Category Archives: Thinking

Playing for a draw

Posted on by

Click […] for list of games

P.S. Krogius also comments on final 1951 BB game

Capture_0.PNG

Instructive examples of correct psychological preconditioning are furnished by Botvinnik’s games. During his matches against Bronstein (1951) and Smyslov (1954) the score before the last round was 11 ½:11½ . A draw would secure the World Championship title for Botvinnik.

The decisive game [1951-DR] began. Bronstein with a smile of cunning on his face advanced his QP: 1 P-Q4. The hall was silent. People made guesses as to what opening Botvinnik would play? Somebody’s voice predicted “It will be the Orthodox Defence. True. Black has to defend for a long time, but the position is stable. Botvinnik needs a stable position today.”

But no! The first moves already refute the prognosis. We see the sharp and tense variation known to theory as the “Botvinnik Variation”. The champion bravely challenges his opponent. as if saying: “Although I would like a draw I am not going to beg for it myself!”

I would like to make clear to the reader that I do not wish to deprecate the Orthodox Defence, which was used by Lasker and Capablanca. The point is that Botvinnik hardly ever used to play this system of development. The champion chose the safest, most thoroughly analyzed and, perhaps, the most aggressive continuation in his repertoire. One can only guess what the feelings of his opponent were, but the movements of the white pieces suggest that he was assailed by doubt. One can see a sort of resignation in the action of the White army. Perhaps he was recalling the successful course of the battle in the preceding twenty-third game of the match, or perhaps his balance was upset by Black’s coolly executed, precise and relentless attack. The denouement was not long in coming: after gaining a won position The Champion offered a draw “just in case”. It was accepted.

The game against Smyslov developed on similar lines. This time the Champion had White so it was easier for him to make his opponent go in for a defensive game.

P.S. There are alternative accounts of who offered the draw which do not detract from the main point.

Lucky escapes

Posted on by

Simon Webb in his book Chess for Tigers identified the “secrets of swindling”:
(1) Be objective. The first prerequisite to a swindle is to be objective enough to realize early on when you have a lost position and start playing for a swindle while your position still has resources. If you wait until your position worsens and becomes hopeless, it will be too late.

(2) Do not be afraid of losing. “Once you’ve accepted that your position is lost, you should be in a position of psychological strength.” The worst that can happen is that you’ll lose the game. The pressure is on your opponent to win a “won game”, and it is your opponent who will be embarrassed if unable to do so.
(3) Play actively. In a losing position, you cannot passively wait for your opponent to squeeze you to death. To stand a chance of pulling off a successful swindle, it is important to get the initiative, and this may involve sacrificing a pawn or two, or even the exchange, to activate your pieces.
(4) Use the process of elimination. If you have a choice of several possible moves, and you see simple forced wins against all but one of those moves, you should play the one remaining move, and do so quickly. Again, the onus is on your opponent to find a way to win.

Swindling themes:
1 Stalemate
2 Weak back rank
3 Perpetual check
4 Surprise mating attack
5 Bishops of opposite colours
6 Material insufficiency
7 Building a fortress
8 Zugzwang
9 Timing

Wikipedia has an excellent article on swindling, in which some of those examples appear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindle_%28chess%29

Test paper, test positions, and suggested solutions, all attached.

Hopes and fears

Posted on by

I’m going to have to wind into this one from a distance…

Mostly I play chess, but I know how to play some other games, and I’m
sort of generally interested in games in general.

Game theory was much discussed from a mathematical angle when I was in
college, but what interests me more is the thoughts and feelings of game
players, which are usually far from mathematical.

“It seems to us that the theories associated with board reconstruction
experiments represent an idealised picture of master chess which may be
misleading. … So often, as any player will agree, it is hopes and
fears which seem to influence the choice of a move.” — Hartston and
Wason

So I was more than interested to be sent a link by our former tyrannical
landlord Steven Crane of Clifton Road Games ( http://cliftonroadgames.co.uk/ ):
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg%2Fdaily%2Fli%2…

Have a read of that first and see what you think.

