---

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "Acknowledgements"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîAcknowledgementsîîHeaderEndîî I was blessed with an
abundance of helpers for this book, and a good part of it comes from the
suggestions and experiences of others.  I can’t think of a neat way to order
the following names so I’ll just take then as they come. Thanks to: Stan
Lovell and Graham Lilley for insights into the thought-processes of blind
players.  Emmanuel Urien for useful suggestions for the structure of the book
– I never did find out about Kairos though; maybe it wasn’t the right
moment.  Joe Redpath for allowing me to use his games and testing my ingenuity
by being so stubborn. Eduardas Rozentalis for e-mailing his thoughts on a
beautiful game.  Luke McShane, for beating me mercilessly on the ICC and thus
persuading me to get back to work. Mark Dvoretsky, for sharing his thoughts on
chess, and correcting a few misconceptions.  Artur Yusupov for his thoughts on
prophylaxis and showing little interest in the ‘what is an advantage?’
question, leaving me to trim the still bulging Chapter 2.  Nigel Short for a
long (and expensive!) phone conversation and his help in developing the idea
of humour in chess.  Steven James for aspiring to be a better player, and
explaining the difficulties in actually doing so, as well as being one of the
few with an interest in Pirsig.  John Shaw for sending a book, playing a good
game against me, and providing notes to his game against Agdestein, for which
unfortunately I didn’t find space.  John Henderson for lending me books, and
showing disgust at my original list of pretentious-sounding sins, thus making
the book a little more reader-friendly.  Tony Miles for his thoughts on humour,
and humorous thoughts. Paul Motwani for wisely showing that the best
assistance is sometimes not to help at all.  Merijn van Delft, Lucien van Beek,
Jan Gustafsson and the irrepressible Karel van Delft for inviting me to
Holland and sharing some thoughts on their games.  Keith Arkell for useful
thoughts on Chapter 2 and notes to his game against Miles. Danny Gormally for
providing a good example of Looseness.  Tiger Hillarp Persson for talking to
his pieces and various helpful insights. Jonathan Levitt for encouragement and
books on chess psychology.  Joel Benjamin for his insights into Deep (er) Blue
and, when worried that I was getting a bit intense, the advice: “Just make
sure you throw in a few jokes to your book, and you’ll be fine”.  Dave
Gomboc for sharing his knowledge of computer programming. Dave Ottesen for
stressing that self-deception is rife at club level and thus leading me to
revise the Preface.  Richard James for chess instruction over a decade ago, a
quotable quote and a useful anecdote. Jonathan Parker for his thoughts on
Looseness and Perfectionism.  Dharshan Kumaran for suggesting that the readers
would forgive me for the theorizing as long as the game annotations were good.
Peter and Noemi Wells for providing material and helpful conversations in the
Canadian Rockies. John Saunders for a helping hand when I needed it. Rob
Bertholee for his thoughts on how aliens might think of chess.  Members of
Edinburgh and Edmonton Chess Clubs for feedback on lectures related to
Thinking and Materialism. John Emms for making me sign the dotted line again,
this time without the cigarette, and notes to his game against Webster. 
Gambit Publications generally for their useful suggestions, probing queries,
patience and flexibility, and Graham Burgess in particular for help in solving
analytical problems such as those in the ending Saidy-Jansa.  Neil McDonald
for reading all the chapters and providing a wealth of worthy suggestions and
revealing reactions. Jim Falzarano for a ‘chance’ meeting on the train
followed by uncomplicated advice about making the book more readable; your
chapter-by-chapter encouragement was invaluable.  My ‘loose’ flat mates
Nick and Stew for months of banter which kept my feet on the ground, bemused
assurance when deadline after deadline was passed, and showing a supportive
interest in the book; Stew was especially helpful (and amusing) when I needed
to decide on the names of the sins.  My mother and Ray for their support and
encouragement...and finally Shiva, for gumption-building phone calls, our
private language, slaying the ‘sleep monster’, and leaving me to “work
for a w (v) hile”. Thanks to the above, and countless others, the errors I
am responsible for in this book will be of a higher quality, and more
instructive, than they would have been if I had been left to make them all by
myself.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "Extended Preface: The Map, But Not The Territo"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîExtended Preface: The Map, But Not The
TerritoryîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîIn chess, one realizes that all
education is ultimately self-education.îîEndBlockQuoteîîGERALD ABRAHAMS, The
Chess Mind  This extended preface is useful background reading to help you to
understand the chess sins that follow.  It includes my thoughts on the nature
of chess and the sources of error, most of which, I think, are built in to the
way the game is constituted.   Of course, any sort of theorizing about chess
is a sticky undertaking, and not really knowing where to start such a book, I
begin with obscurity.  It is my hope, however, that she will be the midwife of
clarity. Consider the following situation:   There you are, writing down your
moves, pressing your clock, moving your pieces.  Or moving the pieces? Well
there you are, your brains, your emotions, and your entire nervous system. 
Your ego and your rating. And your opponent. The adrenaline rushes past; did
you feel it? Was it just me?...   But didn’t you see it, that line with...
And all these variations, tick tock, tock tick. It just doesn’t feel right,
but I know this moment will never come again.  Now think, think, I’ve got to
think, I think. I can count but that’s never enough. The tide is turning and
I’m losing it; I must try harder.  Who’s tocking? Who’s in charge here?
Really? – Does he know this? Oh he forgot! What do you mean he changes every
day? So who took over? Oh they did, did they?  Well we’ll sort them out...
What do you mean we can’t? They’re where? The nature of the game? But
it’s urgent; how can I reach them? What do you mean they are always present?
Why can’t I see them? I can? There you are again, writing down your moves,
pressing your clock, moving your pieces. And so it goes on...  
îîHeaderStartîîChess TheologyîîHeaderEndîî   îîStartBlockQuoteîîIt is true
that we cannot be free from sin, but at least let our sins not always be the
same. îîEndBlockQuoteîîST TERESA OF AVILA  Sin, and lots of it, that’s where
this book is heading, but how do you understand this word ‘sin’ and which
sort of sins do you think are most prevalent in chess?  Well, all of the chess
sins I have selected are implicit in the above outburst and I trust you will
identify them once you’ve read the book.   However, although I believe an
understanding of each sin will illuminate your understanding of your own
mistakes, a prior understanding of what I mean by ‘sin’ in chess is
perhaps even more important.  It is tempting to delve into a protracted
theological discussion at this stage, but I will spare your scruples and
simply state my own interpretation. Chess sin is a misreading of (chess)
reality.  The following is not intended to be in any way religious, and is
surprisingly useful for an understanding of chess.  According to The
Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible: “‘Sin’ represents an intrusion into
creation and into human experience.  It does not belong; it is a surd in the
human equation, it has no ground, no place, no rationale... It is a corruption
of the human condition and an impairment of the human possibility...  It roots
in prideful self-centredness and comes to expression through a misguided will
and value system. It affects all persons, individually and corporately...” 
Also, the most common word for sin in the Old Testament carries the primary
notion of “missing the mark or way or goal”. Sin in this sense means
‘failure’, ‘fault’ and ‘error’.  In the Gospel of John, sin is the
opposite of knowledge, and ‘grace’ is the remedy for sin. The use of the
term ‘sin’ usually suggests a sinful condition, not simply a sinful act. 
So from all this (and more) it seems that to use that gloomy shadow of a claim:
‘we are all sinners’ is not to say that we are all ‘bad’,
‘immoral’ and habitually evil but just that somehow we ‘don’t get
it’.   Our relation to reality is one of fundamental ignorance rather than
moral corruption. Our attitude to this predicament needn’t be one of shame
and guilt but an acceptance of our limitations and a desire to make the most
of ourselves in spite of them.  Much more could be said here, but let’s
imagine the reality under consideration is ‘the reality of the chess game’.
Some may say that to ‘misread’ chess is to treat it as an art when it is
really a game, or vice versa.  Perhaps misreading chess may also be playing
much too quickly, because somehow the essence of the game is distorted if we
don’t think.   However, the ‘what is chess?’ question is somewhat
tiresome and probably a complete waste of time. I suspect that there is little
to be gained by seeking a neat category of human experience where this pursuit
could feel at home.  I can’t accept that chess has an ‘essence’ of any
sort and think it is destined to remain slippery and nomadic if it is forced
unwillingly into a cage of definitions, which more often than not turns out to
be a labyrinth in any case.   That said, there is much to be gained by looking
closely at why we are so fascinated by chess and why we keep coming back for
more.  This approach may not tell us of ‘the reality of the chess game’,
assuming that there is such a thing, but it can tell us of our experience of
this reality, which is at least the only reality we know, and maybe the only
reality there is.  First of all, I think we all feel that chess somehow makes
us happy or at least helps us to escape from suffering. So said Dr Tarrasch:
“Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy.”  However,
few know of the context of this claim, which is much more helpful here:
“Chess is a form of intellectual productiveness; therein lies its peculiar
charm.  Intellectual productiveness is one of the greatest joys – if not the
greatest – of human existence.  It is not everyone who can write a play, or
build a bridge, or even make a good joke. But in chess everyone can, indeed
must, be intellectually productive and so can share in this select delight.”
I’m not saying that chess is ‘intellectual productiveness’, but don’t
you think there is something compelling about Tarrasch’s claim?  I mean we
can be ‘intellectually productive’ in our pursuit of victory, in our love
of chess beauty, in our devoted preparations, in our beery post-mortems.  And
what are the normal prerequisites for this intellectual productiveness to take
place? A chess set, a clock, a score-sheet and a pen, an opponent and,
primarily, ourselves.  Ourselves. We are the main instruments of the chess
reality.  We make it happen. It is through our thoughts, emotions, nerves,
hopes, fears, judgements, plans, vision and much more that chess affords us
the opportunity to be intellectually productive.  And here is my point. If sin
is a misreading of reality and we are the main instruments of the chess
reality, it is through a better understanding of ourselves that we come to
understand ‘sin’ in chess.  We create the game of chess through the
process of playing but the process of playing calls upon, principally, our
thoughts and our emotions.   If we are to be less ‘sinful’ in our chess
games we need to watch our thoughts and emotions, their symptoms and their
sources, very carefully indeed.  Firstly, because thoughts and emotions by
their very nature are inclined to ‘go by themselves’ and secondly because
when we are playing chess we are our thoughts and emotions.  The quality of
these, and their appropriateness, determines your chess strength on any given
day.   Given that this is a plausible account of the role of ‘sin’ in
chess, what are we to make of the title of this book?  Well, to be honest its
main attraction is that it’s quite catchy and hopefully appealing to a wide
readership, but beyond that it’s a bit misleading because the Christian
tradition has tended to refer to the sins in question (pride, greed, lust,
gluttony, envy, anger and sloth) as ‘capital’ rather than ‘deadly’
sins.  In this context, ‘capital’ does not imply ‘mortal’ sins worthy
of death or capital punishment.  Rather, as Thomas Aquinas suggested, its
sense is “principal, leader, director” and the capital sins are sources or
fountains of other sins, largely because their ends such as wealth are so
attractive and require other sins for their realization.   OK, so how is this
going to help your chess?  îîHeaderStartîîThe Seven Sins and What Makes them
so DeadlyîîHeaderEndîî  Before proceeding, I recommend that you look at the
beginning and end of the following seven chapters to have some idea of what
each sin refers to.  I am quite sure that there are many ways in which
chess-players can be considered sinful in the conventional usage of the term. 
For starters there’s a fair amount of ‘pride’ and ‘envy’ related to
a player’s opinion of his playing strength with respect to others; this is
related to Egoism.   ‘Gluttony’ is in evidence, if not in beer and curry
consumption then only through Materialism on the chessboard.  ‘Greed’ has
similarities with Perfectionism, ‘lust’ in Wanting, and maybe ‘anger’
when we lose the plot (Looseness) , or perhaps just when we lose. However,
this is not ‘sin’ as I understand it.  Assuming we can make sense of a
‘sinful condition’ in life then there should be way to apply this suitably
to chess.  My task is therefore to show the ways in which we are
pathologically inclined to sin in chess, even if we don’t actually commit
any sinful acts.   The sins stem from a condition we are all in, but they are
the sources of error rather than errors as such. So the seven deadly chess
sins, if I’ve selected them well, ought to be the types of psychological
failings that lead to further errors on the chessboard in the overwhelming
majority of chess games.  In any case, I have come to think that the seven
‘sins’ below have a lot to answer for.  I don’t think it’s fully
possible to trace all error in chess back to these serpentine seven, but I do
think that the vast majority of mistakes, blunders and cases of erroneous
reasoning stem from certain psychological pathologies that we are all prone to.
You may immediately identify yourself with one or more of the sins in
particular and this will be related to your particular personality and
attitude to chess.   However, I believe that the sins detailed below are
contained in the very nature of chess and the way we have come to understand
it.  Therefore my aim in this book is to suggest ways in which we can become
more aware of our predicament, and take measures to prevent our sinful
condition leading to mistakes.  In other words, I believe that there is no way
you can avoid these seven sins to some degree as long as you play competitive
chess, but it’s my job to give you a better understanding of precisely how
such ‘sinful chess’ comes about, and what you can do about it. Sin 1:
Thinking  Common Symptoms: Confusion, pattern limitations, lack of faith in
intuition, ‘bureaucracy’.  Main Antidote: Intuition  Sin 2: Blinking 
Common Symptoms: Missing key moments, lack of ‘trend sensitivity’ and
‘moment sensitivity’  Main Antidote: Sensitivity  Sin 3: Wanting  Common
Symptoms: Attachment to results, carelessness, ‘chalking it up’,
expectation  Main Antidote: Gumption  Sin 4: Materialism  Common Symptoms:
Misevaluating, lack of dynamism, oversights  Main Antidote: Pluralism  Sin 5:
Egoism  Common Symptoms: ‘Forgetting’ the opponent, fear, impracticality 
Main Antidote: Prophylaxis  Sin 6: Perfectionism  Common Symptoms:
Time-trouble, ‘jam lust’, ‘moralizing’, ‘copy-cat crime’  Main
Antidote: Confidence  Sin 7: Looseness  Common Symptoms: ‘Losing the plot’,
drifting, ‘neural hijackings’, ‘tension transference’  Main Antidote:
Concentration  Finally, I should say that my main difficulty in writing this
book has been trying to keep these sins distinctive.  I think they are
distinct, but it seems to me that chess errors rarely, if ever, occur for any
single reason and so a single mistake can often be attributed to more than one
sin.  So, for example, too much Thinking may be seen as Perfectionism, missing
key moments (Blinking) can lead to drifting (Looseness) and so on. H opefully
the examples and explanations given will allow you to identify each sin
clearly and distinctly but I’m sure you will also see that the sins are
strangely complementary.  Problems arising from your emotions and
thought-processes seem to be rather incestuous, and the births of many
mistakes on the chessboard are delivered from an orgy of sin. 
îîHeaderStartîîCaissa’s GraceîîHeaderEndîî   îîStartBlockQuoteîîNothing
happens. Nobody comes, nobody goes. It’s awful.  EndBlockQuote  SAMUEL
BECKETT, Waiting for Godot   îîStartBlockQuoteîîLook at that battle you are
involved in; you are caught in it: you are it. îîEndBlockQuoteîîJ.
KRISHNAMURTI  I guess you’ve seen this position before. What do you think?
Any thoughts? Does it strike you that nothing is happening, that the position
is absolutely static? Nothing is happening!  Of course if we move a few pieces
and integrate the forces we can observe some ‘action’ on the board.  I
don’t know about you, but even then, when I strive to disentangle myself
from the ideas and look at the board, there’s a strange feeling of inertia. 
When I reach to make a move I feel there is a significant event taking place,
but when I forget I’m a chess-player and just look there seems to be nothing
more than a mere configuration of wood.  All the action is created in my head
by rules and judgements that have become habitual over the years.  In making
this realization I feel some emotion and, as usual, this emotion leads to
further thought.  What does this suggest? The game of chess doesn’t go ‘by
itself’, but you do. Unlike your brain, chess is not a self-organizing
system. It is the nature of the mind to think, and to make connections by
itself.  Emotions can also be autonomous, instantaneous and frequently
inexplicable. But chess has no significance, no character or personality,
until we involve ourselves with it.   The above position is not even ‘a
position’ until we are acquainted with a basic knowledge of the game.  But
somehow, Caissa only knows, this game has evolved to its present form,
delighting and captivating millions who have been touched by its charm.  I am
inspired by the above position, and all that it represents, because it affords
enormous opportunities for utilizing and developing a vast array of distinctly
human characteristics.  I have come to think of this as ‘Caissa’s grace’.
By means of a miraculous conception, she has delivered an abundantly fertile
game where every contest has a new character and we are ourselves given many
new lives.  If the remedy for sin is grace, Caissa’s grace is to show our
humanity on the chessboard.   That we may look at our moves as a reflection of
ourselves, as we might see a calm face in a pond, reflected by the stillness
of the water.  Caissa reveals that errors we commit have their source in
thought and feeling and I feel that she compels us to examine the way we think
and feel over the chessboard.  Then we may come to know ourselves better, and
make the most of our ‘sinful’ condition.  On a separate but related sphere,
consider that computers don’t ‘play’ chess, but you do.  Computers
compute, you don’t. The main reason they are so fantastically strong at
faster time-controls and complicated positions is that they have no nerves and
no self-awareness. But you do. Computers have no sense of the significance of
the contest. You do. Computers don’t have egos, don’t feel fear, don’t
feel time-pressure, but you do.  Computers don’t enjoy chess but, I hope,
you do. So, back to the diagram, and the configuration of wood it symbolizes. 
Let me borrow a Taoist idea to explain why this position is so fascinating. It
is called ‘the value of the indefinite’ and, suitably, is conveyed by
considering an uncarved block of wood.  Such a block has not been made into
any particular object and serves no definite function.  It has no distinctive
shape and offers no obvious aesthetic value. So if it’s useless and plain
you might suppose it’s not worth much, that it lacks value.  The only way to
make use of it is to carve it in a certain way, paint it, varnish it, make
something of it, right? No.  Give the matter further consideration and you see
immense value in this uncarved block of wood. When you carve it, you gain
something, but something else is lost.  It may become one thing, but it loses
its original potential for being an infinite number of different things.  So,
as Santo and Steele put it, in their Guidebook to Zen and The Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance: “A valuable actuality is gained, but an even more
valuable reservoir of potentiality is lost”.   Do you see where this is
going? Think of the starting position, and think of yourself. What if the
block of wood could be given a definite form and keep its infinite
potentiality.   Then you could have the value of both the chosen form and the
limitless abundance of forms.  Is this possible? With the block of wood? No.
During a chess game? No. With the game of chess? Yes. With yourself? Yes.  We
will return to this idea, but for now just think of the many ways it applies
to chess.   Consider the condescending quip that “pawns don’t move
backwards”, for example.  When you play 1.e4 to improve the scope of your
bishop and queen, you are irreparably weakening the e-pawn and the squares f3,
f4, d3 and d4 (they lose the support of the e-pawn) .   Of course the ultimate
agony for the would-be Taoist is zugzwang; the equivalent of an axeman forcing
you, on pain of death, to carve the block of wood.  What would you do in the
circumstances? Putting that to one side, I think two main things would strike
the alien who found himself observing a chess tournament.  The first is that
the output of every game is different because the input of the players varies
every time.  The second is that the external process seems exactly the same. 
The astonishment is this: thousands of earthlings spend thousands of hours
toiling over this square board with carved blocks of wood and seemingly
without reason, and, what’s worse, just when it seems this fruitless task
has been exhausted, they come back later, set up these pieces into what looks
like a starting position, and do it all over again!  I trust a sympathetic
alien would come to appreciate the delights of such absurdity.  They may also
be touched by that aspect of the game which has become even more mesmerising
in this computer age: the fact that chess, despite much fear to the contrary,
appears to be inexhaustible.   This has always struck me as magical given the
finite number of squares and pieces, and the fixed rules of chess.  But I
think even more inspiring is the human dimension of the game – the way that
we feel compelled to return to this ‘uncarved’ chessboard with the urge to
give the game a definite form.  Of course this analogy is not perfect –
analogies never are – but my answer to the axeman would be a carefully
carved chessboard and pieces.   More seriously, it is what we bring to the
chess struggle that determines the outcome of the game, both in terms of the
quality of the contest and the final result.  The ‘shape’ you give to the
chess position is an external manifestation of what is going on inside you. 
If you like, the starting position is your block of wood, a block that the
game allows us to return to.  Your thoughts and emotions are your scalpel and
varnish.   The dance of your pieces in front of you is your work in progress
and you have a definite form to your wood when a result is agreed. What
interests me, and what this book is about, is how we can make best use of our
scalpel and varnish.  Whatever your strength as a player, it is the way in
which you harness your thoughts and emotions that matters.  So forget, or
rather put aside, the importance of tactical sharpness, opening preparation,
‘pawn power’ and all the technical ways of improving your chess.   Of
course there are limitless ways to improve your understanding of the game, but
this book is about helping you to recognize the sources of error as they arise
in your thoughts and emotions.  It is about promoting self-awareness and
challenging our conventional ways of thinking. So I am asking: how are we
shaped by the chess struggle, and how should we shape the chess struggle in
return?   îîHeaderStartîîChess and PersonalityîîHeaderEndîî 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîGrandma to Grandson: “Why are you scratching yourself?”
Grandson: “Because nobody else knows where I itch.”    EndBlockQuote  So
if your chess moves are an external manifestation of who you are at a given
point in time, there may be a useful relation between types of personality and
types of chess mistakes.  Moreover, since this book is about sin as the source
of error, it would seem that different personality-types would be more
inclined to certain sins.  In this respect a 1400 player who tends to suffer
from Perfectionism and Looseness may have more in common with a 2400 suffering
from the same sins than with a fellow 1400 who is constantly guilty of
Blinking and Egoism.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "Me? vs. Kasparov?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "31"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Ng4 {
7...Ng4} 8. Bc4 Nxe3 9. fxe3 Be6 10. Bd5 Qb6 11. O-O Nd7 12. Qh5 Nf6 13. Bxe6 {
13.Bxe6} Qxe3+ 14. Kh1 Nxh5 15. Bxf7+ Kd7 16. Bxh5 {I r@ached this position
while throwing around a few pieces in time to some music. I forget what I was
listening to, but I’d guess it was fairly random, probably some sort of jazz.
In any case, I had just finished reading an interview with David Bronstein in
which he was talking of his sadness at the lack of creativity at the higher
levels of chess these days.  Having a great deal of respect for Bronstein’s
views, I began to daydream that I was beating Kasparov with Bronstein watching
in approval, hailing the delights of my creative genius. However, I have
perhaps even more respect for Kasparov’s chess and so in a strange feat of
simultaneity I somehow felt that I was also Kasparov, and that he would
approve of my play too.  Anyway, it’s all a bit dreamy and confusing, but
when I played the unusual and highly suspect 7...Ng4 I was Black and Kasparov
was pulling faces of amused contempt, while I was pleased to be defying
conventional wisdom about controlling the d5-square. Then after 13.Bxe6
îîStartBracketîîactually an error, as 13. Rxf6 winsîîEndBracketîî I was
definitely White and Kasparov looked confident that he had found and played
White’s idea while also looking distinctly worried that Black may soon be
mated by a relative unknown like me. This train of thought was disturbed by a
phone call after White’s 16th move, and ‘Kasparov’ was let off the hook.
Dreams can be wonderfully obscure, but I digress.  The main function of this
little dream scenario is to provoke a response from the reader, and consider
what this response suggests about your personality and its relation to chess.
Many would deem it irrelevant and unhelpful, others might find it vaguely
amusing but rather contrived.  In any case, your reaction will be a judgement
based on your personality, so please take this chance to think of your chess
judgement in general, your attitude to the game, and how it is shaped by your
personality.  To make the most of this book, it will be helpful for you to
take a while to consider whether you are inclined to ‘think’ or ‘feel’
your way to solutions in daily life. Do you take responsibility for your
actions? In what ways are you self-deceptive? Do you generally get upset about
details or obsessive about getting things right?  Whatever your answers, the
way you approach chess can tell you a lot about who you are, which is a good
thing, assuming it’s something you want to know.  Personally, I improved my
chess a lot when I considered my personality and how it has changed. In
general I am inquisitive, restless, idealistic and hopelessly impractical. In
a chess sense this manifests itself in an acute sense of why I make the
mistakes I do, but it also gives rise to a lack of competitive drive for I am
often too interested in ideas to be a serious chess fighter.  Moreover, when
playing I have a very good sense of how the game might develop and thus
evaluate well, but the result of the contest is not always my main concern so
I often lack resoluteness at critical moments and am prone to losing the plot
when the game ceases to follow my idea of how it ought to be. 
îîHeaderStartîîRethinking Chess PsychologyîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîWe
must begin with the subjective'. îîEndBlockQuoteîîJ. P. SARTRE  I must confess
that I may be getting out of my depth in what follows.  I have no formal
training in psychology or neuroscience and the ideas I put forward here should
be considered with due care.  Nevertheless, I feel confident enough to share
them, and hope the reader will be charitable in his interpretation of what
follows. Chess has long been of great interest to psychologists because it
provides a relatively fixed system in which to analyse human thought.  However,
as far as I can tell, most of the major academic studies of chess miss much
that is essential to the ways that a chess-player thinks and feels.  The
following make up a large part of the most widely documented psychological
research into chess: Djakov, Rudik and Petrovsky
îîStartBracketîî1927îîEndBracketîî, Abrahams
îîStartBracketîî1951îîEndBracketîî, De Groot
îîStartBracketîî1966îîEndBracketîî, Chase and Simon
îîStartBracketîî1973îîEndBracketîî, Holding and Reynolds
îîStartBracketîî1982îîEndBracketîî and Robbins et al.
îîStartBracketîî1996îîEndBracketîî. I don’t intend to consider them as a
group, nor to downplay some of the extremely valuable insights into the chess
mind that their work produced, but I think they are guilty of thinking of
chess as an almost exclusively cognitive pursuit, where moves are chosen and
positions understood only on the basis of mental patterns and inferences. 
Most of the work concerns the reconstruction of board positions, the role of
memory, the importance of pattern-recognition and empirical considerations
about the development of intuition or ‘vision’ in chess. Much of this work
is interesting and useful for understanding the workings of the human mind,
but I feel that in neglecting to consider the ways in which participation in
the human struggle influences cognitive function, these authors overlook a
most crucial feature of the chess contest: emotion.  To be fair, they all make
some mention of the role of emotion in chess; for example, the Soviet study of
1927 includes ‘disciplined emotions’, ‘self-control’ and ‘strong
nerves’ in their list of ‘Important Characteristics for Success at the
Higher Levels of Chess’. Even so, emotion seems to be considered somehow
separate from the way in which the chess mind functions. It is surprising that
this has remained the case for so long because Blumenfeld’s writings in the
1930's showed that a chess-player’s thinking has an exceptional emotional
content compared to other types of thinking.  Even Krogius’s classic
Psychology in Chess îîStartBracketîî1976îîEndBracketîî, which makes
considerable mention of emotion and devotes a chapter to ‘Emotions in
Chess’ declines to develop any systematic theory of the relationship between
‘chess emotion’ and ‘chess thinking’.  A few anecdotes are given, but
it seems that emotion is assumed to be a temporary and fleeting phenomenon
that we should control when necessary, rather than something that is
constantly present and integrated with our thinking processes.  In Chapter 5
of The Psychology of Chess, Hartston and Wason give an excellent overview of
most of the psychological research given above but then make an important
qualification:  “It seems to us that the theories associated with board
reconstruction experiments represent an idealized picture of master chess
which may be misleading.   Playing chess îîStartBracketîîat any
levelîîEndBracketîî is not just the cerebral activity of unconscious search,
guided by 100,000 patterns in the long-term memory.  So often, as any player
will agree, it is hopes and fears which seem to influence the choice of a move.
Notoriously, the weaker player will tend to exaggerate both his advantages and
his disadvantages, thinking that he has a win in a good position, and a loss
with a bad one.  This emotional liability seems less obvious at higher levels..
.”   My first thought here is related to what this might mean for the
abilities needed to play chess well. With perhaps the same thought, GM
Jonathan Levitt, in his original and engaging book Genius in Chess, devises an
equation:  your chess rating, given many years of intense effort, will tend to
approximate to ten times your IQ plus a thousand.  This is nothing if not
controversial, and if it’s not fundamentally mistaken then it’s at least
incomplete.  Like the above authors, Levitt acknowledges that some degree of
emotional control is essential for chess success but then more or less ignores
it in his equation.  He does say that “Concentration and the ability to
resist emotional forces are traits that are strongly linked to intelligence”
but surely not IQ?  I don’t know of any IQ test where your ability to stay
calm is measured.   No, if the Levitt equation is to work at all, and we
certainly shouldn’t dismiss such a brave formulation out of hand, then other
aspects of intelligence must be included, in particular, ‘emotional
intelligence’.  This term became widespread after the massive success of
Daniel Goleman’s book by the same name in 1995, with the subtitle Why it can
matter more than IQ.  Many know of the concept of IQ, and have tried to link
it to chess but ‘EQ’, emotional intelligence, is a relatively new concept
and one which has great value when we come to consider the common causes of
chess error.   In fact I have come to think that there probably is some sort
of a link between chess ability and ‘intelligence’, but we need a much
more inclusive and fluid idea of intelligence if we are to make the notion
plausible.  Moreover, as I hope my illustration of the seven deadly chess sins
will demonstrate, there is reason to think not only that your ability to
recognize and utilize your emotions is every bit as important as the way you
think, but that the two, thinking and feeling, are inextricably linked.   As
well as Goleman, Damasio îîStartBracketîîDescartes’ Error, The Feeling of
What HappensîîEndBracketîî, Le Doux îîStartBracketîîThe Emotional
BrainîîEndBracketîî, Greenfield îîStartBracketîîThe Private Life of the
BrainîîEndBracketîî and many others have begun to argue that all thought has
some emotional content.  Dr. Damasio, for example, proposes that there is no
single chemical for emotion, and that emotion is made up of a whole landscape
of chemicals and processes throughout the physical body that mesh with
associations laid down all over the brain.  This proposal was based on a study
of patients with a certain type of brain damage îîStartBracketîîprefrontal
amygdala circuitîîEndBracketîî that didn’t directly affect cognitive
abilities or IQ.  These people were in some ways rather like Star Trek’s Mr
Spock, the ultrarational half-Vulcan, who could reason brilliantly, but
suppressed all emotions.   The curious thing suggested by Damasio’s work is
that the real life Spock would have problems making decisions and might be a
liability to the Starship Enterprise.  Despite the intact intelligence of
Damasio’s patients, they made disastrous choices in their business and
personal lives and would agonize unbearably over simple decisions like when to
make an appointment.  Dr. Damasio argues that their decisions are so bad
because they can no longer call upon their ‘emotional learning’ which is
stored îîStartBracketîîlargelyîîEndBracketîî in the prefrontal amygdala. 
Without this source of feeling, everything presented to consciousness takes on
a sort of dull neutrality and we have no emotional prompts that allow us to
feel preference or inclinations.  Evidence along these lines led Damasio
îîStartBracketîîand others sinceîîEndBracketîî to the counter-intuitive
position that feelings are typically indispensable for rational decisions.  
These feelings point us in the proper direction, where dry logic can then take
over. So the bottom line is that the emotional brain is every bit as involved
in reasoning as the thinking brain.  To reinforce this point, consider that
experiments have shown people to be utterly averse to drinking juice from a
brand new sterilized urine collection bottle, that you couldn’t pay people
to eat fudge baked in the shape of dog faeces, and that although saliva is not
disgusting as long as it is in our mouths, most people won’t eat from a bowl
of soup into which they have spat. We are not nearly as rational as we tend to
think we are, and in general we are led by our feelings.  Many of us invent
rationalizations to explain our actions or decisions to ourselves or to others
because we don’t want to think of ourselves as being at the mercy of
feelings.  Indeed, we pejoratively refer to such people îîStartBracketîîwhich
is, in fact, all of usîîEndBracketîî as ‘irrational’.  If this thinking is
on the right tracks, it means that every time you think a thought over the
chessboard you also feel some emotion, and this shouldn’t be surprising! 
Given that chess, we think, was devised to simulate warfare, it is entirely
consistent that we should feel emotional in the heat of battle.  Indeed, I
believe this gets to the heart of what’s misguided about these psychological
studies, which is that they are abstracted from this battle.  A chess-player
doesn’t ‘think’ in the same way when he is removed from the emotional
strain of the contest because his circumstances do not compel him to
‘feel’ the same emotions.  The mistake these psychologists made is to
think that cognitive function operates entirely separately from emotion, and
therefore much the same in an experiment as over the board, but in fact there
is every reason to think that a chess-player’s thinking is drenched in
emotion. So, to whoever it was that depicted chess as a ‘paradise of
rationality’, I would answer that such a utopia may exist, but it is built
upon emotional foundations.   îîHeaderStartîîOld Habits; New
SolutionsîîHeaderEndîî   îîStartBlockQuoteîîEverything in the universe is
within you. Ask all from yourself'. îîEndBlockQuoteîîRUMI  We have come to the
end of this preface, but we are just at the beginning of the chess book.  I
have suggested that a good way of thinking of the value of chess is as an
opportunity to experience the pleasures of ‘intellectual productiveness’. 
I further suggested that we are the instruments of this productiveness and we
bring character to the game of chess by our personal thoughts and emotions. 
Because of the complex nature of the game, and the even more complex nature of
ourselves, we are all in a ‘sinful condition’ in that we don’t have a
clear or conclusive conception of the game and how we should approach it. 
This condition gives rise to certain sins that are the sources of error in
chess.  Our relative liability to these sins is related to our personality,
but we share the fact that we all have a mind/body constitution that reaches
chess decisions on the basis of both thought and emotion. The following
chapters are about these thoughts and emotions.   For most, if not all,
readers, decision-making processes will be largely habitual and resistant to
change. So my emphasis will not just be on learning to think and feel
differently, but on unlearning those processes that are clearly detrimental to
playing good moves. To be effective, this will require an open mind and
honesty on behalf of the reader.  Consequently, I hope the following chapters
will give you a good map to navigate your way through your thoughts and
feelings as they relate to chess, but I do not know the territory, which of
course is entirely your own.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "Notes"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Because this is a book that delves into how we make decisions, and
psychological aspects of the game, this course contains not only a series of
Exercises, but also some Trainables positions that explains the thinking
behind our decisions and not just the better moves moves. For these Trainables
positions it's important to know the context of each game. Not all the
solutions featured in these Trainables are forced moves. Even so, you should
try to find the solution. But don't worry if you can't find some of them, we
all sin in some way!} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThinkingîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîModern man likes
to pretend that his thinking is wide awake. But this wide-awake thinking has
led us into the mazes of a nightmare in which the torture chambers are
endlessly repeated in the mirrors of reason'. OCTAVIO PAZ, The Labyrinth of
Solitude îîEndBlockQuoteîîThinking is a very messy process, and it leads to
all sorts of errors. Indeed this sin is the most fundamental of the seven, and
the most important to be aware of, but it’s also the most difficult to
explain.  If your first reaction is to think that there is no way you can play
this game without thinking and that to think can’t possibly be a sin, I
refer you to my interpretation of sin in the Preface, without which the
following might be rather confusing.  I am not saying that it’s ‘wrong’
or ‘bad’ or ‘blameworthy’ to think, rather it is because of the fact
that we do think, and the way we do it, that error occurs.  It is the nature
of our thinking that leads to mistakes, and so it is well worth examining how
we think, and the ways in which thinking might limit us.  The most striking
problem with ‘thinking’ is that it involves so many different things. You
are thinking as you read this page, but you are also absorbing, considering
and assessing.  You are thinking when you cook, but you are also creating,
inventing and experimenting. You are thinking when you walk, but not about
your walking; you’re more likely to be imagining, worrying, foreseeing and
navigating.  Basically you are thinking all the time, you can’t stop; it’s
in your nature to think.  You are thinking when you play chess too, but in
doing so you are evaluating, remembering, judging, analysing, comparing,
intuiting, searching, doubting, timing, gauging, provoking, understanding,
orientating, complicating, simplifying, planning, pre-empting, wondering,
wandering, and so on.  As we saw in the Preface, thinking is also inextricably
linked with emotion, in which case you may also be worrying, fearing, trusting,
hoping, regretting, self-recriminating, panicking, over-heating, etc.  So when
you think in chess, what do you do? I think you do so many different things
that we should be careful with our usage of this generic term.  If this were
just a semantic matter it would be incredibly tedious, but it’s much more
than that and has considerable practical value.  When you realize that
‘thinking’ means so many different things, your ability to understand your
own thoughts is significantly enhanced.  So the first aspect of this sin is
the inclination to limit ourselves with the view that chess is all about
‘thinking’, seen as a coldly rational and fairly simple process at which
some are better than others.  This mistaken view leads to a misunderstanding
of why we err and a misguided view of what we need to do to improve.  Perhaps
if we could somehow see the command ‘Think!’ as a command to choose a
means of thinking, it would open up a world of possibilities on and off the
chessboard.  This chapter will include a discussion of many different ways of
thinking in chess, with primary reference to the role of pattern-recognition
in chess ability and the emotional aspects of thought.  I will develop an
argument to suggest that although your store of chess patterns may largely
determine your chess understanding, your ability to ‘think’ in different
ways can be significantly developed.  Moreover, I will suggest that all chess
thinking is ultimately evaluative and that we should therefore face up to the
fact that we should be making more use of our intuition by ‘thinking’ less
and ‘feeling’ more.  This in turn involves trusting your unconscious mind.
This chapter is a long and difficult journey.  I must confess at the outset
that clarity is not its defining feature and there are few easy answers or
certainties here.  I have done my best to keep the reader on board, but since
I had difficulty understanding the subject matter myself, lucidity was hard to
come by.  I can only hope that what follows remains interesting and
instructive, given that it concerns a confusing, but vitally significant
subject.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rozentalis vs. Appel - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/pp2qrpp/4b3/3pPp1Q/2pP3P/P1P3P1/1P3RB1/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Think about this position. What comes immediately to mind? (White’s
e5-pawn? Black’s bishop?)  Why do you have those thoughts and not others?
How are you thinking? Where did you begin your thoughts? Just take a few more
moments to gather your thoughts, consider what White might do...} 1. a4 {
This move looks a bit strange but all will be revealed.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rozentalis vs. Appel - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/pp2qrpp/4b3/3pPp1Q/P1pP3P/2P3P1/1P3RB1/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{And now that? The move 25.a4 is accompanied by a sequence that changes the
nature of the position.  Can you find this plan?} 1. Qd1 {Did you think the
queen was well placed on h5? Why? Maybe it could be of more use elsewhere.  If
you didn't find this move, dig deep into the position for a moment to find the
idea behind this move.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rozentalis vs. Appel - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/pp1q1rpp/4b3/P2pPp2/2pP3P/2P3P1/1P3RB1/3Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{It seems that the position has not changed much so far, but it's time to
activate following the plan that started with 25.a4 !? Can you find the idea?} 
1. Qa1 {The lone ranger gets a telegram from his queen, telling him he’s not
alone. But why the exclamation marks?} Qe7 {Just in case he wants to play 29.
Qa3. I suppose Black’s dark squares would look a little weak then} 2. Qa3 {
This is the idea that you should find after move 28.Qa1 White’s queen is a
very considerate lady. Not only did she look after the a-pawn from afar but
now also tries to remove Black’s most threatening piece.  In the process she
is working for the rooks, granting them the b-file, which can be used to
create new possibilities for the king and bishop as well.} Qxa3 3. bxa3 {
If you look at just the a-pawns you won’t see their value. You need to see
the a-pawns as part of White’s position. You can only make sense of the
merits of a pawn-structure with reference to the pieces.  The a-pawns are not
weak, because Black has no means of showing that they are.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rozantalis vs. Appel - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3k4/pp1r3p/4b1p1/PRPpPp2/2p4P/P1P1K1P1/6B1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "9"]

{White has achieved a comfortable advantage due to Black's multiple weaknesses
and lack of mobility. But how can White exploit this to realize his advantage?
} 1. a6 {With this breakthrough, the white rook penetrates the enemy field and
the c-pawn is now a passed pawn. In the game 39...Kc8 was played, but let's
see what would have happened if Black captured the pawn:} bxa6 2. Rb8+ Kc7 3.
Re8 Bf7 4. Ra8 Kb7 5. Rf8 {Followed by Kd4. There're too many weaknesses.
Black's position is hopeless.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rozantalis vs. Appel - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2k5/pp1r3p/P3b1p1/1RPpPp2/2p4P/P1P1K1P1/6B1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black's last move was 39... Kc8, allowing White a tactical motive that ends
Black's hope. Can you find this decisive blow?} 1. Rb6 Bg8 {1...axb6 The rook
is untouchable 2.a7 and the pawn promotes.} 2. Rf6 {And now that the rook has
invaded the territory the pawns on d5 and c4 will soon fall.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rozentalis vs. Appel"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/pp2qrpp/4b3/3pPp1Q/2pP3P/P1P3P1/1P3RB1/5RK1 w - - 0 25"]
[PlyCount "37"]

