to d4, incidentally blocking the d-file.
In this game an opening advantage is thrown away through not appreciating an opponent’s counter-attacking chances.
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d5 5. Bf4 c5 6. dxc5 O-O 7. Rc1 Qa5 8. e3 Rd8 9. Qa4 Qxa4 10. Nxa4 Bd7 11. Nc3 Qa6 12. cxd5 Nxc5
This is the first critical position. White is a pawn up, with well- developed minor pieces, and plans Bc4 and O-O Rfd1, or Ke2 Rhd1, with central action to follow. The mistake is not so much the move now made, but the state of mind when making it. Black has ideas of …xd5, Nfe4, Bxb2, Bf5 and Nd3. All enough to prevent any ideas of an `easy’ win!
Ideally, reflecting that after 13. Be2 Bf5 or 13. Bc4 b5 white has difficulties, he should reject the idea of simple development. A move which breaks the black bind slightly, and removes the weak d-pawn, is:
13. d6! exd6 (… e6 is ugly, leaving white all the play) 14. Bxd6 Nce4 and not 15. Nxe4 Nxe4 16. Be5 Rac8 giving black play, but 15. Be5 Be6 16. b3/a3 when the extra pawn is maintained, and Be2 O-O to follow leave white playing for a win.
13. d6 is imaginative, but not too hard to find, particularly if we are looking for ways to remove the opponent’s counter-play and jettison our own weaknesses.
13. Bc4 b5! 14. Nxb5 Bxb5 15. Bxb5 a6 16. Bc4? Nxd5
Here we have a typical case of blindness. With the rapid clearance of c3 and c4, and white’s fixation on keeping the Bc4 defending the pawn on d5, white forgets that 16. Be2 threatens 17. Rxc5! Intended was 17. Be5 Nb4 18. Ke2, but Nd3 forks the rook and bishop and 18. Bxg7 fails to Nd3+ 19. Bxd3 Nxd3+ 20. Ke2 Nxc1+ winning the exchange. After this error in calculation white has to grovel a bit, but things are not all bad as black must waste time regaining his pawn.
17. b3 Bb2 18. Rd1 Nb4 19. O-O Nxa2 20. Ne5 e6 21. Nc6 Rxd1 22. Rxd1 Nc1
White now has two good bishops, an advanced knight and control of the d-file, while black goes for the Q-side pawns. White now tries to exploit the tangled state of the black pieces to win one of them, but in his delight at winning after all, he gets it wrong! Instead, 23. b4! with … Na4 24. e4, or … N5b3 24. Bxb3 Nxb3 25. Rb1, or …Ne4 24. f3 Nc3 25. Rd2 Ba1/a3 26. Rc2 and e4, wins a piece and the game.
This is another mental error: feeling self-justified in winning due to the earlier superiority, I am careless in the calculation.
23. e4? N1xb3 24. Rb1 Nd4 (simple really!) 25. Ne7+ Kf8 26. Bd6 Nxe4 27. Nxg6+ Kg7 28. Be5+ Kxg6 29. Rxb2 Nc6 30. Bd3 Kf5 31. Bc3 Rd8 32. g4+ Kf4 33. Bxe4 and white lost on time, though 33. … Kxe4 34. Rb6 Kf3 35. h3 is not totally clear.
Both games are similar in my thinking about winning and not considering an opponent’s chances to make my life difficult. In addition, by refusing to give up certain `advantages’, I blinded myself to other options and this leads to miscalculation.
Many of my clock problems are caused by being in this mental state, unable to think clearly, and reluctant to move in consequence. I hope to recognise this critical point of a game in future, and avoid the debilitating effects. Of primary importance is a mental readjustment to reflect changes in fortune on the board.
Working on our own games is often given as the best way to improve. But which of the many games in a season are most instructive? And how do you go about analysing them? I would suggest the third category of games above as the most profitable. Characterised by the sudden reversal of fortune through mistaken thinking, they offer a focus for self-analysis.
Questioning my emotional state as well as my reasoning, leads to a greater understanding of how I play chess. Although in themselves the analyses above cannot be of personal interest to other players, they may help in showing how to work at one’s own games for self- improvement.
As a practical message:
“Always remember, when things are going well, that they don’t have to.”