Steven commented to me at the time:

“Probably doesn’t apply directly to chess, due to the lack of “hidden” information, but there might be something in the general idea…”

Oh, if only there was nothing hidden in chess!

“You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear.” Sherlock Holmes, in A Scandal in Bohemia

What is so limited in chess, is a firm grasp of what is actually there,
and what is so often present, is a paralysing fear of what our opponent
might have seen that we cannot see.

It should all be there laid on the chessboard – indeed, I often say
that’s what I like about the game – but what lies even a short way ahead
is shrouded in mist, if not fog, if not a dense curtain… and our history
of being surprised by our opponents’ replies makes us fearful of what
might happen next.

And even when we see things, we may be also be justly admonished as
was Watson on another occasion:

“Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. ” Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle.

I found the discussion of Magic card-counting had parallels with two
discussions I had with young people who had agreed draws in these two
positions. See what you think first, then I’ll tell you what I told
them.

Black offers a draw to White: do you accept?

White offers a draw to Black: do you accept?

To put the question at all to you, suggests that there is something
better to do than shake hands and find the snack stand. An indeed there
was:


I guess I hope there might be some general sort of logic or way of feeling
about the position that would make these promising young players look a
bit harder and longer next time. I certainly found the language used
about the Magic game very familiar, even if the rules and elements were
foreign.

Don’t be afraid of ghosts, look to see what is real.

Jokes

Posted on by

I usually have about my person some positions to amuse young players at the end of an evening.

Here are some of my favourites:

Problems
Hints
Solutions

Problems.

White to play and…

1. Mate in half a move (?)

2. Mate in 6 (Halumbirek)

3. Mate in 2 (?)

The board is the right way around — those are eight pawns ready to promote!

4. Mate Black without taking a pawn (Brown)

5. Mate in 2 (Loyd)

6. Mate in…14!

Hints.

1. Is there a move in chess that you make in two halves?

2. Seriously, if you can’t solve this one, you should give up chess!

3. Two piece moves will give mate — but which piece do you move first?

4. A puzzle inspired by the Iron Cage of Tamerlane.

5. A puzzle called ‘Organ Pipes’: imagine it’s Black to move?

6. With the White King on g6, and Black to move…

Solutions.

1. 1.Ra1-d1 completes Queen’s-side castling.

2. All moves are forced: 1. d4 b5 2. d5 b4 3. axb4 a3 4. b5 a2 5. b6 a1=Q 6. b7# 1-0

3. 1. Nc6! and now e.g. 1…a1=Q 2. Ba6# by discovered check.

Also:
(1… f1=Q 2. Bf5#)
(1… e1=Q 2. Be6#)
(1… d1=Q 2. Bd7#)
(1… b1=Q 2. Bb7#)
(1… c1=Q 2. Be6#)
(1… f1=Q 2. Bf5#)
(1… g1=Q 2. Bg4#)
(1… h1=Q+ 2. Bh3#)

4. 1. Nec6+ dxc6 2. dxe3+ fxe3 3. Rh4+ Be4 4. Rhxe4+ dxe4 5. Be5+ dxe5 6. Rxd8+
Nd5+ 7. Rxd5+ cxd5 8. Nc6# 1-0

5. 1. Qa5 Bb7 2. Nf5# or…

(1… Bd7 2. Qd5#)
(1… Be6 2. Qe5#)
(1… Bf5 2. Nxf5#)
(1… Rd6 2. Qxb4#)
(1… Rd5 2. Qxd5#)
(1… Re5 2. Qxe5#)
(1… Bc5 2. Qa1#)
(1… Bb7 2. Nf5#)

6. 1. Kg7 Qh3 2. Kf8 Qh4 (2… h4 3. Kg7 Ne5 4. Nxe5#) 3. Ke7 Qh3 4. Kd8 Qh4
5. Kc7 Qh3 6. Kc8 Qh4 7. Kd8 Qh3 8. Ke7 Qh4 9. Kf8 Qh3 10. Kg7 Qh4 11. Kg6 Qh3
12. Kxg5 Qh4+ 13. Kxh4 Nc3 14. Nd4# 1-0

Blunder-proofing your chess

Posted on by

Three quite shocking examples from junior chess.