{Think about this position. It's White to play; what comes immediately to
mind? (White's e5-pawn? Black's bishop?)  Why do you have those thoughts and
not others? (Pattern-recognition? Experience?) How are you thinking? (Passive
absorption of whole position? Active search for ideas?) Where did you begin
your thoughts? (Assessment? Search for imbalances? Look for tactics?)  When ...
Only joking, there is no relevant 'when' question. Just take a few more
moments to gather your thoughts, consider what White might do, and then
consider this...} 25. a4 {Thi@ move looks a bit strange but all will be
revealed. Were you looking for tactics on the kingside? Perhaps there are ways
to make g4 work; maybe play  25.Bh3 hoping for îîStartBracketîîexpecting?
anticipating?îîEndBracketîî 25...g6 But what about  25...Qd7 - then what?  If
d5 is the only significant permanent weakness, you may need to look for ways
to create a second one îîStartBracketîîthe 'principle of two weaknesses':  you
try to tickle their left rib and they cover, still with a hand to spare; so
you go for the right rib and they cover that too, but by then they are so
rigidly defensive that you can do whatever you want.  If you felt like it you
might even punch them on the nose - that would surprise themîîEndBracketîî -
but is f5 really the second soft spot you're looking for?} Qd7 {Black is
unsuspecting and remains so for the next few moves.} 26. Qd1 {Did you think
the queen was well placed on h5? Why? Maybe it could be of more use elsewhere..
.} Rc8 27. a5 {Looks like a bit of a lone ranger, but Black's b-pawn is a
little nervous.} Rcf8 28. Qa1 {The lone ranger gets a telegram from his queen,
telling him he's not alone. But why the exclamation marks?} Qe7 {Just in case
he wants to play 29.Qa3. I suppose Black's dark squares would look a little
weak then.} 29. Qa3 {I had in my mind the game Smyslov-Reshevsky, The Hague/
Moscow Wch 1948. White's queen i sa very considerate lady.  Not only did she
look after the a-pawn from afar but now also tries to remove Black's most
threatening piece.  In the process she is working for the rooks, granting them
the b-file, which can be used to create new possibilities for the king and
bishop as well.} Qxa3 {This looks extremely cooperative but otherwise White's
new-found control of the f8-square would create tricks based on g4 and there
are also ideas of Qd6 and Qc5 to be considered.  Even so, (29...Rd8 !) looks
more tenacious, when White may consider  30.Ra1 intending b3.} 30. bxa3 {
If you look at just the a-pawns you won't see their value. You need to see the
a-pawns as part of White's position.  You can only make sense of the merits of
a pawn-structure with reference to the pieces.  The a-pawns are not weak,
because Black has no means of showing that they are.  Black may point to them
and say: 'Look! Weak pawns; doubled and isolated!' but this is a bit like
pointing to a mole on Cindy Crawford's face and saying 'Look! Black spot,
obvious and protruding!'  As with any face, you miss much if you look at the
parts as separate from the whole.} Rd8 31. Rb2 Rc7 32. Rb5 {You see, d5 and b7
are vulnerable but the a- pawns are completely safe.} Rdd7 33. Kf2 {Where's he
off to?} g6 34. Ke3 Kg7 35. Rfb1 Kf7 36. Rc5 Ke7 37. Rbb5 Rxc5 38. dxc5 {
The white king is very greatful and the pawns are happy to oblige.} Kd8 39. a6
{I've seen weaker pawns.} Kc8 40. Rb6 {40.Rb6!!} Bg8 41. Rf6 Rd8 42. Kd4 bxa6
43. Rd6 {Sup@rlative, mind-expanding play from Rozentalis.The idea of
exchanging queens Qg5?- doesn't seem to help as Black takes and may then find
counterplay with ...g6, and ...h6 when his king could become active via h6 and
g5îîEndBracketîî and opening the queenside (b3?) .  OK, we may need to open
the queenside because we seem to have reached a dead end on the kingside, but
at the moment the weaknesses created on c3 and a3 will be just as significant
as those on b7 and d5îîEndBracketîî, the willingness to 'weaken' his queenside
pawns Qh5-d1- where?-to a1 ... and then?îîEndBracketîî, the timing of the
a-pawn pushes 25.a4! - otherwise 25...b5 would short-circuit the plan. 27.a5!
- b7 is the target weakness. 39.a6! - just before ...Kc7 plugs the
gapsîîEndBracketîî, the involvement of the king 33.Kf2 and 34. Ke3 - what's it
doing there?  Heading to f4 and g5? But ... h6 will stop that .. . 38.dxc5! -
ahaîîEndBracketîî and the transformation of static to dynamic advantages
îîStartBracketîî29. Qa3!, 36.Qc5!!, 40.Qb6!!îîEndBracketîî persist in making a
profound impression on me, however many times I see this game.  How can we
explain how he found these ideas?  Perhaps we can't, but this example is a
good testing-ground for examining the variety of ways that we can approach a
position and how much of our thinking is consciously in our control.  I asked
Rozentalis to explain how he devised this conception and it's very instructive
to hear his account: 'I was thinking, how to use my strategic advantage and
penetrate into Black's position.  Position was closed, so I wanted to open the
queenside. That's why I put my queen back to d1. I played a2-a4 in order to
win some space. My first plan was to imply b2-b3.  But I decided that could
give Black good counterplay on the c-file. So I changed my plan and tried to
penetrate with my queen.  I think that the swap of the queens on a3 was the
decisive mistake, as White gained the open b-file. The a-pawns could never be
attacked and moreover they could attack the black b-pawn.  Black should
refrain from ...Qxa3. However, White could try to play further Rc5, or even
Rd6. Playing 29.Qa3, I had in my mind the game Smyslov- Reshevsky, World Ch,
The Hague/Moscow 1948 îîStartBracketîî26.Qh4!îîEndBracketîî.'  Note that
Rozentalis immediately saw the main issue. White has strategic advantages but
has to open the position to demonstrate them. If you began by looking for
combinational breakthroughs on the kingside, you made it much more difficult
for yourself to see the position as a whole.  This type of problem, where our
mind fixes on something and can't get past it, is very typical of the way we
think.  We are attracted to something and then it pulls us in like a magnet
before we can think of anything else. The only solution for this is
self-control.  Before you look deeply at one line or idea, ask yourself if
there are other features of the position which you should be aware of.  This
is similar to Kotov's idea of selecting candidate moves, but it works less
formally in most positions and is usually just a question of getting your
bearings in the position from a macroscopic perspective, before delving into
any microlines.  This is an aspect of intuition, and I thank Jonathan Grant
for verbalizing it in this way.  Rozentalis's last point is particularly
important because it points to the importance of pattern-recognition and it so
happens that Garry Kasparov has made some instructive comments on the classic
game to which Rozentalis referred.  Note how different the two games are and
yet how Rozentalis recognized the common theme.  This suggests that finding
interesting ideas should not just be restricted to your openings because there
are many important middlegame ideas which defy ECO-type categorization and
will only be seen if you look beyond games played within your own opening
systems.  Quotations from Kasparov are taken from ChessBase Magazine. 
Bundesliga 1993/4} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Smyslov vs. Reshevsky - Exerc"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rn5k/1p2qpp1/pB1pn2p/4p3/4P1Q1/1BP3P1/PP3P1P/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{White has complete control of the position. Black has just played 24... Nb8
to bring the knight into play via d7 and expel the bishop from b6.  But how
can White take advantage of his better development?} 1. Bxe6 fxe6 2. Qh4 {
The breakthrough. Black loses a pawn and White wins an instructive rook ending.
Note the similarities and differences with Rozentalis’s 29.Qa3.  This is how
pattern recognition works: the pattern is absorbed and becomes familiar, and
then the main theme of the pattern can be seen in an unfamiliar position.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Smyslov vs. Reshevsky"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "103"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. c3 Nge7 6. d4 Bd7 7. Bb3 h6 8. Nbd2
Ng6 9. Nc4 Be7 10. O-O O-O 11. Ne3 Bf6 12. Nd5 Re8 13. dxe5 Bxe5 14. Nxe5 dxe5
15. Qf3 Be6 16. Rd1 Bxd5 17. Rxd5 {“@he centralized rook feels good because
it cannot be pushed away” – Garry Kasparov.  Note the way Kasparov
describes the position of the rook : it ‘feels’
îîStartBracketîîintuitiveîîEndBracketîî ‘good’
îîStartBracketîîevaluativeîîEndBracketîî.  The note could also be read as
saying that the rook itself feels good îîStartBracketîîsee later idea of
‘talking with your pieces’  EndBracket  .  The explanation: “because it
cannot be pushed away” relates to the idea that thinking comes together with
feeling, but that somehow the explanation, based on thought, follows rather
than leads the feeling.  Moreover, Kasparov’s note assumes that Black will
now play 17...Qe7 – relating to the idea that the strongest players always
focus on the strongest moves.} Qe7 18. Qf5 Nf8 19. Be3 Ne6 20. Rad1 Red8 21. g3
Rd6 22. Rxd6 cxd6 23. Qg4 Kh8 {“The black king wouldn’t feel comfortable
on the other side:  23...Kf8 24.Bb6 Re8 25.h4 and what next?” - Kasparov. 
Note again the way Kasparov seems to consider the king as a piece with
personality.} 24. Bb6 Nb8 {24.@.Rc8 25.Rd2! Nb8 26.Qd1 Rc6  îîStartBracketîîIf
26...Nc5 27.Bc2 Rc6? 28.Bxc5 dxc5 29.Rd8+ îîEndBracketîî 27.Ba7 Nd7 28.Bd5 Rc7
29.Bxe6 etc. – Kasparov.} 25. Bxe6 fxe6 26. Qh4 {The breakthrough. Black
loses a pawn and White wins an instructive rook ending. Note the similarities
and differences with Rozentalis’s 29.Qa3.  This is how pattern-recognition
works: the pattern is absorbed and becomes familiar, and then the main theme
of the pattern can be seen in an unfamiliar position.} Qd7 27. Qd8+ Qxd8 28.
Bxd8 Nd7 29. Bc7 Nc5 30. Rxd6 Rc8 31. Bb6 Na4 32. Rxe6 Nxb2 33. Rxe5 Nc4 34.
Re6 Nxb6 35. Rxb6 Rxc3 36. Rxb7 Rc2 37. h4 Rxa2 38. Kg2 a5 39. h5 a4 40. Ra7
Kg8 41. g4 a3 42. Kg3 Re2 43. Kf3 Ra2 44. Ke3 Kf8 45. f3 Ra1 46. Kf4 a2 47. e5
Kg8 48. Kf5 Rf1 49. Rxa2 Rxf3+ 50. Kg6 Kf8 51. Ra8+ Ke7 52. Ra7+ {These two
games have shown the thoughts and moves of strong grandmasters, an example of
pattern-recognition and, I hope, a sense of the evaluative nature of chess
thinking.  I also hope it has shown the different ways that we can think about
a position and how your first thought about a position can lead to you missing
the most important aspects of it.  World Ch, The Hague/Moscow 1948} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Thinking about Thinking"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThinking about ThinkingîîHeaderEndîî 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe supreme paradox of all thought is the attempt to think
what thought cannot think'. îîEndBlockQuoteîîSØREN KIERKEGAARD  I was
originally going to call this sin ‘rationalism’, in which I would argue
that a serious and persistent shortcoming for chess-players is failing to make
good use of their ‘intuition’.  I also felt that ‘rationalism’ was
evident in the way players rigidly adhere to certain strategic rules and
precepts to govern their thoughts, which may not be appropriate if chess is
really ‘rule independent’.  As my thoughts on chess intuition developed,
however, I noticed that the problem I was angling at was of a much more
general nature and that many chess-players seem to handicap themselves with
stale or inappropriate thinking methods which they are hardly even aware of. 
Indeed, I think most chess-players have no particular way of thinking, think
rather chaotically and inefficiently or are blinkered by one model of thinking,
taught to them by a teacher, or read in a book.  This saddened me somewhat,
given that I think one of the great joys of chess is that you can be
‘intellectually productive’ in so many different ways.  So perhaps the key
to improving is to have many different ways of thinking, to view each position
as a kaleidoscope to be seen and manipulated in whatever way you choose.  In
this respect you could apply any of the following: Silman’s system of
imbalances, Purdy’s blunder-avoidance technique, Motwani’s acronymbased
approach, Kotov’s tree of analysis, Horowitz and Smith’s ‘point-count
method’, Suba’s Dynamic Chess Strategy, Berliner’s ‘System’,
Karpovian prophylaxis, Korchnoi’s materialism, Tal’s “Centralize your
pieces and sacrifice”, and countless other original ways of thinking about
positions.  If it were this simple, all I’d need to do is elucidate my
thoughts on some of the above, give some advice about selecting the
appropriate thinking techniques and then let you rest easy in the knowledge
that you can now see positions in several different ways.  Voilà! you’d be
a stronger player.  Or would you?...} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "The Problem Of Patterns"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Problem of the PatternsîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîFrom the moment of my birth to the instant of my death,
there are patterns I must follow just as I must breathe each breath. Like a
rat, in a maze, the path before me lies, and the pattern never alters, until,
the rat dies... Like the colour of my skin or the day that I grow old, my life
is made of patterns that can scarcely be controlled.îîEndBlockQuoteîîSIMON AND
GARFUNKEL  îîHeaderStartîîPatternsîîHeaderEndîî  Our understanding of the
workings of the human brain has important implications for chess.  Although we
cannot be too definitive, it seems clear that the brain stores and makes sense
of information on the basis of ‘pattern-recognition’.  It is also in some
sense ‘self-organizing’ in that it makes connections between patterns by
itself.  Roughly put, this means that whatever store of chess patterns 
(back-rank mates, minority attacks, castled king positions, etc.) you have in
your long-term memory, your brain will use these existing patterns to process
new ones.  So, whenever you come to a chess position you have a store of data 
(previous patterns) to help you make sense of it, and a way of thinking, which
may or may not be conscious, which will lead you to make certain judgments
about what is distinctive about the position and what should be done about it.
The question that interests me is whether the way you think is more important
than the patterns already in your head. Is there any way we can transcend our
patterns, or is our thinking completely bound by our previous chess
experience?  At the risk of being metaphysical, there seems to be a question
of free will at the heart of the chess thinking process.  We’ll leave that
for now, and think a little more about the way these patterns work.  For
example, in the Rozentalis game above, assuming it made some sort of
impression on you, your brain will ‘connect it’ in some way to whatever
chess patterns it has available.  So if you’ve never played a closed
position in your life, your brain will have a hard time making use of this
example because it won’t have anything to link it to.  You may be interested
in the queen manoeuvre if it’s explained to you, but you are unlikely to see
why it is so impressive and necessary (I don’t see another convincing way to
improve White’s position) because your brain has no pattern from previous
experience to acknowledge what’s going on.  In this case you’d probably
forget the example fairly quickly and it would slip out of your pattern net
forever, unless, of course, you made a conscious effort to store the position 
(e.g. ‘positional sketches’- more on this later) .  Perhaps if you’ve
played the French Defence you may relate to the blocked nature of the position
and Black’s bad bishop, but you wouldn’t necessarily have any prescription
for what to do as White. Indeed, you may have a strong recollection of a
winning bishop ending arising from French Defence from one of your own games
and assume that the best way to approach this position is to get a similar
type of ending, but then you would probably look in vain for ways to exchange
all the major pieces (although, ironically, the threat of this is what made
Black resign) .  Or it may be that you’ve recently been impressed by a
position where one side securely blockaded a passed pawn (albeit with a knight,
but you may not have the patterns to appreciate the relevance of that) and
then made good use of its own pawn-majority (even though that was on the
queenside, with the king in no danger from the pawns advancing) .  In this
case, you may consider the above example as an exception to this theme and
your brain will latch onto it in reference to the existing example.  The
result would then be a more balanced view of protected passed pawns versus
pawn-majorities.  I hope these examples make some sort of sense; the point is
that your brain will use what it has to make sense of what it is given. If you
have hundreds of thousands of patterns, a new pattern will be easy to place,
and to interpret.  If you have only a few patterns, the brain will struggle to
absorb new ones because there will be no suitable way of ‘hooking it up’.
What’s more, if your existing patterns are rigid (‘bishops good in open
positions, knights in closed ones’) , mistaken (‘two rooks are always
better than a queen’) , entrenched (‘I’ve been playing chess for fifty
years, but I never castle; I’ve always thought that castling must be a
mistake’) or unstable (what exactly is prophylaxis?) then new patterns may
actually be forbidden entry by the old, or distorted by your existing
patterning system.  This is not to say that old dogs can’t learn new tricks,
but just that we need to be realistic about chess improvement.  Not only do
you need new patterns to improve, but to make use of these new patterns you
need to dismantle some old ones. And that’s not easy.  You see the problem
is not so much the patterns you’re exposed to, but the order in which you
take them in. The self-organizing system has to make sense of things at each
moment and so the sequence of arrival of the information determines the way it
is to be arranged.  Clearly the best possible arrangement of information would
be independent of the ordering of its arrival and so the way we arrange
information is always less than the best possible way.  This, and the
following quotation, are ideas of thinking guru Edward de Bono: “Once
information has ‘settled’ into fixed patterns on the memory surface then
new arrangements can only occur if they are directly derived from these
patterns.  Only such trial arrangements of information are allowed as would be
consistent with these background patterns. Anything else is dismissed at once.
Yet if 'somehow' a different arrangement of information could be brought about
and held for a short while then the information might snap together to form a
new pattern that was either consistent with the background pattern or capable
of altering it.” (Lateral Thinking) . Having taken you this far, my
responsibility is to suggest what this ‘somehow’ is in a chess context. 
Perhaps we do have freedom to choose a way of thinking on the chessboard. My
first step towards showing this is by an exploration of that elusive concept:
intuition.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Intoducing Intuition"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîIntroducing IntuitionîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîDon’t think. Feel. îîEndBlockQuoteîîBRUCE LEE  That last
section may have seemed a little pessimistic so I will begin this one on a
more positive footing.  I want to show how pattern-recognition can lead to
improvements in your play in a conventional manner, but in the process I aim
to introduce the jovial but entirely serious notion of talking with your
pieces.  I have come to think of it as an exemplar of the type of thinking
that can help to override existing patterns. These next two games should be
considered as a pair. I trust my notes will explain why.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1p2bp1p/2bppnp1/p7/Pn1NPP2/2N1BB2/1PP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
[PlyCount "6"]

{Black wants to play ...e5 without allowing Nf5. Now, given that ...e5 is
likely to be Black’s next move, what should we play?} 14. Rf2 {A wonderful
move which is also common- place these days. Karpov has foreseen the likely
structure arising out of ...e5 and sees that in the resulting position the
c4-square will be a useful square for the queen; it can now get there via f1.}
e5 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. fxe5 dxe5 {Karpov has foreseen the probable structure
arising from ... e5 and then he can continue to improve his pieces.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4bp1p/2p2np1/p3p3/Pn2P3/2N1BB2/1PP2RPP/R2Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Karpov has gotten a better structure and is ready to improve his pieces. How
should White coordinate here?} 1. Qf1 {Exactly! The strategic scene is set.
Basically White wants to attack f7, perhaps by re-routing his light-squared
bishop to c4 while Black wants to exchange dark-squared bishops.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1q2rk1/3nbp1p/2p3p1/p3p3/Pn2P3/2N1BB1P/1PP2RP1/R4QK1 w - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Black's last move was ... Nd7, but this is an error that Karpov took
advantage of to improve his position.  How should White continue to achieve
this?} 19. Bg4 {Preventing the threat ...Bc5.} h5 20. Bxd7 Qxd7 21. Qc4 {
Preventing 21...Qe6, after which Black would have no problems. Now it is
difficult for him to find a role for the major pieces.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2r2k1/4qp2/2p3p1/p3p2p/PnQ1P2b/2N1B2P/1PPR2P1/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{I think if we compare all the pieces, the only unfavourable comparison is
with the knights.  Thus talking with your pieces may lead to the idea that you
need three things: 1- To improve your knight. 2- To remove the knight from b4.
3- To protect c2 with something other than the d2-rook. Some strong players
may just ‘see’ the solution, but for the less blessed I think a
‘conversation’ with your forces would lead to your knight being the most
persuasive piece.  Can you find out how to progress in this position?} 1. Nb1 {
Exquisite and decisive. Black can no longer do anything constructive.  The
capture on d2 improves White's position, there is a threat of removing the
defender of c6 with c3 and ...Bg5 is not possible because the queen is tied to
the defence of f7.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r1r2/1q2b1k1/n1p1Qpp1/p3p2p/P3P3/2P1BN1P/1P1R2PK/5R2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{With all his pieces where he wants them, the tactics begin. How should white
proceed here in order to increase the advantage?} 1. Rxd8 {Black must
recapture with the bishop so as not to lose on the spot.  This concession
allows White to increase the pressure.} Bxd8 {1...Rxd8 2.Nxe5 Qc7 3.Qf7+ Kh8 4.
Qxe7+-} 2. Rd1 {Black's rook is tied to the d8-bishop, the knight was forced
to the rim and the queen had to defend it. White's pieces, however, have
retained their flexibility and now Black is helpless against their unstoppable
momentum.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n1b1r2/1q4k1/2p1Qpp1/p3p2p/P3P3/2P1BN1P/1P4PK/3R4 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black's last move was ...Nb8 preventing the rook from entering d7. But what
other tactical motive appears in the position that destroys Black's hopes?} 1.
Bc5 Rh8 2. Rxd8 {A crisp finish. After 35...Rxd8, 36.Be7 decides. If you this
is not immediately clear to you, Tartakower’s claim that “three pieces is
a mate” may be a helpful consideration.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Spassky"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "69"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. f4
Nc6 9. Be3 Bd7 10. Nb3 {This is now standard theory, but it's worth saying
that this is also simple prophylaxis.  The intention behind Black's last move
was to take on d4 and put the bishop on c6, thus relieving some of Black's
congestion.  Then there would also be pressure on White's e4-pawn and Black
needn't fear the push e4-e5 because he would have a choice of squares for his
knight.} a5 11. a4 {Again this seems obvious in some ways, but having played
over this game several times I begin to feel that Black is already struggling
here.  Karpov doesn't give Spassky any opportunity for active play.} Nb4 {
It is very likely that Karpov was aware of the way that Geller handled these
positions with White and in considering two of Geller's games we can see a
close connection to the patterns in the present game:  11...e5 12.Kh1 Nb4 13.
Bf3 Rc8 14.Rf2! Rc4 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Rd2 Qc7 17.Qg1! Bd8 18.Rad1 Bc6 19.Bc5 Re8
20.Qf1! won the exchange in Geller-Reshevsky, Interzonal tournament, Palma de
Mallorca 1970.  Note the moves 14.Rf2 and 17.Qg1, with reference to our
current game.} 12. Bf3 Bc6 {12...e5 13.Kh1 Bc6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.Qe2 Qc7 16.Qf2
Nd7 17.Rad1 Kh8 18.Bg4⩲ gave White a slight advantage in Geller-Polugaevsky,
Portoroz 1973.  Note the Bg4 theme, which occurs in the main game too.} 13. Nd4
{directed against the idea of ...d5 and ...Ne4} g6 {Mainly just improving the
knight, but also directed against the idea of ...d5 and ...Ne4.  What does
this move suggest? Black wants to play ...e5 without allowing Nf5. Now, given
that ...e5 is likely to be Black's next move, what should we play?} 14. Rf2 {
A wonderful move which is also common- place these days. Karpov has foreseen
the likely structure arising out of ...e5 and sees that in the resulting
position the c4-square will be a useful square for the queen; it can now get
there via f1.  Moreover, the rook does a splendid job of defending c2 on the
second rank and White will have the opportunity to double rooks, on the d- or
f-file, depending on which is the more important.  When I demonstrated this
game in a lecture to Edinburgh Chess Club, many members wanted to play 14.f5,
which does make a certain amount of sense: e6 is attacked and the f1-rook and
e3-bishop are given a new lease of life.  However, such a push does not
consult the white position as a whole.  The f1-rook would want the f3-bishop
out of the way, but the e4-pawn would want it to stay put.  Furthermore, the
a1- rook isn't ready and the queen is also a little bemused, not really
knowing what role she is supposed to play in this 'attack'.  Hence I believe
that 'talking to your pieces' would lead to the feeling that the position
isn't ripe for f5.  To confirm this feeling, the variation 14...e5 15. Nxc6
bxc6 16.g4 d5 may come to mind - then whose king is the more vulnerable?  14.
f5 e5 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.g4 d5 Looks good for Black!} e5 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. fxe5
dxe5 17. Qf1 {The strategic scene is set. Basically White wants to attack f7,
perhaps by re-routing his light-squared bishop to c4 while Black wants to
exchange dark-squared bishops.} Qc8 18. h3 {An important moment. In The Art of
Chess Analysis Timman says this: 'A typical Karpov move'. There was no actual
threat of 18...Ng4 because of the reply 19.Bxg4 Qxg4 20. Qc4, but, just to be
sure, he removes any possibility of it.  Perhaps he is dreaming of getting his
bishop to c4 and doesn't want to have to exchange it on g4. Karpov may also
have felt that his king was a little uncomfortable on g1.  Many of the players
at Edinburgh Chess Club, when seeing that there was little concrete reason for
playing 18.h3, couldn't understand why Karpov would 'weaken' g3 like this.  I
had already explained that Karpov's earlier f4 had slightly weakened the king
because it now had only two pawns to shield it, while Black's king has three. 
Given this, it was hard to explain why Karpov would 'weaken' his king's
position further. This is curious because I think a lot of players have
difficulty with the idea of 'weaknesses'; g3 is only theoretically weakened
here.  Not only can Black do nothing about it, but in a moment Karpov covers
this square with his king. It is important to understand that weaknesses, like
pawn-structures, should not be considered in abstract.  In this position, g3
and b6 are 'weaknesses' of sorts but they are largely irrelevant to
proceedings.  On the other hand c2 and f7 are very relevant weaknesses, even
though they are both covered. However, when all is said and done, 18.h3 may
not be objectively best, given that Spassky missed an opportunity on the next
move.  Even so, I'm not at all sure there is anything objective about a chess
struggle. 18.h3 proved to be the right move at the right time.  The fact that
it may not have been the right move at another time need not detract from its
value in this given instance.  18.Rd1 Should also be considered. 18...Ng4 19.
Bxg4 Qxg4 20.Qc4} Nd7 {A big mistake. Spassky wants to play ...Bc5 but
Karpov's next move prevents this and the exchange of White's relatively bad
bishop for this knight leaves Black with no plan and, as Timman puts it, 'a
strategically ruinous position'.  Spassky seems to be guilty of Blinking here
and perhaps also shows a bit of Looseness.  He had to dig deep and formulate a
workable strategic operation. Exchanging dark-squared bishops would take a lot
of pressure off, so the idea of ...h5, .. .Nh7 and ...Bg5 should have been
preferred.  Timman implies that Black is OK after  18...Kg7!? 19.Rc1!?
Intending Be2-c4 19...h5 20.Be2 Nh7 21.Bc4 f5!? but 22.exf5 gxf5 23.Rd2 still
looks good for White to me. However  18...h5!? with the same idea, may well be
adequate for Black.} 19. Bg4 h5 20. Bxd7 Qxd7 21. Qc4 {Preventing 21...Qe6,
after which Black would have no problems.  Now it is difficult for him to find
a role for the major pieces.} Bh4 {Again a small question of patterns is
raised here because there are many instructive examples of doubled isolated
e-pawns being very valuable in Sicilian positions and so it may not be so
obvious to some that  21...Qe6 22.Qxe6 fxe6 is entirely bad for Black.  It is,
and mainly because these pawns do almost nothing to restrict the scope of the
white pieces, while they are vulnerable to attack.  If the black c-pawn were
on b7 this may be slightly different because the extra control of d5 would be
a relevant factor, but given that c6 controls d5 anyway and the f5-square is
not so relevant, having a doubled pawn on e6 is no great achievement and a
rather significant vulnerability.} 22. Rd2 Qe7 23. Rf1 {Using all his pieces. 
23.Bc5 Obviously has to be considered but before calculating variations, it
would be worth consulting the a1-rook about this operation.  He may well feel
a little left out. After 23...Qg5 24.Rd7 Nxc2 25.Rf1 Ne3 26.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 27.Kh1
Kh8! 28.Rdxf7 Rxf7 29.Qxf7 Rg8! Black is OK.  The question is, would you look
for this line before rejecting 23. Bc5 or would you stay away from it on
intuitive grounds? I suspect Karpov just 'felt' that this line wouldn't be
favourable for him.  Few of us are blessed with Karpov's 'feeling' for chess
though, whatever that means, so how would you reach the decision not to go
down this forcing line?  Assuming you didn't feel up to calculating all the
way, you could simply 'talk with your a1-rook'.  This sounds wacky, I know,
but try it.  These 'conversations' needn't involve any small talk or lead you
to think of the pieces as conscious beings; it's just a question of making
full use of your forces.  When you think of yourself as a commander of an army
you want to use all your soldiers and give then opportunities to exercise
their particular talents.  In this case you'd be plunging into a complex line
with less than a full army because the a1-rook doesn't participate.} Rfd8 {
23...Rad8 is better: 24.Bc5 Qb7! Hort 25.Rxd8 Rxd8 White is still a little
better here, but it doesn't look like one-way traffic any more.  With the
text-move, Black threatens to remove the defender of c2 and either control the
d-file or else exchange all the rooks.  How would you react? Many of you will
have seen the next move before but even if you have, it's well worth looking
at it in a different way.  In the given position, I think if we compare all
the pieces, the only unfavourable comparison is with the knights. Thus talking
with your pieces may lead to the idea that you need three things: to improve
your knight, to remove the knight from b4 and to protect c2 with something
other than the d2-rook.  Some strong players may just 'see' the solution, but
for the less blessed I think a 'conversation' with your forces would lead to
your knight being the most persuasive piece.} 24. Nb1 {Exquisite and decisive.
Black can no longer do anything constructive. The capture on d2 improves
White's position, there is a threat of removing the defender of c6 with c3 and
...Bg5 is not possible because the queen is tied to the defence of f7.} Qb7 {
What else? 24...Qe6?! 25.Qxe6 fxe6 26.Rfd1 Rxd2 27.Rxd2 Rd8 28.Rxd8 Bxd8 29.c3
Nd3 30.b3 Where White is better because of the pawn structure.  Not 26.c3? Nd3
27.Rfd1 Nxb2!-+} 25. Kh2 {I love the inexplicability of this move. Timman just
calls it 'a strong quiet move' but I think it's even more than that. What's so
touching about this game is the way Karpov treats his pieces as a whole group,
and strives to make best use of them all.  Strange though it may seem, White's
improved king position also creates the threat of g3. Note that in a few
moves' time the position of White's king is very relevant.  Again, consulting
your pieces before 25.Kh2 would, I think, leave the king presenting the
strongest case. Note, by the way, that when talking to your pieces, it's
important to give them all a fair hearing.} Kg7 26. c3 Na6 27. Re2 {Another
move of 'the strong silent type'. This rook may look relatively ineffective on
this square, but it makes way for the knight to come to d2 and has great
potential due to its prospects on f2 or d2. In the given instance it is better
on e2 than f2 or d2 and it's good on e2 because it can later go to f2 or d2.
That's why Karpov put it there, I think.} Rf8 {For@a while I wondered why
Spassky didn't set up a more active defence with 27...Rd7 but then I realized
that after 28.Nd2 Rad8 îîStartBracketîîbad, but nothing else makes much
senseîîEndBracketîî 29.Nb3! Black faces an immediate catastrophe.  27...Rd7 28.
Nd2 Rad8 29.Nb3!} 28. Nd2 Bd8 {28...Be7 may have been slightly better. Then
White has various ways to improve the position, but I have a penchant for 29.
Nb3 Qc7 30.Nc1!? followed by Nd3 and maybe b4. I don't see a plan for Black.}
29. Nf3 f6 30. Rd2 {Karpov's subtle rook switching makes a profound impression.
Such a comment usually indicates that the author doesn't really understand
what's happening but in the given instance I suppose this is just a fairly
obvious move which is better than  30.Rd1 1 because now White has pressure on
the d- and f-files.} Be7 31. Qe6 {With all his pieces where he wants them, the
tactics begin.} Rad8 32. Rxd8 Bxd8 {32...Rxd8 33.Nxe5 Qc7 34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.Qxe7!}
33. Rd1 {Black's rook is tied to the d8-bishop, the knight was forced to the
rim and the queen had to defend it. White's pieces, however, have retained
their flexibility and now Black is helpless against their unstoppable momentum.
} Nb8 34. Bc5 Rh8 35. Rxd8 {A crisp finish. After  35.Rxd8 Rxd8 36.Be7 If you
this is not immediately clear to you, Tartakower's claim that 'three pieces is
a mate' may be a helpful consideration.  It is a rare king indeed who can
withstand three attacking pieces by itself. Note, however, the following point:
this final combination only works because of the position of White's king.  If
it were still on g1 Black could play ...Rd1+ and ...Nd7. For some reason this
gives me a chill up my back, as it were a revelation of true genius. But of
course it might just be good luck.  Candidates match (game 9) , Leningrad 1974}
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Kulaots - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/3nbppp/p1p1b3/q3p3/N3P3/1P1BBQ2/P1P3PP/R4R1K w - - 0 16"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{What we need is a move that both prevents Black's strategic operation and
instigates one of our own. How should White proceed?} 16. Qe2 {Prophylaxis in
action! This move prevents ...Nc5 and intends Bc4} Bb4 {Instead 16...Nc5 can
be answered by 17.Bxc5 Bxc5 18.Nxc5 or  18.Bc4!? 18...Qxc5 19.Bxa6 .} 17. Rad1
{Just as with the Karpov game, my positional superiority is largely a result
of the relative activity of my rooks.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Kulaots - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/5ppp/p1p1b3/q1n1p3/Nb2P3/1P1BB3/P1P1Q1PP/3R1R1K w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Now I have a choice of winning the a-pawn but losing certain positional
advantages and swapping some pieces off while keeping the initiative. How
should I play?} 1. Bxc5 {1.a3 Bxa3 2.Ra1 wins material, but I'm not sure it
promises more that the move played.} Bxc5 2. Bc4 {2.Nxc5 Qxc5 3.Bxa6 would be
Materialism in broad daylight.  Like Karpov in the above game, I didn't look
too deeply at lines where my opponent had counterplay as long as I had an
alternative where I kept a significant advantage.  This does win a clear pawn
but it also gives Black something he hasn't had so far in this game: a huge
amount of choice.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Kulaots - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5r1k/6pp/p1p1p3/1qb1p3/N3P3/1PP2QP1/P5KP/3R4 w - - 0 27"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{A key moment. How should White continue to keep control of the position?} 27.
Nxc5 {Given that almost all strategic operations up until now have depended on
the relationship of these two pieces, I enjoyed moving into the 'new game'
which now begins.} Qxc5 28. b4 Qe7 {Or 28...Rxf3 29.bxc5 Rf8 30.Rd6} 29. Rd7
Qe8 30. Qd3 {Of course White is clearly better, but it's still important to
talk to your pieces. Even if you win the whole queenside, the king is a little
worried that there may be an accident on the f- file.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Kulaots"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "147"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f4 Qc7 {I suspect that
6...e5 is the most accurate move here.} 7. Qf3 Nc6 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. Bd3 {
The exclaim is for the anticipation of what was to come. I think this was a
novelty at the time. White had previously tried something with 9...-- 10.b3 --
11.Bb2 -- and 12.O-O-O but White's king is not so comfortable on the queenside
because of the half-open b-file and watchful a-pawn.} e5 10. fxe5 {Otherwise
Black may take on f4 and make use of the e5-square.} dxe5 11. O-O Be6 {Do you
see the pattern? Although the opening was rather different, we have the same
structure as in the previous game and many similar piece relationships.  While
playing, I had no conscious memory of the Karpov-Spassky game, but somehow I
had a strong feeling for the most important factors in the position: the
c4-square, the placement of the white king, Black's plan to exchange
dark-squared bishops, and the role of the major pieces on the f- and d-files. 
I think this is a good example of pattern-recognition in action and I think I
would have played much less well had the above game not been part of my chess
experience.} 12. Kh1 {My king wasn't comfortable on g1 and my other pieces
were happy to wait for the opponent to provide suggestive signals for where
they should go.} Be7 {GM Paul Motwani suggests that Black had to try something
more active here, viz.  12...Ng4!? 13.h3 h5 This shows a good sense of timing
and an awareness of the dangers of Blinking by striving to halt the
unfavourable trend. Black's problem in this game was that his activity came
too late.  All the same, White seems to be better here. Perhaps just 14.Na4
and b3, intending an eventual exchange of light-squared bishops. Black's
pieces are more active, but I don't see any constructive plan.} 13. b3 {
Controlling c4 and preempting any hassle on the b-file.} O-O 14. Na4 {This
seemed like 'home' for the knight. It eyes b6, controls c5 and may later come
to c4 via b2. It is useful to play this before developing the c1-bishop
because although I was almost certain where my knight would go, the
development of my bishop will be 'reactive' to his plan. Other moves are less
effective:  14.Bb2?! Nd7  14.Be3 Rfd8 15.Na4 c5 16.Nb2 Qc6} Nd7 {14...c5 can
be met by 15.c4!? This looks back until you see the idea Nc3-d5, which will
happen before Black can exploit the weaknesses on the d-file.} 15. Be3 {
preventing ...Nc5} Qa5 {I showed this position to a promising Scottish junior
after demonstrating the main ideas of Karpov-Spassky. He saw that Black wanted
to play ...Nc5 and looked for ways to prevent it.} 16. Qe2 {What we need is a
move that both prevents Black's strategic operation and instigates one of our
own. This move prevents ...Nc5 and intends Bc4: prophylaxis in action.  16.
Qg3!? was his first idea.  But I think Karpov wouldn't like this because it
upsets the 'wholeness' of his position. Once the threat of Bh6 is parried the
queen has no role on g3 and there is no kingside attack. 16...Kh8!? then what?
16.Qf2 was then suggested; this very clearly prevents ...Nc5.  However, it's
not clear what White's plan then is, and 16...Qb4!?  16...Bb4  16...Rfd8 all
leave White with no particular place to go.} Bb4 {Thi@ looks a bit obtuse but
it came after a deep think and is actually quite clever. Black wants to meet
17.Bc4 by capturing and then playing 17...Bxc4 18.Qxc4 Qb5 .  In the present
position this would be fully adequate so the question is what White can do to
improve the position before playing Bc4. 17.Rad1 suggests itself but then the
a-pawn is weakened.  It took me a few minutes to see my opponent's idea but I
didn't dwell on my response. If you talk to the white pieces here, there is
clearly one piece screaming for attention. So I reassured the a2-pawn and went
about my business.  Instead îîStartFENîîr4rk1/3nbppp/p1p1b3/q3p3/N3P3/1P1BB3/
P1P1Q1PP/R4R1K b - - 6 16îîEndFENîî 16...Nc5 can be answered by 17.Bxc5 Bxc5
18.Nxc5  or 18.Bc4!? 18...Qxc5 19.Bxa6 .} 17. Rad1 {Just as with the Karpov
game, my positional superiority is largely a result of the relative activity
of my rooks.} Nc5 {Consistent, and the speed at which it was played suggested
that my opponent had seen quite deeply into the position.  Now I have a choice
of winning the a-pawn but losing certain positional advantages and swapping
some pieces off while keeping the initiative.} 18. Bxc5 {18.a3 Bxa3 19.Ra1
wins material, but I'm not sure it promises more that the move played.} Bxc5
19. Bc4 {19.Nxc5 Qxc5 20.Bxa6 would be Materialism in broad daylight. Like
Karpov in the above game, I didn't look too deeply at lines where my opponent
had counterplay as long as I had an alternative where I kept a significant
advantage.  This does win a clear pawn but it also gives Black something he
hasn't had so far in this game: a huge amount of choice.  Alekhine once
observed that when the world's best players win a pawn they invariably look
for the first opportunity to convert it into a positional advantage which is
much easier to play with than an extra pawn.  Given that I already had the
positional advantage, it didn't seem that winning a pawn but damaging my
position was the correct way to proceed.  This will hopefully be clearer once
you've read my thoughts on Materialism.  For those of you who like variations
to justify such comments, I suppose the following may be of interest: 20...
Qa5!? 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Qxc4 Qb5! 23.Qxb5 cxb5 24.Rd5 b4!?  24...Rxa2 Both look
annoyingly active.  Of course White is better here, but Black has good drawing
chances and a familiar type of position, whereas before he had a difficult and
passive position which was much more difficult to play.  I didn't see these
lines at the time, but I decided against 20.Bxa6 on intuitive grounds, by
which I mean that the patterns to which it gave rise didn't meet with my sense
of what the position demanded.} Bd4 {The key moment of the game. I thought for
about twenty minutes here because I knew that this decision would be pivotal
for the game's outcome. It is hard to retrace my thoughts exactly but they
went something like this:  The exchange of light-squared bishops is almost
inevitable.  In principle my knight should be better than his remaining
dark-squared bishop because it has nothing to attack on the dark squares while
my knight can probe his queenside pawns.  However, whether I take on e6 or he
takes on c4, he has the move ...Qb5, which is likely to be quite awkward in
both cases: in the first case my back rank is weak and in the second he
threatens to mess up my pawns by taking on c4.  Of course, before these
thoughts I had an emotional 'tug' telling me to take on e6 and mess up his
pawns but then my king gave me a nudge and reminded me that he wasn't back
rank proof.} 20. g3 {However, it was hard to stop my brain going  20.Bxe6 fxe6
21.Qc4 hitting e6 21...Qb5 as I had foreseen, and what struck me more than
anything was that regardless of the pawns I might munch, his bishop was
clearly dominating my knight on the rim, which played no real part in my
escapades on the kingside.  However, my brain still pulled me into 22.Qxe6+
Kh8 when the materialist wanted to play Partly because of this line, I
originally gave 20.g3 two exclamation marks, and wondered if it may be the
best move I'd ever played, but then when I showed it to Dvoretsky, he helped
to prune my appraisal because when viewed dispassionately, it seems that in
the position 23.Qc4! gives me a better ending than the one I would have
reached in the game had my opponent not let me exchange on e6.  Black has to
take on c4 and then White has an extra pawn as well as all the positional
advantages described in the note to Black's 20th move.  I simply didn't see
this retreat, which may have something to do with associating the capture on
e6 as the alternative to the endgame after  23.c4? I'd imagine most readers
would have reached this position quite quickly.  In some ways this position is
what Hartston and Wason refer to as 'quiescent'. You can stop here as White
has won a pawn and there are no threats to the back rank.  But stopping here
would be a mistake because the pawn is actually not so relevant.  Ask the guy
on b3 if he feels proud of himself and he'll be drowned out by the disgruntled
knight and neglected king.  However, this variation gave me a sense of what I
wanted to achieve: freedom for my knight and safety for my king.  I looked at
various combinations of c3, Bxe6 and Qc4 but I kept coming back to the same
problem - my king.  He was clearly, to borrow a Scottish expression, 'the dude
in the chair'. I don't know if my following move is necessarily best, and I'm
sure there are other ways to retain the advantage, but what I liked about it
was the gestalt factor - that I treated my position as a whole.  I can't be
sure of the influence of Karpov-Spassky on this decision but looking at h3 and
Kh2 in the previous game suggests there was some pattern-recognition going on
too.  So it seems I found this move both on the basis of previous experience
and my ability to think in certain non-conventional ways. Instead is dangerous
for White after 23...Qb4 24.Qxc6 Rxf1+!  24...Qd2 25.Qxa8 25.Rxf1 Rf8 26.Rb1
Qd2 27.Qd6 Qf2 28.h3 h6 I think I'd rather be Black here, despite White's
extra pawns. 23...Qxc4 in general.  Nonetheless, I don't think this detracts
too much from the value of 20.g3, of which I am still proud, and it may even
have been strongest from a practical point of view because I could sense that
my opponent wanted me to take on e6 and wouldn't play into the ending after 20.
..Bxc4.} Rad8 {20.@.Bh3 21.Rxf7 Rxf7 22.Qh5 was 'a good omen'. When trying to
play intuitively îîStartBracketîîthough it's better not to try if possible;
just play if you canîîEndBracketîî you should also look out for 'omens' which
usually manifest themselves as surprising tactical variations that work in
your favour.  Of course you don't play 20.g3 just because 20...Bh3 doesn't
work but if it's the move you want to play anyway, and such a variation is
there, it often means you are on the right lines and should support faith in
your judgement  20...Bxc4 21.Qxc4 Qb5 is critical.  This is the line which may
initially make you feel that you missed the boat by not taking on e6 but
looking more closely suggests that White may be better.  Just as it was in the
Karpov game at a similar stage, superior mobilization is the key factor.  I
have two rooks in the game and Black's bishop has nothing to attack. Play
could then continue 22.c3 Qxc4  22...Be3!? 23.bxc4 Be3} 21. Bxe6 {21.Bxa6 is
met by 21...h5! 22.Bc4 Bg4 23.Qd2 Bb6 24.Qxa5 Bf3+ OK. I admit it, that one is
Fritz's but I didn't even think about 21.Bxa6 because I already had a good
idea behind 20.g3, and when you have a good idea you should often play it.}
fxe6 22. Kg2 {Now I have it all. The better structure, a safe king, the
prospect of pawn-hunting with my queen and the idea of freeing my knight with
c3 if and when the time comes.} Qb5 23. Qg4 {The exclaim is a bit
self-indulgent, but I like the way it all holds together.} Kh8 24. c3 {24.Qxe6
Qe2+ would not be a good day out.} Be3 {24.@.Rxf1 25.Rxf1 Be3 26.Rd1! Rf8 27.
Qf3 Bc5 also gives White a huge advantage. If the rooks come off I'm probably
technically winning and 26...Rf8 is the game îîStartBracketîîat move
25îîEndBracketîî.} 25. Rxf8+ {25.Rf7 was tempting, but it somehow didn't seem
consistent with the position of my knight. Since I saw nothing resembling a
knockout here I preferred to continue more technically. 25...Bh6 26.Rdd7 c5!
is a case in point.  It's not that 25. Rf7 is bad, but before going on such an
escapade it is well worth consulting any pieces which are not part of the plan.
To borrow Seirawan's phrase, it is an important aspect of successful attacks
that you 'invite everyone to the party'.} Rxf8 26. Qf3 Bc5 27. Nxc5 {Given
that almost all strategic operations up until now have depended on the
relationship of these two pieces, I enjoyed moving into the 'new game' which
now begins.} Qxc5 28. b4 Qe7 {Or 28...Rxf3 29.bxc5 Rf8 30.Rd6} 29. Rd7 Qe8 30.
Qd3 {Of course White is clearly better, but it's still important to talk to
your pieces.  Even if you win the whole queenside, the king is a little
worried that there may be an accident on the f- file.} h6 31. Qd6 Kg8 32. Kg1 {
A strange move, but consistent with my previous play. I decided that I would
win the queen ending, and so I was just waiting for his queen to move so that
I could exchange rooks on d8.  There are other ways of playing, but for the
whole game I have been 'playing for two results' in that my opponent has had
little sight of winning chances.  If I gobble pawns I may be winning, but if I
let his queen become active I introduce a third result into the equation and
there seemed to be no need for that, especially given the proximity of the
time-control.} Qg6 33. Rd8 {The point is that that there's no longer a check
on e4.} Rxd8 34. Qxd8+ Kh7 35. Qd3 {I think White is winning here, basically
because I'm a pawn up on the queenside and it's hard for Black to generate
counterplay.  The queen ending is a technical matter somewhat outside the
scope of this chapter so I'll just leave the remaining moves for your interest.
I'm not saying it's easy to win but I think most of the moves speak for
themselves.} h5 36. Kf2 Qg5 37. Qe3 Qd8 38. Ke2 h4 39. gxh4 Qxh4 40. h3 Qf6 41.
a4 Qg6 42. Qf3 Kg8 43. Kd3 Qg1 44. Kc4 Qa1 45. a5 Qa4 46. Kc5 Qb5+ 47. Kd6 c5
48. bxc5 Qxa5 49. c6 Qd8+ 50. Kxe6 Qc7 51. Kd5 Qd8+ 52. Kxe5 a5 53. Qf5 a4 54.
Qd7 Qg5+ 55. Kd6 Qd2+ 56. Kc7 Qxc3 57. Qe6+ Kh7 58. Kd8 Qa5+ 59. c7 a3 60. Qd5
Qxd5+ 61. exd5 a2 62. c8=Q a1=Q 63. Qc6 Qf1 64. d6 Qxh3 65. Qe4+ g6 66. d7 Qc3
67. Ke8 Qh8+ 68. Ke7 Qg7+ 69. Ke6 Qg8+ 70. Kd6 Qb8+ 71. Ke7 Qc7 72. Ke8 Kg7 73.
Qe7+ Kg8 74. Qf7+ {The@e two games highlight many aspects of 'intuition' in
chess.  Firstly I think it shows pattern-recognition in action, as there were
many common features: the role of the c4-square, attention to the white king,
avoiding unnecessary complications, the vulnerability of f7, the long-term
weakness of the black queenside.  However, it should be stressed that my play
in Rowson- Kulaots was not based on the conscious recollection of the
Karpov-Spassky game.  I had somehow assimilated the main features of that
contest but, if asked about Karpov-Spassky, I would probably have remembered
only that the opening was a Modern Scheveningen, and that Karpov played a
stunning Nb1 at some point.  Still, although I cannot be sure, I think that my
unconscious knowledge of Karpov-Spassky helped me to navigate myself through
the main ideas in the position îîStartBracketîîit gave me a 'feel' for the
positionîîEndBracketîî, and thus gave me a sense of what to look for.  This
example of where intuition comes from is consistent with the idea of the brain
as a self-organizing patterning system and seems to accord with most of the
relevant writings that I've come across.  However, we still haven't pinned
down exactly what intuition is or how îîStartBracketîîwhether?îîEndBracketîî
it can be developed.  Krogius îîStartBracketîîThe Psychology of Chess, Chapter
2îîEndBracketîî seems very clear that intuition is 'definitely a component of
thinking' which is distinct from creativity, can be recognized by the relative
speed that decisions are made îîStartBracketîîall quite quick, with exception
of 20.g3îîEndBracketîî by sudden appropriate insights into the position
îîStartBracketîîthe extent of Black's potential counterplayîîEndBracketîî, by
the accompaniment of strong emotional support îîStartBracketîî20.g3!? - felt
more comfortable about my kingîîEndBracketîî for the idea and by a player's
sense of timing îîStartBracketîîmove 20 as key momentîîEndBracketîî.  I
recommend Krogius's chapter for its descriptive content but I'm not sure that
his advice on intuition extends beyond the truism that if you work hard on all
aspects of chess, your feel for the game will improve. Gufeld
îîStartBracketîîIntuition: The Cornerstone of Chess ArtîîEndBracketîî writes
in a more inspiring tone about intuition and remarks that  'The accumulation
of experience develops his positional and combinative intuition. Somewhere
deep in his subconscious is all the necessary information which seems at times
to be forgotten but which, at the necessary moment, appears to prompt the
right decision in non-standard positions.'  Very well, but again, it seems
that you'll only have good intuition if you have a plentiful store of relevant
patterns. I don't know about you, but I don't feel very comfortable with that;
it seems threatening somehow, like you are defined by your past, and cannot
escape it.  Surely intuition is not just chess baggage. We do talk of 'using'
your intuition after all, by which we usually mean going with your gut feeling,
or something similar. Thus it is possible to think of intuition, as well as
being our 'chess unconscious', as a type of 'muscle' that can be exercised. 
Indeed, it seems that what chess-players want is not just to improve their
intuition, but to become more intuitive.  Danish open junior Ch, Lyngby 1996} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Vision"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîVisionîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîEvery time I see a
kid making a mistake and ask him why he played that move his reply starts with
the words ‘Well, I thought...’. ‘Don’t think’ I reply, ‘look’.'
îîEndBlockQuoteîîRICHARD JAMES, author of The Complete Chess Addict and Chess
Teacher  îîStartBlockQuoteîîIf only we could pull out our brains, and use only
our eyes. îîEndBlockQuoteîîPICASSO  Gufeld and Krogius are, however, entirely
in synch with mainstream chess psychology on this matter.  Many trees have
fallen to explain the basis of this idea; which is that what distinguishes a
strong player from a weak one in chess is ‘vision’   StartBracket  or
visualizationîîEndBracketîî and that this ‘vision’ is based upon chess
experience.  The following claim is particularly significant: “The master
doesn’t calculate more than the expert. Rather, he sees more, especially the
more important things.” – De Groot.  Abrahams
îîStartBracketîî1951îîEndBracketîî built a book around ‘vision’ and
defined it as “the unforced intuition of possibilities in the mind’s
eye”.  Levitt   StartBracket  Genius in Chess  EndBracket   refers to the
relevant experience as a player’s ‘intuitive database’, which is the
store of chess patterns a player uses as the basis of his thought-processes. 
In so far as there is evidence for this perspective, Dutch psychologist De
Groot provided the basis of it in an experiment in 1944, which was updated and
refined by Chase and Simon in 1973.  Using a technique based on board
reconstruction, these experiments suggested that the stronger you were, the
more likely you were to view positions in ‘chunks’   StartBracket  e.g.
castled position, group of coordinating pieces, etc.îîEndBracketîî and that
these chunks were seen by the stronger players on the basis of a vast store of
analogous positions with the same types of chunks.  Whereas relative beginners
can only take in a piece or two at a time and very slowly grasp the ways in
which the pieces are interacting, the stronger player can quickly assimilate
lots of different constellations of pieces and their role in the position as a
whole.  So, for example, if the ‘action’ is all on the queenside, and both
sides have castled kingside, the master doesn’t really consider the pawns on
h2, g2 and f2 as separate units but rather as ‘a chunk’.  More generally,
if the h-pawn were to be on h3 rather than h2 he would not consider the
placement of the h-pawn as significant as such but rather that the whole
kingside constellation has changed.  So in a sense when he moves a pawn, he is
moving a whole group of pawns.  Perhaps we can say that when Karpov played h3
in the above game, it wasn’t so much that a pawn on h2 had moved to h3, but
rather that ‘g2/h2’ had become ‘g2/h3’.  So the way a chess position
is perceived differs markedly among players of different strengths.  I have
consulted lots of people on the matter of chess perception, asking them about
the board in their head and whether it is a static image, whether it moves,
has shape, is limited in size, etc.  I have also asked about this image during
chess thought-processes and, although the answers were varied, there is a
common thread.  This has not been a closed and careful experiment but I found
a very interesting pattern which I will ultimately use to explain the
limitations of ‘thinking’ in chess.  It comes down to this general claim:
the stronger the player, the more abstract the visual image. I was excited by
this discovery, even though I didn’t know what to do with it.  This claim is
not new, but there are several different conclusions that one can draw from it.
What struck me most was the difference in the way the board is envisaged by a
strong chess-player who sees a chess set as if it were a prop in a play and
the way he sees it when he starts thinking of the moves.  In the first case it
has a size and shape and two colours in a larger context îîStartBracketîîe. g.
on a tableîîEndBracketîî but in the latter it becomes an amorphous haze of
implicit rules and ideas, without form or substance.  I began to wonder
whether this was just like all knowledge; the more you use it, the more
unconscious it becomes.  Try consciously thinking about walking or breathing,
for example, and you’ll be surprised how difficult it is.  But then it
occurred to me that just as the chess set will have a role in the play, it
does not have a role as such in the chess thinking process.  Maybe we only see
what we consider to be relevant and perhaps only what seems relevant is of
value to us.  This is no more than suggestive, but to support this idea I
would like to mention an Art student in Edinburgh called Roland who had just
started playing.  He told me that in his head bishops were always fluorescent
pink and the knights were emerald green, for both sides, and, although I can
be gullible, I’m sure he wasn’t joking.  He uses chess as inspiration for
his art work and so such vivid visual imagery had great value for him.  And
then when I asked my favourite non-chess-player, she just replied: “I
don’t have a chessboard in my head; why would I? If I want to see a
chessboard I’ll just look at one.”  There are problems here of course, and
these musings are not philosophically air-tight.  For instance, as soon as you
stop to think what you’re thinking, you are no longer thinking in the same
way.  But I wonder whether this vision thing can really help us make sense of
how we think. Maybe it’s just a blind alley, as it were.  Speaking of which,
if such vision is entirely abstract, is it the vision of a blind man? Are we
‘seeing’ without our sense of sight?  And if we don’t see a visual image,
what is it that we look for when we think in chess? What is guiding the
search?  I had hoped that conversing with blind chess players would help me to
clarify this issue, but it seems that blind players ‘think’ in a very
similar manner to sighted chess-players.  Indeed, according to Stan Lovell,
the Chairman of the Braille Chess Association for the UK, the principal
problem for blind players is blundering because they somehow forget to
‘look’   StartBracket  sometimes in memory, usually through
touchîîEndBracketîî at a particular chunk or constellation of pieces.  This is
often associated with the tiredness which comes from trying to retain a
changing image in your head without an external reference point for that image.
However, what struck me most from these conversations was a comment by Graham
Lilley îîStartBracketîîBritain’s strongest blind playerîîEndBracketîî that
first and foremost he ‘sees’ an idea, usually as a familiar pattern, and
only then checks it by means of analysis.  He is also guided by his sense of
value. Moreover, he claims to have no visual image whatsoever in his thinking
processes.  When he says that he first and foremost ‘sees’ an idea, he
means it in the sense of recognition rather than sight.  He moves from one
position to another on the basis of where his thoughts go, and as far there is
a direction to these thoughts he says that he heads towards, as far as
possible, ‘what works’.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Evaluating Value"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîEvaluating ValueîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîWhat is
good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these
things?' îîEndBlockQuoteîîROBERT PIRSIG, Zen and The Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance  So we know that stronger players are inclined to see board
positions by means of ‘chunking’ and we think these chunks are seen
because they are familiar patterns.  Most beginners will try to visualize the
whole board and will often need to orientate themselves one piece at a time. 
This much is now well established, but probing more specifically it is very
curious what chess-players see because it seems to me that they see what they
think to be of value to them.  Professor Susan Greenfield
îîStartBracketîîBrain StoryîîEndBracketîî supports this point:  “We are far
from being passive cerebral sponges. It turns out that we humans ... see not
with our eyes but with our rains... your attentional system provides for where
your eyes move. So ... if something happens in my visual field that is
interesting, I’ll move my eyes there. But why would you move your eyes
there? Only if your attentional system indicated the need to move there ...
what we see must depend on the unique contents of our personalized brains.” 
These ‘unique contents’ may include that elusive x-factor, ‘talent’,
but I suspect it’s largely a question of personal history. What is
interesting to us, what is valuable to us, is related to who we are, and who
we are is mainly a question of genes and experience.  Our chess ‘vision’
has almost nothing to do with our eyes, and lots to do with our sense of value.
A few examples may help to make sense of this idea. Please pay special
attention to the words I have placed in italic.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Minders vs. Gonzalez"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/3nbpp1/2p1pn1p/ppPp4/1P1P3B/P1NBPN2/5PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 13"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{This game was played by Minders (rated 1061) – Gonzalez (rated 1466) . I
have taken this example from the chapter ‘The Curse of the Mindless King
Hunter’ in Jeremy Silman’s hugely instructive book The Amateur’s Mind. 
Silman’s comment is very revealing here: (italics are mine) “White was
blind to the fact that his fortunes were tied to his extra queenside space and
central possibilities.  Instead, he decided that a kingside attack was in
order. Why? My guess is that he likes to go after kings and thought that this
was as good a time to do it as any.  Needless to say, this is not the way to
play good chess!” This strikes me as a fairly normal occurrence and it
isn’t always a bad thing to play the moves you want to play} 13. Ne2 {
“@hite thinks that a knight on g3 will help him create a kingside attack
simply because he has an extra piece on that side of the board. However, you
should lead your pieces to squares where they have a future. Once the poor
horse reaches g3 it will be badly posted since it can’t go to e4, f5 or
h5!”  Another of Silman’s students adopted a similarly ‘desire-based’
approach from the given position:  13.Qc2 Nh5 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 Now the thoughts of
the white-player, rated around 1600: "I want to mate Black on the kingside". 
How do I get there? His h5-knight is awkward so I don’t want to chase it
back into play. I have a knight on c3 that’s doing nothing so I should
re-position it and make it more active.  My e3-pawn keeps his knight on h5 out.
I want to break in the centre, though, and occupy d6. To do this I must get
counterplay in the centre. By playing e3-e4, I get play in the middle but give
his knight access to f4. Silman’s despair amused me: “My heart sank when
he said he wanted to mate Black on the kingside! What justification does he
have for this, other than desire?”  Silman also despairs at the “fear of
ghosts” shown in the worry about allowing ...Nf4, taking two moves to trade
knight for bishop.   In both cases what stands out for me is the emotional
content of the thought and the way in which the thinking proceeds along
evaluative lines.  The players didn’t just ‘compute’ their way to a
decision, they were led to their choice by an evaluation, but not an
‘objective’ evaluation, rather an evaluation based on desire, fear and
aspiration; their sense of value was processed in very human terms.  White
wanted to attack the black king in both cases.  It wasn’t that they thought
that the best way to play was a kingside attack at all. Their evaluation of
the position was flooded with emotional content.  When the 1600 noticed the
possibility of the knight coming to f4, he didn’t stop to think whether it
was a dangerous idea; he just had a feeling that such a turn of events was not
to his liking.  The reader’s first impression may be that this just shows
why these players are rated some 1000 points below the world’s best but let
me show you the thoughts of a player with those
îîStartBracketîîroughlyîîEndBracketîî extra 1000 rating points and see what
you make of the difference.  U.S. Amateur West 1993} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Speelman vs. Miles"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "19"]

1. c4 b6 2. Nc3 Bb7 3. e4 e6 4. d4 Bb4 5. Qc2 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 {In his
preface to his notes to this game Jon Speelman says the following:  “One of
the biggest psychological problems in playing chess is to strike the proper
balance between the moves one wants to play, and those which one believes one
ought to play. Certainly, one should aim to be as objective as possible at all
times. But in the heat of the battle this is, of course, extremely difficult. 
This is one area in which the difference between strong players and weaker
ones is particularly marked... I have a rather clear memory of the feelings
– though of course not the exact calculation – which led me to lash out at
move seven. My decision was the result of a heady cocktail of respect for my
opponent combined with an under-estimation of my position.  When I started to
think at move seven, I felt that it should be rather good for me; but then I
began to have doubts. If Black can get in ...f5 successfully, then he may have
a good game. At some point the extreme idea of h4 occurred to me. And
presumably the more I looked at it, the more I wanted to play it. Eventually,
I decided to give in to my cruder instincts. This is where the fun starts. I
liked my centre but got nervous about ...f5. So:”} 7. h4 {I love the way
Spess says “so”, as if 7 h4 followed deductively from his feelings about
the position. Compare this to something like: 'When one side has the two
bishops he must strive to demonstrate the superiority of the bishop without a
counterpart.'  Speelman aims to weaken Black’s dark squares by pushing the
h-pawn to h6, thus improving the scope of his dark-squared bishop. The move
has a further benefit in that there may a possibility of developing the
king’s rook to h3. Moreover, if Black is to stop the h-pawn from going to h6,
he will have to move his own h-pawn, thus providing future targets for
White’s dark-squared bishop and weakening the g6-square in the event of
Black playing ...f5.  Perhaps Speelman had also foreseen variations with
tactical problems based on the a8-h1 diagonal and felt it prudent to remove
his rook from the diagonal of the b7- bishop. The move has a further crucial
benefit in that Black’s most natural continuation,} O-O {7...f5 8.exf5 Nxf5
9.Bg5 can be met with the developing move 9. Bg5. This is my own
interpretation, as provided by my left cortex. Which gives a truer account of
Speelman’s decision: the fun, the liking and the nerves or the invented
verbal explanation?} 8. Rh3 {“Once loosed from the fetters of playing
‘properly’, I carried on playing the moves I wanted to!” Why did he
‘want’ to play these moves?  Presumably this rook-lift is quite consistent
with the previous move, but did he ‘think’ his way to these two moves? Not
in any conventional sense;  I think it would be accurate to say that he
‘felt’ his way there, but even that would be misleading, because, as we
saw in the Preface, thought and feeling are not as separate as we tend to
assume.} d6 9. Bd3 e5 10. f4 {“@lthough this is consequent, it is also
extremely provocative. Presumably 7.h4 and 8.Rh3 had caused a serious rush of
adrenaline.”  Crazy juice is drenching the board. I wonder if Speelman had
seen this position when he chose 7.h4. I doubt it; in fact I have a suspicion
that he probably played all of his moves from 7 to 10 rather slowly and each
of them took up a great deal of nervous energy.  Indeed, he admits that he had
already used an hour and ten minutes by this stage. There is much to be said
here. My thoughts on objectivity will be elaborated on in Chapter 5 but for
now I should say that during a game I don’t think it is possible for a
chess-player to be absolutely objective. This is why Speelman’s “objective
as far as possible” is noteworthy, as is his claim that even this is
“extremely difficult”.  I think objectivity in thought in general may be
possible, for example in analyzing a pawn ending which was not your own, but
even there it doesn’t come naturally because you will usually have certain
preconceived opinions about what the evaluation should be and will tend to
direct your thoughts towards the lines which fit your evaluation.  More to the
point, your evaluation will be related to desire; you will want to see certain
things and you will look in accordance with your emotional reaction to the
position. In other words your thoughts always have emotional content. More
specifically, the role of desire in decision-making has been somewhat
neglected.   Perhaps this can be best understood with some sort of theory of
chess aesthetics but our attraction to certain moves may also work in a
similar way to sexual attraction.  I’ll only make the most tentative dip
into this, the deepest of waters, but there may be some mileage here because
in both cases the attraction can be rather inexplicable, inducing emotions we
cannot fully rationalize and perhaps in both cases we are also motivated by
some sense of ‘survival’.  Leaving the sex to one side, the idea of
evaluations being formed on the basis of previous experience may be in some
sense Darwinian. A grandmaster reaches his present form over the course of
hundreds of thousands of games îîStartBracketîîyearsîîEndBracketîî in the
chess jungle.  During this time they have slowly but imperceptibly improved
îîStartBracketîîadapted, become ‘fitter’îîEndBracketîî and in deciding on
a move over the board they are unconsciously calling on the experience of
their past defeats and victories îîStartBracketîîancestry, memesîîEndBracketîî
to reach a decision which will maximize their chances of avoiding defeat
îîStartBracketîîsurvivalîîEndBracketîî and achieving victory
îîStartBracketîîprocreationîîEndBracketîî.  Please don’t quote me on all
this though, even though I’m writing it in my own book. My real aim is to
try to explain and explore the idea that all chess thinking is evaluative.  I
have come to the opinion that evaluation is not a separate thought-process
which we suddenly switch into when deemed important, but an integral one which
is the pilot of our thoughts, and not just the pilot, but the copilot,
stewardess, meal, and view out the window.  It’s the whole watermelon,
it’s ever-present, it’s the red thread of our thinking, without which we
wouldn’t think at all.  When we calculate, plan, think abstractly, worry,
make judgements, check for blunders, compare pieces and pawn-structures we are
always thinking about the relative value of things. This move is ‘better’
than that one îîStartBracketîîmore valueîîEndBracketîî.  I don’t ‘trust’
this line îîStartBracketîîsuspicious about its valueîîEndBracketîî I need to
exchange rooks îîStartBracketîîmy position would have more value if the rooks
came offîîEndBracketîî.  This may seem counterintuitive at first because we
generally think of evaluation as something you stop to do, perhaps after
calculating or after a change in pawn-structure.  But if you look at your
thoughts closely you’ll realize that you are making some sort of value
judgement all the time.  In most players this might be a largely unconscious
process but there is definitely some sort of ‘pre-intellectual awareness’
in your chess thoughts.  You gauge the likely value of different positions and
ideas before you stop to make sense of them; your conscious and unconscious
evaluations may change but the fundamental process underlying your thoughts is
always there.  You may or may not realize it, but you are evaluating these
words as you read them.  Here is the rub: all thought in chess is evaluative. 
What is being sought is value. The ‘vision’ of the strongest players is
abstract because value has no visible form. You cannot ‘see’ value any
more than you can think it.  Our appreciation of value is ultimately a
question of feeling. I think this is something like what Julian Hodgson meant
when he told me that chess at the higher levels is “like a river” in which
you “go with the flow”.   You follow the value. It’s not that you look
at several different things, stop after each of them and evaluate; but rather
your sense of value will determine what you look at and how long you look at
it.  When I played a six-game match with Michael Adams I was amazed at how
little he saw.  Yes, that’s right, shock horror gasp! – he’s only world
top ten.  But seriously, I actually think I saw more in general but what I saw
was of relatively little value whereas Mickey followed the river; he knew
where his thoughts should go. Mickey beat me very convincingly: 5
îîStartBracketîîqualityîîEndBracketîî – 1
îîStartBracketîîquantityîîEndBracketîî.  Indeed, after the match, when we were
discussing chess, Mickey fully admitted not seeing very much in general;
“that would have been an eye-opener for you”, he said, with his eyes wide
open.   At the time I could only blink, but I think I now have a clearer idea
of what he means.  At the risk of overdoing the metaphors, the evaluation
doesn’t happen when the train inspector checks the tickets, the evaluation
is the train driver without which you wouldn’t move at all or know how to
get to where you want to go.  And just like the train, you almost never see
the driver. Most of what your brain processes is unseen in that you are
evaluating unconsciously and using this unconscious to reach your assessments.
This reminds me of a game I played against Julian Hodgson in which I found a
very creative idea that almost had a huge hole but still worked well because
of a fairly stunning resource.  I’m sorry I can’t trace the actual
position but I remember Julian congratulating me on the idea and saying he
especially liked the fact that he couldn’t do X because of Y.  Then when I
told him that although I was vaguely aware of X I didn’t think I’d seen Y
he assured me that I had seen it, but just didn’t realize it because “most
calculation is unconscious”.   I’m not saying that unconscious calculation
is the same as evaluation but certainly the two seem to operate together
somehow.  The reason I mention the idea of all thought being evaluative in the
context of emotion is that evaluation is, at least partly, some sort of
emotional process.  When you say “it doesn’t feel right”, you are
expressing what might best be called an ‘emotional thought’.  And this of
course links back to the Preface, where I suggested that all thought had some
sort of emotional content.  Chess thinking is evaluative because evaluation is
what happens when thought and emotion get together. And thought and emotion
are always together.   I was delighted to discover that I shared this idea
with the late but legendary Jan-Hein Donner, who writes as follows in The King
îîStartBracketîîpage 336îîEndBracketîî: “A chess-player’s thinking – in
so far as it is a mental activity – is indeed mainly preoccupied with
calculation.  When he is pondering his next move, there is little else going
on his mind than a constant ‘if I do this then he’ll do that’ and so on.
This is primarily experimental by nature, since he is not allowed to touch the
pieces and is forced for this reason to move them in his head.  But this
silent musing is based on a kind of sniffing – tactile, or tactile-mental
activity of a totally different, largely unconscious nature; a background
heavily laden with emotions, a form of perception rather than of thinking,
since it is essentially purely evaluating by nature.  For all this calculation
must start from certain evaluations, otherwise it would not even know when to
stop.”  One reason that players may resist this idea is because it’s easy
to be bound by a popular duality, namely that there are two ways of playing
chess – the positional and the tactical.  Many assume that the former is
based on pattern-recognition and ‘feel’ while the latter is just random
computation, flashy tactics and a question of who can calculate better.  It is
considered by many to be a significant divide.  But this is nonsense, and
that’s being polite. A good move is a good move before it is any particular
type of move, and a good position is a good position before it is any
particular type of position.  Our appraisal of quality always precedes our
identification of types.  Both these types are pattern-based in any case. 
Moreover, it is extremely rare to find a good positional idea that doesn’t
include an important tactic, and rare that tactics appear contrary to the
spirit of the position.  British Ch, Morecambe 1975} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Speelman vs. Miles"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "19"]

1. c4 b6 2. Nc3 Bb7 3. e4 e6 4. d4 Bb4 5. Qc2 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 {In his
preface to his notes to this game Jon Speelman says the following:  “One of
the biggest psychological problems in playing chess is to strike the proper
balance between the moves one wants to play, and those which one believes one
ought to play. Certainly, one should aim to be as objective as possible at all
times. But in the heat of the battle this is, of course, extremely difficult. 
This is one area in which the difference between strong players and weaker
ones is particularly marked... I have a rather clear memory of the feelings
– though of course not the exact calculation – which led me to lash out at
move seven. My decision was the result of a heady cocktail of respect for my
opponent combined with an under-estimation of my position.  When I started to
think at move seven, I felt that it should be rather good for me; but then I
began to have doubts. If Black can get in ...f5 successfully, then he may have
a good game. At some point the extreme idea of h4 occurred to me. And
presumably the more I looked at it, the more I wanted to play it. Eventually,
I decided to give in to my cruder instincts. This is where the fun starts. I
liked my centre but got nervous about ...f5. So:”} 7. h4 {I love the way
Spess says “so”, as if 7 h4 followed deductively from his feelings about
the position. Compare this to something like: 'When one side has the two
bishops he must strive to demonstrate the superiority of the bishop without a
counterpart.'  Speelman aims to weaken Black’s dark squares by pushing the
h-pawn to h6, thus improving the scope of his dark-squared bishop. The move
has a further benefit in that there may a possibility of developing the
king’s rook to h3. Moreover, if Black is to stop the h-pawn from going to h6,
he will have to move his own h-pawn, thus providing future targets for
White’s dark-squared bishop and weakening the g6-square in the event of
Black playing ...f5.  Perhaps Speelman had also foreseen variations with
tactical problems based on the a8-h1 diagonal and felt it prudent to remove
his rook from the diagonal of the b7- bishop. The move has a further crucial
benefit in that Black’s most natural continuation,} O-O {7...f5 8.exf5 Nxf5
9.Bg5 can be met with the developing move 9. Bg5. This is my own
interpretation, as provided by my left cortex. Which gives a truer account of
Speelman’s decision: the fun, the liking and the nerves or the invented
verbal explanation?} 8. Rh3 {“Once loosed from the fetters of playing
‘properly’, I carried on playing the moves I wanted to!” Why did he
‘want’ to play these moves?  Presumably this rook-lift is quite consistent
with the previous move, but did he ‘think’ his way to these two moves? Not
in any conventional sense;  I think it would be accurate to say that he
‘felt’ his way there, but even that would be misleading, because, as we
saw in the Preface, thought and feeling are not as separate as we tend to
assume.} d6 9. Bd3 e5 10. f4 {“@lthough this is consequent, it is also
extremely provocative. Presumably 7.h4 and 8.Rh3 had caused a serious rush of
adrenaline.”  Crazy juice is drenching the board. I wonder if Speelman had
seen this position when he chose 7.h4. I doubt it; in fact I have a suspicion
that he probably played all of his moves from 7 to 10 rather slowly and each
of them took up a great deal of nervous energy.  Indeed, he admits that he had
already used an hour and ten minutes by this stage. There is much to be said
here. My thoughts on objectivity will be elaborated on in Chapter 5 but for
now I should say that during a game I don’t think it is possible for a
chess-player to be absolutely objective. This is why Speelman’s “objective
as far as possible” is noteworthy, as is his claim that even this is
“extremely difficult”.  I think objectivity in thought in general may be
possible, for example in analyzing a pawn ending which was not your own, but
even there it doesn’t come naturally because you will usually have certain
preconceived opinions about what the evaluation should be and will tend to
direct your thoughts towards the lines which fit your evaluation.  More to the
point, your evaluation will be related to desire; you will want to see certain
things and you will look in accordance with your emotional reaction to the
position. In other words your thoughts always have emotional content. More
specifically, the role of desire in decision-making has been somewhat
neglected.   Perhaps this can be best understood with some sort of theory of
chess aesthetics but our attraction to certain moves may also work in a
similar way to sexual attraction.  I’ll only make the most tentative dip
into this, the deepest of waters, but there may be some mileage here because
in both cases the attraction can be rather inexplicable, inducing emotions we
cannot fully rationalize and perhaps in both cases we are also motivated by
some sense of ‘survival’.  Leaving the sex to one side, the idea of
evaluations being formed on the basis of previous experience may be in some
sense Darwinian. A grandmaster reaches his present form over the course of
hundreds of thousands of games îîStartBracketîîyearsîîEndBracketîî in the
chess jungle.  During this time they have slowly but imperceptibly improved
îîStartBracketîîadapted, become ‘fitter’îîEndBracketîî and in deciding on
a move over the board they are unconsciously calling on the experience of
their past defeats and victories îîStartBracketîîancestry, memesîîEndBracketîî
to reach a decision which will maximize their chances of avoiding defeat
îîStartBracketîîsurvivalîîEndBracketîî and achieving victory
îîStartBracketîîprocreationîîEndBracketîî.  Please don’t quote me on all
this though, even though I’m writing it in my own book. My real aim is to
try to explain and explore the idea that all chess thinking is evaluative.  I
have come to the opinion that evaluation is not a separate thought-process
which we suddenly switch into when deemed important, but an integral one which
is the pilot of our thoughts, and not just the pilot, but the copilot,
stewardess, meal, and view out the window.  It’s the whole watermelon,
it’s ever-present, it’s the red thread of our thinking, without which we
wouldn’t think at all.  When we calculate, plan, think abstractly, worry,
make judgements, check for blunders, compare pieces and pawn-structures we are
always thinking about the relative value of things. This move is ‘better’
than that one îîStartBracketîîmore valueîîEndBracketîî.  I don’t ‘trust’
this line îîStartBracketîîsuspicious about its valueîîEndBracketîî I need to
exchange rooks îîStartBracketîîmy position would have more value if the rooks
came offîîEndBracketîî.  This may seem counterintuitive at first because we
generally think of evaluation as something you stop to do, perhaps after
calculating or after a change in pawn-structure.  But if you look at your
thoughts closely you’ll realize that you are making some sort of value
judgement all the time.  In most players this might be a largely unconscious
process but there is definitely some sort of ‘pre-intellectual awareness’
in your chess thoughts.  You gauge the likely value of different positions and
ideas before you stop to make sense of them; your conscious and unconscious
evaluations may change but the fundamental process underlying your thoughts is
always there.  You may or may not realize it, but you are evaluating these
words as you read them.  Here is the rub: all thought in chess is evaluative. 
What is being sought is value. The ‘vision’ of the strongest players is
abstract because value has no visible form. You cannot ‘see’ value any
more than you can think it.  Our appreciation of value is ultimately a
question of feeling. I think this is something like what Julian Hodgson meant
when he told me that chess at the higher levels is “like a river” in which
you “go with the flow”.   You follow the value. It’s not that you look
at several different things, stop after each of them and evaluate; but rather
your sense of value will determine what you look at and how long you look at
it.  When I played a six-game match with Michael Adams I was amazed at how
little he saw.  Yes, that’s right, shock horror gasp! – he’s only world
top ten.  But seriously, I actually think I saw more in general but what I saw
was of relatively little value whereas Mickey followed the river; he knew
where his thoughts should go. Mickey beat me very convincingly: 5
îîStartBracketîîqualityîîEndBracketîî – 1
îîStartBracketîîquantityîîEndBracketîî.  Indeed, after the match, when we were
discussing chess, Mickey fully admitted not seeing very much in general;
“that would have been an eye-opener for you”, he said, with his eyes wide
open.   At the time I could only blink, but I think I now have a clearer idea
of what he means.  At the risk of overdoing the metaphors, the evaluation
doesn’t happen when the train inspector checks the tickets, the evaluation
is the train driver without which you wouldn’t move at all or know how to
get to where you want to go.  And just like the train, you almost never see
the driver. Most of what your brain processes is unseen in that you are
evaluating unconsciously and using this unconscious to reach your assessments.
This reminds me of a game I played against Julian Hodgson in which I found a
very creative idea that almost had a huge hole but still worked well because
of a fairly stunning resource.  I’m sorry I can’t trace the actual
position but I remember Julian congratulating me on the idea and saying he
especially liked the fact that he couldn’t do X because of Y.  Then when I
told him that although I was vaguely aware of X I didn’t think I’d seen Y
he assured me that I had seen it, but just didn’t realize it because “most
calculation is unconscious”.   I’m not saying that unconscious calculation
is the same as evaluation but certainly the two seem to operate together
somehow.  The reason I mention the idea of all thought being evaluative in the
context of emotion is that evaluation is, at least partly, some sort of
emotional process.  When you say “it doesn’t feel right”, you are
expressing what might best be called an ‘emotional thought’.  And this of
course links back to the Preface, where I suggested that all thought had some
sort of emotional content.  Chess thinking is evaluative because evaluation is
what happens when thought and emotion get together. And thought and emotion
are always together.   I was delighted to discover that I shared this idea
with the late but legendary Jan-Hein Donner, who writes as follows in The King
îîStartBracketîîpage 336îîEndBracketîî: “A chess-player’s thinking – in
so far as it is a mental activity – is indeed mainly preoccupied with
calculation.  When he is pondering his next move, there is little else going
on his mind than a constant ‘if I do this then he’ll do that’ and so on.
This is primarily experimental by nature, since he is not allowed to touch the
pieces and is forced for this reason to move them in his head.  But this
silent musing is based on a kind of sniffing – tactile, or tactile-mental
activity of a totally different, largely unconscious nature; a background
heavily laden with emotions, a form of perception rather than of thinking,
since it is essentially purely evaluating by nature.  For all this calculation
must start from certain evaluations, otherwise it would not even know when to
stop.”  One reason that players may resist this idea is because it’s easy
to be bound by a popular duality, namely that there are two ways of playing
chess – the positional and the tactical.  Many assume that the former is
based on pattern-recognition and ‘feel’ while the latter is just random
computation, flashy tactics and a question of who can calculate better.  It is
considered by many to be a significant divide.  But this is nonsense, and
that’s being polite. A good move is a good move before it is any particular
type of move, and a good position is a good position before it is any
particular type of position.  Our appraisal of quality always precedes our
identification of types.  Both these types are pattern-based in any case. 
Moreover, it is extremely rare to find a good positional idea that doesn’t
include an important tactic, and rare that tactics appear contrary to the
spirit of the position.  British Ch, Morecambe 1975} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Cultivating Intuition"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîCultivating IntuitionîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîAsk
yourself: How does a man learn to get a ‘nose’for something? And how can
this nose be used?' îîEndBlockQuoteîîWITTGENSTEIN, Philosophical
Investigations  So what do we do now? All chess thinking is evaluative;
whoopee-do. How will this help 1800Joe become Joseph2000? Or Savage, the
mindless king-hunter, become mindful Sagave?  I have no easy answer, but my
first suggestion is to take the idea of ‘talking with your pieces’
seriously.  When you talk to your pieces, you can bring unconscious value
judge ments to the surface of your thoughts and let your pieces ‘tell’ you
what they ‘think’ about how to proceed.  The idea is closely related to
‘the value of the pieces’, which we will discuss in Chapter 4, but for now
there is a more basic point.  Once you realize that evaluating well is the key
to playing good moves, you need to learn to evaluate.  Simple in one sense,
but there’s a grave danger that if you evaluate in the conventional sense 
(stop and weigh imbalances, etc.) you will slip into your old conscious
‘thinking’ patterns with all its rules, memories and painful impressions. 
Sometimes it is better to take a fresh look at the position, and talking to
your pieces can be a very effective way to do it.  If this sounds way too
wacky for a ‘serious’ game like chess, maybe you’d believe a more
‘serious’ writer.  How about Nimzowitsch? Pawn-chains, blockaders,
prophylaxis, whatever; Nimzowitsch did something very much like talking with
his pieces too:  “It may seem strange, but to me the chess pieces have
living souls; they have wishes and desires, slumbering in their subconscious,
to be understood only by me.  They want something without understanding why. I
don’t understand either, but I know what they want.” (My System) .  Donner
seems to agree, and suggests that “anyone doing manual work, in whatever
field, even if it were only with the pen, will immediately recognize the
experience.”  Moreover, Donner seems to consider this type of awareness of
the “desires” of inanimate objects as part of “a finely tuned
perceptional system” (The King) .  Let’s consider the following game and
see how this idea fits in.  My notes are somewhat superficial, partly because
I didn’t want to distract from Tiger’s ‘conversation’, and also
because a full analysis would take several pages without lending itself to
verbal explanation.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "P.H. Nielsen vs. Hillarp Pers"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "N1bq1rk1/1p3pbp/2pP2p1/4p3/1n2Pn2/5N2/P3BPPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "9"]

{Just look at the position after 16 cxd6. What are the problems of the
position? And how can Black take advantage of it?} 1... Bf5 {Brilliant! This
move also seems to be motivated by a chat with the g7-bishop, which is brought
to life in spectacular style.   The immediate 16...Nbd5 is not as good, if not
for tactical reasons then because White forces it there with the fairly
irrelevant a3 next move and also because it leaves the c8-bishop unemployed. 
Just take a look if White captures the bishop:} 2. exf5 e4 3. Rb1 Nbd5 {
With multiple threats.} 4. Bc4 exf3 5. Qxf3 Qxa8 {Followed by ...b5. Black is
better here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "P.H. Nielsen vs. Hillarp Pers"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "N2q1rk1/1p3pbp/2pP2p1/4pb2/1n2Pn2/P4N2/4BPPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White's last move was 17.a3. Remember to 'talk to your pieces' if you want to
find the solution.} 1... Nbd5 {Forcing White to make the decision and taking
advantage again that tactical resources work due to the multiple threats.} 2.
exd5 e4 3. Rc1 Qxa8 {White will have a hard time regrouping. Black is better
here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "P.H. Nielsen vs. Hillarp Pers"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "66"]

1. c4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. b4 a5 10. Ba3 Nh5 11. c5 axb4 12. Bxb4 Nf4 13. Nb5 c6 14. Nc7 Nexd5 15.
Nxa8 Nxb4 16. cxd6 Bf5 {This move also seems to be motivated by a chat with
the g7-bishop, which is brought to life in spectacular style. Tiger's comment
on the following flash of inspirational play was this:   'I had prepared 16...
Bg4 , which I found over the board. As Winnie the Pooh thought, coming down
the stairs head first: 'there must be some other way'. I got the same feeling.
Just look at the position after 16.cxd6; Black's only problem is the knight on
b4. Alas, it has to go to d5!'  The immediate 16...Nbd5 is not as good, if not
for tactical reasons then because White forces it there with the fairly
irrelevant a3 next move and also because it leaves the c8-bishop unemployed.}
17. a3 {17.exf5 Or 17...e4 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Rb1 Nxa2  19...Nbd5!? 20.Bc4 Nc3 21.
Qd2 Qf6 black is winning.} Nbd5 18. exd5 e4 19. Rc1 {After  19.Ra2 exf3 20.
Bxf3 Qxa8 21.dxc6 bxc6 Black is better} Qxa8 20. dxc6 Qxa3 21. Nh4 {21.d7 Qxc1
22.d8=Q Nxe2+ 23.Qxe2 Qxf1+ 24.Kxf1 Rxd8 25.Ng5 bxc6 leaves Black much better.
Queens are not so great when all the play is on one side of the board; their
long-range abilities are somewhat redundant when everything is happening in a
small sector.} Be6 {21...Qxc1 looks more convincing, but even if this grisly
retreat may let White off the hook, I like the way that it 'shuns' the way
ward knight on h4.} 22. Bc4 bxc6 23. Bxe6 {23.Re1 is an improvement. Then 23...
Bd5 Looks forced, when 24.g3 Nd3 25.Bxd3 exd3 26.d7 leaves Black struggling to
draw.} Qxc1 24. Qxc1 Ne2+ 25. Kh1 Nxc1 26. Bd7 Nd3 27. Bxc6 f5 28. g3 Rb8 29.
Ng2 Bd4 30. Nf4 Nxf2+ 31. Kg2 Rb2 32. Bd5+ Kh8 33. Bc4 Ng4+ {I remember
telling Tiger this idea of 'talking to your pieces' and he seemed to take to
it immediately.  He didn't speak about it, but I could tell he understood its
value.  That was in Copenhagen in 1995. Tiger was 2400.  At the time of
writing he is around 2550 and a grandmaster who, in my opinion, has not
reached his peak.  Most of that improvement can be attributed to copious
amounts of hard work and pattern assimilation.  His intuition has been
improved in this way but, to paraphrase Descartes, it's not enough to have
good intuition, one must also use it well.  It seems that the idea of talking
with your pieces has helped Tiger to do this.  Here's what he had to say when
I asked him to elaborate on his liking for the technique:  'I think it's
connected to the concept of 'weak squares', though not exclusively.  When you
ask your knights what they want, asking for the general direction of their
yearnings, you will get a different view of the situation on the board.  It
especially helps me when I'm getting too - how do you say it - exact. When
calculation takes up too much of my thinking.  If you play a very sharp
opening and then suddenly find yourself in a strategically difficult position
where the tempo is no longer of the greatest importance, then it's a very good
idea to change gear by asking your pieces where they'd like to be.  I use this
trick a lot. In endgames I talk continually to my pieces.  I guess this is
what all strong players do, to some extent; at least it's a very good
explanation of what one is really trying to do in the endgame when finding the
optimal constellation of the pieces.  'As well in the middlegame as in the
endgame it's a good way off in ding out which pieces to exchange and which to
keep.  A piece that has no will, that finds no meaning in roaming the board,
should immediately be exchanged. '  The concept of 'talking to your pieces'
can be stretched infinitely, but I usually use it to 'decomputerify' my
thoughts and make chess more animated.'  Politiken Cup, Copenhagen 1998} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Hillarp Persson -"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3kn1r/1p1bp1b1/p1ppp1p1/q5Bp/3P2nP/2NB1N2/PPPQ1PP1/1K1RR3 b kq - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Put yourself in Black’s shoes. You’ve played a provocative opening and
your opponent has replied classically, centralizing his pieces and, by means
of a positional pawn sacrifice, has rendered your pieces rather passive.  Talk
with your pieces. The conflicts with the desires of the rooks, which would
like access to f8 in order to use the half-open f-file.} 1... Rh7 {In such
situations you may feel uncomfortable generally but it is important to put
your finger on the source of the discontent.  In this case I think the black
king is a little uncomfortable in spite of his weighty pawn shield mainly
because of the superior scope of the white rooks and the proximity of the
weaknesses on g6 and g5.  But is the king really the issue? Talk to your
knight on f8 and he'll tell you that his hands are tied.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Hillarp Persson -"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3kn1b/1p1bp2r/p1ppp1p1/q6p/3P2nP/2NB1N2/PPPBQPP1/1K1RR3 b q - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{A computer may not register that, but humans tend to sense these things
acutely.  How we can do with our misplaced h-rook and how may be Black's plan?
} 1... Rf7 2. Ne4 Qb6 {An important move, keeping an eye on d4 and b2. White's
king may feel ever so slightly perturbed now. After all, that d4-pawn is all
that's preventing ... Qxb2#.  And now the f7-rook may remove the defender on
f3 and there is some sort of hidden pressure on f2 too. Black's queen, knight
and rook all have an eye on it.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Hillarp Persson -"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3kn1b/1p1bp3/1qpppnp1/p4rNp/3P3P/2NB1P2/PPP1Q1P1/1KBRR3 b q - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black has brought the rook from h8 to f5. How can they resist the central
pressure now?} 1... Rd5 {Fantastic chess. To be able to play in such a manner
you have to be relatively resistant to Materialism.   For now, look back to
move 14 and compare the value of the h8-rook to the c3-knight.  Now look at
the value of the rook on d5 and consider that it can only be taken by
improving Black's coordination and losing the d4-pawn.} 2. Nxd5 Nxd5 {The d4
pawn is a weakness. Black is close to equalize.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Hillarp Persson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "90"]