[I will say I was most impressed by the group’s ability to find the
blunders almost instantly! It’s as though we have a special instinct
for such moves…]

There are three sorts of blunder, it seems to me, and we have seen examples of each:

A. you overlook your opponent’s threat (you are asleep)
B. you overlook your own threat (you are lazy)
C. you overlook your opponent’s reply to your threat (you are over-excited)

Some fairly shocking examples from the club championship of recent years… One of each type, again.

It is hard to know which is most common, and it may be that you
specialise in a particular type. Let us try to find out… The cure for
type B is the tactical awareness discussed with the group by Tim last
week, so see how you get on with these, which feature errors of types A
and C.

(see attached PDF, side 1)

Blunder-proofing your game

Three treatments may be recommended, each suited to curing you of a particular sort of blunder:

a. suspicious minds — look before you leap!
b. tactical awareness — practise doing puzzles — add speed to accuracy
c. hesitation — check it before you move it — finish your line of thought with the best move for your opponent

The first and last thing to do

…is check for your opponent’s threats.

First, when your opponent moves, look at everything the move does.
Then choose a move.

Lastly, before making your chosen move, check every forcing reply. If
you can, do the same for the position at the end of your analysis.

So, let’s try that again, from the top:

*[Turn over!]

When you don’t have time for all this…

What about when you are in time trouble, or playing in a rapidplay?
There may not be time to do a proper analysis, in which case you will
have to settle for a ‘good enough’ move. If you rehearse good thinking
habits when playing slowly, I hope you develop some intuition for when
you don’t have proper thinking time.

[There are also strategical blunders, overlooking what is going on positionally, which
are equivalent:

  • overlooking your opponent’s best plan
  • overlooking your best plan
  • overlooking your opponent’s best counter to your plan]

Blunder15.pdf

Try moves in both orders

Posted on by

Just a little practical example of something I often talk about: move order in analysis.

If you have a good idea, try it with a different order of moves: it might be even better!

For example:

Here White piled on the pressure with 14.c5+, soon followed by b5-b6.

Try it the other way around:

Towards a self-explanatory chess set

Posted on by

I had a cheerful exchange recently with a correspondent, who wanted to teach her daughter how to play chess, and was attracted to the Children’s Chess Set (from Devon’s very own House of Marbles).  I like that set a lot, and in a similar vein you can still get hold of Babushkachess sets on places like eBay.  However, while cute, they don’t do anything to reduce the learning curve of playing chess.

I remember that on my teacher training course, people interested in learning how to teach English as a Foreign Language were given a lesson in Finnish, just to remind them what it’s like to be a complete beginner again.  Similarly, while I have been writing books for youngsters, I have been forcing myself to remember in a similar way, by finding a new game and learning how to play.  So, I’ve learned the chess games of China and Japan and Thailand and Persia; I’ve learned Go and Tablut and Hahnentafl and Latrunculi; I’ve even started playing Bridge. While exploring, I have found simplified versions of Shogi like the new and also very cute Dobutsu-Shogi.  I also came across the idea of marking pieces so that you can see how they move – as in this children’s Shogi set and the Dobutsu game.  Can this be done for chess?

The Bauhaus chess set by Josef Hartwig goes a long way towards the goal, but I found making my own version quite fiddly to do. So, here’s something I was doodling with this afternoon: two designs for a teaching chess set.  Print onto card or stick onto wooden squares, or print and fold to use in game-players card holders.  Comments invited, as well as feedback from any trials!