{If the above game wasn’t enough to show this appraisal in action, consider
the following gem:} 1. d4 d6 2. e4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Be3 a6 5. Qd2 Nd7 6. h4 h5
7. Nf3 Ngf6 8. e5 Ng4 9. e6 fxe6 10. Bd3 Nf8 11. O-O-O Bd7 12. Rhe1 c6 13. Bg5
Qa5 14. Kb1 Rh7 {Put yourself in Black's shoes. You've played a provocative
opening and your opponent has replied classically, centralizing his pieces and,
by means of a positional pawn sacrifice, has rendered your pieces rather
passive.  In such situations you may feel uncomfortable generally but it is
important to put your finger on the source of the discontent.  In this case I
think the black king is a little uncomfortable in spite of his weighty pawn
shield mainly because of the superior scope of the white rooks and the
proximity of the weaknesses on g6 and g5.  But is the king really the issue?
Talk to your knight on f8 and he'll tell you that his hands are tied. You tell
him that he's doing a good and important job and that you need him to stay
there, guarding e6 and g6.  But of course, this conflicts with the desires of
the rooks, which would like access to f8 in order to use the half-open f-file.
Also, you would like to castle queenside but e7 hangs. So, the problem boils
down to the superiority of White's rooks and the difficulty in using your own
rooks. How are you going to deal with this? Talk with your a8-rook.  He'll
probably tell you that he's happy where he is, because he wants to 'cover' the
king by keeping the ...O-O-O option and he may also be brought to life by
advancing one of the queenside pawns at some stage.  Your h8-rook is rather
less sure of its dharma because as long as the knight is on f8, the... O-O
option is unavailable. So, what can you do? Have a good chat with the guy on
h8 and see what you come up with...} 15. Qe2 Bh8 16. Bd2 Rf7 17. Ne4 Qb6 {
An important move, keeping an eye on d4 and b2. White's king may feel ever so
slightly perturbed now.  After all, that d4-pawn is all that's preventing ...
Qxb2#.  A computer may not register that, but humans tend to sense these
things acutely.  And now the f7-rook may remove the defender on f3 and there
is some sort of hidden pressure on f2 too. Black's queen, knight and rook all
have an eye on it.} 18. Bc1 {Hodgson is known for his fearsome attacks, but if
you look at his games more closely, he is very protective of his soft spots,
and very conscious of the safety of his own king.  If 18.Neg5 Bxd4! 19.Nxd4
Rxf2! 20.Qe4 d5! the queen is trapped.  21.Qxg6+ Nxg6 22.Bxg6+ Kd8 23.Ndxe6+
Kc8 Black is winning.  Or 19.c3?! Bxf2! Black has too many pawns.} a5 {A
l@ttle mysterious, but gaining space îîStartBracketîîsomething Black
needsîîEndBracketîî and perhaps the a8-rook can come into play via a5 at some
point.} 19. Nfg5 {Or 19.Neg5 Rf5!? 20.Bxf5 gxf5 Black has some compensation
because of the centralized pawn structure.  20...Rf6 is also possible.} Rf5 20.
f3 Nf6 21. Nc3 Rd5 {Fantastic chess. To be able to play in such a manner you
have to be relatively resistant to Materialism For now, look back to move 14
and compare the value of the h8-rook to the c3-knight.  Now look at the value
of the rook on d5 and consider that it can only be taken by improving Black's
coordination and losing the d4-pawn.} 22. Nxd5 Nxd5 23. Qd2 Bxd4 24. Bxg6+ Nxg6
25. Qxd4 Qxd4 26. Rxd4 e5 27. Rd2 b5 {A d@fficult position to assess. I'd
imagine it's about equal, but I like Black's centre and it would be more fun
to be Black given that he was the main instigator of the turn of events which
led to this position.  On a more technical point, in such cases where one side
is the exchange up but there are opposite-coloured bishops on the board, the
material imbalance can be hard to understand.  If there is nothing on the
board but rook, bishop and king, against bishop, knight and king where the
bishops are of opposite colours, GM Keith Arkell tells me that the side with
the extra exchange can force a win; something which he couldn't do if the
bishops were of the same colour.  However, when the position is relatively
closed, like it is here, the opposite-coloured bishops can favour the side
without the rook îîStartBracketîîit is difficult to play g4, for example, and
c2 is vulnerableîîEndBracketîî.  Perhaps it's similar to opposite-coloured
bishops in general, in that they tend to favour the side with the initiative.}
28. g3 b4 {Somehow I prefer  28...a4!? After 29.a3  29.b3 b4!? Bf5 30.Ne4 Kd7
it is not clear how White will make use of his bishop.} 29. Rd3 Bf5 30. Ne4 Kd7
31. Ka1 {Now you should talk to your pieces again. Which is most urgently in
need of attention?} Nf8 32. c4 bxc3 33. bxc3 Ne6 34. Ba3 Rg8 {I have the
impression that this was played rather quickly; Tiger is usually in
time-trouble around this stage. The rook seems to want to go to g8 but perhaps
there was a more urgent consideration because now White's position springs to
life.  34...Nb6!?  34...Kc7 Or 35.c4 Nf6!? keeps Black in control.  Black
might even be clearly better, or more; if White can be prevented from playing
c4 and g4 then Black's position will just keep on getting better.  This type
of position, where the advantage looks small, but the trend may be
irreversible, is more common than most authors realize.  Part of me wants to
say that Black is slightly better and part of me wants to say that he's
winning.} 35. c4 Bxe4 36. Rxe4 Nb4 37. Bxb4 axb4 38. Rxe5 Rxg3 39. Ra5 c5 40.
Ra7+ Nc7 41. a3 Kc6 42. axb4 cxb4 43. Kb2 e5 {Tiger is clearly trying to make
full use of all of his pieces in this game. It was also possible just to go
for the h-pawn.} 44. Rb3 e4 45. Re3 exf3 {A draw was agreed here, which is
just as well in a sense because both players missed 46.Re7 f2 47.Rexc7+ Kb6 47.
Rcb7+ Kc6 48.Rf7 which appears to win on the spot, and somehow this result
would be displeasing, given Black's superlative conception earlier in the game.
To add further weight to the idea of talking with your pieces, Emanuel Lasker
based his theory of chess aesthetics on the idea of 'achievement', or more
specifically 'the achievement of the pieces'.  Lasker's ideal is for the
pieces to achieve a task of vital importance when there is only one way for
them to do so. In a sense this is what talking to your pieces is all about. 
You consult with your forces very deliberately and 'ask' them how they will
make the most of themselves for the common good.  So it is my opinion that
'talking with your pieces' is an effective way to cultivate your intuitive
abilities.  I also think that humour is an incredibly important quality for a
chessplayer to have, and we'll come to this shortly.  However, for now I would
like to recommend two training techniques from the Dvoretsky/Yusupov school of
thought.  When playing through a game or seeing a new position, make a quick
judgement about the position and how play may develop and then compare this to
the given analysis and/or your more considered opinion having looked at the
position for a longer period of time.  This will give you some sense of your
intuitive abilities and should help you to make more successful guesses and
eventually to trust your first impressions more.  The second is the idea of
'positional sketches', which basically involves the sketching of instructive
positions on a card and making sense of it to yourself in your own words. 
Although I haven't used this technique for a while, I feel it was instrumental
in my passage from IM to GM.  The technique is based on the idea that it's not
just the number of positions you have in your 'intuitive database' that counts,
but how well you understand them and how you can adapt them, usually
unconsciously, to your problems over the board.  For example, if you are
making the same type of error again and again in chess, it can be quite
cathartic to draw out the positions where you went astray and see them
together in all their 'glory'.  Erevan OL 1996} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "The Trapping of Analogy"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Trappings of AnalogyîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe charm, one might say the genius, of memory is that it
is choosy, chancy and temperamental; it rejects the edifying cathedral and
indelibly photographs the small boy chewing a hunk of melon in the dust.'
ELIZABETH BOWEN îîEndBlockQuoteîîîîStartBlockQuoteîîAt what level do we stop
just repeating what we have remembered and genuinely start to understand why
we’re playing the move? At my level, it’s almost entirely memory, mostly
taken out of context.' RICHARD JAMES, Chess writer and teacher, rated around
2000 îîEndBlockQuoteîîA note of caution. Pattern-recognition is not usually a
conscious process.  There is a difference between ‘feeling’ the right
moves from the basis of an unconscious intuitive database and trying to copy a
half-remembered position from your memory banks and pasting it onto a new one.
There is nothing wrong with analogous reasoning in chess if it is done
properly, as we saw, for example, in the Rozentalis game at the start of this
chapter, but there is a danger in that the type of positions which make an
impression on you may not be absorbed as ‘purely’ as you think.  Another
reason I like the technique of positional sketches is that the time and care
taken helps to prevent the sort of mistaken reasoning we see in what follows} 
1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Speelman vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/1pp2pb1/3pnnp1/pP2p3/N1P4p/3PP1P1/PB1N1PBP/R2QK2R b KQ - 0 14"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{A key moment to look for counterplay. How could I have continued so as not to
be left behind?} 14... Ng5 {Of course! This is a more combative form than what
was actually played, which was:  14...Rb8?! 15.Nf3! hxg3 16.hxg3 c6 17.Rb1 c5?
Looking at this position now, I am struck by the overwhelming ugliness of this
move. Yet at the time I played it quickly and confidently.  I have enough
understanding to see that closing the centre, weakening d5 and ceding the
light squares is an horrific positional blunder and yet during the game I was
sure that this was the correct move in the given position. 18.Nd2 b6 19.Nc3
Nc7 20.Bc6!  Only now did I sense that something was amiss.  White is clearly
better, or at least clearly in control, and went on to win.  Why did this
happen? The answer is in the following game, played six years earlier,
annotated by Tiviakov in New In Chess no. 1, 1994.  All four comments are
Tiviakov’s.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Speelman vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "39"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. b4 d6 4. Bb2 e5 5. d3 Bg7 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 a5 {Control
of c5 does not fully compensate for White’s structural superiority in the
queenside.} 8. b5 Nbd7 9. Nfd2 Nc5 10. Nc3 Re8 11. Nb3 Ne6 12. Na4 h5 13. e3 h4
{After  13...c6!? 14.bxc6 bxc6 15.Bxc6 Bd7 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Nd2 17...Rab8 18.
Bc3 I didn’t see a convincing way forward for Black.} 14. Nd2 Rb8 {14...Ng5
is more combative} 15. Nf3 hxg3 16. hxg3 c6 17. Rb1 c5 {Looking at this
position now, I am struck by the overwhelming ugliness of this move. Yet at
the time I played it quickly and confidently.  I have enough understanding to
see that closing the centre, weakening d5 and ceding the light squares is an
horrific positional blunder and yet during the game I was sure that this was
the correct move in the given position.} 18. Nd2 b6 19. Nc3 Nc7 20. Bc6 {
Only now did I sense that something was amiss. White is clearly better, or at
least clearly in control, and went on to win.  Why did this happen? The answer
is in the following game, played six years earlier, annotated by Tiviakov in
New In Chess no. 1, 1994. All four comments are Tiviakov’s.  Mind Sports
Olympiad, London 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Tiviakov - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppppnpbp/5np1/1P2p3/2P5/1QN3P1/P2PPPBP/1RB1K1NR b K - 0 8"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{A key moment for Black. What is the best way to fight for the center?} 8... c5
{“A very important move, which is made possible by the fact that the d-pawn
is still on d7, and after the exchange on c6, Black can take with the d7-pawn.
”} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Tiviakov - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp1pnpbp/5np1/1Pp1p3/2P5/1QN3P1/P2PPPBP/1RB1K1NR w K c6 0 9"]
[PlyCount "2"]

9. bxc6 {“It was better to refrain from exchanging on c6, and to develop the
knight  9.Nf3 or to play  9.d3 or  9.e4 The position is equal, as Black
controls the centre and White cannot make any further progress on the
queenside.” How Black should recapture de pawn?} dxc6 {Black is slightly
better here and after various adventures went on to win a game which qualified
him for the PCA candidates matches.  Tiviakov’s ...c5 was an excellent move
and my ...c5 was a lemon. The positions are entirely different and yet I
decided to apply what I thought was the same idea.  What made a particular
impression on my memory in the Tiviakov game was his claim that after any
normal 9th move by White the position became equal because of Black’s
central control and White’s inability to do anything on the queenside.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Hodgson vs. Tiviakov"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "18"]

1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nc6 3. Bg2 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. Rb1 Nf6 {“To my mind this move is
stronger than the frequently played 5...d6 6.b4, etc., because Black has a
lead in development and must try to save as much time as he can.  5...d6 6.b4}
6. b4 O-O {“The most important thing for Black is to refrain from ...d6. ”}
7. b5 Ne7 8. Qb3 c5 {“A very important move, which is made possible by the
fact that the d-pawn is still on d7, and after the exchange on c6, Black can
take with the d7-pawn.”} 9. bxc6 {“It was better to refrain from
exchanging on c6, and to develop the knight  9.Nf3 or to play  9.d3 or  9.e4
The position is equal, as Black controls the centre and White cannot make any
further progress on the queenside.”} dxc6 {Bla@k is slightly better here and
after various adventures went on to win a game which qualified him for the PCA
candidates matches.  Tiviakov’s ...c5 was an excellent move and my ...c5 was
a lemon. The positions are entirely different and yet I decided to apply what
I thought was the same idea.  What made a particular impression on my memory
in the Tiviakov game was his claim that after any normal 9th move by White the
position became equal because of Black’s central control and White’s
inability to do anything on the queenside.   At first, I assumed White could
make use of the d5- square but when I realized that this didn’t come to
anything significant, I was really impressed by the idea.  Remembering this
concept, I was keen to play ...c5 against Speelman but wanted to wait until
White could no longer castle queenside, thus making the h-file less worrying. 
Then when he played 17.Rb1 I thought 17...c5 would also lead to an equal
position and that I may even be better because he had nowhere sensible to put
his king.  But of course, this reasoning is painfully mistaken.   White’s
control of the h-file is not likely to lead to mate in a hurry but it’s
still a significant factor in the position, and whereas Black’s e7-knight
does a good job of controlling d5 while having the possibility of coming to f5
in the Tiviakov game, my c7- knight is much more passive.  Perhaps most
significantly, my b6-pawn is very weak.  I suppose I have only myself to blame
in this instance but I think this example further highlights the role of
emotion in chess, in this case with its relation to memory.   It wasn’t that
I thought the reasoning behind Tiviakov’s ...c5 could be applied to my game,
it was that I very much liked the concept of keeping the queenside closed and
not worrying about the weakness on d5.  My memory played a trick on me and
threw me a poisoned pattern. Such is the danger of reasoning by analogy.  So
be careful with ideas that you ‘like’, because you may use them
inappropriately.   There is support for this claim in ‘gestalt’ psychology
which suggests that past experience does not always help with problem-solving
and may even be disruptive.  Luchins îîStartBracketîî1942îîEndBracketîî, for
example, had this to say:  “Habituation creates a mechanized state of mind,
a blind attitude towards problems; one does not look at the problem on its own
merits but is led by a mechanical application of a used method.”  Richard
James gave an amusing and highly instructive example of this phenomenon which
begins with a young junior player blaming him for a defeat.  “You made me
lose!”, exclaimed the youngster. When he showed the game, it became clear
what was at the root of the accusation.  The previous week, the club lesson
had been about a tactical theme in games beginning with 1.e4 e5, for example
after 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Bc5?! 4.Nxe5! Nxe5 5.d4.   Such a pattern comes as quite
a surprise when you see it for the first time, and it is likely to appeal to
you so much that you want to try it again soon.  The young boy’s game began
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 and guess what White played now? 4.Nxe5? Nxe5 5.d4
Nxc4 and a piece had gone west.  “So much for that idea!”, he must have
thought.  Such extreme cases are rare, and of course we do not have to fall
prey to this problem, but many chess-players are sticklers for old certainties
and cannot break out of their own patterns.   The principal problem with
relying on a conscious interpretation of a dimly remembered idea is precisely
that it is conscious and therefore uses only the surface of the mind.  This is
also an aspect of the Thinking sin, that when we just think on the surface of
the mind, we call upon only a fraction of our resources.  This is one of the
many things which can lead to confusion.  PCA qualifier, Groningen 1993} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Confused about Confusion?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîConfused about Confusion?îîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe main difficulty of thinking is confusion. We try to do
too much at once. Emotions, information, logic, hope and creativity all crowd
in on us. It is like juggling with too many balls.' EDWARD DE BONO
îîEndBlockQuoteîîWe have already discussed the way in which your brain is
naturally inclined to make and recognize connections between patterns and now
it’s time to show why this leads to confusion being such a common phenomenon
on the chessboard.  Basically, your mind, left to its own devices, uses
clichés and repeatable patterns to ‘think’. Over the course of time such
clichés come to seem a lot like ‘rules’:  a knight on the rim is dim,
never take a b-pawn with your queen, queen and knight are better than queen
and bishop and never ever invite a vampire into your house.  Yet chess
positions and ideas frequently resist the imposition of rules for explanatory
purposes.  Although there are useful guidelines in chess, it seems that there
are almost no rules other than those which constitute the basic instructions. 
Watson does an excellent job of explaining this concept in Secrets of Modern
Chess Strategy and he calls the phenomenon ‘Rule Independence’.  Classical
chess strategy was based around certain precepts like ‘play on the side of
the board on which you are stronger’, ‘a wing attack should be met with an
attack in the centre’ and so forth, but as chess strategy became more and
more ‘dynamic’ it became clear that there were many exceptions to these
rules and even the strongest players were seen to be breaking them.  So much
so in fact, that these ‘rules’ began to look somewhat irrelevant, even
misleading.  So, chess skill became less a matter of applying universal
general rules and more a matter of the correct appraisal of the specifics of a
given position.  This is well summarized by the guru of dynamic chess strategy
Mihai Suba with his saying: “In chess, the golden rule is that there are no
golden rules”.  Another way of looking at the matter is to acknowledge that
the purpose of rules in general is to make sense of ‘complex systems’,
such as chess.  However, where rules cannot be formulated mathematically, they
must be stated in natural language and since language is essentially simple 
(easily understood) , and chess is essentially complex, the rules are not
going to ‘fit’ in any sort of exact way.  It doesn’t mean that rules are
useless, but just that we cannot rely on them exclusively to lead us to the
correct decisions.  This is problematic for the chess-player because in many
ways these rules were candles in the darkness; if there are no such candles,
how are we to make sense of this mysterious game?  Given the unfathomable
number of possible ideas in any given position, how are we to find the most
suitable ones, if we don’t have rules to guide us?  Well actually we do have
‘rules’ to guide us, but these rules are by no means absolute, and are
therefore more like ‘guidelines’ which we ought to absorb, forget about,
and use unconsciously as part of thinking.  Above all these ‘rules’ should
guide rather than dictate. The hyper-intellectual English chess-player Stephen
James put it succinctly when he said that in chess, “rules are a wonderful
servant but a terrible master”. Clearly, rules can easily be misused because
it is up to us to interpret them.  Hartston and Wason imply exactly this in
The Psychology of Chess:  “The beginner is taught certain maxims, precepts 
(or technically heuristics) of positional play which enable him to cope with
apparent disorder, e.g. ‘seize open files’, ‘occupy the 7th rank with a
rook’, ‘avoid isolated pawns’, ‘put your pawns on opposite coloured
squares to those of your bishop’, etc.  However, skill is marked, not by the
application of such precepts, but by the correct assessment of their competing
claims, or by knowing when to violate them.”  The problem with this being
the case is that it is the very opposite of what comes naturally to the brain.
In a self-organizing patterning system, clichés, rules and heuristics are
cherished and adored.  Indeed, the mind is a cliché-making and cliché-using
system.  Established patterns get larger and larger, i.e., individual patterns
are strung together to give a longer and longer sequence which is so dominant
that it constitutes a pattern of its own.  There is nothing in this system
which breaks up such long sequences; you have to do it yourself. At the risk
of oversimplifying, we might say that the chess mind is torn, because chess is
rule-independent while the mind is dependent on rules.  So, in many chess
positions we will look in vain for a way to apply our rules. Yet we find it
very difficult to escape such rules.  How often do you hear expressions like
‘This shouldn’t work’, ‘I rejected that on principle’, ‘This is
outrageous!’.  I hear them frequently, and I feel quite sympathetic when I
do. It is entirely possible to ‘follow all the rules’ and lose to an
opponent who breaks them.  This is hard for us to bear, because most of our
chess understanding was built upon such rules.  Moreover, what are chess
teachers to do without the old certainties?  When I think of this predicament
I am reminded of the famous Catholic reaction to the publication of Darwin’s
Origin of the Species:  “Let us hope that it is not true, and if it is true,
let us hope that it does not become widely known”.  Our rule-bound sense of
chess leads directly to confusion because our rules lead us to ask questions
of positions that don’t yield any comforting or convincing answers.  In most
cases, all you will hear in reply to a question like ‘How should I respond
to a wing attack?’ is the inner echo of your own voice, or, more likely, a
bemused oracle tirelessly repeating ‘It depends on the position.’ 
Hartston and Wason put the point like this:  “Confusion is caused by the
non-existence of a concrete answer to the questions of the position.”  This
is another good reason to talk with your pieces:  because the type of
questioning and answering going on is less exact, more tactile, and less
likely to lead to confusion.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. McDonald"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2k3r1/1pr2q2/p1n4Q/2Pp4/4pPP1/P3P3/7R/1B4RK w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{I was hoping to make my final GM norm in this tournament and perhaps put too
much pressure on myself.  I was probably a little tense and also not
sufficiently focused to calculate carefully.  What should I have played here?} 
1. Ba2 {I think it was time for this move! When Qh5 is some sort of threat.
When I annotated this game for myself after the tournament at this point I
inserted:  'Don't forget to talk with your pieces! Clearly the bishop had a
much stronger case than the queen.'   After 35.Qh5?! Not sure about this one;
it's not obvious that my queen was so badly placed. 35...Qe6 36.Ba2 Ne7 37.f5
OK, but such a push should only be made with a concrete follow-up in mind.
After Ba2, the game could have continued:} Ne7 2. Qh7 {there could follow} Rg7
{Or 2...Qe6 3.f5} 3. Qh8+ Rg8 4. Qd4 {with domination in both cases.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. McDonald"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2kr4/1p1rnQ1R/p7/2PpqP2/4p1P1/P3P3/B7/6RK w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "11"]

{Confusion is also caused by what I like to call ‘bureaucratic thinking’.
We often see the right move very quickly but then look for a way to justify
our feeling that this move is the correct one.  That said, dig into the
position and evaluate the Qg7 move.  What does your intuition tell you about
this move? And what about your calculation?} 1. Qg7 {I regret this move
because I had seen the continuation:  1.Qe6?! was actually played in the game.
In so far as this is true, I recommend that you trust your intuition as a rule
but you do need both to play chess well so don’t make your trust in
intuition an excuse for lazy calculation! 1...Qxe6 2.fxe6 Rc7 3.Rf1 Re8 4.Rc1
Rg8 5.Kh2 Kb8 6.Kh3 I may still be winning, but this is by chance rather than
design.} Qxg7 2. Rxg7 Nxf5 {And was a little wary of allowing tactics in any
shape or form... but:} 3. Rxd7 Rh8+ 4. Kg2 Nh4+ 5. Kg3 Kxd7 6. Bxd5 {wins very
easy here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. McDonald"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "106"]

{Confusion is also caused by what I like to call ‘bureaucratic thinking’.
We often see the right move very quickly but then look for a way to justify
our feeling that this move is the correct one.  Our justification often takes
the form of rule-based reasoning.  ‘I want to play this move but he just
broke such and such a rule and so it doesn’t seem to fit here.  It’s only
logical that having broken such and such a rule, I should use this other rule
to punish him.  And so, I should play this other move, which doesn’t feel so
good, but seems more logical.’  This type of problem has similarities with
Perfectionism but is actually more about an over-reliance on reason than
trying to play the perfect move.  It is very important to be aware of such
‘red tape’ in your thinking.  If a move strikes you as correct, it
needn’t require an explanation and even if you feel it does, it won’t be
needed until after the game.  This is also an important aspect of trusting
your intuition and sufficiently relevant to ‘thinking’ to merit an example.
} 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bf4 a6 7. Ne5 Bd7 {
7...e6!} 8. e3 e6 9. Bd3 Be7 10. g4 Qb6 11. O-O h6 12. Rc1 Rd8 13. Na4 Qa5 14.
Nxd7 Nxd7 15. a3 Rc8 16. b4 Qd8 17. Nc5 Nxc5 18. bxc5 Bg5 19. Bg3 Bh4 20. Rb1
Bxg3 21. hxg3 Rc7 22. f4 Qe7 23. Rf2 g5 24. Qf3 gxf4 25. gxf4 Rg8 26. Rg2 Qf6
27. Qf2 Kd8 28. Kh1 Kc8 29. Rbg1 Qg7 30. Rh2 f6 31. Qh4 e5 32. dxe5 fxe5 33.
Qxh6 e4 34. Bb1 Qf7 {So far so good; if I may say so I played rather well up
to here, though perhaps I took a little too long doing so.  Now I think I
panicked a bit. I was hoping to make my final GM norm in this tournament and
perhaps put too much pressure on myself.  When showing the game to Jon
Speelman afterwards I think he said, 'All you have to do here is relax and let
yourself win this position'.  I was probably a little tense and also not
sufficiently focused to calculate carefully.} 35. Qh5 {Not sure about this one;
it's not obvious that my queen was so badly placed. I think it was time for 
35.Ba2! when Qh5 is some sort of threat.  When I annotated this game for
myself after the tournament, at this point I inserted:  'Don't forget to talk
with your pieces! Clearly the bishop had a much stronger case than the queen.'
After 35...Ne7 36.Qh7 there could follow 36...Rg7 Or  36...Qe6 37.f5 37.Qh8+
Rg8 38.Qd4 with domination in both cases.} Qe6 36. Ba2 Ne7 37. f5 {OK, but
such a push should only be made with a concrete follow-up in mind.} Qe5 38. Qf7
Rd8 39. Rh7 Rcd7 {The crunch moment. GM Neil McDonald, annotating in Chess
magazine, describes my thought-processes rather well:  'Jonathan felt
instinctively that 40.Qg7 was the correct move, but decided to test his
intuition with some analysis and in his head came up with} 40. Qe6 {It'@ true,
actually. I had seen  40.Qg7 Qxg7? 41.Rxg7 Nxf5 and was a little wary of
allowing tactics in any shape or form.  I then justified my safer move with
the bogus variation 42.Rxd7 Rh8+ 43.Kg2 Nh4+ 44.Kg3 Kxd7 which I consider
'unclear' because 45.Rh1? is met by 45...Nf5+  But of course 45.Bxd5+- wins
very easily here.  This last point, which Krogius would no doubt include under
cases of 'the retained image' is a curious but instructive one.  For so long
my bishop has been struggling for a role and d5 has been overprotected that I
just couldn't imagine it would be so easy for it to come back into the game
like this. Somehow, my brain couldn't shake the image of a blunted bishop on
a2. McDonald went on to say that 'Every chess-player, weak or strong, has to
decide whether as a rule he should trust his intuition when it disagrees with
his calculation...'  In so far as this is true, I recommend that you trust
your intuition as a rule but you do need both to play chess well so don't make
your trust in intuition an excuse for lazy calculation!  Indeed, it is true
that strong chess-players should try to have good calculation and strive to
improve it.  However, I think we should consider the idea that perhaps
'calculation' is overrated. I was surprised when I first heard this idea from
GM Matthew Sadler, a player generally considered to have phenomenal
calculating powers.  I didn't speak at length about this with him and I'm not
sure how to develop this point without misleading the reader, but Matthew
seemed to be suggesting that among the many important features of a
chess-player's strength, tactical quickness and capacity for ideas
îîStartBracketîîpattern spottingîîEndBracketîî were much more important.  I'll
restrict myself to two simple claims here:  very few chess decisions are made
on the basis of clear and exact calculation and in so far as calculation is a
conscious process, it is useful only if it is directed by a sense of value
îîStartBracketîîappreciation of ideas and where to look for themîîEndBracketîî,
which tends to be unconscious.  Still, this sense of value is more important
than the formal tool.  In this respect we should be aware that computers can
only calculate after humans have installed an evaluative function.  I think
most GMs have read Kotov's classic Think Like a Grandmaster but the majority
of them, including myself, not only don't seem to think in his prescribed
manner, but wouldn't do a good job of explaining the details of the technique
if they were to be asked.  More likely I think, as with most of our chess
knowledge, Kotov's technique has become part of our chess unconscious; we
often know when to use it without being prompted and many players use a
refined version of the technique even though they have no idea that this is
what they are doing.  Much successful 'calculation' is very fuzzy.  Indeed, I
have come to think more generally that 'fuzzy thinking' is often a virtue in
chess and makes use of a variety of thoughts and thinking processes, conscious
and unconscious.  As I have already said, thinking is a very messy process at
the best of times.  Looking at the more sophisticated appraisals/ critiques of
the Kotov technique like Krasenkow's îîStartBracketîîin Dvoretsky and
Yusupov's Attack and DefenceîîEndBracketîî, Nunn's îîStartBracketîîSecrets of
Practical ChessîîEndBracketîî and Tisdall's îîStartBracketîîImprove Your Chess
NowîîEndBracketîî you will see that calculation needn't be synonymous with
structure and clarity and if this is the case with an aspect of thinking we
consider to be most austere, but use quite rarely, think of how fuzzy your
thinking might be in general.  But don't think this need be a problem; just
consider whether you agree with me and if so, what this means for developing
your chess strength.  It is often thought that the stronger your play, the
clearer your thinking, but personally I see no justification for that view. 
Closer to the truth seems to be 'the stronger your play, the fuller your
thinking', whereby fullness might be a measure of diversity, appropriateness,
depth and accuracy.  Much as I love surrealism, any link with Dada is entirely
accidental.  However, after writing this I remembered that Marcel Duchamp, the
great artist who was also a fairly strong chess-player, gave up art around
1928 and described chess as the quintessence of what Dada had intended.  There
is certainly a lot to be said for the idea that chess is surreal.  But I
digress. In the game continuation above, I calculated very badly but it's not
clear if this is because I can't calculate well, or I had some relevant desire
preventing me from seeing things clearly.  Perhaps I had enjoyed being in
control of this game so much that I was loath to risk losing control and
therefore afraid to look at complications at all.  I couldn't pretend that
they weren't there, however, and so I found a convenient line that allowed me
to cease my search.  In any case, I drew three lessons here:  1- Learn to
calculate better but accept that calculation can never stand separate from
other aspects of thinking.  2- If you can't make a decision based on good
calculation, play the move you are intuitively more comfortable with. Realize
in the process that 'fuzzy thinking' needn't be a bad thing.  3- If you think
you see a line which refutes the move you want to play and feel to be correct,
ask yourself if you really believe it îîStartBracketîîin this case such a
simple question would have over-ridden my nervous impulses and would have
helped me to see 45.Bxd5 at the end.} Qxe6 41. fxe6 Rc7 42. Rf1 Re8 43. Rc1 {
I was relying on  43.Rff7 Kd8 44.Bxd5? but this loses to 44...Nxd5 45.Rd7+
Kc8-+} Rg8 44. Kh2 Kb8 45. Kh3 {I may still be winning after  45.Rf1 but this
is by chance rather than design.} Rf8 46. Rf7 Rh8+ 47. Kg3 Rh6 48. Rxe7 Rxe7
49. Bxd5 Rf6 50. Rc3 Rf3+ 51. Kh4 Rh7+ 52. Kg5 Rg7+ 53. Kh4 Rh7+ {Looking back
at this game, I think my primary fault was over-susceptibility to fear, lack
of faith in my intuition and making calculation a slave to my nervous tension.
It is difficult to calculate well when your head is not clear, but our heads
are very rarely 'clear' so we often just have to make the best of our fuzzy
thinking.  London 1998} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Humour and Hedonism"]
[Result "*"]
[Variant "chess 960"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rbnqknbr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RBNQKNBR w HAha - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîHumour and HedonismîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîPerhaps
the most important trait a player needs is a warped sense of humour.' GM TONY
MILES îîEndBlockQuoteîîîîStartBlockQuoteîîHumour is by far the most
significant behaviour of the human mind. EDWARD DE BONO, I am Right, You are
Wrong îîEndBlockQuoteîîîîStartBlockQuoteîîWe should tackle reality in a
slightly joking way; otherwise we miss its point.' LAWRENCE
DURRELLîîEndBlockQuoteîîHave you ever noticed how many players smile and laugh
when they are analysing chess positions?  Have you ever been attracted to a
particular line of play because it appealed to your sense of humour?  Have you
ever thought that a surprising move in chess may be rather a lot like a
punchline in a joke?  I would answer all three questions affirmatively because
I have come to believe that Miles’s quote is not just a joke unto itself but
a profoundly important insight into the workings of the chess mind.  When I
asked Tony Miles if he could point me in the right direction about the above
quotation, he said that, with regret, he could only point me in the direction
of a circle, for which he recommended that I turn left and keep on going.  He
did add though, as a vital afterthought, that it had something to do with
‘unexpected punchlines’. This is helpful because in general there does
seem to be a strong overlap with the things that we find surprising and things
we laugh at.  If you’ve ever tried to entertain young kids, you’ll know
that you often need to do little more than pull out their teddy bear from
behind your back and you’re guaranteed a few chuckles.  Of course, when we
get older, we become conditioned to expect almost everything around us and
it’s therefore more difficult to make us laugh by surprising us. Even so,
surprise is a big component of humour.  We often read about the virtues of
surprising the opponent, but if what I’ve said about pattern-recognition and
vision makes sense, then it may be more important for us to surprise ourselves.
Indeed, if we are to avoid being slaves to our patterns, we need somehow to
look beyond what we naturally see and I would like to suggest that looking for
‘jokes’ is one good way to do this.  This may become more plausible when
you consider that timing is another important aspect of humour, as, of course,
it is in chess.  Zwischenzugs are typically humorous in that what makes them
so significant in chess is that they are unexpected along the main line of
thought, and their ‘timing’ forces you to think again.  Furthermore, if
timing and surprise aren’t suggestive enough, Miles’s quote above reminded
me of de Bono’s quote and so I was interested to see how his thoughts on
humour may relate to chess.  According to de Bono, humour arises from the
asymmetry of the patterns which form in our brain. This excited me because an
unexpected break with ‘symmetry’ is by no means unusual in chess. 
Symmetry as a concept comes quite naturally to chess-players; most of us spend
at least a year playing games which start exclusively with 1.e4 e5. We seem to
be fixed into this pattern in the first year or so of our chess lives and can
hardly envisage a game starting in any other way.  Perhaps 1.d4 d5 when
we’re feeling daring, but never, God forbid, 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 - why would you
want to play a move like that?  Moreover, go into a junior chess club and
you’ll see many, if not most, games beginning with something like 1.e4 e5 2.
Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.h3 h6 8.a3 a6 9.Re1 Re8 until
the dramatic suspense becomes unbearable and somebody gives away material. 
Thus when 1.e4 e5 becomes the dominant track in our thoughts about how a game
should develop, and the other side-tracks are usually suppressed.  If a
hardened 1.e4 e5 player (with both sides of course) were to notice a clubmate
playing 1.g3 or 1.b3, before learning about the concept of a fianchetto,
he’d probably think his clubmate was being at least a bit funny, if not
downright odd.  As I understand it, if our patterns were formed symmetrically,
we would think only in terms of rules based on the comparisons of
straight-line tracks.  There would be no sidetracks, breaking the symmetry. So,
we would see that 1.c4 d6 2.b4 was different from 1.f4 e6 2.g4 but our
appreciation would only extend to the fact that in one case we are pushing our
kingside pawns and in the other, our pawns on the queenside; they would not be
related as patterns.  The fact that 1.f4 e6 2.g4 allows the possibility of 2...
Qh4# would be seen, I think, as purely incidental. I certainly don’t think
it would raise any smiles.  Yet isn’t there something amusing about the way
that the knight and bishop cannot get themselves organized to block the check
and that the king has nowhere to move?  It’s funny because it’s not what
we have come to expect; it’s not symmetric with the relatively normal
queenside pattern.  Similarly with a rook trapped in the middle of the board,
a knight which covers all of a bishop’s available squares or a pawn three
squares from queening which cannot be stopped by a queen.  Our brain related
them to familiar patterns and finds them exceptional; and this, at least
partly, is the basis of humour.  This looks a lot like the first diagram in
the book, but with a slight and hugely significant twist.  If it were the same
position then your recognition of the pattern would be symmetric but with the
twist, your mind forms the pattern in an asymmetric way, and an opportunity
for an unexpected punchline presents itself:  1.c4!? Freeing the bishop.  1...
c5 Freeing the bishop. 2.f3 Attacking c5.2...b6 Defending c5. 3.Be4 Winning
material.  These are extreme examples, but I think something very similar
takes place at all levels of chess.  I remember another conversation with
Julian Hodgson in which he said that the outstanding feature of the strongest
players, most notably Kasparov, was their appreciation of the finest
subtleties of a position; the zwischenzugs, the scorpion’s sting in the tail
(Lombardy-Fischer, game 25 in My 60 Memorable Games - 17...Bh4+!) , the
paradoxical assessment, the subtle move which changes the paradoxical
assessment and so on.  In all these cases, what is being seen is something
away from the main track - the type of thing that induces a smile in the
post-mortem. This phenomenon may arise directly from the structure of our
brain.  Forgive me for being so speculative, but I’m hoping my inferences
may improve your chess.  Even Krogius, who doesn’t strike me as a humour
fanatic, suggests that “one must train oneself to look for paradoxical
situations, to search for exceptions to rules and to develop concrete
thinking”.  I think this ‘search for paradox’ is basically a search for
humour.  When you think of a joke you like, I’d imagine what makes it funny
is that the punchline contains something of a surprise.  Most jokes take you a
long way down a straight track and then tell you at the end that you missed an
important turn-off earlier in the joke.  Indeed, most of the time we laugh, we
are laughing at something that stands out in some way or which our
conditioning makes us find exceptional.  For example: a man is observed
constantly waving his hand across his face. When asked what he is doing, he
explains that he is driving away elephants.  “But there are no elephants
here,” the questioner exclaims, to the reply: “You see, it works”.  A
crude attempt, I know, but I’m suggesting that in this joke, as in many
others, there is a short-circuiting of common sense and that the absurdity can
jolt us into a reflection about how we think.  This is highly applicable to
chess. If you are not susceptible to the ‘funny’ side of a variation then
you will probably miss lots of those vital subtleties and paradoxes that you
need to play chess well.  Two minor and vaguely supportive points come to mind.
Firstly, I have analysed with lots of foreign players who spoke good, but not
native, English and they very frequently describe moves or positions as
‘funny’.  Secondly, think of all the exclamation marks we use to denote
good moves.  It seems that we frequently let good moves pass without
punctuation but when we do award a ! or a !! it is because the move is in some
sense unusual, witty or surprising.  The following game is rather well known,
and most people find it rather funny, but few people realize that it may have
been a good sense of humour which won White the game.  The game has been
annotated in many places so I’ll concentrate on its funniest aspect.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Short vs. Timman - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1b2rk1/1pp2pbp/1n2p1p1/p3P3/PqB1Q3/5N1P/1PP2PP1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 18"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black queen is blocked by the bishop in order to protect its kingside. How
can White keep this block?} 18. b3 Nxc4 19. bxc4 {In some ways you need a
sense of humour to allow your pawns to be wrecked in such a way but then to
see the 'punchline', which is that you are much better in spite of it.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Short vs. Timman - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2Rr1k1/1bp2pbp/1pq1p1pB/p3P3/P1P4Q/5N1P/2P2PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 26"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{How can White keep the advantage?} 26. R8d7 {Avoiding simplifications and
keeping the pressure.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Short vs. Timman - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/1bpR1p2/1pq1pQp1/p3P2p/P1PR3P/5N2/2P2PP1/6K1 w - - 0 31"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Nigel found a funny plan allowing his king joining the attack. Can you find
this idea?} 31. Kh2 {This may be the beginning of the joke; there are some
vague ideas of g4 but he's really just putting his king on a slightly better
square.  For example, he didn't like the idea of ...Qxa4 followed by a check
on the back rank. Note the similarities to this and Karpov's Kh2 in the
Spassky game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Short vs. Timman - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/1bpR1p2/1pq1pQp1/p3P2p/P1PR3P/5N2/2P2PPK/8 w - - 0 32"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Short has seen a twist to this particular case and proceeds to deliver an
unexpected punchline.  Can you find the winner plan?} 32. Kg3 {I asked Short
if he was amused by this idea during the game, to which he replied: 'Yes, very.
Now I was really enjoying myself.'} Rce8 33. Kf4 Bc8 34. Kg5 {Black resigns!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "Short vs. Timman"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "67"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 g6 5. Bc4 Nb6 6. Bb3 Bg7 7. Qe2 Nc6 8. O-O
O-O 9. h3 a5 10. a4 dxe5 11. dxe5 Nd4 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Re1 e6 14. Nd2 Nd5 15.
Nf3 Qc5 16. Qe4 Qb4 17. Bc4 Nb6 18. b3 Nxc4 19. bxc4 {In some ways you need a
sense of humour to allow your pawns to be wrecked in such a way but then to
see the 'punchline', which is that you are much better in spite of it.} Re8 20.
Rd1 Qc5 21. Qh4 b6 22. Be3 {If Black plays 22...Qf8 23.Ng5! h6 24.Ne4 Bb7 25.
Nf6+ Bxf6 26.exf6 Kh7 27.Rd7! Crushing the position because of the threat 27...
-- 28.Bxh6+-} Qc6 23. Bh6 Bh8 24. Rd8 Bb7 25. Rad1 {An interesting line you
should consider would be if Black catpures the a4 pawn. After 25...Qxa4 26.
Qe7! Bxf3 27.gxf3 Qc6 28.Bg5!! Bxe5 29.R1d7 Qxd7 30.Qxd7 Raxd8 31.Bxd8 White
is winning and this is why 28.Bg5 is so strong.   White should be alert for
another Black's possible threats. If Black plays here a waiting move, for
example 25...Rc8 and White thought: 'I'll keep attacking', for example: 26.
Ng5?? Qxg2# would be rather embarassing so, you must be careful.} Bg7 26. R8d7
Rf8 27. Bxg7 Kxg7 28. R1d4 Rae8 29. Qf6+ Kg8 30. h4 h5 {Nigel tells me that
many chess fans have almost come to identify him with what follows, but that
the commentators all fail to mention what was really going on here.  Rather
than seeing this as one of his best games, Short felt that he was in poor form
and had been playing this game very slowly.  At this stage he just made a
useful move because he only had two minutes left to reach move 40.} 31. Kh2 {
This may be the beginning of the joke; there are some vague ideas of g4 but
he's really just putting his king on a slightly better square.  For example,
he didn't like the idea of ...Qxa4 followed by a check on the back rank. Note
the similarities to this and Karpov's Kh2 in the Spassky game.  At this point
there was no real intention behind 31.Kh2 and just after he played it, he
wondered what on earth he would do in reply to 31...Bc8. I wonder whether
Short's unconscious had 'seen' the following king-march?  We will never know,
of course.} Rc8 {Thi@ loses. Short saw the punchline immediately: 'it's just
mate'. In most cases, White's 31st move would be a signal that White wishes to
play g4 to attack the black king but doesn't feel comfortable doing so with
his king on g1.  Indeed, usually g4 would be played to open the g-file and a
rook would then use the g1 -square vacated by the king. This would be a
standard pattern with which most of us are familiar.  In playing 31...Rc8
Timman sees the main track îîStartBracketîîg4îîEndBracketîî and prevents it by
keeping his queen and bishop attacking f3, but Short has seen a twist to this
particular case and proceeds to deliver the unexpected punchline:  The
following illustration comes from Short's annotations in Informator:  31...
Bc8! 32.g4!   However, in spite of these lines, Short thinks it very unlikely
that he would have played 32.g4 in the circumstances, probably he would have
preferred a safer move like 32.Re7  or 32.Rd8 32...hxg4  32...Bxd7 33.gxh5
gxh5 34.Qg5+ 33.Ng5 g3+!  33...Bxd7 34.h5  33...Bb7 34.f3 34.fxg3  34.Kxg3
Bxd7 35.Kh2+- Speelman 34...Bb7 35.Ne4 Qxa4 36.h5 Qxc2+ 37.Nf2 gxh5  37...Qf5
38.hxg6! 38.Rd3 Be4 39.Rd2 Qb1 40.Rd1 Qc2 41.R7d2 Qxc4 42.Rd4+- and White wins.
This is relatively standard stuff in spite of the unique features of the
position.} 32. Kg3 {I asked Short if he was amused by this idea during the
game, to which he replied: 'Yes, very. Now I was really enjoying myself.'} Rce8
33. Kf4 Bc8 34. Kg5 {Wha@ amused Short most was that in this final position he
was all ready to meet  34.Kg5 Kh7 35.Qxg6+ not with the prosaic  35.Rxf7+ Kh8
36.Qh6+ Kg8 37.Kf6! 'I was really going for that!', said Short... 'On h6 the
king's a little safe.  Somehow, it's too easy, but on f6 I'm right in the
heart of his position and there's nothing he can do.'  When I told him of my
idea about the role of humour in chess, and of 32.Kg3 as the unexpected
punchline, Short thought there may be something to the idea and seemed very
interested.  But when I tried to back up my claim with the Miles quote above
about the importance of a warped sense of humour, he just quipped, 'that's
just because he has one!' How many chess-players would fail to laugh at the
idea of the king coming to h6 in spite of the number of pieces on the board? 
I would imagine very few. Although I cannot develop the idea in full here,
this may be because chess affords us an excellent opportunity to create
'jokes' on the board. Jokes are often 'traps', I suppose, but they can also be
more subtle.  Anything which demonstrates a recognition of patterns in an
asymmetric way can be said to be humour.  Which is why, I suppose, that we use
the word 'funny' to denote peculiar events as well as those which make us
smile and laugh.  A further reason to think that there may be a significant
role for humour in chess is the role of 'the victim' in the majority of jokes,
which for chess-playing purposes is the opponent.  There is very little
victimless humour, although the victim is often disguised as the person to
whom you are telling the joke.  Perhaps as well as the asymmetry of patterning,
we also find certain moves funny because of the problems they create for 'the
victim'.  In other words, the jokes we find on the chessboard are often at our
opponent's expense! Steven Pinker's îîStartBracketîîHow the Mind
WorksîîEndBracketîî suggestion that another significant feature of humour is
the 'descent in dignity' is supportive here, because the 'joke' you play on
your opponent can make him or his pieces look much less dignified.  So, am I
saying that chess is preverbal humour and all chess-players are frustrated
comedians?  Partly yes, but I am also serious in my conviction that striving
to see the funny side of chess can significantly widen your horizons.  This
may at times amount to little more than the advice 'look twice', because you
missed something exceptional the first time, but even if that's all I'm saying,
putting it in a humorous context makes it more likely that you will do it! In
other words, 'look for the laughs'.  More to the point, in looking for the
humorous angle you are unconsciously delving into all your previous patterns,
looking for the ones on the board which 'match' and being struck by those
which don't.  This is pretty much what your intuition does anyway, so you're
really just giving it an extra nudge while not allowing yourself to be limited
by it.  If you find this idea a bit 'funny', then I rest my case, but if you
are totally unconvinced then you may be more sympathetic to a watered-down
version.  Would you accept that some form of 'hedonism'
îîStartBracketîîpleasure seekingîîEndBracketîî is essential for good chess? 
From Secrets of Spectacular Chess by Levitt and Friedgood
îîStartBracketîîhighly recommendedîîEndBracketîî I learned of a theory of
Austria's Ernest Mach which partly explains this.  In so far as a human is
able to use his intelligence to survive, the human brain has to become very
quick to recognize patterns, repetitions and symmetries.  This ability to
discover 'order' is crucial for adaptation to the environment and the
chessboard contains many of the types of geometry and dimensions which are
found in a typical environment.  Using familiar patterns to help resolve and
sort out a chess position causes pleasure since the tension created by the
îîStartBracketîîinitially chaoticîîEndBracketîî position is reduced.  This
reminds me of the time GM Neil McDonald felt physically sick on being shown a
chaotic position with five kings as part of a psychology experiment.  His
explanation was: 'I couldn't take it; it was just too random'. In so far as a
lesson can be inferred from this, pay extra attention to the moves that you
find pleasing.  If you need hedonism to see the important patterns then you
need humour to see the exceptional ones.  I'm not sure about this, but
certainly we are inclined to stay interested in that which is pleasurable or
amusing, and anything which helps you to look at a position in a different
light can only benefit your appreciation of the game, your motivation, and
consequently your playing strength.  Tilburg 1991} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 1 - Thinking"]
[Black "The Tao of Chess Thinking"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Tao of Chess ThinkingîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThat for me is the thing, to show that you can get so far
just by your spirit and trying very hard when you’re at the board.' GM DAVID
NORWOOD îîEndBlockQuoteîîSo where does all this leave us? Is there a way of
neatly sorting all of the above examples and ideas? Well to be honest, not
really!  However, a Taoist perspective, and specifically the idea of Yin and
Yang, is interesting in this respect. ‘Yin’ refers to a yielding,
receptive, ‘feminine’ force, while ‘Yang’ is assertive, imperial and
‘masculine’.  A Taoist might say that whereas there are yang aspects to
your thinking and yin aspects, neither is ever entirely by itself.  So,
whereas your yin thinking will involve intuitive recognition and your sense of
value, and yang thinking the active search for ideas and conscious calculation,
they will somehow both be present to a greater or lesser degree in whatever
way you think.  This is partly in evidence in the way we use our positional
understanding (yin) while calculating (yang) .  At the risk of oversimplifying,
your ‘yin ability’ will be based on the patterns which you have at your
disposal; what you ‘see’, whereas your yang strength will be related to
your ability to think; how you ‘look’. I have suggested that all thinking
is evaluative, so the value you seek might be thought of as Tao, which is
prior to Yin and Yang.  Douglas Hofstadter’s idea of “jumping out of the
system”, explained in his monumental work Gödel, Escher, Bach, is closely
related to the idea of ‘yang’ strength and is, I think, an excellent idea
to help chess-players improve without forcing them to spend days on end
assimilating new patterns (needed for yin strength) :  It is an inherent
property of intelligence that it can jump out of the task which it is
performing, and survey what it has done; it is always looking for, and often
finding patterns.  Now I said that an intelligence can jump out of its task,
but that does not mean that it always will.  However, a little prompting will
often suffice. Of course, it is difficult to draw a clear line between
‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the system and this idea’s validity also
depends a lot on what ‘the system’ is.  In this case I want to suggest
that your chess patterns are your system, that if you ‘think’ along normal
lines you will not be able to break free from ‘inside’ the bondage of
these patterns.  If you are 2850 it’s no great trauma to be caught
‘inside’ your system and you could still dispose of 99.99% of
chess-players with your intuition.  But if you are weaker, and aspire to be
stronger, you can ‘jump outside’ of your system by thinking in unusual and
provocative ways; talking to your pieces, or looking for ‘jokes’ for
example.  When all is said and done though, there is a considerable amount of
truth in Norwood’s saying.  ‘Thinking’ causes a lot of problems, only
some of which you can solve, and the first step to improving your results is
to apply yourself to the maximum while you are at the board.  Remind me, why
is Thinking a Sin?  1- ‘Thinking’ is much more complicated than we tend to
think it is, and therefore we give the wrong reasons for the errors we make. 
2- ‘Thinking’ in a conventional sense is limiting, because it leaves us
stuck in our old patterns and habits.  3- ‘Thinking’ tends to be based on
rules and justification, which leads to confusion given that chess is largely
rule-independent and often inexplicable.  4- ‘Thinking’ can stifle your
intuition, which is more suited to the omnipresent task of evaluation.  So,
what can you do?  1- Realize the importance of abstract knowledge and try to
assimilate as many new patterns as possible.  2- Try to ‘unlearn’ old
thinking habits as well as learning new thinking techniques, but don’t treat
any as exclusive.  3- Talk with your pieces!  4- Don’t assume that ‘fuzzy
thinking’ is always bad. It’s often guided by your unconscious and can be
the best way to find good moves.  5 Try to see the funny side, and enjoy
yourself!  6 Be aware of the way you habitually think, and find suitable ways
to ‘jump out’ of these where necessary.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîBlinkingîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîMankind always
sets itself only such problems as it can solve... it will always be found that
the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution
already exist.' KARL MARX, 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy'îîEndBlockQuoteîîIf you’re getting root canal work from your dentist,
it’s a good idea to be desensitized, but if you are playing chess, it can be
fatal.  In fact, I suspect that the main problem with ‘thinking’ as
opposed to ‘feeling’ is that it undermines your ability to sense the key
moments/ critical positions in a game.  Such moments occur in positions where
your choice of move is pivotal for the direction of the contest.  Notice
already that we tend to refer to key moments and critical positions. We
consider these almost synonymously, but it was partly a reflection on this
distinction that led to this chapter in its present form. The former lends
itself to the personal, subjective arena and the latter to objective
identification.  It’s little good filling in your score-sheet with the
comment that after, say, move 29, the position was critical, unless you
consider why, at this key moment, you didn’t think of the position as
critical and sense that this moment had more ‘weight’ than all the others.
It seems to me that somehow you need to sense that it’s a key moment before
you can see that the position is critical. This chapter is an attempt to
consider how we might try to do that.  The first obstacle to doing so is that
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give any clear definition of what
a key moment, or critical position, actually is.  I have given a few pointers
below, but I must admit that key moments are more easily felt subjectively
than defined. Indeed, when all is said and done, I fear that there is no good
substitute for experience in such matters.  However, there is still much that
the average player can do to improve his ability in this area.  Since I
can’t think of a useful definition of the focal point of Blinking, there is
some value in limiting our subject area and then generalizing where necessary.
In this respect, the types of key moment I wish to concentrate on are the
turning-points in a game, positions where we fail to capitalize on an
advantage and understanding the importance of transformations in general. 
However, the reader should know that ‘key moments’ also manifest
themselves as positions where, for example, we need to sense danger, where we
need to make a short-term plan, where we need to snap out of a defensive
mindset or where we have to choose between playing for a win or a draw.  That
said, I think these and various other types of moments are usually reducible,
at least partly, to the chosen aspects above.  I have called this sin
‘blinking’ mainly because that’s all you have to do to miss these
moments. Moreover, often you can only see them with hindsight.  To miss such
moments can be considered essentially ‘sinful’ in that it usually results
from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of chess assessments and how they
can and do change.  By most definitions they arise not more than three times
during a contest but usually there is at least one. Spassky claimed that this
was Fischer’s only weakness, though of course this is relative to his other
strengths.  In any case, I think it is a difficult sin to remedy partly
because there is no clear consensus on what such moments look like and partly
because they are felt in different ways by different players.  In order to
make more sense of this sin I have made some speculations about the nature of
‘the advantage’ in chess.  This is quite dense and theoretical in places
so some readers may prefer just to read the game notes. However, I do think
that the theory will illuminate key moments better and help you to know what
to do with them, so I recommend that you have a good think about all parts of
the chapter   The Importance of Being Trendy  îîStartBlockQuoteîî' “Are you
lost, Daddy?” I asked tenderly. “Shut up,” he explained.' RING LARDNER
îîEndBlockQuoteîîIn most sports, the competitors have a clear indication of
the relative importance of each moment.  Little sensibility is needed to call
on extra attention when it is ‘set point’ in tennis, a difficult putt on
the 18th hole in golf or for a centre-forward who is through to the penalty
area and just has the keeper to beat in a soccer match.  There are many more
such examples in other pursuits, but not so in chess. The rules of the game
give no indication of which positions are more susceptible to errors than
others, or which moves matter the most. Somehow, we have to work it out for
ourselves.  Certainly, a chess-player’s ability to ‘sense the moment’ is
not really something you can reduce to a formula, but I’d like to think that
there is a useful answer to the question ‘What do we miss, when we miss a
key moment?’In so far as it is possible to answer, I would say that we miss
the nature of the given assessment and its propensity to change.  This happens
at least partly because of our assumptions about the building-blocks that make
up a single game.   Most strong players feel a little irritated when a
non-chess-player says something like “you may beat me, but I bet I could
last an hour”.  This of course misses the point, because it is no reflection
on the relative quality of the players if one of them sits and thinks for an
hour before, let’s say, falling for Scholar’s Mate. You then want to say
“OK, so you managed to last an hour, but I beat you in four moves! It’s
not the amount of time a game lasts, but the number of moves that matters.” 
If any of you are nodding your head, I ask you to think again, and consider
whether the building-blocks of a game, although not adequately accounted for
in minutes or hours, are really best thought of as individual moves.  Perhaps
you might break the moves in half, and consider the number of positions, but
it’s still not clear that this is the best way to look at it. What if the
real building-blocks of a game were thought to be groups or clusters of moves
and positions?  This would fit neatly with the idea, which we considered in
the last chapter, that stronger players see positions as a collection of
‘chunks’ or constellations.  The stronger you become, the more you are
attuned to the different chunks within the game as a whole as well, whereas
weaker players will only see individual positions.  So, the more lucidly you
see the chunks, the more illuminated are the ‘gateway positions’ that link
them.  This curious parallel with the idea of ‘chunking’ (see Thinking)
may not be accidental.  Maybe it’s an essential feature of the chess mind or
just intelligence in general.  Perhaps it is the nature of growing
intelligence to group things together, whether they are scientific laws,
languages, or pawn-structures.  Indeed, maybe the ultimate intelligence is
that which has expanded so far that it sees everything as one big ‘chunk’.
Maybe that’s what they mean by enlightenment. But I digress.  For now,
let’s consider whether a game between Walter (local club champion) and Barry
(beginner) , ending in Scholar’s Mate, might be thought of not as four moves
but, for example, six moments.} 1. e4 e5 {Moment one. Symmetry is established
without thought by either player} 2. Bc4 {Moment two. Walter decides on the
Bishop’s Opening after a brief pause to disarm the opponent. The f7
vulnerability is spotted by Walter, but not appreciated by Barry.   However,
Barry now thinks for almost half an hour and Walter regrets having agreed to
play.} Nc6 {Moment three. Barry allows Walter to threaten mate in one. Walter
considers this a favourable occurrence and a golden opportunity to get out of
this ordeal as quickly as possible.  Barry, bless his cotton socks, is
oblivious to the moment.} 3. Qh5 {Moment four. You might call this a key
moment, and with hindsight it was certainly the critical position. Walter
smells blood but commits himself to a move he knows should be bad.  He plays
it after ten seconds and quite casually.  Having sensed on moments two and
three that Barry was a beginner, he doesn’t want to jolt him out of his
established patterns of thought.  Walter, the old fox, reveals himself to be
an optimistic risk-taker.} Nf6 {Moment five. Barry decides that his knights
are the prettiest pieces, and having taking a long time to learn how to move
them, enjoys pointing their heads towards each other. He feels quite strongly
that by looking at each other they’ll gain a certain strength.  In his
defence, it should be said that he is tempted by the alternative 3...g6. 
Indeed, he vaguely recalls some conception his old schoolmate had told him
about by the name of ‘siancheddo’, or something like that, but doesn’t
trust himself to implement it properly, and so after half an hour decides to
play it safe and bring another piece into battle.  Walter is inwardly jubilant
and relieved, while Barry enjoys the look of his knights on the sixth rank.} 4.
Qxf7# {Mom@nt six. Checkmate. Barry looks surprised and tries to take the
queen, thinking of it as a gift, but Walter points to the supporting bishop on
c4 and Barry, after a five-minute pause of sheer disbelief, reluctantly
resigns.  This is an extreme example, but the point is that there is more than
one way to ‘chop up’a game of chess.  In a game of four moves there may be
six moments, or fewer, or more, but certainly there is little scope for
large-scale trends.  In most games, however, which are much longer, the type
of moments I touch on above are usually felt to be much more long lasting,
incorporating several moves at a time. This is part of the wisdom behind the
conventional way we dissect a game into three stages: opening, middlegame and
endgame.  But as well as these three stages there seem to be what I think of
as ‘periods’ during the game where you begin with one type of position and
then find yourself with another, without being able to identify on which move
the position seemed to change beyond recognition.  Indeed, often it feels like
there are several games within one game.  The reason I mention this is because
the way we ‘cut up’ chess games, whether into moves, phases, duration,
positions, stages, periods or whatever, is crucial in getting to the heart of
why we are so prone to the sin of Blinking.  It would be too messy to consider
all these different ontologies but we can make big strides if we reduce it to
just two ways of looking at a game: as a collection of positions which we view
one at a time, and as a series of trends which we can only see a few moves at
a time.  In almost every chess magazine, book or monograph we are exposed to
positional assessments.  The symbols we are most familiar with, like those
denoting ‘slightly better for White’ or ‘equal’, always refer to
single positions and so we become accustomed to framing our evaluations around
single positions.  But there is a lot to be said for the idea that a single
position, when seen by itself, is stripped of its true nature if it is seen in
abstract, and not as part of a moving, changing whole.  This is not just a
psychological matter, with our view of positions distorted by memories of good
positions past and visions of glorious victory in the future. It is also a
fundamental question about the way that chess actually is.  Indeed, it seems
to me that all chess can be sensibly characterized as a game with positions
that are constantly changing.  Given that this is the case
îîStartBracketîîmore on this laterîîEndBracketîî, the first and foremost thing
you need to do to deal with Blinking is to try to attune yourself to the
trends of a game.  During the game it is helpful to have an assessment of the
position and a feeling for how that assessment has changed over the course of
the game.  Whether your assessment is of the form ‘equal – slightly better
– clearly better – winning’, ‘0 pawns = equality; 2 pawns = winning’,
‘White is effectively 1.23 pawns up’ or ‘I’m comfortable with my
position’ to ‘I like my position’ doesn’t matter crucially. The main
thing is to have a way to gauge the changing nature of a chess game, how it
ebbs and flows.  If you always have some idea for the flow of a position and
the direction of the trends, you will find it much easier to notice at which
points the trends turn significantly – these will usually be the key moments.
Paradoxically, the result of paying attention to assessments is that you come
to hold them much less rigidly, because you quickly see that they are inclined
to change.  The games in this chapter should reveal the nature of trends, and
I am suggesting that part of the reason we ‘blink’ is because we often see
positions where we should see trends, and trends where we should see positions.
The key to tackling Blinking then, is to improve your ‘trend sensitivity’
and ‘position sensitivity’. This is not easy, but I’ll do my best to
suggest how it might be done.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Transformations: Signs, Signals"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîTransformations: Signs, Signals and
SensitivityîîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîî"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu,
dreamt that I was a butterfly, flying around and enjoying myself. I had no
idea I was Chuang Tzu. Then suddenly I woke up and was Chuang Tzu again. But I
could not tell, had I been Chuang Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly, or a
butterfly dreaming that I was now Chuang Tzu? However, there must be some sort
of difference between Chuang Tzu and a butterfly! We call this the
transformation of things." The Book of Chuang Tzu îîEndBlockQuoteîîOne of the
few certain things about a game of chess is that the game position will change.
Paradoxical though it may be, the position is constantly changing.  If you
want to play chess, and have no particular fetish for threefold repetitions,
then you cannot avoid this fact.  However, ‘change’ has many faces and the
most striking of all is transformation. Most strong players are strong partly
because of the variety of positions they can play.  This not only gives them
flexibility in the opening but widens their horizons for the whole game.  So,
if a promising attack must lead to a technical endgame, then so be it. If you
have to give away your material advantage and instead sacrifice material for
the initiative then so be it.  You just have to accept that the position will
transform from one thing into another. The key question is whether the
transformation will be favourable.  In the context of Blinking, we often fail
to act on the key moments because we don’t take responsibility for making
the necessary transformation or, at the key moment, we unwittingly make a big
transformation when we just needed to keep the position more or less as it was.
So, another way to become more sensitive towards key moments is to be aware of
the centrality of transformations in chess.  These take the form of things
like piece exchanges, changes in pawn-structure, or a movement from one phase
of the game into another.  Look out for them in the games below. One final
pointer before the fun starts is that although nobody will tell you when you
are looking at a key moment, there are certain signs relating to the features
of the position and the amount of choice you have.  There are often signals
too, which usually relate to your opponent’s previous move (s) .  However,
above all else you need to be sensitive to the changing trends of the position.
} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Farrell vs. Redpath"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1b2bppp/pp1p1n2/2pPn3/P3P3/2N5/1P1NBPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 13"]
[PlyCount "7"]

13... Re8 {13.@.Nfd7?! There are traces of Egoism here. Joe could think of
nothing but getting his bishop to the a1-h8 diagonal but in doing so overlooks
the strength of White's natural build-up.  After White plays f4 it's good to
have pressure against e4 so it would have been better to anticipate this and
make use of some other pieces. 14.f4 Ng6 15.Nc4 Qb8  Here we have all the
classic symptoms of a key moment:  1- Signs: Black has some clumsy pieces and
vulnerable squares îîStartBracketîîknight on g6, bishop on b7, pawns on b6 and
d6.  2- Signal: His last move looked somewhat awkward îîStartBracketîîrooks
still not connected, queen decentralized.  3- Sensitivity: Counterplay is
threatened: ...b5 is pending because after the pawns are exchanged on b5
White's rook on a1 has to capture on a8 and Black can recapture with the
bishop, thus defending b5. Moreover, by protecting d6, ...Be7-f6-d4 is an idea.
4- Sensitivity/Sign: There is no 'obvious continuation'
îîStartBracketîîcompared with Nd2 when Nc4 was the obvious follow-up.} 14. f4
Ng6 15. Nc4 {15.g3! is better.} Bf8 16. Bf3 Nh4 {This involves some
cooperative play by White, but is not such an implausible line. Black is
comfortable here because it will be difficult for White to force through e4-e5.
} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Farrell vs. Redpath - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rq3rk1/1b1nbppp/pp1p2n1/2pP4/P1N1PP2/2N5/1P2B1PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 16"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Another way to become more sensitive towards key moments is to be aware of
the centrality of transformations in chess.  Here's a key moment and Black is
in a tight position but has some resources to consider.  Can you find the best
continuation?} 16. Bg4 {Is a surprisingly strong move that did not occur in
the game, and it is almost decisive.   16.g3? Insensitivity. This was the move
of the game.} Bc8 {The only move. There's no other way to defend b6 and
protect d7.} 17. Bxd7 {Given the light-squared weaknesses in White's position
this is also not such a 'normal' move.} Bxd7 18. f5 {Normally you break
through with e5 but in the given instance Black's lack of control over e5
gives White a strong attack.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Farrell vs. Redpath - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rq3rk1/3bbppp/pp1p2n1/2pP1P2/P1N1P3/2N5/1P4PP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black is under pressure. How should you react?} 1... b5 {is the most
tenacious defence. Then White's most obvious lines seem to fall short but
there is still a path to what looks like a clear advantage:  1...Nh8 loses to
2.Bf4 f6 3.Qb3+-  1...Ne5 is more to the point: 2.Nxe5 dxe5 3.d6 Bxd6  3...
Qxd6 4.Qxd6 Bxd6 5.Rd1 4.Rf3! It can be fun using computers for such positions.
} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Farrell vs. Redpath  - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1q3rk1/1r1n2pp/p1Np2n1/2pP4/Pp1bpP2/6P1/1P2B1KP/R1BQ1R2 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Here Black must try to stay in the game. What should Black have played here?} 
1... Qa8 {1...Qe8?? Insensitivity again. A bad blunder. 2.Bxa6 Rb6 3.Bc4 Bf6 4.
a5 Rb8 5.Nxb8 Qxb8 6.Re1 Re8 7.Qa4 Black resigns.} 2. Nxd4 cxd4 3. Qxd4 Nc5 {
it’s anybody’s game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Farrell vs. Redpath"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "59"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. e3 {An underrated system that is not so easy
to play against, especially if you are seeing it for the first time.} Bb7 5.
Bd3 c5 6. O-O Be7 {6...g6!?} 7. Nc3 O-O {7...cxd4 8.exd4 d5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Ne5
is one of the main lines.} 8. d5 {Now Black is forced into a dodgy Benoni
where both bishops are passive.} exd5 9. cxd5 d6 {After 9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Bxd5
11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 12.Qxd5 Nc6 13.Bd2 Black's king is vulnerable and White has good
central control.} 10. e4 Nbd7 {This is not such a bad move, but Joe didn't
consider any alternatives.  It can be dangerous to play the opening in first
gear, even if you know the moves quite well, because your constitution will
not be prepared for serious concentration when you need it, and you are less
likely to be sensitive to the key moments when they arise.  I am not
suggesting that you dither over your opening moves or play deliberately slowly
but it is very important to build up your concentration, and for this purpose
it can be useful to ponder fairly obvious moves at the opening stage,
especially if you are unfamiliar with the opening at hand.  Even better of
course, is to be fully 'tuned in' before the game starts, but circumstances
don't always allow this. After  10...Ba6!? 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.e5 White is better
as it turns out, but just considering this variation can help enliven your
sense of danger.} 11. Nd2 a6 12. a4 Ne5 13. Be2 Nfd7 {There are traces of
Egoism here. Joe could think of nothing but getting his bishop to the a1-h8
diagonal but in doing so overlooks the strength of White's natural build-up. 
After White plays f4 it's good to have pressure against e4 so it would have
been better to anticipate this and make use of some other pieces.  13...Re8!?
14.f4 Ng6 15.Nc4  15.g3! is better. Bf8 16.Bf3 Nh4 involves some cooperative
play by White, but is not such an implausible line.  Black is comfortable here
because it will be difficult for White to force through e4-e5.} 14. f4 Ng6 15.
Nc4 Qb8 {Her@ we have all the classic symptoms of a key moment:  1-Signs:
Black has some clumsy pieces and vulnerable squares îîStartBracketîîknight on
g6, bishop on b7, pawns on b6 and d6îîEndBracketîî.  2-Signal: His last move
looked somewhat awkward îîStartBracketîîrooks still not connected, queen
decentralizedîîEndBracketîî.  3-Sensitivity: Counterplay is threatened: ...b5
is pending because after the pawns are exchanged on b5 White's rook on a1 has
to capture on a8 and Black can recapture with the bishop, thus defending b5.
Moreover, by protecting d6, ... Be7-f6-d4 is an idea.  4-Sensitivity/Sign:
There is no 'obvious continuation' îîStartBracketîîcompared with Nd2 when Nc4
was the obvious follow-upîîEndBracketîî} 16. g3 {Ins@nsitivity. The moment
passes and Black gets into the game. While White may have been enjoying the
upward trend that began on move 8, he doesn't appreciate that this particular
trend has 'dried up' and that Black now threatens to change the direction of
the trend in his favour.  White needs to see that this is a 'gateway position',
which links two periods of the game. To keep it simple we could say that the
opening has ended and the middlegame is about to begin.  In the middlegame the
players will have roughly equal chances, but White has reached the middlegame
a move before Black and for just one moment he has the chance to punish Black
for loitering in the opening.  16.Bg4! is a surprisingly strong move, which is
almost decisive.  It's not especially 'normal' and therefore easy to overlook
or underestimate.  Most players have learned a setup based on Bf3, with g3 if
necessary and it's hard to 'jump out' of this pattern when you need to. In
this case the necessity arises from the unique importance of the moment.  
Just for one move, Black's forces are fatally uncoordinated 16...Bc8 the only
move.  If Black plays 16...b5 17.Bxd7 bxc4 18.Qe2 and White will be a pawn up.
There's no other way to defend b6 and protect d7 . 17.Bxd7!
îîStartBracketîîgiven the light-squared weaknesses in White's position this is
also not such a 'normal' move 17...Bxd7 18.f5! Normally you break through with
e5 but in the given instance Black's lack of control over e5 gives White a
strong attack.   Now: 18...b5! is the most tenacious defence.  Then White's
most obvious lines seem to fall short but there is still a path to what looks
like a clear advantage:  18...Nh8 loses to 19.Bf4 f6 20.Qb3+-  18...Ne5 is
more to the point: 19.Nxe5 dxe5 20.d6!  20.Qh5 intending Rf3-h3 also looks
good. 20...Bxd6  20...Qxd6 21.Qxd6 Bxd6 22.Rd1 21.Rf3! It can be fun using
computers for such positions.  Or 21.f6 is dangerous for Black. Fritz doesn't
get it of course. Black is a pawn up with two bishops after all. Still, most
humans will see that White's kingside attack is imminent and overwhelming. 
White will have the f5-pawn, a rook on g3 or h3, a queen on h5 or g4, a knight
coming to d5, a bishop ready to sacrifice on h6, a rook coming to d1 or f1. 
It's way too much firepower for the black king to survive. 21...c4 the most
active way to deal with the threat of Rd3.  Then 22.Rh3 Bc5+ 23.Kh1 Qd6 24.Qh5
h6 25.Rg3! gives White a fearsome attack. All of White's pieces have a chance
to get involved while too much is being asked of the black queen, e.g. 25...
Bf2 26.Bxh6 Bxg3 27.Bxg7 Kxg7 28.Qg5+ Kh7 29.f6+- and wins 19.axb5 Bxb5  19...
axb5 20.Rxa8 Qxa8 21.Nb6 20.fxg6!?  20.Nxb5 axb5  20...Qxb5 21.Na3 21.Rxa8
Qxa8 22.fxg6 bxc4 23.Rxf7 Rxf7 24.gxf7+ Kxf7 25.Qf1+ Bf6 26.Qxc4 Qa1 Bxc4 21.
gxh7+ Kh8 22.Rf3 and Bf6 is always met by 23.Rxf6 and White will endeavour to
bring his c1- bishop to the a1-h8 diagonal. White is not quite winning here
but if we compare this to the game, White clearly missed quite an appealing
boat.} b5 17. Na5 b4 18. Nb1 Bf6 19. Nd2 Bd4+ 20. Kg2 f5 {This is typical of
the mess that can occur when you miss your moment. The position is unclear.}
21. Ndc4 Ra7 22. Nxb7 Rxb7 23. Na5 fxe4 {A combative offer of the exchange
which White does well to decline.} 24. Nc6 Qe8 {A bad blunder. After  24...Qa8
25.Nxd4 cxd4 26.Qxd4 Nc5 it's anybody's game.} 25. Bxa6 Rb6 26. Bc4 Bf6 27. a5
Rb8 28. Nxb8 Qxb8 29. Re1 Re8 30. Qa4 {Edinburgh 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Emms vs. Webster - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5r2/2qn1pkp/r2ppnp1/p1p1P1Q1/P2P4/2P2NN1/5PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 18"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black is under some pressure. How should Black continue here?} 18... Ng8 {
18...Nd5 19.Nh5+ Kh8 20.Qh6 Rg8 21.Ng5 Nf8 22.c4 is a perilous continuation
for Black.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Emms vs. Webster - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rn1/2qn1pkp/r2pp1p1/p1p1P1Q1/P2P4/2P2NN1/5PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Key moment:  1- White has many options but no obvious continuation; the
‘flow’ of the game has stopped (sign/sensitivity) .  2- Black’s
counterplay is pending and in general the future belongs to Black because of
weaknesses on e5 and a4 (sensitivity) .  3- Black’s last move was peculiar
and places him behind in ‘time’. That White can force such a move suggests
that the position could be favourable for him if he can persist with the
pressure (signal) .  4- White’s advantages are somewhat temporary and so
this suggests White needs to strike quickly (sensitivity)} 19. h4 {is @rying
out to be played.  Then  19.Rfe1?! A lazy move, after which the trend begins
to turn against White. John had lost a long game the previous day and
doesn’t play with his usual energy.  Until now the trend has been in his
favour but he needs to see this position as separate from the trend
îîStartBracketîîposition sensitivityîîEndBracketîî and initiate a new trend in
which his slight advantage might assume more significant proportions. 19...h6
20.Qf4?! still seems better, although it makes 19.Rfe1 look even more redundant
} h6 20. Qe3 {This move also gives White certain options like Qe2, Qd3 and
doesn't block the f-pawn.  This is much better for White than the occured in
the game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Emms vs. Webster - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rn1/2qn1pk1/r3p1pp/p3P3/P4Q2/5NN1/5PPP/R3R1K1 b - - 0 22"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black has solved some problems but still has to play precise to take
advantage of his opportunities. How should they continue here?} 22... Rc6 {
Black may be better already. There are lots of potentially good squares for
the knights and e5 is a long-term weakness.  A slightly more subtle point,
revealed in the variations, is that because of the pawn-structure and the
position of the pieces, a4 is weaker than a5.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Emms vs. Webster - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/5pk1/4pq2/3n1n2/7P/3Q4/7N/5RK1 b - - 0 48"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Black has sacrificed an exchange to weaken the enemy king, so he should react
quickly and energetically. How should they continue here?} 48... Nde3 {Of
course! This forces a winning endgame.} 49. Qxe3 {49.Rf3? Qg6+ 50.Kf2 Qg2+-+}
Nxe3 50. Rxf6 Kxf6 {White is totally lost because the h-pawn must fall.  Even
if White could somehow hold this pawn in the short term, he could only do so
by placing his knight on a square where it could ultimately be harassed by a
black pawn.  Black won on move 85.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Emms vs. Webster"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "100"]

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6 4. Be3 d6 5. Qd2 b5 6. Nf3 Nd7 7. Bd3 Qc7 8. O-O
Ngf6 9. a4 {Since Black has not played ...a6, he doesn’t lose a tempo when
he protects the b-pawn with ...a5 so perhaps there was something to be said
for the immediate:  9.Bh6!?} b4 10. Ne2 a5 11. c3 Ba6 {11...bxc3 12.bxc3 Ng4!?}
12. Bxa6 Rxa6 13. Ng3 bxc3 14. bxc3 O-O 15. Bh6 c5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qg5 e6 18.
e5 Ng8 {18.@.Nd5 19.Nh5+ Kh8 20.Qh6 Rg8 21.Ng5 Nf8 22.c4 is a perilous
continuation for Black.  Key moment: 1- White has many options but no obvious
continuation; the ‘flow’ of the game has stopped   StartBracket  sign/
sensitivityîîEndBracketîî.  2- Black’s counterplay is pending and in general
the future belongs to Black because of weaknesses on e5 and a4
îîStartBracketîîsensitivityîîEndBracketîî. 3- Black’s last move was peculiar
and places him behind in ‘time’. That White can force such a move suggests
that the position could be favourable for him if he can persist with the
pressure îîStartBracketîîsignalîîEndBracketîî.  4- White’s advantages are
somewhat temporary and so this suggests White needs to strike quickly
îîStartBracketîîsensitivityîîEndBracketîî.} 19. Rfe1 {A l@zy move, after which
the trend begins to turn against White. John had lost a long game the previous
day and doesn’t play with his usual energy.  Until now the trend has been in
his favour but he needs to see this position as separate from the trend
îîStartBracketîîposition sensitivityîîEndBracketîî and initiate a new trend in
which his slight advantage might assume more significant proportions.  19.h4!
is crying out to be played.  Then 19...h6 20.Qe3! so that ...Rc4 isn't so
effective and so that ...g5 isn't with tempo; this move also gives White
certain Qe2, Qd3 options and doesn't block the f-pawn  20.Qf4 20...cxd4  20...
d5? is a strategic error; with no pressure on the centre there is no real
answer to White’s kingside attack: 21.h5 g5 22.Nh2! 21.cxd4 dxe5 22.dxe5 Ne7
23.h5 Nd5  23...g5 24.Nxg5 24.Qe2! Rc6 25.hxg6 fxg6 26.Nd4 Rb6 27.Qg4 Nc5 28.
Rac1 Rf4?? 29.Nh5+ was Rowson-Redpath, practice blitz game, Edinburgh 2000} h6
20. Qf4 {still seems better, although it makes 19.Rfe1 look even more
redundant  20.Qe3} cxd4 21. cxd4 dxe5 22. dxe5 Rc6 {Black may be better
already. There are lots of potentially good squares for the knights and e5 is
a long-term weakness.  A slightly more subtle point, revealed in the
variations, is that because of the pawn-structure and the position of the
pieces, a4 is weaker than a5.} 23. h4 {Thi@ move suggests that White was
oblivious to the unfavourable trend that has been evident for three moves –
poor ‘trend sensitivity’.  The advance of the h-pawn, although generally a
good idea, giving some luft to the king and planning h5, doesn’t meet the
more immediate demands of the position.  We have already seen that White has
some potential problems but this is the moment before they become real. White
has to see that his advantage has gone, and look for a way to keep the balance.
Possible ideas:  23.Rad1 Ne7 24.Nd4 Rc4 25.Nxe6+ fxe6 26.Rxd7 Rfxf4  23.Rac1!?
Ne7 still looks good for Black  23.Nd4 Rc4 24.Nb5 Rxf4 25.Nxc7 Rb8 is also no
comfort; a4 and e5 remain weak. These three lines suggest that White’s
problems are related to one piece in particular.  Talk with your pieces; which
is the most obvious under-performer?  23.Ne4!? îîStartBracketîîall the other
pieces can contribute to the struggle at a moment’s notice but this knight
has to be forcibly involved; a bit like the shy guy who can’t find the
courage to grace the dance floorîîEndBracketîî 23...Rc4 24.Rec1
îîStartBracketîîthe queen on f4 and knight on e4 want rid of the pressure on
the fourth rank and the a1-rook is needed to protect the a-pawnîîEndBracketîî
24...Rc8 25.Rxc4 Qxc4 26.Qe3 Qd5 still leaves Black’s position easier to
play and e5 continues to be a problem.  My first impression of this position
was that White has good drawing chances if he can keep his forces coordinated
and perhaps distract Black with a few suggestive knight hops.  However, I
think this position is even better for Black than it looks.  Indeed it is a
good example of a ‘space disadvantage’. It’s not just that e5 is weak
but also because there are so many vulnerable squares in White’s camp that
it is extremely difficult for him to hold all of the territory. What matters
is not space but capacity.  Black has less space but plenty of capacity for
his pieces while White has lots of space and not enough pieces to cover it all.
We might say that White has a huge castle but only a few soldiers while Black
has the same number of soldiers and uses all the empty spaces in the castle as
posts to attack the white army.  However, the primary significance of this
structure, in my view, is that whereas the most natural square for a white
knight is e4, there is no ‘anchorage’   StartBracket  pawn
supportîîEndBracketîî there, whereas a black knight on d5 is not only
extremely effective, but also invulnerable.  Knights, because they can’t
easily run away, often need pawn support to ensure their survival. Play could
continue 27.Nc3  27.Ned2!? Rc2 doesn’t look like the answer and after  27.
Nd6 Rc5 28.Re1 Ne7 it’s not at all clear what White should do next Qb3 28.
Nb5  28.Rc1 Ne7 and Black is firmly in control Qxe3 29.fxe3 Rc5 30.Nfd4 Nb6 31.
Nb3 Rxe5 32.Nxa5 Nxa4! 33.Rxa4 Rxb5 with a probably lost endgame for White. 
So, in looking at all these moves you may feel that the trend is turning
inexorably against White and yet looking at the position after move 22
strongly suggests that White should at least be no more than slightly worse. 
These are the moments where you have to plunge especially deeply to find a way
for White to buck the unfavourable trend.  Given that all the normal-looking
moves do little to change this, we have to step back and look at this position
afresh.  We have already established that we need to involve the g3-knight but
it seems that it is vulnerable on e4 and c3 and unsupported on d6.  Is there
another way?  23.Ne2!? is a rather strange move but on reflection it makes
good sense. On d4 this knight will be influential and also protected; it
controls f5, prevents Black from attacking e5 with ... Ne7-c6 and contains the
possibilities of Nb5-d6 and Nb3 where desirable.  I think that this may be the
only solution to White’s problems but it’s the sort of move you’ll only
appreciate if you are sensitive to the trends of a position.  White had to dig
deeply in this position. It is here that things begin to go steadily downhill,
and once the trend has set in, it can be extremely hard to reverse.  Now 23...
Ne7 îîStartBracketîîthere are other moves, but the nature of the position
doesn’t seem to change fundamentally  EndBracket   24.Ned4 Nd5 25.Qd2 Rc4
Leads to a fairly balanced position.  I think I still prefer Black but White
has promising ideas based on h4, Re4- h4, Nb3 or b5.  In any case White has
halted the unfavourable trend and is no longer playing in a purely reactive
role.} Rc4 24. Re4 Rc8 25. Rd1 Rc1 26. Ree1 Rxd1 27. Rxd1 Nb6 28. h5 Qc2 29.
Re1 {29.Rd4 may have been a more tenacious defence} Rc4 {Now Black is firmly
in control. Note how effective the knight has been on g8. In some ways it is
‘better’ than the knight on g3 because it performs a useful function of
protecting f6 and has excellent prospects on c6, d5 or f5.  Meanwhile,
White’s g3-knight does very little to contribute to the struggle and largely
because of the ineffectiveness of this piece, White finds it difficult to
coordinate the army as a whole.} 30. Qe3 Nd5 31. Qa7 Rxa4 32. hxg6 Qxg6 33. Rc1
h5 34. Qd7 Rb4 35. Qd8 Nge7 36. Qxa5 h4 37. Nf1 Rg4 38. Ne1 Qg5 {Alternatively,
38...Nf4 39.Ne3  39.Qa8 Ne2+ Ne2+ 40.Kf1 Nxc1 41.Qa3 h3 is also very good for
Black.} 39. Qd2 Qxe5 40. Nf3 Qf6 {Black is a safe pawn up and White’s king
is vulnerable. The rest of the game is a technical matter but White never
managed to reverse the unfavourable trend that began with 19.Rfe1 and was
compounded by 23.h4.} 41. N1h2 Rf4 42. Qe2 Nc3 43. Qd3 Ncd5 44. g3 hxg3 45.
fxg3 Ra4 46. Rf1 Nf5 47. Nh4 Rxh4 48. gxh4 {48.Rxf5 offers White better
drawing prospects.} Nde3 49. Qxe3 Nxe3 50. Rxf6 Kxf6 {White is totally lost
because the h-pawn must fall. Even if White could somehow hold this pawn in
the short term, he could only do so by placing his knight on a square where it
could ultimately be harassed by a black pawn. Black won on move 85.  British
Ch, Scarborough 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Botvinnik vs. Tal - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/pp3ppp/2p1b3/4n3/4B1n1/P3P3/1P1NKPPP/R1B4R b - - 0 16"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Key moment.  Tal failed to sense the urgency of the task and played a routine
move, after which the trends begin to change. Black has many plausible
continuations but none that is self-evidently correct.  Can you find the best
way to continue here?} 16... f5 {This move was called for, trying to 'develop'
the rook from f8. This move would give Black extra control over e4, the
possibility of a timely ...f4 and pressure against e3 if White ever plays f3. 
Botvinnik suggests that Black would have maintained the initiative after this
move but he still has to play vigorously to prevent White from consolidating. 
16...Rad8?! 17.h3 Nf6 18.Bc2 Rd7 19.b3 Rfd8 20.Rd1 Nd3 21.Bxd3 Rxd3 22.Bb2 Now
the trends are beginning to change.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Botvinnik vs. Tal - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r2k1/pp3ppp/2p1bn2/8/8/PP1rP2P/1B1NKPP1/R2R4 b - - 0 22"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{It is crucially important that Black ‘wakes up’ to this turn of events
but it seems that Tal didn’t sense any danger and seemingly considered this
position no different from any other.  How should Black be configured?} 22...
c5 {was needed.  By fixing the weakness on b3 Black can keep the white pieces
somewhat bottled up and if White proceeds to capture on f6 he won't be able to
unravel his position.  I suppose is equal after this move, with Rc1-c3 looking
like a reasonable idea for White.  22...R3d7? 23.Bxf6! gxf6 24.b4!  Now Black
is worse and the fact he was recently better makes it all the more difficult
to adjust to the new circumstances.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Botvinnik vs. Tal - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r2k1/pp1r1p1p/2p1bp2/8/1P6/P3P2P/3NKPP1/R2R4 b - - 0 24"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Keeping the towers lit, the black ones prevent the king / white knight
combination taking shape. What is the best way for Black to coordinate his
pieces?} 24... Bd5 {Botvinnik recommends this move in order'to cut down the
mobility of the knight'.  This also has the benefit of making it more
difficult for White to exchange rooks.  24...Bf5?! 25.Nb3 Bd3+ 26.Ke1 b6 27.
Rac1 Be4 28.f3 Rxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 30.Kxd1 Tal's play gives the impression
that he had no idea what was going on.  In the last few moves he has weakened
the queenside and exchanged all the rooks, cooperating ideally with White's
plans.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Botvinnik vs. Tal"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "81"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. d4 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. a3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 Bd6 8. Nf3
Nc6 9. Nb5 e5 10. Nxd6 Qxd6 11. dxe5 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1 Ng4 13. Ke2 Ncxe5 14. Bd5
c6 15. Be4 Be6 16. Nd2 {Key@moment:  1îîEndBracketîî White's last move was
'peculiar' îîStartBracketîîsignalîîEndBracketîî.  2îîEndBracketîî White has
counterplay pending in that if he can complete his development the two bishops
will give him a long-term advantage îîStartBracketîîsensitivityîîEndBracketîî.
3îîEndBracketîî As is often the case with such moments. One side has
short-term promise and the other has long-term potential
îîStartBracketîîsensitivityîîEndBracketîî.  4îîEndBracketîî Black has many
plausible continuations but none that is self-evidently correct
îîStartBracketîîsign/sensitivityîîEndBracketîî.  Tal failed to sense the
urgency of the task and played a routine move, after which the trends begin to
change.} Rad8 {16...f5! was called for; trying to 'develop' the rook from f8.
This move would give Black extra control over e4, the possibility of a timely .
..f4 and pressure against e3 if White ever plays f3.  Botvinnik suggests that
Black would have maintained the initiative after this move but he still has to
play vigorously to prevent White from consolidating. 17.Bc2 Rad8 18.b3 Rd5!?
19.h3 Rc5 20.Ra2 Nf6 21.Rd1 Nd5 22.Nb1 Nc3+ 23.Nxc3 Rxc3 24.Bd2 Rxc2 25.Rxc2
Bxb3 Black wins a pawn.  If 19.Bb2 Rfd8 Black is much better.} 17. h3 Nf6 18.
Bc2 Rd7 19. b3 Rfd8 20. Rd1 Nd3 21. Bxd3 Rxd3 22. Bb2 {Now the trends are
beginning to change. If you've watched attentively you'll have sensed that
Black's initiative has been squashed and that he is beginning to run out of
ideas.  It is crucially important that Black 'wakes up' to this turn of events
but it seems that Tal didn't sense any danger and seemingly considered this
position no different from any other.  White is threatening 23.Bxf6 and also
23.Bd4} R3d7 {22...c5! was needed. By fixing the weakness on b3 Black can keep
the white pieces somewhat bottled up and if White proceeds to capture on f6 he
won't be able to unravel his position. I suppose is equal after this move,
with Rc1-c3 looking like a reasonable idea for White.  If 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Rac1
b6 25.Nc4 Rxd1 26.Rxd1 Rxd1 27.Kxd1 Kf8 Black is not worse.  If Black plays 22.
..Ne8?! 23.Bd4 Bxb3 24.Rdb1 is fine for White.} 23. Bxf6 gxf6 24. b4 {Now
Black is worse and the fact he was recently better makes it all the more
difficult to adjust to the new circumstances.  If White can exchange rooks
there will be little for the bishop to do while the knight can readily attack
Black's vulnerable pawns.  In my opinion it is crucial that Black keeps one
pair of rooks, partly to have something to control the dark squares, but
mainly so that White cannot advance his king into the black position quite so
readily or push pawns without leaving weaknesses.  I think this position is a
good example of how bishop and rook can cooperate better than rook and knight.
Perhaps the best way to see it is not so much as a matter of knight vs bishop
but that when the rooks come off its knight and king vs bishop and king, with
the former working very well together.  By keeping the rooks on, Black could
prevent the white knight/king combination from taking shape.} Bf5 {Botvinnik
recommends 24...Bd5 'to cut down the mobility of the knight'. This also has
the benefit of making it more difficult for White to exchange rooks.} 25. Nb3
Bd3+ 26. Ke1 b6 27. Rac1 Be4 28. f3 Rxd1+ 29. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 30. Kxd1 {Tal's play
gives the impression that he had no idea what was going on. In the last few
moves he has weakened the queenside and exchanged all the rooks, cooperating
ideally with White's plans.} Bd5 31. Nd4 c5 32. bxc5 bxc5 33. Nb5 a6 34. Nc7
Bc4 35. Ne8 f5 36. h4 Kf8 37. Nd6 Bf1 38. g3 Ke7 39. Nxf5+ Ke6 40. e4 Ke5 41.
Kd2 {As @'ve said, there is no magic formula to help identify these moments
but it should help to be aware of the signs and signals above.  There is not
even a clear divide between what is a sign, what is a signal and what it is
that you are supposed to be sensitive to, but generally speaking we have seen
that the typical indications include: 1îîEndBracketîî Pending counterplay: you
see the opponent's ideaîîStartBracketîîsîîEndBracketîî, even though it hasn't
happened yet. 2îîEndBracketîî The prevailing trend seems to have stopped.
There is no obvious way to continue the trend or increase the advantage
naturally. 3îîEndBracketîî An abundance of choice. You have lots of reasonable
moves, but none that seem to be outstanding. 4îîEndBracketîî Your opponent's
last move was somehow unusual or peculiar.  There is no clear way to define
'unusual' in this context of course, but it will normally be a move that
defies convention in some way.  World Ch match (game 1) , Moscow 1961} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Resolving to be Resolute"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîResolving to Be ResoluteîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîIt
is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do
not dare that things are difficult.' SENECA îîEndBlockQuoteîîMost readers will
have heard of the aphorism of Steinitz (and Lasker) that the side with the
advantage must attack or else watch that advantage disappear.  I should say
that this is not always the case; for example, sometimes when you have a
decisive material advantage you have to defend for several moves before you
make use of it.  So perhaps we could rephrase this maxim to something like:
the side with the initiative must play vigorously, or else watch that
initiative dwindle.  The following two games show the importance of having
faith in your calculation at key moments.  Not in the sense of making a
decision based on calculation as such, but in the realization that there are
some positions in which you must calculate.  However, it is usually clear that
the position is critical before you calculate and so your realization that the
position is critical often comes hand-in-hand with the feeling that
complications cannot be avoided.  It is then a question of judgement and
courage, rather than formal calculation, which will lead you to the necessary
line of play.  Thus, in this sense we need calculation to help us make the
necessary transformations, but more important is our judgement about which
transformations are necessary.  In any case the following two games sees your
author guilty of Blinking. I had the advantage in both cases, but failed to
sense the urgency of transforming it and so saw it dissolve into nothing and
less.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1q1r1rk1/pp2bppp/4p1b1/3nP3/3PN3/1B6/PP2QBPP/2R2RK1 w - - 0 21"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Sensitivity. Consider the dynamic factors on both sides. Initiative is key. 
How should White continue?} 21. h4 {Tickling his kingside and hassling the
bishop! It’s also useful to control g5 in case there is an annoying
combination of ...Bg5 and ...Ne3 at some moment.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1q1r1rk1/pp2bpp1/4p1bp/4P3/1n1PN2P/1B4B1/PP2Q1P1/2R2RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{î@€@^StartBlockQuoteîî'You were not enough resolute!”,
îîEndBlockQuoteîîsaid Bogdan about my 23.Tcd1? move. Indeed I was in
‘confident autopilot’ mode and didn’t realize that it was time to shift
gear. How I should move here?} 1. Nd6 {more or less missed the scanner, but
this is what I had to try if I was serious about causing my opponent problems.}
Bd3 {I assumed I couldn’t play Nd6! and didn’t think any more about it,
but if I had paid more attention to the trends, I would have realized that in
a sense I have to play it, or consent to the reversal of the game’s
direction. White then has:} 2. Qg4 {After a deep analysis, White's is clearly
better.  Sometimes it’s more important to keep the momentum of the game than
to think whether a certain move is objectively good or bad.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1q1r1rk1/pp3pp1/3Pp2p/8/1n1P2QP/1B1b2B1/PP4P1/2R2RK1 b - - 0 2"]
[PlyCount "4"]