Dr.Dave’s Brain Sharpening Kit

Posted on by

Sorry if that sounds a bit alarming!  What I mean is, after the summer break, you might find that your usual tactical sharpness has gone a bit rusty.

To get back to your normal diamond-honed sharpness, you just need you get your eye back in with some practice.

Some things to practice are:

  1. The Eight Queens Problem – a great exercise for whole-board awareness – a bit hard to check your solutions yourself, but now there is an Android phone app!
  2. Dr.Dave’s exercises to practise spotting attacks and defences – again a bit hard to check for yourself, but as long as you’re trying it’s doing you good.
  3. If you can spend a bit of money, I hear Fritz these days will also help you practise spotting attacks and defences.
  4. There is the splendid free Chess Tactics Server which will rate your ability to solve tactical positions quickly.  I think that’s the original one but there are a few others about now.
  5. There are tactics puzzle sets for all sorts of chess software systems.  Some of these are free or offer a free ‘taster’ version, so no need to hand over lots of cash before you try it.
  6. If you’re up to it: try blindfold chess.  After all, when you analyse, it’s not the position in front of you that you are trying to decide about, but one yet to appear!
  7. There are old-fashioned things called books which older readers will remember; get hold of any old books on tactics and do them over and over again until you can almost do them at a glance.

I remember a story from Dan Heisman:

“One of the most important ideas involving safety is that basic tactic skills should be used to prevent an opponent’s tactics, not to find winning tactics for oneself!” [or at least – not just that – DR]

“Unfortunately, I have found that this idea is either misunderstood or continues to fly under the radar.

[…]

…a typical ‘Class B’ student that I had a few years ago. I suggested he start by studying the basic tactics in John Bain’s Chess Tactics for Students, which he subsequently purchased. At the next lesson, he began by politely shoving his copy of the book across the table at me, saying “You’ve got to be kidding. These problems are way too easy for me!”

I proceeded to examine two recent games he had lost, and it turned out that both losses were primarily due to overlooking, and thus allowing, his opponent to play a basic tactic. After the second game, I said “I don’t understand. You said that Chess Tactics for Students was too easy for you, but are you saying that the two tactics that caused your losses in these games were more difficult than the tactics in this book?”

The student stared at me for a few seconds. Then he reached across the table, grabbed the book back, and quietly admitted “I see what you mean.” To be fair, this student’s attitude is typical of most players near his level.

After hearing this story, one could argue that it was not my student’s lack of familiarity with the patterns, but his lack of a Real Chess* thought process that was his main problem. And that could be true – thought process and pattern recognition go hand in hand. But it is also undeniable that the more familiar you are with a pattern, the more you will avoid allowing it for your opponent, no matter how poor your thought process.”

* That is – “If I play this move, can I meet all the threats that my opponent can make with their reply?” – DR

Every mistake has two sides

Posted on by

In making notes on games, I’ve probably explained lots of chess mistakes, and why they were mistakes. I might say, this Black move is a mistake, because White now plays A, and this works because if B then C and if D then E. (Or, White should have played A, etc.)

But there is another side to each mistake, which I can’t tell anything about, but which perhaps you can, and you should try. A mistake in a chess move is also a mistake in thinking.

So, on reflection, was your mistake any of these?
1. You didn’t look for the threat – it didn’t seem that sort of position.
2. You looked for threats but you didn’t notice it
3. You saw the threat but you hoped it didn’t win
4. You saw the threat but you hoped your opponent didn’t play it
5. You misunderstood the position – you thought something was important that was not (or dismissed something that was really important)
6. You saw the threat and missed something in the analysis (really, this is going to be some variety of the first five)

So, as well as reflecting on the mechanics of a chess game and where it might have been improved, also have a think about the workings of your mind.

If you can catch yourself making a mistake in thinking, that is helpful. If you catch yourself making the same mistake fairly often, then that’s a habit you need to get out of!