2... Bxf1 {Let's dive deeper into the analysis ... How should White continue
here?} 3. Be5 {Of course. That is why Black should not be materialistic.} f6 4.
Bxe6+ {Followed by Rc7, winning on the spot.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1q1r1rk1/pp2bpp1/4p1bp/4P3/1n1PN2P/1B4B1/PP2Q1P1/3R1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{White just played Rcd1, not the best move. How can Black improve his position
after this inaccuracy?} 1... Bxe4 {A well-timed exchange! Black would have
played this before, but it only works when White can be prevented from lining
up the queen and bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r1rk1/ppq1bpp1/4p2p/4P3/1n1PQ2P/1B4B1/PP4P1/3R1RK1 w - - 0 25"]
[PlyCount "15"]

{I didn’t sense that the trend was turning away from me and I played the
weaker 25.Rc1?!} 25. a3 {This was probably my last chance to keep some sort of
advantage.  25.Rc1?! Qd7 26.Rfd1 I doubt if I’m in any way better here. 26...
Rc8 27.a3 Rxc1 28.Rxc1 Nd5 29.Kh2 Bd8! 30.Rf1 Bb6 31.Rf3 Bc7!? Bogdan offered
a draw here but the game continued a few more moves.} Qc6 26. Qxc6 Nxc6 27. d5
Bc5+ 28. Kh2 exd5 29. Rxd5 Bd4 30. Rb5 Bb6 31. e6 fxe6 32. Bxe6+ {but even
then, there don't seem to be enough pawns left to make much use of the two
bishops. All the same, White should have a pull for some moves to come.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/pp1q2p1/4pP1p/3n4/3PQ2P/PB3Rb1/1P4P1/7K w - - 0 34"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Another case of blinking. In the game, White missed a devastating move that
would have put an end to the enemy's hopes.  Can you find this intermezzo?} 34.
Qg4 {looks very good for White.  The threat Bxd5 is very strong in view of the
overloaded black queen, who defends the g7 pawn and the pinned e-pawn.  34.
Rxg3? Rxf6 35.Qe5  Draw. This was actually what happened in the game.  White
is more active, but Black’s king is safer. I offered the draw back, before
the trend turned away beyond equality.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Rowson vs. B. Lalic"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "69"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Nf3 {This move-order
rarely has any independent significance but it can offer White a promising
twist if Black wants to play the lines without ...Nd7.  In passing, I offer
the following game as an offbeat way to play the white side of the Classical
Caro-Kann; it’s unlikely to cause Black nightmares, but I think it deserves
more attention.  6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bf4 Ngf6
12.O-O !? Normally White castles queenside here, but I noticed GM Nick de
Firmian castle kingside in this line and realized that it made some sense. 
Most variations in this line revolve around whether the h5-pawn gives White an
imposing space/ structural advantage on the kingside or whether the pawn is
actually just a long-term liability.  It has long been assumed that White
should keep the rook on h1 to protect h5 but given that Black cannot force the
win of this pawn quickly for tactical reasons there is another way of looking
at the position.  If Black castles queenside White can pawn-storm him there
without fear of exposing his own king and if he castles kingside, the h5-pawn
is very useful for attacking purposes 12...Be7 13.c4 O-O 14.Rfe1 Re8 15.Rad1
Qa5 16.a3! b5  16...Nxh5 17.Bd2 17.Ne5 bxc4 18.Qxc4 Nxe5 19.dxe5 Nd5 20.Bc1
Qb6 21.Qg4 Kf8 22.Rd3 Bc5 23.Re2! Rad8 24.b4! Be7 25.Rf3 c5 26.Bxh6! gxh6 27.
Rxf7+ Kxf7 28.Qg6+ Kf8 29.Qxh6+ Kg8 30.Re4 Nf6 31.exf6 Bxf6 32.Rg4+ 1-0 J.
Rowson - J.Grant, Aberdeen 1998} Nf6 7. Ne5 {7.h4 h6 8.Ne5 After  8.h5 Bh7 9.
Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 Black can consider playing ...c5 and ...Nc6 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3
10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bd2 is the current main line, which I know little about.} Nbd7 8.
f4 {Thi@ is a somewhat doubtful idea, because it weakens the kingside and the
central light squares, but I wanted to try to ‘punish’ his move-order
îîStartBracketîîPerfectionismîîEndBracketîî.  At the time this game was played
I was oblivious to the recent fashions mentioned above.  This ignorance, and
the confidence it gave me, led me to overestimate my position, but such false
confidence is often a great blessing and I proceeded to mobilize my forces
quickly and confidently.} e6 9. Bc4 Nxe5 10. fxe5 Nd7 {10...Nd5 is more
obvious but then Black doesn't threaten ...c5 as quickly because of the reply
Bb5+ 11.O-O Be7 12.Bb3 O-O 13.c4} 11. O-O Be7 12. Be3 Qb6 13. Qe2 {13.Bb3 is
met by 13...Nxe5} O-O {I guess Bogdan refrained from  13...Qxb2!? for
‘psychological reasons’; he didn’t want to cede the initiative so soon. 
However, as far as I can tell White has no convincing continuation here and
given that White’s position now begins to improve this may already have been
a critical moment where the trend turns in White’s favour.  A possible
continuation is 14.Rab1 Qxc2 15.Rxb7 Qxe2!  15...Nb6 16.Rxf7! Kxf7 17.Qf3+ 16.
Bxe2 Nb6 17.Nh5 Rg8 18.Rc1 Be4} 14. c3 c5 15. Rad1 {I was quite content here.
I have an active position and all my forces are mobilized.  However, I think
the position is still equal since all Black’s pieces have potential and
it’s not easy for White to create any weaknesses.  That said, the trends
somehow felt favourable because my position is quite easy to play and I think
I liked my position more than Bogdan liked his.} Rad8 16. Bf2 {intending d5 or
Ne4} Qc7 17. Bb3 {17.Bd3 is another plan; exchanging off Black’s main
kingside defender and planning to give the knight pride of place on e4. 
However, such a strategy is double-edged because if my kingside attack
doesn’t succeed, my bishop will be relatively passive and it won’t help me
to defend all the light squares I’ve weakened.  Moreover, I prefer not to
exchange pieces when I have a space advantage; I am fearful of counter-attacks
of the type we saw in Emms-Webster above} cxd4 18. cxd4 Nb6 19. Rc1 Qb8 {
GM M.Gurevich thought this was an outrageous move, and I myself found it
rather surprising After  19...Qd7! Black is at least equal.  Bogdan was afraid
of 20.Ne4 Nd5 21.Nc5 Bxc5 22.dxc5 when White seems to have a big advantage,
but as Gurevich had seen 22...Nb4! or  22...Nf4 poaching on d3 leaves Black in
control. This line shows the value of centralization and trusting your
feelings.  I find that it often happens this way; the most obvious move which
keeps your pieces centralized works well but by Thinking, you find some way to
justify a much more obscure move.  I think in the given case this was related
to the trends; Bogdan felt a little pressure because of the confidence of my
play, convinced himself that he’d better be careful, and then manufactured a
line to be careful about.  This is speculation of course, but I think it’s
not so implausible.  Black’s ‘position’ on the chessboard after my 19th
move was absolutely fine but his ‘position’ with reference to the contest
was not so easy.} 20. Ne4 Nd5 21. h4 {Tickling his kingside and hassling the
bishop. It’s also useful to control g5 in case there is an annoying
combination of ...Bg5 and ...Ne3 at some moment.} h6 22. Bg3 {Intending Nd6}
Nb4 {Key moment} 23. Rcd1 {“@ou were not enough resolute!”, said Bogdan.
Indeed, I was in ‘confident autopilot’ mode and didn’t realize that it
was time to shift gear.  Yet had I looked closely I would have seen all the
indications: 19...Qb8 was a strange-looking move (signal) , the upward trend I
felt while playing the natural moves has reached an impasse and I have to
re-energize my position (sensitivity) .  Putting a strong centralized knight
temporarily on a silly square, might also suggest that I need to strike 
(signal) .  Moreover, if I talk to my pieces, they are all screaming for
action and whereas the c1-rook has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the
passive d1-square, my e4-knight is pleading for an advance into d6 (sign) . 
This was a serious opportunity to win the game.  Since I saw 23.Nd6 but
didn’t look beyond the fact that Black wins material, I was guilty of
Materialism, but that wasn’t the main issue.  Rather I didn’t realize that
this move demanded a different type of attention to all my previous moves,
which have been rather easy to find.  Had this been a puzzle or had somebody
told me it was a key moment I’m sure I would have found the solution but
without realizing that this moment has extra ‘weight’ it’s very hard to
justify spending lots of energy on a long, complicated line when up to this
point, I have built up a good position without very much effort.  ‘If it
ain’t broke don’t fix it’, I suppose, but I’ve always felt that line
is just an excuse for laziness. This gets to the heart of the blinking problem.
You will only begin to recognize these key moments if you are highly sensitive
to trends. Prior to 22...Nb4 there was a clear upward trend for White, with an
obvious way to continue this trend with 23.Nd6.  But after 22...Nb4 it’s not
so easy to continue this trend and after my half-hearted move the trend is
reversed, where-upon Black begins to equalize.  So, if you can see your
favourable trend blossoming by itself then that’s great but if your opponent
fights hard you will have moments where you are ‘stuck’ and can’t see a
way to continue the trend.  Those will normally be the key moments where you
have to dig deep.  23.Nd6! I more or less missed the scanner, but this is what
I had to try if I was serious about causing my opponent problems.  The
following maze is a necessary evil, to show that concentration at key moments
can be rewarded with fascinating insights to a position.  It’s taken me a
fair few hours to create the mess below, and this is a rare opportunity in
this book to plunge in and get your hands dirty:  On seeing 23...Bd3 I assumed
I couldn’t play 23.Nd6 and didn’t think any more about it, but if I had
paid more attention to the trends, I would have realized that in a sense I
have to play it, or consent to the reversal of the game’s direction White
then has:  23...Rxd6 24.exd6 Bxd6 25.Bxd6 Qxd6 26.Qe5± 24.Qg4! Bxf1  24...
Bxd6 25.exd6 Bxf1  25...h5 26.Qg5 Bxf1 27.Be5 f6 28.Bxe6++- 26.Be5! and now 26.
..g6  26...f6 27.Rc7 Rf7 28.Bxe6 and White crashes through 27.Rxf1  27.Bxe6+-
25...Bd3  27...Kh7 28.Rc7 Bd3 29.Qf3 28.d7 Qa8 29.Rc8 Nc6  29...h5 30.Qf4 Nc6
31.Rxc6 fxe6 32.Qh6 Rf1+ 33.Kh2 and checkmate follows shortly 30.Rxa8 Rxa8 31.
Qf3± 25.Nxf7!  25.Rxf1 Rxd6! 26.exd6 Bxd6 Bd3  25...Be2 26.Qxe6 doesn’t
help Black because the g6-square is weakened  25...Rxf7 26.Qxe6 Rdf8 27.Qxe7
Nc6 28.Bxf7+ Rxf7 29.Qxf7+ Kxf7 30.e6++- 26.Bxe6  26.Qxe6 Rde8! seems to be
better for BlackîîEndBracketîî and here: 26...Kh7  26...Rxf7 27.Bxf7+ and then:
27...Kh7  27...Kh8 28.Rc3!  28.e6 Rxd4 is not so clear Bh7 there are other
moves, but I don't think the combined threats of e6 and a3 can be met 29.e6+-
and Black seems to be losing in all lines  27...Kxf7 is met by 28.e6+ 28.Rc3! 
28.e6 is met by 28...Rxd4 18...Bb1 29.e6 Qa8 30.Be5 g6 31.Bxg6+  31.Rg3 Rg8 32.
h5 g5 33.Bxg8+ Kxg8  33...Qxg8 34.Rf3 34.Rf3 Nc6 35.Qg3! and the threat of Rf7
looks terminal 31...Bxg6 32.h5 Rg8 33.hxg6+ Rxg6 34.Qf5 Qf8 35.Rc8! 27.a3! and
here 27...Nc2 and now  27...Nd5 28.Qd1 Bg6 29.Nxd8 Rxd8 30.Qf3 Nc7 31.Bf5 Bxf5
32.Qxf5+ Kh8 33.e6+- and White wins  27...Nc6 28.d5 Rxf7 29.dxc6 Rf1+ 30.Rxf1
Bxf1 31.Bf5+ Kg8 32.e6 Bd6 33.Qg6 Bxg3 34.Qh7+ Kf8 35.Qh8+ Ke7 36.Qxg7+ Kd6 37.
Qxg3+ Kxc6 38.Be4+ Kc5 39.e7! Qxg3 40.exd8=Q Qe3+ 41.Kxf1 Qxe4 42.Qf8++- +
with a winning queen endgame. 28.d5!?  28.Qd1 Rxd4 29.Rxc2 Bg6 30.Qxd4 Bxc2 31.
Nd6 Bg6 32.Kh2  White a promising position, while 28 d5!? Rde8 is fairly
unclear, but I believe in White’s attack.  Although these lines are not
comprehensive, they do seem to flow elegantly in the direction of the
prevailing trend.  It would asking far too much to see all the lines after 23.
Nd6 to the end, but it’s not asking too much to look far enough to confirm
the belief that this is the right move.  It may well be that there’s a flaw
in the above analysis and that Black can defend after this move, but this
wouldn’t change my view that 23.Nd6 had to be played.  Indeed I am reminded
of Miles annotating a game in which his opponent sacrifices a piece for two
pawns in a quiet but complex position where he notes: “No !s or ?s for this
move. It’s just necessary.'  Sometimes it’s more important to keep the
momentum of the game than to think whether a certain move is objectively good
or bad. 25...Rde8} Bxe4 {A well-timed exchange. Black would have played this
before but it only works when White can be prevented from lining up the queen
and bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal} 24. Qxe4 Qc7 25. Rc1 {I didn’t sense that
the trend was turning away from me. This was probably my last chance to keep
some sort of advantage, by  25.a3 Qc6! 26.Qxc6 Nxc6 27.d5 Bc5+ 28.Kh2 exd5 29.
Rxd5 Bd4 30.Rb5 Bb6! 31.e6 fxe6 32.Bxe6+ Kh7 but even then, there don’t seem
to be enough pawns left to make much use of the two bishops. All the same,
White should have a pull for some moves to come} Qd7 26. Rfd1 {I doubt if
I’m in any way better here.} Rc8 27. a3 Rxc1 28. Rxc1 Nd5 29. Kh2 Bd8 30. Rf1
Bb6 31. Rf3 Bc7 {Bogdan offered a draw here, but Bogdan offers so many draws
that I tend to reject them on principle, often at the cost of half a point; a
small price to pay for the pleasure it gives me. In fact his move was somewhat
inaccurate and I was quite right to decline, not that I realized why} 32. Kh1
f5 33. exf6 Bxg3 34. Rxg3 {34.Qg4! looks very good for White} Rxf6 35. Qe5 {
½-½ White is more active, but Black’s king is safer. I offered the draw
back, before the trend turned away beyond equality.  British League (4NCL)
1998/9} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "B. Lalic vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/pppq2bp/2np1np1/5b2/2P5/2N1BN1P/PP2BPP1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Is a very strong quiet move, with a prophylactic flavour.   Black keeps the
option of both ...Ne4 and ...Bxh3, both of which will be stronger with the
king on h8.   More importantly, this circumvents White’s most natural
continuation and so makes it difficult to find a suitable reply.   Given that
I knew, I had to do something, but didn’t like} 1... Kh8 {1...Bxh3 2.gxh3
Qxh3 3.Nh2 Ne5  3...Re5 4.Bf3 Rf5 5.Nd5 leaves White in control. 4.Nd5 and now
if Black takes, White recaptures with check and brings the queen to g2.   If
Black doesn't take, White can either bring the knight to the kingside with Nf4
or start a counterattack with Nxc7.   I don’t see anything promising for
Black here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "B. Lalic vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp2pbp/3p2p1/3QP3/2P1n3/5N2/PP3PPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{After the last move Qd5, White tries to hinder the coordination of Black's
position.  How should Black development continue?} 8... f5 {This seems to give
Black a very easy game. Now I was quite enjoying myself.  I suppose we’ve
just had some sort of theoretical battle and given that this is Bogdan’s
forte, I was pleased to have come out on top.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "B. Lalic vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/ppp3b1/2np1qbp/3Q2pB/2P5/1P2B2P/P4PPN/3R1RK1 b - - 0 26"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{How should Black resist the position after this check?} 26... Rf7 {is best,
when I am close to equalizing. I guess psychologically we don’t like to pin
our own pieces, but here there is little that White can do to trouble me, e.g.
26...Kh7? The king is vulnerable here.  White’s repetition had undermined my
sense of danger. 27.Bf3 With the irritating threat of Qb5 27...a6 28.c5! dxc5
opening the position while my coordination is bad and making c7 a potential
weakness 29.Qxc5 threatening Bxc6 in conjunction with Rd7 29...Be4 I didn’t
like to abandon his highness like this but Bxc6, in conjunction with Rd7, was
a serious positional threat 30.Bxe4+! Rxe4 31.Nf3! I was a little dazed around
now.} 27. Bxg6 Qxg6 28. Qb5 Rb8 {It’s quite simple really: I have no real
weaknesses and the threat of ...Rf5 will allow my b8-rook to be reactivated
soon.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "B. Lalic vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5r2/1pp3bk/p1n2q1p/2Q3p1/4r3/1P2BN1P/P4PP1/3R1RK1 b - - 0 31"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{At first I wanted to play 31...Re7 but I felt that my pieces looked a bit
clumsy then. After a bit more rumination I decided that exchanging queens on
e7 would help. It's 31...Qe7 the best way to continue here or is there a
better way?} 31... Rf7 {I think I saw some combination of Qc2 and Bxg5 and
ruled this one out. It’s easy to overlook the critical lines when you have
already tacitly assumed that there should be a simple solution to your
problems.   31...Qe7?? 32.Qxe7! Of course! I have no good way to recapture.}
32. Bxg5 Qg6 {You should have considered this move.} 33. Qc2 Rxf3 {The point!}
34. gxf3 Rg4+ {This impressive line has been demonstrated by Bodgan.  It’s
true that it’s not so difficult to see now, but when the tense emotions of
the moment direct your thoughts, it is extremely difficult to perceive such a
line clearly.  I guess my blunder was caused by ‘tension transference’,
considered under Looseness.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "B. Lalic vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "83"]

1. c4 {I now realize that before the game there is something to be said for
thinking about what you are playing for.  On the one hand I want to fight in
all my games but you must either resolve to do this at all times or else be
pragmatic and decide before each game, considering form, tournament situation,
colour and opponent.  One of the main reasons I lost this game is that I
hadn’t resolved in my own mind how I would react to an early draw offer. 
For a further consideration of such issues, see Chapter 3.} g6 {After about
five minutes’ thought. I didn’t feel very focused for some reason so I
used the first few moves to acclimatize.} 2. e4 {Played with the air of a
cunning question. Bogdan knows my repertoire quite well and, like most
Grünfeld players, I have some move-order issues to deal with after 1.c4 or 1.
Nf3.  I had the feeling that he would be ready for any funny business based on
...e5 but I didn’t really have a choice because I don’t understand early ..
.g6 lines or the King’s Indian nearly well enough to play them against such
a theoretical monster} e5 {OK, show me what you’ve got} 3. Nf3 {3.d@ Nf6 4.
Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2  6.Nbxd2 d6 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Qe7 9.f4 Nbd7 10.
Nxd7 Bxd7 11.e5 O-O-O with good compensation, Polugaevsky-Tal, USSR Ch, Moscow
1973îîEndBracketîî Qe7!? 7.dxe5 Nxe4 8.Qe3 Qb4+ 9.Nbd2 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 11.
Kxd2 b6!? with a comfortable ending for Black, Poluliakhov-Sutovsky, Koszalin
1999.} Bg7 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. e5 {I w@s surprised when Bogdan paused
before this move, but sometimes this is just a ploy of well-prepared players
to make you think that they are on new territory too, so I was still quite
tense here.  6.Nc3 O-O 7.Be2 Re8 8.f3 c6!? !? with the idea of playing ...d5
without pausing for ...d6 is generally thought to be comfortable for Black. If
White wants an advantage here he probably has to try 9.Nb3 with the idea of  9.
..d5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Bg5 as suggested by Lautier. 11...dxe4 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.
Nxe4 Nbd7 14.Rd1 Re8 15.Nd6 Re6 16.Kf2 and White has an enduring initiative
a5!? may be Black’s best reply.  Then 10.a4  10.Bf4 a4 just looks good for
Black 10.d5!? this is not mentioned by Lautier, but it seems to make it
difficult for White to castleîîEndBracketîî 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Bg5  12.exd5 Qb6
10...Qb6!? looks like good compensation. 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Qxd5 Rd8 is not so
clear because White’s knights have a lot of potential, but I suspect Black
has enough compensation for the pawn} Ne4 {I p@ayed this after roughly five
minutes of dithering over  6...Qe7 which unfortunately doesn’t have an
obvious refutation – making it difficult to discard under the circumstances
îîStartBracketîîPerfectionismîîEndBracketîî. I still felt like I was somehow
walking a tight rope 7.Qe2 Nh5 8.Nf3 d6 9.exd6 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 cxd6 looked to me
like some sort of theory, but given that I have no real compensation for the
structure I didn’t want to go there.} 7. Nf3 {7.Qe2 Nc5 is likely to end up
with White having problems on the e-file.} d6 {Now I felt more comfortable. My
opponent was thinking too, and he didn’t look totally content} 8. Qd5 f5 {
This seems to give Black a very easy game. Now I was quite enjoying myself. I
suppose we’ve just had some sort of theoretical battle and given that this
is Bogdan’s forte, I was pleased to have come out on top.} 9. exf6 Nxf6 10.
Qd1 O-O {Now I started playing quickly. It looks like an upward trend for
Black has been established. White has lost some time with his queen and Black
has comfortable posts waiting for all his pieces.} 11. Be2 Nc6 12. Nc3 Bf5 13.
O-O Qd7 14. h3 {Here Bogdan offered a draw – and a very tricky offer it is.
Aside from the position, the tournament context was on my mind.  This was the
penultimate round; 1 out of 2 gives me a reasonable prize, 1.5 a good prize
and 2/2 would be first outright.  A terrible thing to think at such a moment!
But who is completely resistant to such thoughts? There are aspects of Wanting
and Egoism here.  Whatever the evaluation of the current position, it is clear
that I have been experiencing an upward trend after riding the storm just out
of the opening.  It is also clear that Black’s position is not worse, and
White’s last move is in some ways encouraging because it accentuates
Black’s development advantage.  A further issue is that I have an obvious
move to play 14...Rae8 and yet I have no obvious plan for preserving and
transforming the favourable trend.  So in many ways I am fully justified in
declining the offer, but to some extent the offer undermined my concentration
because when you feel that your opponent is going to fight to the death for
victory, you tend to feel suitably tense and attentive to his ideas and their
relation to your own.  But once you are offered a draw, there is a tendency to
feel that this offer is of a general nature and not specific to the position. 
My problem here was that I concluded that this offer was ‘on the table’
and generalized that ‘Bogdan is happy with a draw’.  In actual fact Bogdan,
though usually happy with a draw, was distinctly unhappy with his opening play,
and fearing he may be worse and sensing the unfavourable trend, he tried to
halt Black’s progress by ending the game immediately.  Since he was a
half-point behind and values the alleged advantage of the white pieces, a draw
was by no means a success for him.  So it is dangerous to think that an early
draw offer means your opponent is generally happy to draw.  If you do this,
there may be a tendency to avoid the transformations you need to make because
as long as the position seems the same, you may think you have an opt-out
clause, but if the position is totally different, you lose the safety-valve
that you think the offer has afforded you.  So, largely because of the offer,
I decided to try to outplay him slowly but this is a big mistake, because
White’s extra pawn for his king shield and grip on the d5-square gives him
certain positional advantages and if I play a ‘slow game’, as the Russians
say, there is a danger that I could become worse.  The point is that I
didn’t acknowledge this danger because I always thought I had a draw
available if the position seemed to be turning.} Rae8 15. Be3 {Cri@ical moment.
If White is given time to connect and centralize his rooks then he will be
better, so Black needs to play with some controlled urgency.  I decided
against sacrificing on h3, not because of any particular line, but just
because after such a big change in the position, I feared I would be playing
for a ‘third result’ rather than just two – a draw or a win
îîStartBracketîîsee Chapter 3îîEndBracketîî.} Ne4 {Now@White is at least equal.
Other ideas: aîîEndBracketîî For a long time after the game I assumed that I
missed my only chance to keep the initiative with 15...Bxh3.  Indeed, both
players concluded that Black has good practical chances and should have played
this way to keep the pressure on White.  After 16.gxh3 Qxh3 17. Nh2!
îîStartBracketîînot 17.Ng5?! Qh4îîEndBracketîî we didn’t find anything in
particular for Black, but assumed that this must be the way for him to go
because otherwise White was never worse, and this seemed counter-intuitive
given the amount of time he had lost. Moreover, Bogdan suggested that such a
sacrifice wasn’t even such a big risk because Black already has two pawns
and a big initiative.  Given that I knew I had to do something, but didn’t
like  15...Bxh3 I decided on the most natural move without carefully
calculating White’s likely response. 16.gxh3 Qxh3 17.Nh2!  17.Ng5?! Qh4
Re5!? However, a closer look suggests that this line just doesn’t work for
Black:  17...Ne5 18.Nd5! and now if Black takes, White recaptures with check
and brings the queen to g2. If Black doesn't take, White can either bring the
knight to the kingside with Nf4 or start a counterattack with Nxc7.  I don’t
see anything promising for Black here.  17...Ne7!? is a curious echo of the
suggested in Emms-Webster, but after 18.Bg4! Black’s best is to play an
inferior ending after 18...Nxg4 19.Qxg4 Qxg4+ 20.Nxg4 h5 21.Nh2 Bxc3 22.bxc3
Nf5 18.Bf3! and now I don’t see anything convincing, as 18...Rf5 19.Nd5
leaves White in control.  19.Bg2 is also good 19...Qh4 20.Qe2 Ne5 21.Nf3 Qxc4
22.Nd4 Rh5 23.Qxc4+ Nxc4 24.Ne6±  There is a theme to all these lines: 
Black’s development advantage is based on the superior activity of his rooks,
but it seems there is no way to exploit this after 15...Bxh3.  White’s queen
was very well placed on d1, supporting f3 and g4 and the position of Black’s
king gives White some annoying regrouping possibilities. What does this
suggest? Talk with your pieces. Your f6-knight has been heard and your f5-
bishop is calling, but is there a sound from any other quarter? Which piece
could be improved before the forces become integrated?  Thus...  15...Kh8! is
a very strong quiet move, with a prophylactic flavour. Black keeps the option
of both ...Ne4 and ...Bxh3, both of which will be stronger with the king on h8.
More importantly, this circumvents White’s most natural continuation and so
makes it difficult to find a suitable reply.  Then 16.Re1 may be White’s
best move but Black retains some initiative  16.Qd2 Bxh3! 17.gxh3 Qxh3 the
insertion of Qd2 and ...Kh8 deprives White of all the main defensive resources
that we saw in the previous line 18.Ng5  18.Nh2 Ne4! 19.Qc2 after  19.Nxe4
Rxe4 4 the superiority of the rooks is very clear, and Black has a decisive
attack, e.g. 20.Bg5 Nd4 21.Rae1 Rf3! Nxf2! 20.Bxf2 Be5 21.Ng4 Nd4! gives Black
decisive threats No better is  18.Bf4 Nh5 19.Bh2 when Black is winning; for
example 19...Rxe2 20.Qxe2 Rxf3 21.Qe8+ Rf8 22.Qe3 Qg4+ 23.Kh1 Qxc4-+ Qh4 19.
Kg2 Ng4 leaves Black with a huge initiative.  After 20.Nh3 Be5! 21.Qe1 Rf5
White might be able to survive, but Black has plenty of attacking ideas  16.
Rc1!? gives Black two promising options 16...Bxh3 The quieter option is also
instructive:  16...Ne4 17.Nxe4  17.Nd5 Bxb2 18.Rb1 Qg7 seems to lead to
favourable complications Bxe4 18.Nd4  18.b3 Bb2 looks like quite a safe
material-grab while  18.Qd2 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 Rxf3 20.gxf3 Qxh3-+ is winning Nxd4
19.Bxd4 Bxd4 20.Qxd4+ Qg7⩱ This is the type of slight edge I was looking for.
Black is usually a bit better in such endings because the pawn on c4 leaves
the white queenside a bit exposed and in this case Black has the more useful
bishop and a more active king. 17.gxh3 Qxh3 18.Nh2 Ne4! 19.Nd5 after  19.Bg4
Qh4 20.Bf3 Nxc3 21.bxc3 Qxc4 , I guess Black is a bit better: he has three
pawns for the piece, White’s remaining pawns are weak, and the white king
will always be draughty Be5 20.Ng4 h5  20...Ng3 21.fxg3 Qxg3+ 22.Kh1 Qh3+ 23.
Kg1 Qg3+ 21.Nxe5 Rxe5 threatening ...Rff5 followed by ...Rg5+ looks
unstoppable. 16...Ne4 after  16...Bxh3 17.gxh3 Qxh3 18.Bf1 White should stave
off the attack 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Nd4 Qd8!? improving the queen’s prospects and
setting a little trap 19.Nxc6 not  19.Qd2? Bxg2! 20.Kxg2 Rxe3 21.fxe3 Qg5+ 22.
Bg4 Nxd4 Bxc6 and here  19...bxc6!? 20.Bd4 c5 21.Bxg7+ Kxg7 Black has chances
to be better in such an ending because the ‘weak’black a-pawn can be used
to make the white b-pawn even weaker and the position of the kings means that
White’s kingside majority is unlikely to cause any problems. 20.Bd4 Qh4!
gives Black some initiative} 16. Nxe4 Bxe4 17. Ng5 {I didn’t think he could
do this, but perhaps that’s just because I had programmed myself to think
that he was playing for a draw and so such tactical lines missed the scanner.}
Bf5 {Not  17...Bxb2? 18.Nxe4 Bxa1 19.Qd5+ Qf7 20.Rxa1 Qxd5 21.cxd5 I think
I’d missed that he was attacking c6 here 21...Rxe4 22.dxc6 bxc6+- with a
winning endgame for White.} 18. Qd2 h6 {A nervous and weakening move. The
knight looks threatening on g5 but it’s actually not very well placed.  18...
Ne5!? was better. 19.f4?! there’s no need for White to be provoked in this
way;  19.Rfe1!? and  19.Rad1!? both look comfortable for White but Black is
much better off having not weakened the kingside and the position looks more
equal than anything else Nc6 20.Bf3 Rxe3 21.Bxc6 Qxc6 22.Qxe3 Qxc4 Black seems
to be better. The two bishops are not worse than the rook and knight and Black
has an extra pawn.} 19. Nf3 Be4 {I offered a draw back here, thinking I was
still slightly better but sensing that my favourable trend was withering.  In
fact after White’s next move I am a bit worse and the effect of the draw
offer being declined placed me in a very difficult predicament.  Not only do I
have to fight, when I didn’t think I had to, but I have to face up to the
possibility of defeat, which seemed out of the question a few moves ago. Such
situations are considered more closely in Wanting.} 20. Nh2 {Now White has
consolidated his position and connected the rooks. In the meantime I have
achieved little but a weakened kingside. White is slightly better and has
established a favourable trend.  To his credit, Bogdan plays the rest of the
game very well Instead after  20.Bxh6? Bxf3 21.Bxf3 Rxf3 22.gxf3 Qxh3
White’s king is not a happy bunny.} Qe7 21. Rad1 Qf6 22. b3 g5 23. Bh5 Bg6
24. Bf3 Be4 25. Bh5 Bg6 26. Qd5+ Kh7 {The king is vulnerable here. White’s
repetition had undermined my sense of danger.  26...Rf7! is best, when I am
close to equalizing.  I guess psychologically we don’t like to pin our own
pieces, but here there is little that White can do to trouble me, e.g. 27.Bxg6
Qxg6 28.Qb5 Rb8! It’s quite simple really: I have no real weaknesses and the
threat of ...Rf5 will allow my b8-rook to be reactivated soon.} 27. Bf3 {
With the irritating threat of Qb5} a6 28. c5 dxc5 {Opening the position while
my coordination is bad and making c7 a potential weakness} 29. Qxc5 {
threatening Bxc6 in conjunction with Rd7} Be4 {I didn’t like to abandon his
highness like this but Bxc6 in conjunction with Rd7 was a serious positional
threat} 30. Bxe4+ Rxe4 31. Nf3 {I was a little dazed around now. My position
is basically still OK but there are various threats based on taking on g5, Qc2
or Rd7 and it was all a bit much to take in while short of time.  At first I
wanted to play 31...Re7 but I felt that my pieces looked a bit clumsy then.
After a bit more rumination I decided that exchanging queens would help and,
without stopping to consider my opponent’s reply, I played:} Qe7 {This is a
good case of ‘looseness’ brought about by the feeling of helplessness when
the trends seem to be turning relentlessly against you. I was far too
‘loose’ to calculate any tactics accurately but on a better day I may
still have been able to hold with  31...Rf7! I think I saw some combination of
Qc2 and Bxg5 and ruled this one out.  It’s easy to overlook the critical
lines when you have already tacitly assumed that there should be a simple
solution to your problems.  Bogdan demonstrated the important and impressive
line 32.Bxg5 Qg6 33.Qc2 Rxf3! 34.gxf3 Rg4+! after the game. It’s true that
it’s not so difficult to see now, but when the tense emotions of the moment
direct your thoughts, it is extremely difficult to perceive such a line
clearly.  I guess my blunder was caused by ‘tension transference’,
considered under Looseness.} 32. Qxe7 {Of course! I have no good way to
recapture.  Having decided that a queen exchange favoured me in general, I
didn’t stop to look at the specific implications of this obvious move  32.
Qc2 Also looks strong.  I think I had something in mind after this and I
presume Bogdan saw whatever it was too, but looking at it now, this looks
absolutely decisive because of the combined threats of Nd2 and Bc5 32...Nb4 33.
Qb1 Kh8 White has 34.Bc5! – I think we both missed this final detail.} Nxe7 {
32...Rxe7 is met by 33.Bc5} 33. Rd7 Kg6 {Or  33...Nf5 34.Bxg5} 34. Rxc7 Nd5 35.
Rxb7 Nxe3 36. Re1 {An accurate move. White has some technical problems after 
36.fxe3 Rxe3 37.Rb6+ Rf6} Bd4 37. Nxd4 Rxd4 38. Rxe3 Rd1+ 39. Kh2 Rxf2 40. Rb6+
Kf5 41. Rxh6 Kf4 42. Re8 {Isle of Man 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Contradiction at the Heart Of"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîContradiction at the Heart of Chess?îîHeaderEndîî 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîDo I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself.
' WALT WHITMAN îîEndBlockQuoteîîHas it ever struck you how crude chess symbols
are? In one position in my last book, I tried to say that ‘Black has an
unclear advantage’ but John Nunn objected that this was contradictory: if
Black has the advantage in the position, then that’s a clear assessment; the
position cannot also be unclear.  In a sense you cannot fault this logic and
indeed I felt obliged to change the assessment to something like ‘the
position is fairly unclear but I prefer Black’.  I suppose the distinction
is that one is an objective claim and the other a subjective opinion, but
I’m not at all convinced that this distinction should be seen as important.
Whatever the case may be, this episode made an impression on me and since then
I’ve wondered to what extent our appreciation of chess is restricted by the
symbols, we are exposed to in almost every chess book we read.  Without words,
we communicate with the following:  slight/clear/decisive advantage to either
side (six assessments) , equal, unclear, compensation, counterplay, initiative,
attack, time-trouble, development (plus a few others) and in most books we are
not even exposed to anything beyond the first seven or eight, the rest being
verbalized by the author.  What interests me is which signs are mutually
exclusive and why?  Presumably the position can be unclear with one side
having an attack, or equal with one side having compensation for material. 
Can it be such that the side with the slight advantage is also under attack?
Can the side with a clear disadvantage also enjoy a development advantage?  Of
course, they can, but these pairs don’t rest easy, do they? Somehow, we like
to attach extra weight to the assessment and all other details are given a
subordinate role.  For example, we often read that White is better because of
development or that the position has become unclear because of counterplay,
etc.  There may be a very good reason for this. Whereas the first eight
symbols can be applied to one position at a time, the others refer to events
in progress, those ephemeral, dynamic aspects of the position that are somehow
more intangible and less precise (we think) than the basic assessments.  It
seems to me that the former (positional assessments) place a value on the
given position as it stands, but the latter gives an indication of the
direction of the game.  But why don’t we place a value on the direction? 
Might it not be, that, because of the direction of the game, the side with the
advantage must inevitably become worse?  Surely not! Surely that would just
mean that the initial assessment was incorrect?  That would be a convenient
answer, but I’ve come to think that it may not be true.  I freely admit that
the alternative is highly counter-intuitive, but I hope the reader will give
it a fair hearing in any case.  Sometimes it seems that you can look at a
position from the perspective of the given moment without ‘movement’ and
place a value on it that contradicts the value you place on it under the
perspective of where the game has come from and where it’s likely to go. 
What is more, this does not seem to be a purely psychological matter.  I think
this sort of crazy contradiction may be built into the heart of chess.  There
may be some positions where one side is better and worse, depending on whether
you look at the position at hand or the direction of the game.  In case you
think this is a just an academic matter, think again.  How often have you felt
that you had a good position, don’t know where you went wrong, and lost? 
I’m sure it has happened quite a lot, and I am suggesting that in such cases
you may not have made a mistake as such at all!  It may just have been that
your assessment of the position as favourable, although not strictly false,
may have been too one-dimensional.  You need to assess not only the position
as it stands, but the position as it has changed and how it is likely to
continue to change.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Shaw vs. Rowson - Exercise #1"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r1k2r/1p2bp2/p2p1npp/4p3/P3P3/2NR2P1/RPP2PNP/6K1 b k - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{I hesitate to call this a critical position but in some ways it is the most
interesting moment of the game.  Can you find the best plan for Black?} 19...
Nd7 {It depends whether you look at the position or if you look at the
momentum of the game.  John ‘blinked’ here because he contented himself
with his good position and didn’t pay much attention to how the game would
develop.  Had he looked at the direction of the game, he would have sensed
that he is in some danger of being worse and may have played more resolutely
at some point over the following few moves.  19...Rc4 20.Ne3 Rd4 21.f3 Kd7 22.
Ncd5 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Rxd3 24.cxd3 Ke6 25.Ra3! Rc8 26.Rb3± gives White a clear
advantage.  This line confirmed my belief that I had to be very patient.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Shaw vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7r/1p1kbp2/p1rpn1p1/3Np2p/P3P2P/4N1P1/1PP2PK1/R2R4 b - - 0 25"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{This is a key moment. In the game I've played the weaker 25...Rb8?!. Think
about how should Black fight here for the dynamics.} 25... Rf8 {was called for,
with the immediate threat of ...f5. During the game I didn’t like the look
of  25...Rb8?! Blinking. I was too caught up in the favourable trend to see
what the position demanded.  During the game and for some time after it, I was
rather pleased with this ‘sophisticated’ move, which teases White with the
threat of ...b5, keeps c8 free for the c6-rook and allows me to play ...Ke8 or
...Bd8 without disconnecting the rooks.  26.b4! was my opponent’s
recommendation when we talked about the game a couple of months after it was
played.  In itself it looks very weakening but since the white knights control
the weakened squares c2, c3 and c4, and Black doesn’t want to exchange
knights at all, this strong move threatens to overstretch Black’s forces
with the combined threats of a well-timed b5 and/or f4.} 26. Nb4 Rcc8 27. Nd3 {
when I have to play some sort of move that I don’t really want to. However,
after} Ke8 {the threat of ...f5 gives Black promising prospects and makes up
for any theoretical qualms about the rooks being disconnected.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Shaw vs. Rowson - Exercise #2"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3bk3/5p2/2rpn1p1/1p1Np2p/1P2P2P/2P3P1/3R1PK1/N7 b - - 0 36"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{Think about how Black should continue here.  Last move before the
time-control and again I failed to act on my hunch that this was a critical
position. However, I should have followed my intuition, which told me that
this was a good time to play:} 36... Nc7 {Actually was a stronger move. The
game continued:  36...Ra6 37.Nc2!? Ra2 looks annoying but after 38.Kf1 I
can’t make use of the pin and White’s knight is on a better circuit} 37.
Nxc7+ {Then  37.Nc2 Nxd5 38.Rxd5 Rxc3 39.Ne3 Bb6 40.Kf3 Kd7 41.Rxb5 Kc6 42.Rd5
f5∓ is clearly better for Black.} Bxc7 {and now:} 38. Rd5 {put me off
playing 36...Nc7. but I didn’t look far enough because Black is better after
38.Rd3 Ra6 39.Nc2 Ra2 40.Ne3 Bb6!} Rxc3 39. Rxb5 Kd7 {I only ‘saw’ that
the structure had changed unfavourably and feared that I would be
strategically lost if the knight reached d5.  Of course, White’s pieces are
awful and so Black is much better.  This is also typical of time-trouble in
that we tend to overestimate static features of the position.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Shaw vs. Rowson - Exercise #3"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/2b5/3p4/1p2pp1p/1PP4P/r5P1/1R1N1PK1/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{If I can hold back the b-pawn, activate my king and mobilize the centre I
will achieve my strategic objective and have great winning chances. How should
Black play here?} 1... d5 {1..@Ra8 This looked wrong and felt wrong, but I
played it since it’s reasonably safe and I didn’t see a convincing
alternative.  Moreover, although I had foreseen the following, I was rather
hoping my opponent would miss the key idea of Nb1 îîStartBracketîîsee
‘Inter-subjectivity’ under Egoism  EndBracket    2.cxb5 Rb8 3.Nb1 Bb6 This
shows a failure to adjust to the new trend, and now suddenly White has serious
winning chances.  It's understandable that I wanted to stop Nc3  4.Na3 Bd4 5.
Rc2 Kd7 6.Rc6 ends in a drawish position.} 2. cxb5 {2.cxd5 Rd3 3.Nf1 Kd7 is at
least slightly better for Black because of his extra space.} e4 3. Nf1 d4 {
with excellent chances for Black.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Shaw vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "125"]

{Understanding this idea is important for appreciating Blinking as a deadly
sin. To demonstrate this, and to rescue us from this abyss of abstraction,
please consider the following game:} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. d4 Ngf6
5. Nc3 cxd4 6. Qxd4 e5 7. Qd3 h6 8. Be3 Be7 9. O-O a6 {Ambitious.  9...O-O 10.
Bc4 Nb6 11.Bb3 Be6 Is supposed to be slightly better for White, but it’s a
similar advantage to the one we see in the game} 10. Bc4 Qc7 11. a4 Nc5 12.
Bxc5 Qxc5 13. Nh4 Be6 14. Ba2 {A good move, and a big improvement over the
tempting  14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.Ng6 Rg8 when White has a draw at best 16.Rad1 Kf7 17.
Nxe7  17.Qg3!? Nh5 18.Qg4 Nf6 19.Qg3 Nh5 Kxe7 18.Kh1 Raf8 19.f4 exf4 20.Rxf4
Nd7⩱ and Black was slightly better in the game Shaw-Rowson, Glasgow Allegro
2000.  14.Bb3!? is also worthy of attention} Bxa2 15. Rxa2 g6 16. g3 {16.Nf3!?
is worth considering. The idea is to play Ra3-b3 quickly and, if possible, ra1,
a5, Ra4 and Nd2-c4. It’s asking a lot, I know, but since Black should almost
never exchange knights on d5, there may be little point in both knights
controlling this square.} Rc8 17. Ng2 Qd4 18. Rd1 Qxd3 {The attempt to change
the direction of the game by  18...Rxc3?! is asking too much 19.bxc3  19.Qxd4
exd4 20.bxc3 Nxe4 21.Re1 Nxc3 22.Rb2 b5 23.axb5 axb5 24.Rb4 and White is
better. Qxe4 20.Rb1 Qc6 21.Rab2± with a clear advantage to White.} 19. Rxd3 {
I h@sitate to call this a critical position but in some ways it is the most
interesting moment of the game.  Until John’s strong 14th move I had felt an
upward trend because I was consistent in my choice of opening, and didn’t
anticipate any big improvement from White.  After 14.Ba2 I had a deep think
and it slowly dawned on me that I had nothing better than to accept a position
similar to the one we have here.  However, whereas John didn’t have to
struggle internally to get here, I arrived with open eyes and a determination
to make the most of my position.  This reminds me of Lasker’s insightful
comment:  “He who has a slight disadvantage plays more attentively,
inventively and more boldly than his antagonist, who either takes it easy or
aspires after too much.  Thus a slight disadvantage is very frequently seen to
convert into a good, solid advantage.” I guess I was a bit more attentive
than usual, and John was taking it easy, but my advantage was a long time in
coming.  I had heard various stories about the worst bishop being better than
the best knight and I decided it was time to see if they were true.  So
although I had been experiencing a downward trend from the 14th move, I was
very conscious of the danger of the letting the position slide towards defeat,
and resolved to reverse the trend slowly but surely.  I suspect John was just
happy with his position and didn’t see any need to do anything other than
slowly try to improve it.  The most significant idea in the position is that
one of the white knights is superfluous in that they both want to be on d5. 
Black has to give up the fight for the d5-square and play around it.  Rather
than dwell on a long-term plan that would never come to pass, I decided on the
short-term idea of bringing my knight to e6, where it has good prospects on c5,
d4 and g5 and doesn’t disrupt the bishop in any way.  The relevant question
for our purposes is, “Is White better?” The answer must surely be yes.  We
can point to the relative inactivity of the black bishop, the weakness of the
d6-pawn, the d5-square as a base for strategic operations and the possibility
of increasing the pressure with b4-b5 or f4 when the time is right.  Given
this, an assessment of ‘slightly better’ or ‘clearly better’ seems in
order.  On the other, often neglected, hand, White’s position is extremely
difficult to improve beyond a certain point and given Black’s control of the
half-open c-file, the potential of the ...b5 and ...f5 breaks and the future
for the bishop if the position ever opens up, we might say that Black’s
position has more dynamic potential.  GM Danny King has a great deal of
experience in such structures and he thought Black was fine, but mainly
because it will take White so long to organize the position and he said he
wouldn’t much want Black’s position in general. When I asked GM Michael
Adams he shrugged laconically and said “Looks better for White, you just
plonk a knight on d5 and ...îîStartBracketîîpauseîîEndBracketîî ... well,
these things are never so clear.”  On considering the way the game developed,
a part of me wants to say that White is better and Black is better.  It
depends whether you look at the position or if you look at the momentum of the
game.  John ‘blinked’ here because he contented himself with his good
position and didn’t pay much attention to how the game would develop.  Had
he looked at the direction of the game, he would have sensed that he is in
some danger of being worse and may have played more resolutely at some point
over the following few moves.} Nd7 {19...Rc4 20.Ne3 Rd4 21.f3 Kd7 22.Ncd5 Nxd5
23.Nxd5 Rxd3 24.cxd3 Ke6 25.Ra3! Rc8 26.Rb3± gives White a clear advantage.
This line confirmed my belief that I had to be very patient.} 20. Ne3 {Maybe
the knight is not so well placed here. Since the d5-squar e is the only home
of the c3-knight and Nc4 is difficult to achieve, there was something to be
said for keeping it on g2 for the time being. There may be some moment when f4
and Nxf4 becomes possible or Ne1-f3-d2-b3-a5 should be considered.  20.b4!?
Rc4 21.Rb2 h5 22.Ne1 h4 23.Nf3 hxg3 24.hxg3 Nf8 25.Nd2 Rc8 26.Nd5 Bg5 27.c3
Bxd2 28.Rbxd2 Rc4 29.Ne3 Rxe4 30.Rxd6 was a training blitz game between myself
and Scottish junior Joe Redpath.} Rc6 21. Ra1 {Maybe White can play more
actively but I don’t see how. In any case I think John played the way that
most players would play.} Nc5 22. Rdd1 Ne6 23. Kg2 h5 {This is a good
psychological move which irritates White with the idea of ...h4-h3 and
provokes White’s next move} 24. h4 {When Black eventually plays the break ...
f5 White will want to keep the tension with f3 but then ...f4 will smash up
the white kingside and lead to a weakness on h4 and f4. If the pawn stays on
h2, ...f5 does not carry the same threat because White can just keep the
tension if the pawn arrives on f4. That said  24.f3 Bg5 25.Ned5 Nd4 gives some
idea of why it is useful for White to control g5} Kd7 {I already felt the
tingle of an upward trend, as my pieces seem to be coordinating quite well.
Black’s position has clearly improved since move 19, but can anyone tell me
where John went wrong? It’s entirely possible that he didn’t.} 25. Ncd5 {
A key moment for Black. White now has a subtle positional threat that could
render Black completely passive. The immediate  25.a5!? Rf8! and ...f5 should
give Black good counterplay} Rb8 {Blinking. I was too caught up in the
favourable trend to see what the position demanded. During the game and for
some time after it, I was rather pleased with this ‘sophisticated’ move,
which teases White with the threat of ...b5, keeps c8 free for the c6-rook and
allows me to play ...Ke8 or ...Bd8 without disconnecting the rooks. Indeed,
even when annotating for this book I initially gave it an exclamation mark.
Now I realize that it’s just pretentious, useless, and could have caused me
a lot of problems if White had been more sensitive to the changing trends  25..
.Rf8! was called for, with the immediate threat of ...f5. During the game I
didn’t like the look of 26.Nb4 Rcc8 27.Nd3 when I have to play some sort of
move that I don’t really want to. However, after 27...Ke8 the threat of ...
f5 gives Black promising prospects and makes up for any theoretical qualms
about the rooks being disconnected.} 26. b3 {Blinking. John still thinks he
has a good position, and doesn’t sense that this is the moment here my
favourable trend threatens to extinguish his advantage. John looked at the
position and found a reasonable move, but if he’d been aware of the trends
he could have retained the advantage. I can see why White wants to play Nc4
here but now the queenside is weakened and it’s difficult for White to
remove the black knight from d4.  26.b4! was my opponent’s recommendation
when we talked about the game a couple of months after it was played. In
itself it looks very weakening but since the white knights control the
weakened squares c2, c3 and c4, and Black doesn’t want to exchange knights
at all, this strong move threatens to overstretch Black’s forces with the
combined threats of a well-timed b5 and/or f4. Then: 26...a5!?  26...Bd8 is
compliant, and allows White to show the full force of his idea. 27.c3 Ke8 and
now: But now 28.a5! with the positional threat of Kh3 and h4. to fight for the
c5-square, looks like the best chance for counterplay. 29.b5 Rcc8 30.f3 is
still a bit better for White though; certainly it’s hard to see how Black
could become better here  28.Kh3!? was John’s suggestion. Then 28...a5!?
After  28...Ng7 29.f4  29.Ra2 exf4 30.gxf4 Ne6 31.f5± gives White a clear
advantage. 29.b5 Rcc8 30.f3⩲ 28...Ng7 29.Kh3 f5 30.f3 White can try to play
for an eventual f4 by placing the rooks on f1 and e1 There are problems
reverting to the quick  26...Rf8 intending a quick ...f5 27.b5! axb5 28.axb5
otherwise White will make good use of the b-file and the a6-pawn will be weak
28...Rc5 29.Nb6++- and White is winning. 27.Rab1  26.a5!? Is another attempt
to be combative and Black probably should try this, but he doesn’t seem to
be very well organized and White can develop some initiative. 27.Rab1 is now
just slightly better for White, but of course that’s not so much the point;
it’s more important that White has the feeling of making some progress, but
26...Rf8! gives Black time to create counterplay and highlights the strength
of 26 b4.} Ke8 27. Rd2 Nd4 28. Rad1 Bd8 {John said that he felt he was
beginning to lose control around this point. But in some ways think he lost
control long ago. He needed to grab the position by the scruff of the neck on
move 19 and realize that some creative transformation was required. The idea
of b4 is a little counter-intuitive and the idea of f4 seems unnecessarily
complicated, but even so these are the tools with which to seek victory. It
often happens that when you try too hard to avoid counterplay, you end up
inviting it.} 29. Nc4 {29.@xd4! exd4 30.Rxd4 Was probably the best
continuation for White at this stage. However, given the initial assumption
that White was much better, it’s difficult to see the ‘need’ to
sacrifice the exchange. In general I think the position is then about equal,
although it’s easier to play White. However 30...Bb6! seems to equalize
immediately 31.Nxb6 Rxb6 32.Nc4 Rc6 33.Nxd6+ Ke7 34.Nc4 Rd8 35.c3 b5 36.axb5
axb5 37.Ne3 Rxc3 38.Nd5+ Rxd5 39.Rxd5 Rxb3 with a rook ending which Black can
‘play’, while White has to ‘draw’   StartBracket  see
WantingîîEndBracketîî. This is a critical position, where I again paid too
much attention to the trend, and not enough to the opportunities in this
position. Throughout this game I have shown good ‘trend sensitivity’ but
poor ‘position sensitivity.} b5 {Alt@ough this is very tempting, it may not
be the best move. The reader should bear in mind that the time-control was at
move 36 and so adrenaline was in the driving seat. At a less tense moment,
with more time, I would have preferred 29...Rbc8!?, simply threatening to
sacrifice the exchange on c4. Most of us are loath to sacrifice material when
short of time, but this is just another aspect of Materialism. Given the
choice between the obvious and natural 29...b5, kicking away an active knight,
and a non-forcing move îîStartBracketîîKrogius states that we tend to seek out
only forcing lines when short of time, perhaps to minimize uncertainty and
therefore ease anxietyîîEndBracketîî that only makes sense if I’m willing to
give away material, it is not surprising that I chose the former, but it’s
also not very admirable. Indeed, on missing this moment, I allow my opponent
to halt the trend of the game, which was starting to go in my favour. After 
29...Rbc8!? we have the following lines: 30.Rxd4! is a very strong move, but
very few would play it in the circumstances. To do so, you would have to be
very resistant to both Blinking and Materialism.  30.a5? is a mistake, but in
some ways the most likely move in the circumstances. After 30...Rxc4 31.bxc4
Rxc4 even Fritz thinks Black is better. The weakness of White’s pawns and
the activity of the black pieces are much more important than ‘the
exchange’, which seems a rather spurious concept in such positions
îîStartBracketîîsee MaterialismîîEndBracketîî.  30.Ra1!? b5  30...Rxc4 31.bxc4
Ba5 32.Rdd1 Rxc4 33.Rab1 b5 34.axb5 axb5 35.Ra1 is just a sample line that
shows the type of counterplay that I feared when deciding not to give up the
exchangeîîEndBracketîî 31.axb5 axb5 32.Nce3 Nxc2 33.Nxc2 Rxc2 34.Rxc2 Rxc2 35.
Ra6 seems to equalize for White îîStartBracketîîat leastîîEndBracketîî but
this line is by no means forced, and White would only play the prophylactic
move 30.Ra1 if he was highly sensitive to the trends. 30...exd4 31.Rxd4 b5 32.
axb5 and now 32...axb5 33.Na3! is the move that makes sense of the conception,
and yet you would only evaluate it correctly if you could somehow sacrifice
material dispassionately after Many players would see 30.Rxd4, get to the
position after Black’s 32nd move, see that  33.Nce3 Bb6 was nothing special
and reject  33.Na3 on general grounds: “You mean I have to give up an
exchange and put a knight on the rim? Forget it!” The point is that you will
only be able to gauge the correct moves in accordance with your willingness to
think outside of your conventional patterns. Your wiring is likely to make you
strongly resistant to this line of play because of the ‘rules’ that it
breaks, but it seems to be the best line of play in any case, and the only way
to put Black under pressure. 33...Rb8 34.c3!? I prefer White. Perhaps the best
way to look at the position is not to ask ‘what is the compensation?’ but
just to compare White’s army with Black’s. In doing so, I’m sure
you’ll agree that the rook, two knights and six pawns are worth more than
Black’s two rooks, bishop and five pawns. This is not the case if you ‘add
it up’ of course, but if you look for quality you’ll see what I mean
îîStartBracketîîsee MaterialismîîEndBracketîî} 30. axb5 {Such was my
opponent’s disarray that he had intended  30.Nb4?? in reply to 29...b5,
forgetting that my c6-rook is protected by the d4-knight. As is typical when
trends start to turn, I was gaining in confidence while John was susceptible
to confusion. Indeed my opponent said he experienced a ‘dodgy moment’ here.
30...bxc4∓} axb5 31. Nce3 Ra8 {I assumed I had played correctly up to here,
but I underestimated the significance of the weakness on b5, which is rather
acute once my knight is removed from d4.} 32. b4 Ra3 33. c3 Ne6 34. Nc2 {
White understandably wants to put some flames out, but my activity was little
more than visual, so there was no rush to exchange the a3-rook.} Ra8 35. Ra1
Rxa1 36. Nxa1 Ra6 {Last move before the time-control and again I failed to act
on my hunch that this was a critical position. However, I should have followed
my intuition, which told me that this was a good time to play  36...Nc7! 37.
Nxc7+ Then  37.Nc2 Nxd5 38.Rxd5 Rxc3 39.Ne3 Bb6 40.Kf3 Kd7 41.Rxb5 Kc6 42.Rd5
f5∓ is clearly better for Black. Bxc7 and now: 38.Rd5 put me off playing 36..
.Nc7. but I didn’t look far enough because after Black is better after  38.
Rd3 Ra6 39.Nc2 Ra2 40.Ne3 Bb6! 38...Rxc3 39.Rxb5 Kd7∓ I only ‘saw’that
the structure had changed unfavourably and feared that I would be
strategically lost if the knight reached d5. Of course, White’s pieces are
awful and so Black is much better. This is also typical of time-trouble in
that we tend to overestimate static features of the position.} 37. Nb3 {
37.Nc2!? Ra2 looks annoying but after 38.Kf1 I can’t make use of the pin and
White’s knight is on a better circuit} Ra3 38. Rb2 f5 {This was a long time
in coming, but it arrives with considerable effect.} 39. Nd2 {39.@3 is
answered by 39...f4! îîStartBracketîîsee the note to White’s 24th
moveîîEndBracketîî.} Nc7 {This is a good moment to contest d5. White has few
active possibilities now.} 40. Nxc7+ Bxc7 41. exf5 {Sensibly relieving the
tension before the advance of my king improves my reactive possibilities} gxf5
42. c4 {Another key moment.  The trends have been going in my favour but White
has not buckled and the position is increasingly demanding precise calculation.
If I can hold back the b-pawn, activate my king and mobilize the centre I will
achieve my strategic objective and have great winning chances, but of course
it’s not so easy, and there was little time to make this key decision} Ra8 {
Thi@ looked wrong and felt wrong, but I played it since it’s reasonably safe
and I didn’t see a convincing alternative.  Moreover, although I had
foreseen the following, I was rather hoping my opponent would miss the key
idea of Ìb1   StartBracket  see ‘Inter-subjectivity’ under
EgoismîîEndBracketîî  42...d5! Looks like the solution: 43.cxb5  43.cxd5 Rd3
44.Nf1!? Kd7 is at least slightly better for Black because of his extra space,
the bishop vs knight advantage and the weakness of b4îîEndBracketîî e4! 44.Nf1
44.Nb3 Be5 45.Rb1 d4 leaves Black firmly in the driving seat: ...Ra2 and ...e3
will soon be a dangerous threat d4 45.Rc2 Rc3! 46.Rxc3 dxc3 47.Ne3 Bb6 48.Nc2
Kd7 49.Kf1 Ke6 50.Ke2 Kd5 51.Ne3+ Kd4! zugzwang 52.Nxf5+ Kc4 53.Kd1 Kb3 54.Kc1
Bxf2-+ and Black is winning} 43. cxb5 Rb8 44. Nb1 Bb6 {This shows a failure to
adjust to the new trend, and now suddenly White has serious winning chances. 
It's understandable that I wanted to stop Nc3.  44...Rxb5 45.Nc3 Rb7 46.Nd5
this position appears very dangerous for Black but a closer look shows this to
be an illusion 46...Kf7! actually gives Black chances to be better.  Now
White’s best may be to simplify to a rook ending: 47.Rc2 and then:  47.Nxc7
Rxc7 48.b5 Ke6 49.b6 Rb7 50.f3 looks promising for White at first glance
because Black cannot take on b6 as long as White has a threat of g4 followed
by queening the h-pawn.  However, there’s not a great deal that White can do
in the meantime, while Black can relatively easily push the centre pawns. As
long as Black’s king doesn’t go beyond the d-file White’s potentially
passed h-pawn can still be stopped by the king. 47...Bb8!? is a winning try. 
Although it looks suspicious, Black is still playing with an ‘extra
king’so it’s worth a try.  47...Bd8 48.Rc8 Ke6 49.Rxd8 Kxd5 50.Rh8 Rxb4 51.
Rxh5 f4= with an equal ending 48.Ra2!? Ke6 49.Ra5 may now be the most sober
reaction, when it’s hard for Black to make progress} 45. Na3 Bd4 46. Rc2 Kd7
47. Rc6 Rc8 {Not  47...Rb6?! 48.Rxb6 Bxb6 49.Nc4 Bd4 50.b6 Kc6  50...d5 51.b7
Kc7 52.Nd6+- 51.b5++- winning} 48. Rxc8 Kxc8 49. Nc2 {Tentatively, White heads
for the king and pawn ending. However, White seems to have better winning
chances after  49.Nc4 Kc7 50.f3 d5 51.b6+! Kc6 52.b7 Kc7 53.Nd6} Ba7 50. Kf3
Kc7 51. Ne3 Bxe3 52. Kxe3 d5 {For a while I thought this ending was very
interesting and subtle but after a while it dawned on me that it was a fairly
clear draw. The following is not an exhaustive analysis, but it does give the
main themes.} 53. f3 {Aft@r  53.Ke2 Kb7= Black draws by An amusing detail is
that  53...Kb6? 54.f4! e4 55.g4+- after both sides have queened, White plays
the cheeky Qb8#  53.Kd2 Kd7 The kings can dance around for a while but it
doesn't seem to change much.  As long as Black doesn't but the king on b6
îîStartBracketîîwhen Qb8 will be mateîîEndBracketîî and doesn't push ...d4
prematurely îîStartBracketîîallowing Kd3 and f4îîEndBracketîî it's hard for
White to do anything.  White can queen the h-pawn first after f3 and g4 but
when Black queens just after, there won't be any winning chances in the queen
ending due to the reduced number of pawns. However, White should be careful
not to play f3 with his king on the second rank because in some cases ...e4 is
strong reply.  Then if f4 Black plays ...d4, and even when White puts the king
on e3 îîStartBracketîîwith pawn on f3îîEndBracketîî there is no threat of g4
due to the reply ...d4+.} Kb6 {A bad square for the king in general, but it
doesn’t seem to matter here} 54. g4 {54.f4? White loses after 54...e4 55.g4
hxg4 56.h5 g3 57.h6 d4+-+} d4+ 55. Kf2 hxg4 56. h5 d3 57. fxg4 {It doesn’t
make much difference whether White takes here, but I thought White’s dilemma
might gain me some important clock time} fxg4 58. h6 d2 {I offered a draw here,
having seen the forced variation. To my surprise, it was declined.} 59. Ke2 g3
60. h7 g2 61. h8=Q d1=Q+ {61...g1=Q?? 62.Qb8 must have been my opponent's
secret hope.} 62. Kxd1 g1=Q+ 63. Ke2 {Now he offered the draw back, but I
decided to punish him since he had less than a minute left.  However, he then
proceeded to force the exchange of queens and made a draw offer I couldn’t
refuse.  Edinburgh 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 2 - Blinking"]
[Black "Drums without Symbols"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîDrums without SymbolsîîHeaderEndîî 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîDrums without Symbols So far as the laws of mathematics
refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality.' ALBERT EINSTEIN
îîEndBlockQuoteîîîîStartBlockQuoteîîEverything is vague to a degree you do not
realize until you have tried to make it precise.' BERTRAND RUSSELL
îîEndBlockQuoteîîThe game we have just examined made a deep impression on me
because I was so sure I was worse, fairly confident that my opponent didn’t
do anything much wrong, and found myself at first equal (move 25) and then
better (move 38) .  We may be tempted to explain this with reference to the
latent dynamism in Black’s position. As a result of this we should reassess
the position after move 19 as ...what?  Equal? But look at it! Doesn’t
everything you’ve learned about chess tell you that White is better?  Only
very rarely can you enjoy a good position without allowing it to change. Like
Chuang Tzu, we call this the transformation of things.  We tend to accept this,
but think that unless someone makes a mistake the change will be a matter of
valueless transformation; as if so, much could be quantitatively different and
yet remain qualitatively the same.  Don’t we place a higher value on a man
than a butterfly? What if a good position has to change, and can only change
for the worse? Do we say that it’s not a good position after all?  Perhaps,
but there’s a conflict here because it’s difficult to measure (evaluate) a
moment at the same time as momentum.  For a long time, we’ve focused on the
former to the neglect of the latter and this is only beginning to be attended
to. In assessing a position purely as = or À or whatever, we do chess a great
disservice. Our fallacy is to apply fixed values to dynamic events.  It’s a
bit like trying to measure snow as it falls from the sky.  With some care you
can capture a snowflake, acknowledge its uniqueness and then compare it to
other snowflakes you’ve caught before.  Yet however fine your appreciation
of this particular snowflake, it won’t tell you which way the wind is
blowing the snow or how much more snow there is to come.  For that you need to
look at the sky, but then you take your eye off the snowflake.  A chess
position is almost always an event in progress.  Not without good reason do we
refer to the demonstration of beautiful games as ‘poetry in motion’.  The
position and our relation to it is always changing and is always essentially
unpredictable.  Indeed, as I’ve said, the defining feature of a chess
position is its propensity to change.  Thus, the adhesion of static labels is
invariably doomed to come unstuck. There is a transforming force that
permeates the soul of the game, and there’s no good reason to think that
this force is ambivalent, consistent or predictable.  The position constantly
changes, and this can’t be helped, but I think the evaluation is constantly
changing as well.  How could it fail to? I may be missing something, but it
seems to me that at some stage we have made certain assumptions like “a
‘slightly better’ assessment shouldn’t lead to victory unless the
opponent makes a mistake” or “you were clearly better and now you’re
slightly worse so you must have made a mistake” without any real
justification.  Tal may have been on to the slippery problems these
assumptions have caused for he claimed that “There are only equal positions
and winning positions, nothing in between.”  From an absolute point of view
this is quite obvious, because the game can only end in a draw (equal) or a
decisive (winning) result.  However, Tal’s quote can also be read as telling
us not to speculate on these positions which are not clearly winning or drawn.
If we can’t trace them to a single result by analytical means then the
assessments are really just educated guesses.  This is essential for practical
purposes, but it might be a mistake to build further theoretical assumptions
on already speculative premises.  If you seem to be clearly better and then
find yourself clearly worse, we can normally point to at least one mistake you
have made, but we have no justification for thinking that we can always do so.
None at all, as far as I can tell, and if nothing else, this, for me, only
serves to reinforce delight at the mystery and wonder of chess. But what good
is this? I hear you ask.  Will it stop me Blinking, or help me build a
snowman? I’m actually not sure how useful these ruminations are for your
chess, but I’m sure they are not useless if you consider them carefully. 
It’s probably not possible to stop Blinking entirely, but I am suggesting
that the way we look at chess positions is blinkered, or more suggestively,
blind in one eye.  That’s clear enough, but it would be much too shallow
just to leave it at that because we have to see why this comes about if we are
to have any chance of overcoming our propensity to blink.  The main point is
that it seems very misleading to consider any position in abstract and to
attach a label to it as if it made sense in its own right.  Of course,
whenever an annotator says ‘slightly better for White’ there is a tacit
acknowledgement of the plans and ideas of both sides and often an explicit
recommendation for how the game will develop.  But I wonder if this is like
looking at a wheel when stationary and talking about how well it moves.  You
compliment the rubber, the spokes and shape, but then when it starts to move
round and round you can no longer see these aspects of the wheel; all you see
is the movement.  I was pleased to see something similar to these ideas
expounded in Yermolinsky’s The Road to Chess Improvement. I have had a close
look at his chapter on ‘Trends, Turning-Points and Emotional Shifts’ and
still don’t fully understand it.  However, he seems to be saying that the
direction of the game matters every bit as much, if not more, than the
assessment at a given point in time:  “In a game between two equally skilled
players, mistakes cannot be counted on, thus we must assume that trends are
not easily reversed.  Instead, things tend to snowball: problems on the board
are aggravated by a negative emotional state, while time-trouble and fatigue
contribute heavily; and at the end mistakes become more likely...” 
Yermolinsky also raises the curious question of how you behave “when trends
are established” and “after a critical moment when you feel a change in
the major trend.”  This question of behaviour or reaction is a psychological
matter of considerable interest, but of limited relevance here because my
primary motivation is how we can come to recognize these critical moments in
the first place, and I think we can only do that if we stop seeing chess move
by move.  More to the point is what kind of significance we give to trends
compared to assessments.  Yermo seems to be saying that the ‘objective’
evaluation of the position on the board matters less than the subjective
feeling of who is in control, of who is driving the game and dictating its
direction. GM Keith Arkell suggested to me that one way to make sense of this
is to see chess as some sort of conceptual battle.  We have our concepts 
(strategic operations, tactical justifications) and our opponents have theirs.
We feel good when we see our concepts triumph and bad when they fail. 
Moreover, perhaps we don’t just feel bad in these cases, but somehow
vulnerable, because our conceptual abilities have been called into question. 
The way the position develops will then have as much to do with concepts
spanning several moves as with the assessment of the single position at a
given time.  On this reading, there may be scope to add to our current symbols
to include signs that signify the direction of the game as revealed in the
trends.  So there could be a system of evaluation which reads something like
“Slightly better for White but favourable trend for Black”.  There is much
to be said for this idea, and perhaps more so because the importance of
direction may not just be psychological.  Another hefty tome, Watson’s
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy has some very thoughtful writing on this area:
Chapters 10, 11 and 12 are especially relevant.  In so far as there is a
single theme to Watson’s book, it is the development of chess from a
rule-based enterprise with static features determining assessments to a fairly
anarchic pursuit with an emphasis on dynamism and initiative.  Chess has
evolved from a game that emphasized fixed, non-changeable factors, to a game
in which assessments cannot be derived from principles, and strategies cannot
be derived from rules.  It was thought by some that chess was predictable
enough for you to able to look at a single position in a game and deduce what
should happen next and what the result was therefore likely to be.  Now if you
look at a position, especially between players of similar strengths, you may
well be at a loss to give any assessment other than ‘unclear’ and the
likely line of play may well include a good number of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’
because it is much more difficult to assess the competing claims of different
concepts. This has a lot to do with the way that opening systems have changed
of course.  There is much less chance of playing a game with, as Suba puts it,
“one doing, the other applauding” when the game really begins in a complex
theoretical position with chances for both sides.  However, it strikes me that
no one seems to have made an explicit link between the increased importance of
trends and the prevalence of dynamism in modern chess.  Now that we play chess
in a way which tends to include respect for the opponent and their competing
ideas, the idea of chess as a conceptual battle is becoming ever more acute. 
The point here is that concepts cannot be seen by looking at individual
positions but rather at the way they unfold over a (usually) short series of
moves.  Whereas you can assess a single position with a symbol like À you
cannot do justice to the conceptual battle with such a crude tool.  To do this
you need to add the trend aspect and the direction of the game, which is like
a barometer of the conceptual battle.  For example, in my game with John Shaw
on move 19 he may have had the concept to exchange a pair of knights to get a
clear good knight vs bad bishop position but my conception was to avoid this
and accept that I’m lumbered with a bad bishop while leaving him lumbered
with a superfluous knight.  Thus, at this point I am slightly worse when you
look at the position seen on move 19 but when you look at the conceptual
battle after 19...Nd7! I have achieved some sort of favourable direction, or
at least halted the negative trend caused by losing the conceptual battle in
the opening, when I didn’t want to exchange light-squared bishops but was
forced to.  So, although a full discussion of these theoretical matters is not
sufficiently relevant to be considered here, it seems that we should be wary
of assessing a position with only one ‘eye’.  We need to see it both under
the aspect of the position as it stands and as it is developing (conceptual
battle) .  The curious thing is that we cannot really do both at once. We can
assess the position by weighing strategic factors in a given position and we
can gauge the trends by considering the conceptual battle over a period of
moves.  We have to decide which is more appropriate in any given instance and,
where possible, to keep both in mind. Whatever you make of the above, it seems
undeniable that the importance of switching from dynamic to static
considerations is not adequately reflected in our current chess symbols. 
There are some striking parallels with quantum theory in the way of viewing
chess outlined above, particularly Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (the
more accurately one measures, for example, the position of a particle, the
less accurately one can measure its momentum) and Bohr’s Principle of
Complementarity (wave and particle theories not mutually exclusive) .  There
may well be some value in exploring these parallels, but that’s way beyond
the scope of this book, and, I must confess, the scruples of this author. 
îîHeaderStartîîConclusionsîîHeaderEndîî  Blinking occurs when we miss key
moments or critical positions which lead to a change in the direction of the
game.  There are various signs and signals we can try to recognize, but the
most important skill to develop is your sensitivity to the changing trends in
a game.  With improved ‘trend sensitivity’ and ‘position sensitivity’
you are much more likely to spot ‘gateway positions’, which are the
turning-points between one trend and the next.  There is reason to think that
these trends are as important for assessing a position as the strategic
factors that we tend to weigh to make our conventional assessments.  If this
is so, the sin of Blinking is related closely to the way we habitually assess
positions. We may need a whole new set of symbols to do justice to the dynamic
nature of modern chess.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîWantingîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe best fighter is
not ferocious.' DENG MING DAOîîEndBlockQuoteîî} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "de Firmian vs. Hillarp Persso"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/P4k2/7p/4np2/3b4/2NP2P1/1P4K1/R1B3r1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Consider the options. Can White still fight for victory?} 1. Kh3 {The only
move. White may have missed a win shortly before the time-control but now has
to reconcile himself to a draw after:  1.Kh2 loses on the spot due to 1...Nf3+
2.Kh3 Rh1+ 3.Kg2 Rh2+ Black mates on f2 next move.} Rh1+ 2. Kg2 Rg1+ 3. Kh3 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "de Firmian vs. Hillarp Persso"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/P4k2/7p/4np2/3b4/2NP2P1/1P4K1/R1B3r1 w - - 0 43"]
[PlyCount "6"]

{We join the game just as the time-control has been reached. Black is outrated
by about 200 points and although tense and uneven, the game has been going the
favourite’s way.} 43. Kh2 {White may have missed a win shortly before the
time-control but now has to reconcile himself to a draw after 43.Kh3 Rh1+ 44.
Kg2 Rg1+ .  GM Jonathan Tisdall gives excellent annotations to this game in
New in Chess magazine, concluding with the ironic but highly suggestive note:
“Now, Nick used some deductive reasoning.  He should win this game, and so
perpetual check must be avoided...”} Nf3+ 44. Kh3 Rh1+ 45. Kg2 Rh2+ {Bla@k
mates on f2 next move. It’s peculiar that a 2600 GM should lose a game in
this way, especially after the time-control.  I have no doubt that if the same
player were shown the same position in a different context, he would see in
little more than one second that the move 43.Kh2 allows checkmate.  It’s
certainly not a difficult combination to see, unless you are somehow blinded
by other considerations.  So, we could look at this as a freak accident and
laugh it away, but I prefer to see it as an extreme but instructive example of
one of the main causes of error in chess: the spectre of the result and how it
affects our play.  Chess differs from most competitive endeavours in this
crucial respect. You can lose a set in tennis or a goal in soccer and recover,
because you still compete on equal terms after the event.  But a significant
mistake can be fatal in chess because it leads you to lose control of the game.
Sometimes you can even perform perfectly after the error, and yet there is no
way back.  This puts enormous pressure on the chess-player. One slip and you
could be heading inexorably to defeat or one careful move, and victory is
assured.  Donner puts it like this: “It is mainly the irreparability of a
mistake that distinguishes chess from other sports. A whole game long, there
is only one point to score.  Just one mistake and the battle is lost, although
the fight may go on for hours.  Surely mistakes also occur in tennis or in
soccer but there the scoring continues and the players may start again with a
clean slate.  A chess-player however, remains bound for hours by a small lapse
from a distant past. That’s why mistakes hit so hard in chess.”  Moreover,
we often think and talk about chess with reference to the result: “That’s
losing”. “I just need to be careful; I’m sure it’s a draw”. “If
I’ve calculated this correctly then I’m winning”.  Indeed, there seems
to be a sense, at least unconsciously, in which we are face to face with the
ultimate outcome at every single moment of the chess game.  It is only natural
then that our judgements, calculations and plans should be infused with and
coloured by our thoughts about the likely and desired outcome of the game.  A
striking example of this ‘sin’ in top-level chess was the Kasparov-Short
PCA World Championship Match in 1993. Short often played the opening and early
middlegame very powerfully with White but from several winning positions he
only earned one victory.  After the game in which he did win, he looked back
on his missed opportunities with these words: “I had forgotten what it was
like to beat Kasparov.  However, I had an advantage in this game because I
didn’t know I was going to win until the game was almost over.”  Indeed,
at the risk of sticking my neck out, I think Short’s second biggest problem
in this match was his susceptibility to Wanting îîStartBracketîîthe biggest
problem was the strength of his opponent!îîEndBracketîî.  His thoughts during
the games were polluted by his desire to win.  Whereas Kasparov could just
play and implicitly play for victory, feeling nothing unusual in beating his
challenger, Short was not used to having winning positions against Kasparov
and so had problems adapting from ‘playing’ to ‘winning’ since the two
do not go hand in hand unless victory seems normal.  My concern here is to
look closely at the ways in which thoughts and feelings about the result can
lead to errors in perception.  I also want to suggest some remedies that will
enable you to play chess with an optimal relationship to this perennial
feature of the game.  But first I present an example to highlight the
importance of recognizing and treating this sin. Although White is somewhat
stronger than his opponent, both are GMs, and Black’s loss can, I believe,
be largely attributed to Wanting.  Politiken Cup, Copenhagen 1996} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Arkell - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r7/4rk2/2pb1p2/1pN3pp/p2Pp1qP/P3P1P1/1PR2P2/2R1K2Q b - - 0 40"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black missed a unique opportunity here. Can you find this move?} 40... Bc7 {
Exactly! With a slight advantage to Black. This is a good prophylactic move,
preventing the wandering king from hiding behind new walls.  Moreover, it’s
not at all easy to suggest what White should do after this.  The game has
continued:  40...Kg6?! 41.Kd2 Qf5 42.Qf1 Qd5 43.Qe2 Bc7 44.Rh1 Ba5+ 45.Kc1 g4 
After closing the kingside the game quietens down.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Arkell - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r7/2bk4/2p2r2/1p3p1p/3Pp1pP/PR2P1P1/2R1NP2/1K6 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{After a passive game by Black, White has regrouped better and now there are
some opportunities.  Can you find a way to progress for White?} 1. d5 {The
breakthrough! White loses a pawn by force but suddenly has a significant
amount of activity. The game continued:} cxd5 2. Rd2 {2.Rc5! is also good} Rb6
3. Nc3 {with a difficult game for Black.  3.Rxd5+ also wins} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Arkell - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r7/8/1r2k3/2R1bp1p/1P2p1pP/1RN1P1P1/5P2/1K6 b - - 0 72"]
[PlyCount "9"]

{Black has lost a pawn but White still has some problems. Can Black still
create counterplay? How?} 72... Rd8 {would give Black very real drawing
chances and, in so far as we can be objective about such matters, this does
appear to be true.   After 72...Bxc3 73.Rcxc3 Rab8 74.Rc4 I suspect Black
should lose slowly but surely, because at some point ‘the second weakness’
on h5 will become relevant.  However, Keith suggests that  72...Rba6? 73.Kc1
Ra1+ 74.Rb1 R1a3 75.Kc2 Rd8 76.b5 Bxc3 77.Rxc3 Ra2+ 78.Kb3 Rxf2 79.b6 Rg2?  79.
..Rfd2 offered better drawing chances, but somehow it doesn’t seem fair that
White should be the only side with a passed pawn, and so Black effectively
proclaims: ‘I want one too!’. 80.b7 Rb8 81.Kc4 Rxg3 82.Rb6+ Compare the
harmony in the positions. 82...Kd7 83.Kd5 Rg1 84.Rd6+ Ke7 85.Rc7+ Ke8} 73. Kc1
{The point of playing ...Rd8!} Rd3 {What else?} 74. b5 Rxc3+ 75. Rbxc3 Bxc3 76.
Rxc3 Rxb5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Arkell"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "170"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d5 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bd3 g6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Nbd2 f5 8.
O-O Nd7 9. c4 Nf6 10. cxd5 Nxd5 11. Nc4 Be7 12. Rc1 c6 13. a3 a5 14. Qd2 Be6
15. Rfd1 Re8 16. Bf1 Nf6 17. Qc2 Bd5 18. Ncd2 Bd6 19. g3 Qe7 20. Bc4 Bxc4 21.
Nxc4 Bc7 22. Nce5 Nd5 23. Re1 Bd6 24. Qc4 Kg7 25. Qf1 h6 26. Qg2 Qe6 27. Nd3
Nf6 28. Nd2 Ne4 29. Nxe4 fxe4 30. Nc5 Qe7 31. Na4 Qe6 {Nothing much has
happened until now, and to my understanding the position is about equal. 
There’s ample scope for ‘pottering around’ on both sides of the board,
but it would seem that unless something drastic happens, it will be difficult
for either side to ‘play for a win’ without doing something rather
contrived.} 32. Rc3 h5 33. h4 Qg4 34. Nc5 Re7 35. Rec1 a4 {With hindsight this
may look like a mistake, but the idea of ‘trapping’ the c5-knight is
actually quite reasonable.  After ...b5 White cannot attack the ‘weakness’
on c6 because his knight is blocking the rooks and has nowhere to go.} 36. Rc4
b5 37. R4c2 f6 38. Kf1 g5 {On first impressions Black may even seem to be a
little better now because White can’t do anything on the queenside and Black
has some kingside initiative.  However, now we see one drawback to the ...a4, .
..b5 idea, which is that Black would like to bring his a8-rook to the kingside
but it has to keep guard of a6 to contain the white knight.  Thus, Black’s
activity, although it was probably felt as significant by the players, is in
fact somewhat superficial.  Indeed, we seem to have another example of the
phenomenon described in the previous chapter whereby the side that seems to
have the advantage may soon become equal or even worse, without making any
obvious errors.} 39. Qh1 Kf7 40. Ke1 Kg6 {Keith’s post-mortem scribbles
mention the possibility of  40...Bc7⩱ with a slight advantage to Black. This
is a good prophylactic move, preventing the wandering king from hiding behind
new walls.  Moreover, it’s not at all easy to suggest what White should do
after this.  Perhaps 40...Kg6 is an ‘obvious error’ then, but it’s
curious to think that such a neutral-looking move can be the difference
between holding the initiative and drifting into difficulties.  Perhaps Keith
fell prey to Blinking here.} 41. Kd2 Qf5 42. Qf1 Qd5 43. Qe2 Bc7 44. Rh1 Ba5+
45. Kc1 g4 {After closing the kingside the game quietens down. It doesn’t
seem like long ago that White’s monarchs were separated; the king playing
nomad and the queen consigned to the corner.  How things change. But the
position is still equal, isn’t it?  Yes it is, but no doubt Orwell would
tell us that some positions are more equal than others.  Here I think White is
‘more equal’ than Black, which I suppose is another way of saying that
it’s easier to play his position.} 46. Kb1 Rea7 47. Ka1 Bc7 48. Rcc1 Rb8 {
There was something to be said for finding a plan and sticking to it here,
which can put some pressure back on your opponent when your new-found
conviction enables you to play quite quickly.  There is not a forced draw of
course, but in such closed positions where few surprises are on offer, I often
find that it’s a good idea to have one deep think, and thereafter to play
with some consistency. Black needs to anticipate the idea of Qa2 followed by
b3 and should also play to restrict the knight as far as possible.  Thus, the
following set-up looks promising: keep the rooks on a8 and a7 to be ready for
an eventual b3 and stop a knight jump to b7 or a6.  Put the bishop on d6, to
allow the a7-rook to cover d7, and retain the threat of taking on c5 when the
time is right.  Play ...f5, just because otherwise you'll waste at least ten
seconds a move thereafter thinking about playing it and White can probably
force it with Qc2 in any case.  Cover e6 with the king, initially from f6 to
prevent any tricks when the queen lands on a2.  When her majesty does arrive,
we intend a mutual stand off to keep the tension and force her to 'come
hither' and capture on d5.  When this happens, which seems likely, we put the
king on f7 to rule out any worries about a knight check on e4 or d7 or a rook
landing on c6.  Given this set-up, White will find it very difficult to
arrange b3, and even if White can contrive to play it, Black will capture on
b3 and then the weakness of a3 should fully compensate for the weakness on b5.}
49. Qc2 f5 {If the position ever opens, Black will have lots of pawn
weaknesses to worry about, especially c6 and f5 and, most of all, b5, after
the pawn-break d4-d5.  The versatile knight can potentially attack all the
little guys but the black bishop can’t defend any of them.  That’s what
the ‘opti’ in White would say in the fight for ‘mistic’; ‘pessi’
would doubtless retort that there will never be a chance to attack them.} 50.
Qb1 Kf6 {With the position fairly stable, and both sets of forces coordinated,
Keith felt this was a good moment to offer a draw.  Given that it is hard to
foresee an effective b3 break, one would put odds on White accepting. In any
case, you certainly wouldn’t expect to hear the following:} 51. Qa2 {
“I’ll go with the momentum, thank you.” Keith was in turmoil. The
position should be drawn, but suddenly he has to think about ‘drawing’ the
position.  Also, the players’ states of mind were almost diametrically
opposed.  Miles had been positive about his ‘progress’, and Keith sensed
that his position was less good than it was a few moves previously.  White has
various nibbles to keep the fires in his belly ignited.  In particular, he has
the slow but sure plan of exchanging queens on a2 after which the crucial
pawn-break, b3, will creak open the position, rather as if it were an old door
leading to a haunted room.  Keith saw the nibbles; he is also excellent in
such positions, and would know how to maximize problems for the black-player. 
But he admits that he began to over-concern himself with his opponent’s
ideas rather than just calmly playing good moves. Sadly, there was now an
agenda to which he was a reluctant party.  Although the position may be equal,
the roles are no longer, for he was playing to draw and Miles was playing to
win.  It was no longer possible just to think of the moves and plans in
abstract; they now contained an ever-present threat of the previously
unthinkable thought, namely defeat.  Perhaps Miles was a little angry too
because in his own way he’s been trying to win for a long time.  Keith
didn’t really think of this until the draw was declined and even felt a
little guilty for not understanding his opponent better.  Although I say that
Miles was ‘playing to win’, I suspect it’s more accurate to say that he
is just playing, and that implicit in ‘playing’ is that your ultimate aim
is to checkmate the opponent.  Thus, whereas Miles didn’t need to concern
himself explicitly with thoughts of the result, Keith could not escape them. 
Moreover, in looking at the asymmetry between the relative quality of the
players moves before and after the draw offer, I am reminded of an interview
with Kramnik for KasparovChess.com, in which he said:  “You know, chess game
has this phenomenon that when one player starts to play worse, his opponent
starts to play better.”} Rd8 52. Rc2 {I can’t help but think that Keith
played this phase more passively than he might have done had the fear of
losing not have been sown so strongly.} Ke7 53. Rhc1 Bb6 54. Kb1 Rd6 55. b3
axb3 56. Nxb3 Ra4 57. Nc5 Qxa2+ 58. Kxa2 Ra7 {Black’s pieces are a little
clumsy now and Miles makes full use of his chances:} 59. Kb2 Ra8 60. Nb3 Kd7
61. Rc3 Ra7 62. R1c2 Ra8 63. Nc1 {This late excursion to the kingside
overstretches Black.  I’m surprised Keith didn’t try to prevent this} Rf6
64. Ne2 Bc7 {64...Ba5 with equality was another idea ‘fresh’ from
Keith’s score-sheet, but I don’t see the idea after 65.Rb3} 65. Kb1 Ba5 66.
Rb3 Bc7 67. d5 {The breakthrough. White loses a pawn by force but suddenly has
a significant amount of activity.  If Keith had just been ‘playing’ here,
he might have created some drawing chances, but given that he was still
reeling from the rejection of his draw offer, he couldn’t find the gumption
to cause problems for the opponent.} cxd5 68. Rd2 Rb6 69. Nc3 Ke6 70. Rxd5 b4
71. axb4 Be5 72. Rc5 Rba6 {After 72...Bxc3 73.Rcxc3 Rab8 74.Rc4 I suspect
Black should lose slowly but surely, because at some point ‘the second
weakness’ on h5 will become relevant. However, Keith suggests that 72...Rd8!
would give Black very real drawing chances and, in so far as we can be
objective about such matters, this does appear to be true.} 73. Kc1 Ra1+ 74.
Rb1 R1a3 75. Kc2 Rd8 76. b5 Bxc3 77. Rxc3 Ra2+ 78. Kb3 Rxf2 79. b6 Rg2 {
79...Rfd2 offered better drawing chances, but somehow it doesn’t seem fair
that White should be the only side with a passed pawn, and so Black
effectively proclaims: ‘I want one too!’.} 80. b7 Rb8 81. Kc4 Rxg3 82. Rb6+
{Compare the harmony in the positions.} Kd7 83. Kd5 Rg1 84. Rd6+ Ke7 85. Rc7+
Ke8 {Isle of Man 1995} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "What Are You Playing For?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîWhat are You Playing For?îîHeaderEndîî  Watching strong
players in post-mortems can teach you much more than reading their books or
annotations.  At the Isle of Man last year, I was casually propped against the
wall, spying on the post-mortem between Russian GM Sergei Shipov (rated 2650+)
and English player Adrian Jackson, rated around 2250.  Shipov was Black and,
coincidentally, was playing the same system against the Tromp that we saw in
the previous game.  As you can see there, it’s no easy matter for either
side to generate winning chances, but I think he had some sort of small
advantage when I started to watch.  I remember Jackson proposed a creative
line for Black that would complicate the position considerably, but couldn’t
be readily assessed. Shipov looked intrigued but detached and I was struck by
the lucidity of his reaction.  “I can do this, but then I am playing for one,
two, three results!”, his inflection rising constantly until it hit
‘three’ as if it were an outrage.  I think he meant that it wasn’t his
intention to invite the possibility of losing. He wanted to play from a solid
position where he was out of danger, but had chances to cause problems for his
opponent.  It’s funny that when you are touched by an insight like this, you
tend to become more aware of it wherever you look. Indeed, in many of the
post-mortems I’ve been involved in since then, especially with Russian or
ex-Soviet players, you often hear expressions like:  “Now we will play for
only two results” (after simplifying the position to a superior ending
perhaps) or “He is the type of player who always plays for three results” 
(e.g., a risky player who likes double-edged attacks) .  It seems to me that
this way of thinking about the competitive side of chess has considerable
practical value.  For example, in my second game against Lalic, given in the
last chapter, I turned down the draw and proceeded to play for two results 
(win or draw) but this was inappropriate for the position in that one of my
resources was to sacrifice a piece on h3, which almost inevitably creates the
possibility of a third result (defeat) .  I didn’t have this thinking tool
at hand, but it could have helped me to gauge the appropriateness of my
relatively thoughtless play.  Indeed, in general I think this is an excellent
way to clarify your relation to the result of the game.  Before and during the
game it can be good to ask yourself: how many results am I playing for? If you
are in a must-win situation then it would seem that you are playing for only
one result, but I don’t think this is quite how the question operates.  It
is directed at the consideration of the position and its direction rather than
just your desire. So, it’s not so much that you’d say:  “I need to win,
so I will go all-out for victory” but rather, “If I play the Petroff he
has the option of ‘playing for two results’ and will make it difficult for
me to create chances of the third result (a win for me) , but if I play the
Latvian Gambit I might surprise him, and he’ll be forced to play for three
results.”  Indeed, you may maximize your chances of victory in a must-win
situation if you ‘play for three results’ because if a draw is as bad as a
loss, then you don’t necessarily add to the risk of not winning by creating
the possibility of defeat.  On the other hand, if a draw is all you need, say
to win a tournament, then as numerous writers have suggested, you may be
unwise just to ‘play for a draw’.  The point here seems to be that in
restricting yourself to ‘one result’ you are likely to misassess or ignore
lots of ideas which are related to the other two results, and thus play in
some sense blinkered.  But perhaps it’s not so silly to ‘play for two
results’ in the sense that you will try to entertain the possibility of
victory, but keep the draw in hand.  Then you may not look so closely at the
risky lines, but your willingness to win will make you more attentive to your
opponent’s mistakes. But isn’t there something to be said for just
playing?  After all, as everyone’s nursery school teacher knows (but every
younger brother denies) , ‘it’s not the winning, but the taking part that
counts’. And can’t you just sit down and think of the moves, ‘for the
love of the game’? Do you have to be so concerned with the outcome? 
Doesn’t this cause more problems than it solves?  These are pertinent
questions to which I don’t fully know the answer.  Somehow, we have to
realize that chess can be a very competitive game, and that if we are to
improve our results we need to play with some constructive relation to the
prospective outcomes, without letting these outcomes dominate our thoughts. 
Thus, ideally, I think we’re looking for a state of mind whereby we can
‘just play’ but which contains an understanding, however subtle or
unconscious, that we are playing for a result.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Go with Flow"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîGo with FlowîîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîîIn the middle
of the match, I felt a strange calmness I hadn’t experienced before. It was
a type of euphoria. I felt I could run all day without tiring, that I could
dribble through any or all of their team, that I could almost pass through
them physically. It was a strange feeling and one I had not had before.
Perhaps it was merely confidence, but I have felt confident many times without
that strange feeling of invincibility'. PELE îîStartBracketîîworld-renowned
Brazilian footballerîîEndBracketîî îîEndBlockQuoteîîSuch an experience has
been called many things.  Baseball players tend to call it ‘the zone’,
Maslow called it ‘peak experience’, some know it as the ‘runner’s
high’, ‘being in the groove’ or ‘tuned in’ and recently
psychologists have referred to it as ‘flow’.  Daniel Goleman, in Emotional
Intelligence, describes it thus: “Flow is a state of self forgetfulness, the
opposite of rumination and worry: instead of being lost in nervous
preoccupation, people in flow are so absorbed in the task at hand that they
lose all self-consciousness...  In this sense moments of flow are egoless.
Paradoxically, people in flow exhibit a masterly control of what they are
doing, their responses perfectly attuned to the changing demands of the task. 
And although people perform at their peak while in flow, they are unconcerned
with how they are doing, with thoughts of success or failure - the sheer
pleasure of the act itself is what motivates them.” Wow. What do you think? 
Perhaps it’s never happened to you, or you’re one of the lucky ones to
whom it happens regularly.  Personally, I have had some experience of
‘flow’ but only quite rarely, and all I can confirm is that there is
definitely some sort of ‘self-forgetfulness’, an increased pleasure in
activity combined with diminished concern for the outcome.  I remember feeling
this way in the second part of my game against Nigel Short at the British
Championship in 1998 where I defended a bad position against the odds and even
created some winning chances.  Whatever you think of ‘flow’, it is a good
starting point for considering the ‘form’ of a chess-player and how and
why it fluctuates because I think ‘flow’ is really just what happens when
you’re in your peak form.  So now ask yourself when you felt you were
playing your best chess.  In most cases I think you’ll find that it was a
time when you were very much enjoying the game, and somehow it seemed to come
naturally to you.  It may have been after a period of chess study or even just
a big change of lifestyle or location; anything that might give you a new
hunger and appreciation for the game.  Then think of your worst periods, where
nothing seemed to be going right. I suspect in these cases you had no
particular hunger for the game, were playing with reference to external
factors like points or rating, but without real love for the game as such. 
This is a bit speculative of course, and won’t apply to everyone, but I hope
it rings true for most readers, at least to some extent.  It is certainly my
own personal experience and these days I see a direct correlation between my
enjoyment of chess as a game, and my competitive success.  On those occasions
where I did well, I almost always felt a little nervous before the game or
tournament, not in a fearful way, but in the sense that the forthcoming
challenge really mattered to me.  And mattered not just because of the
potential outcome, but because I somehow identified myself with the
forthcoming struggle and was in no way resistant to the fact that I was about
to play chess.  On the other hand, when I’ve played chess just because of
some prior commitment to do so or because I didn’t have the imagination to
think of something better to do, I found that my lack of enthusiasm manifested
itself in an unhealthy disregard for the details of the game, carelessness and
more concern for the result than the process.  What I’m suggesting is that
there may be a significant relationship between your form and the extent to
which the result matters to you relative to the taking part.  I’m not
interested in the ‘chess as art or sport?’ issue here, and I’m not
saying there is anything wrong with playing chess for purely competitive
reasons.  My point is just that to have any chance of playing your best chess,
or reaching ‘flow’, you need to care about the process itself.  As a crude
example, if you’re trying to win a tournament it’s a good sign if you are
disappointed when your opponent doesn’t turn up, because it suggests that
the ‘1’ in the score chart is not all that matters to you.  The most
important point here is that ‘the outcome’ and ‘the process’ needn’t
be mutually exclusive.  It is fully consistent to love playing chess and to
love winning.  But the difficult question is how to think during the game when
you want to win, but fear that if that’s all you want, you’ll jeopardize
your chances of doing so. Two of my Dutch league team-mates know this well. 
IM Jan Gustafsson and Lucien van Beek tell me that they never enjoy losing,
with Lucien adding that the thing he enjoys most about chess is the moment
when it becomes clear that he’s going to win, or at least that he’s not
going to lose.  I suspect these sentiments are shared by many and I’m
reminded of GM Michael Adams saying something like the following when I spoke
to him in March 2000: “I’ve never understood these players who lose but
then say they enjoyed it because it was an interesting game... I mean, chess
is a competitive game, and the result is what you play for.  If I lose then
I’m not happy.” Even in these cases, which may be the norm in chess, it is
not true that they play only for the result.  Indeed, I think you’ll find
that the tournaments in which they played best weren’t necessarily those
which they wanted to win the most but rather those where they identified with
themselves as chess-players the most and sat down at the board to play their
games and enjoy the struggle without many thoughts of the result.  Lev
Polugaevsky has written about this sort of thing in great detail. For the
interested reader I strongly recommend the book Grandmaster Performance,
particularly the chapter on ‘Psychology of the Chess Struggle’.  His notes
to a crucial, ‘must-win’ encounter with Portisch are invaluable: 
“Should I cultivate a calmly indifferent attitude to the coming battle ...or
should I arouse in myself a feeling of maximum competitive aggression?  ...
Neither of these was really suitable - the first because it inclined towards a
rather quiet game, the second since it was very easy to ‘overheat’.  What
was needed was a synthesis of these two conditions - enormous energy plus cool
reason, but how was it to be attained?”  How indeed? Polugaevsky gives an
interesting anecdotal answer but nothing from which we can generalize.  This
is my concern here: not just what sort of state you need for a must-win
situation, but how you can internally prepare yourself for each game to yield
maximum chances for success.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Gumption"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîGumptionîîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîîFirst see to it
that you, yourself, are all right, then think of defeating the opponent. The
Way of the Spear îîEndBlockQuoteîîThe problem with flow is that it seems to be
something that ‘just happens’ and is all or nothing. What we need is
something we can work towards ourselves, and will give us a chance of reaching
flow.  Here I would say that if what you need to make the most of your ability
could be summed up in one word, that word would be ‘gumption’; a
colloquial Scots word from the 18th century with a variety of meanings and
uses.  There is no exact definition, no one knows its precise origin, and most
dictionaries give a poor interpretation of the way it is most often used in
the language.  I am currently writing a book on the concept and hope that
there will come a time when it is as familiar a word as ‘enthusiasm’,
‘composure’ or ‘practicality’.  Indeed, it might be considered as a
cocktail of these three things, as well as being a bit more. Unlike flow, we
can feel relative levels of gumption, and when we feel full of it, we can say
we are ‘gumptious’.  In any case, it is my conviction that we need
gumption for our spirits every bit as much as we need water for our bodies and
neurons for our brains.  So how does it apply to Wanting? The quote above is
pertinent because it refers to preparing yourself internally for the battle
ahead.  You are trying to cultivate something like ‘psychic gasoline’
which will fuel you throughout the ups and downs of the forthcoming challenge.
When you feel gumption for a task (game of chess) you identify with the task
at hand and somehow feel untroubled by any resistance you may experience,
knowing that that is part of the process.  A gumptious player could ‘just
play’ chess and not be distracted by thoughts of how he’s doing, or what
he should be doing instead.  He brings himself directly to the experience
without imposing any stale opinion about it. He is ready to create and he is
ready to react, without any prior judgement of which should come first.  You
can recognize gumption as that quality of mind where you feel you are doing
the right thing in the right place at the right time.  In this respect, what I
find tragic is to see children being forced to play chess by parents when they
have no particular love for the game.  This is sure to kill their gumption for
chess because gumption tends to happen when we personally identify with what
we’re doing, and you’ll never feel it if you spend your time in a pursuit
that doesn’t allow you to be who you are.  Similarly, you have little chance
of feeling gumptious if all you care about is gaining a particular result
because then you’re liable to resent the fact that you have to sit down at
the board for however many hours.  Then, rather than identify yourself with
the chess struggle, you’ll think only about the position with reference to
the result you are seeking, and thus won’t feel any identification with the
position at all; it will seem alien to you.  Furthermore, lack of gumption may
be one of the symptoms of Looseness, which we’ll consider in Chapter 7.
There are many ways to cultivate gumption, but the main way is simply to be
silent for a while.  In a practical sense this would involve a pre-game walk
or arriving at the board a bit early.  The aim is somehow to combine your
desire for victory with the love of the contest and the silence helps to
remind you that they both come from yourself.  Gumption is also created when
we have a break from chess and return to it with freshness and enthusiasm or
when we have the flush of pride in ourselves after a great result, and we wish
to repeat the experience.  I am now going to consider three scenarios and the
potential ‘gumption traps’ they entail.  These are situations which occur
as a direct result of Wanting and threaten to sever the links between desire
and combat.  The first is when you are hoping to win a game but the position
seems very drawish and you’re getting frustrated, the second is where you
are much worse or completely lost and can’t find the will to put up any
resistance, and the third is where you are much better or winning and just
wish your opponent would resign.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Plus Equals Mode"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîPlus Equals ModeîîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîîLack of
patience is probably the most common reason for losing a game, or drawing a
game that should have been won. GM BENT LARSEN îîEndBlockQuoteîîIn my
experience, most chess lessons have to be learned twice to be fully absorbed. 
I once lost a gruelling seven-hour game against GM Jonathan Speelman in which
I was ‘almost equal’ for about four hours, completely equal for one move,
in which I made a mistake, and then clearly worse after miscalculating with a
soggy brain in the fifth hour.  I then suffered and lost a difficult rook
ending after two further hours. This was at a crucial stage of the 1998
British Championship in which a draw would almost have guaranteed my final GM
norm.  The coffee and pancakes I shared with my opponent after the game
didn’t fully make up for the pain of defeat, but together with my
opponent’s chess wisdom, I felt as though life wasn’t really so bad.  The
key insight to my defeat was a way of playing which Speelman calls ‘plus
equals mode’.  Despite what I said about the danger of such symbolism in the
previous chapter, if properly understood the idea of playing only for ‘a
slight advantage’ (+= or =+ if Black) for a prolonged period can be very
awkward for the opponent at the other side, especially if he wants only to
draw, and not to play.  The player in ‘plus equals mode’ seeks only to
maintain a healthy position and very gradually to improve it. Such a strategy
is only possible when the position is rather simple, but this is often the
case when your opponent is trying to force a draw.  Transformations of the
tiny advantage are an integral part of this strategy, but the emphasis is on
keeping psychological pressure on the opponent even if your position is only
minutely better.  Your search is not so much for lines which cause significant
problems for your opponent’s position, but ways to preserve ‘the +=
factor’.  The neatest formulation of this idea, which I heard in another
context entirely, comes from one of GM Lev Psakhis’s pearls of wisdom: 
“The best way to get a big advantage is to play for a small advantage.”
The advantage is largely psychological, persistent, and can lead to the type
of disorientation that we saw in Miles-Arkell above.  A similar type of
technique is ‘Time of Possession’, which is Yermolinsky’s patent (see
New In Chess magazine, 1996, no. 1) and differs in that there you just
‘pound your opponent with meaningless moves until they make a mistake’
regardless of whether you have the advantage.  The following game is well
known to those who have read the light-hearted but instructive classic Chess
for Tigers by IM Simon Webb.  Since that book is a little dated now (1978) and
in some ways peculiarly British, I will remind readers of the following gem
with my own comments, based loosely on Webb’s in the above book.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Webb - Exercise #1"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p4rkp/5pp1/2q5/3Q4/PR4P1/2r2PKP/3R4 b - - 0 25"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{“The task of the player is twofold: to induce errors from the opponent and
to avoid errors himself.” The position is about to become a rook and pawns
ending.  What is the best way of transition for Black?} 25... Rc7 {Active move
and less compliant than the occured in the game. Is not progress for White and
25...Qxd4?! Black is still objectively equal after this move, but from a
subjective point of view this is a crass blunder.} 26. Qxc5 {Then  26.Rf3 Qc6
is not progress for White.} R2xc5 27. Rd4 Ra5 {doesn’t give any ground.
Black can hold the position.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Webb - Exercise #2"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p1r1r3/R4pk1/R6p/7P/P7/5PK1/8 w - - 0 35"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black's last move allows a tactical resource for White that gives them an
advantage to fight for victory.  Can you find this blow?} 35. Rg5+ {Exactly!}
Kf7 36. Rxh5 {It’s not totally clear that White is winning here, but looking
at White’s clear upward trend it’s hard to see Black reasserting himself. 
Indeed, White won on move 64.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Miles vs. Webb"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r5/p4rkp/5pp1/5q2/3Q4/6P1/P4PKP/1R1R4 b - - 0 23"]
[PlyCount "26"]

{It’s forgivable to think that the position is equal, but Black didn’t do
himself any favours by thinking of the position as ‘drawn’.  The problem
with this thought is that if your opponent doesn’t agree then you start to
worry that you might somehow have to ‘draw the drawn position’ rather than
just play good moves.  Indeed, if your dominant thought is that the position
is ‘drawn’, you may be inclined to search for moves which force an
immediate cessation, and if they are not there, waste a lot of time and energy
which may lead you to make some small concessions which will encourage your
opponent.  This is why I call this sin Wanting, because the desire for a
result distorts your thinking processes and leads to mistakes.  I don’t know
what the momentum was like in this game, but we join it shortly after Miles
had turned down a draw offer.  In the given position his queen is more
centralized and Black’s kingside is rather more open than White’s, thus
making the seventh and eighth ranks a little slippery.} 23... Rc2 24. a3 {
How is White going to win this position? There is little chance of forcing
material gain, but somehow, he might try to give his pieces a bit more energy
than Black’s, which as we’ll see in Chapter 4, is some sort of
‘material’ advantage.  So, I suppose White would like to tie Black to the
a7-pawn and then probe the kingside.  Note that although Miles is ‘playing
for a win’, he doesn’t resort to anything drastic like g4 or h4.  The key
to ‘plus equals mode’ is the insight that the responsibility for winning a
game is not entirely in your hands.  You have to believe in your opponent’s
fallibility and just enjoy playing the position without putting yourself under
excessive pressure ‘to win’.  This reminds me of a crude but profound
insight made by Hartston and Wason in The Psychology of Chess:  “The task of
the player is twofold: to induce errors from the opponent and to avoid errors
himself.”} Qc5 25. Rb3 Qxd4 {Black is still objectively equal after this
move, but from a subjective point of view this is a crass blunder. Now Miles
cannot be prevented from doubling rooks on the ‘open past a3’ a-file,
which will confine Black’s rooks to the seventh rank.  This matters because
it gives White something tangible to refuel his gumption tank.  Now he knows
that his opponent is not immune to making concessions and perhaps more
importantly we have ‘role play’ again: we might say that White is
‘pressing’and Black is ‘holding'.  25...Rc7! is more active and less
compliant.  Then 26.Rf3 Qc6 is not progress for White and 26.Qxc5 R2xc5 27.Rd4
Ra5 doesn’t give any ground.} 26. Rxd4 Re7 27. Ra4 Kf7 28. Ra6 {With the
cheeky threat of Rf3.  When small threats like this start to appear, they help
to keep the pressure on your opponent and suggest that ‘plus equals mode’
is in full flight.} Rce2 29. Rb4 Rd7 30. Rba4 Ree7 31. g4 {Black should have
played ...h5 a long time ago to prevent this gain of space - now f6 is a
little tender.} h5 {Bla@k may have had some ‘fear of being passive’ here
but in lashing out he just compromises his position. It’s hard to see what
White can do if Black just sits tight.  However, for those who have never
tried it, ‘sitting tight’ can be excruciatingly difficult because it’s
our natural tendency to want to ‘do something’.  After  31...Kg7 32.h3 Kf7
33.h4 Kg7 34.f3 Kf7 35.Kg3 Kg7 36.R4a5 Kf7 37.h5  îîStartBracketîî 37.g5 fxg5
îîEndBracketîî 37...Kg7 38.hxg6 hxg6 39.g5 seems to be the maximum White can
extract, but I don’t see a way to make further progress after 39...f5 40.Rc5
Rc7 41.Rd5 Rcd7 42.Rc5 Rc7 43.Rxc7 Rxc7 44.Kf4 Re7 Still, White could operate
in ‘plus equals mode’ even here, because Black is still the only side with
losing chances.} 32. gxh5 gxh5 33. R4a5 Kg6 34. h4 Rc7 {Black loses patience
and misses White’s threat.  34...Rf7 35.Rg5+ Kh6 should still be a draw, but
no doubt Miles would find a way to keep on playing.} 35. Rg5+ Kf7 36. Rxh5 {
It’s not totally clear that White is winning here, but looking at White’s
clear upward trend it’s hard to see Black reasserting himself.  Indeed White
won on move 64. Now I present the ‘second lesson’ I mentioned above. 
After this defeat, I really felt that ‘plus equals mode’ is an enormously
important part of a chess-player’s arsenal.  Birmingham 1975} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r5/pp2ppk1/5npp/8/2r5/P4P2/1PPRN1PP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{A key moment. Black is pressing.  How should White play to neutralize the
position?} 1. Nc3 {1.c3?! e6! Another strong and patient move, securing d5 for
the knight. 2.Kf2 g5! Now I have to concern myself with the threat of ...g4 on
almost every move but there is a more subtle threat, three moves deep, of
which I was only dimly aware: ...Nd5, ...f5 and ...f4 securing e3 for the
knight.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r1n3/pp2ppk1/6pp/8/2r5/P1N2P2/1PPR2PP/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "9"]

{The last move was 25...Ne8!?, with the slow but sure intention of attacking
b2.  If you have a clear head this won’t seem like a dangerous move, but it
looks awkward for White if you’re stuck in a passive mindset.  Indeed, I can
deal with it easily with just a little activity, viz.} 1. Rd7 R4c7 2. Rxc7 Rxc7
3. Rd2 Nd6 4. Nd5 Rd7 5. Nxe7 {Wha@ever I thought of 25...Ne8 I should have
played 25.Nc3 anyway because 25...Ne8 is not so obvious îîStartBracketîîor
strong!îîEndBracketîî and, from a psychological point of view, 25.c3 is very
encouraging for Black.   Moreover, from a purely positional point of view it
leaves b2 very weak and if the black knight gets to c4 or a4 I could be in big
trouble.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4r2/pp2ppkp/4bnp1/8/8/2NB4/PPP2PPP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{This is a good moment to pause for thought.I think Black is slightly better. 
The position of the kings means that my majority is vulnerable to his rooks
and so long as there are rooks my three pawns should be thought of not as a
queenside majority but as a potential weakness. How should White proceed?} 19.
Be2 {This move, to re-route the bishop and unblock the d-file, is what my
intuition wanted, but then I started to think, and somehow came up with the
uninspired and mundane idea of doubling rooks on a useless file.  19.Rd2? ?!
Rac8 20.Rfd1 Rc5! “The rook is good on c5 because it controls a lot of
squares.” Julian says this sort of thing quite regularly these days.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp6/r3pk1p/8/1PP2p2/P3nP2/3RNK1P/8 w - - 0 42"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{Think about this position. The pawns on c4 and f4 are being threatened.  What
is the best defense for White?} 42. c5 {Of course! I was afraid I would regret
not taking on f4 but given that I am almost lost by force in the game I should
have accepted the possibility of future self recrimination.  This ‘fear of
regret’ is an aspect of Perfectionism, which we will consider in Chapter 6.
I general I think I suffer from the problem of being too impatient in
difficult positions.  The art of defending often consists in being ‘willing
to be worse’ for a number of moves. Those who find it hard to play inferior
positions are liable to try to relieve the tension too quickly, thus
accelerating their demise.} e5 {42...Nd5!? 43.Rd3 Ra4 44.Rb3 makes it hard for
Black to make further progress} 43. Rd7 Rxa3 44. Rxb7 Ra1 {This was my main
concern. I tend to be quite scared of mating-nets, especially because some
nets seem to get bigger and stronger as you try to escape from them, but here
my fears seem unfounded for the net has a hole on e2. I just play} 45. Nc3 {
aft@r which the position looks quite unclear. So after all that I’ve said I
don’t know how Black can prove his advantage after 42.c5. These lines
highlight just how big the drawing margin can be in chess.  Despite lots of
dubious moves, from an objective point of view I still had good drawing
chances.  However, we cannot escape from the subjective during play
îîStartBracketîîsee Chapter 5îîEndBracketîî.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "96"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Bd2 {I had a suspicion that
Julian might try the Scandinavian in this game and decided to try a new idea,
which I saw in Kasparov-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1999.  I would have
played something more critical, but I got confused by all the move-order
tricks in the main lines and wanted to see if this offbeat idea made any sense}
c6 6. Bd3 Qd8 {6...Bg4 7.Ne4!? is one of the ideas, which transpired in
Kasparov-Van Wely, but Julian’s excellent move seems to equalize easily.
There is no convenient way to defend the d-pawn.} 7. Nge2 {7.Nf3 is met by 7...
Bg4 but 7.Be3!? to be followed by Qd2 and Nf3 may be better. However, Julian
didn’t look too convinced and called it “an improved Banker” for Black,
the ‘Banker’ being 3...Qd8 followed by ...c6 and ...Nf6} g6 8. Bf4 Bg7 9.
Qd2 O-O {I l@cked the energy to play the critical move here, and my intent was
fuzzy. I wanted to keep a slight edge but my thoughts were tainted by ghosts. 
Given that I’m following Kasparov’s idea, I might have asked what he would
do here, and clearly, he would have castled queenside.  So, the problem was
not only lack of gumption îîStartBracketîîsecond half of the tournament,
looking forward to Christmas, played Jules lots of times, cold and dark
outsideîîEndBracketîî but also a lack of clarity about my objectives.  I lost
this game more because of what I didn’t do before the game than what I did
during it.  Had I realized that I really wanted to ‘play for two results’
I probably wouldn’t have played 1.e4 and if I had asked myself if I was
‘ready for a tussle’ I would have realized that some internal maintenance
was needed because really I had no hunger for this game.  As I said, there are
many ways to ‘fill yourself with gumption’ before a game.  Reminding
yourself why the game in general or this game in particular matters to you may
help, or speaking to a friend honestly about your confidence levels, turning
up at the board early to soak up the atmosphere.  More mundane activities like
tidying your room, washing the dishes or the well-known ‘walk to clear your
head’ can also help.  10.O-O-O! was the only way to put pressure on my
opponent.  In a sense I was guilty of Blinking here because after this moment
the trends turn in my opponent’s favour.  It is by no means clear that White
is better after 10.0-0-0 but the struggle would be much more tense and White
has a relatively clear plan of opening the h-file while Black still has some
problems with his c8-bishop.  10...Ng4!? was my ‘pseudo-justification’ for
not going this way, but this is typical of self-deception on the chessboard in
that you often only see what you want to see.  I didn’t castle kingside
because I thought it was the right move, rather I did it because I wasn’t
psychologically ready to play a sharp position.  Had I been more gumptious I
would have seen 11.Ne4 f5 12.h3 fxe4 13.Bc4+  Or 11...Bf5 12.h3 Bxe4 13.hxg4
Bxg2 14.Rh2 Bf3 15.Bh6 is extremely risky for Black and in a more confident
state of mind I would have realized that Julian would never play it; I think I
actually saw this line but didn’t give it an assessment – I just decided
that giving away material wasn’t on the agenda that day.  10...b5 and other
vague attacking gestures also seemed unpleasant to me, but that’s only
because I wasn’t in the mood to subject my king to any hassle whatsoever} 10.
O-O Nbd7 11. Rad1 {Vague, but for some reason I didn’t see what was coming.}
c5 {Now I may already be slightly on the back foot. As Julian put it, “Your
position doesn’t have any point'.} 12. Bh6 Qb6 {12...cxd4 13.Nxd4 Qb6⩱ ,
with a slight but chunky edge for Black, was an improvement according to my
opponent.  Given that Black has an extra pawn to defend his king and
ultimately to batter White’s f-pawn, it makes sense to keep the queens on,
especially given that my pieces are getting in each other’s way.  Those of
you looking at the c8-bishop should look forward Black only needs to play ...
Ne5 or ...Nc5 before the c8-bishop jumps to life.} 13. Bxg7 Kxg7 14. Na4 {
I played this after about twenty minutes, during which time I realized that I
was struggling to equalize. Julian said he was ‘sad’ when I went into this
ending because he didn’t think I would have the serenity to accept that I
was worse.  After 14.d5?! Qxb2 Black has all the dark squares and I have
little to show for the pawn.} Qc6 15. Nxc5 Nxc5 16. dxc5 Qxc5 17. Qc3 Qxc3 18.
Nxc3 Be6 {Thi@ is a good moment to pause for thought. I think Black is
slightly better. The position of the kings means that my majority is
vulnerable to his rooks and so long as there are rooks my three pawns should
be thought of not as a queenside majority but as a potential weakness.  I had
assumed I would be able to exchange at least one rook but this is not so easy.
My possession of the d-file is useless because there are no entry points there.
Black’s king has a quick and natural route to the centre
îîStartBracketîîf6-e5îîEndBracketîî whereas it will be difficult for me to
centralize my king without making some weakness on the kingside.  So,
basically it’s easier to play Black here.  But, of course White shouldn’t
lose if he plays well and even has some winning chances if Black overpresses. 
Exchanging knights is in White’s favour because even if things go wrong on
the queenside, the 4 vs 3 position would give White good drawing chances. 
However, I could sense that Julian really wanted to play out this game and so
I kept some tension in the position to encourage him to overpress.} 19. Rd2 {
19.Be2 to re-route the bishop and unblock the d-file, is what my intuition
wanted, but then I started to think, and somehow came up with the uninspired
and mundane idea of doubling rooks on a useless file.} Rac8 20. Rfd1 Rc5 {
“The rook is good on c5 because it controls a lot of squares.” Julian says
this sort of thing quite regularly these days.  Apparently he made a
breakthrough one day when he realized just how simple chess is, but he
hasn’t let me in on the secret.} 21. a3 {Not tragic, but a second minor
mistake, after which my queenside pawn-structure loses some flexibility.} Rfc8
22. f3 {A b@t ugly, but I was still hoping to make my own winning chances and
my king wanted a bit of the action.  However, if I'd listened closely, I may
have heard the cries of the h2-pawn, which can be attacked by ...Rh5, the fear
of the f3-pawn being 'chiselled' by ...g5-g4 and a haunting echo on the
e3-square, which proves to be my downfall.  If I wanted to draw it would have
been easier after the knight exchange, but even after  22.Ne4 Nxe4 23.Bxe4 b6
6 I have some problems, basically because Black’s ‘extra pawn’ is more
useful than mine.  Black will try to grab some space on the kingside
îîStartBracketîîmaybe ...h5-h4!? and ...g5îîEndBracketîî, provoke c3 to make
the white pawns even more rigid, and then eventually advance his e- and
f-pawns. White should hold of course, but the pressure is enduring.} h6 {
Very patient. Julian played this game with a great deal of composure.  After
the game he said he was a little bit surprised at how easy it all seemed,
because there was a time when he would have lashed out with ...g5 or ...b5
prematurely.  This is what I was hoping for of course, but it turns out that
Black has far more ‘little tweaks’ to improve his position than White does,
and so the trend continues to accrue quietly in Black’s favour.  The main
strength of this move lies in the fact that when he ‘hit’ me with ...g5 I
wasn’t ready for it.} 23. Ne2 Bc4 {I had been hoping for this exchange,
which somehow frees my position, but I overestimated the tactical problems
with which I now chain myself.  23...b5!? intending ...Bc4 and ...bxc4 is also
promising but 24.b4!? then has to be reckoned with.} 24. Bxc4 Rxc4 25. c3 {
I h@d intended 25.Nc3 but then Black has a move which Julian hadn’t seen and
I had overestimated: 25...Ne8!? , with the slow but sure intention of
attacking b2 . If you have a clear head this won’t seem like a dangerous
move, but it looks awkward for White if you’re stuck in a passive mindset.  
Indeed, I can deal with it easily with just a little activity, viz 26.Rd7 R4c7
27.Rxc7 Rxc7 28.Rd2 Nd6 29.Nd5 Rd7? 30.Nxe7! (25.c3)  Whatever I thought of 25.
..Ne8 I should have play 25.Nc3 anyway because (25... Ne8) is not so obvious
îîStartBracketîîor strong!îîEndBracketîî and, from a psychological point of
view, 25.c3 is very encouraging for Black. Moreover, from a purely positional
point of view it leaves b2 very weak and if the black knight gets to c4 or a4
I could be in big trouble. Julian was very sympathetic to my plight here:
“Basically, in a position like this you’re going to regret whatever you
play.” Presumably the logic is that when defending a slightly worse
‘quiet’ position, every move has a drawback, and can later be shown to be
a concession. This is one of the primary difficulties in playing against
‘plus equals mode’.} e6 {Another strong and patient move, securing d5 for
the knight.} 26. Kf2 g5 {Now I have to concern myself with the threat of ...g4
on almost every move but there is a more subtle threat, three moves deep, of
which I was only dimly aware: ...Nd5, ...f5 and ...f4 securing e3 for the
knight.} 27. Rd8 R8c7 {Black is wise to keep the rooks because they are the
pieces which give me concerns over b2 and potential kingside weaknesses.} 28.
R1d4 R4c5 29. Ng3 {29.Nc1!? was the move I wanted to play, to improve my
knight. The interesting thing is that I was afraid of him ‘doing
something’ now, viz 29...e5?! whereas he doesn’t really want to do
anything much other than slowly improve his position.  After 30.Rd2 e4 31.Ne2
Black’s position hasn’t improved. It’s curious that almost all my bad
moves in this ending arose out of fear of a concrete idea which wasn’t
remotely threatening on the most minor of inspections.  It’s almost as if I
wanted to prevent the very idea that he could threaten me directly. Again,
after 31...Re7 32.Rd1 I don’t think Black’s position has improved; it’s
just that he’s more active.  But the problem with activity in such simple
positions is that it can fizzle out, and leave you with none of the potential
activity which made your position so promising. Julian does eventually strike
in this game, but only when the iron is piping hot.} Rb5 30. Rb4 Rd5 {Doubling
White’s pawns by  30...Rxb4 31.axb4 is a big positional gain for Black
because I would be losing in the king and pawn endings.  However, in the given
position I am very active and if Black tries to force the issue he runs into a
galloping horse: 31...Rd7 32.Rxd7 Nxd7 33.Ne4! Kf8 34.Nd6 and my activity is
rather annoying for Black.} 31. Rxd5 Nxd5 32. Ra4 {After 32.Rd4 Nb6 33.Rd2 Nc4
34.Rc2 Rc6 it looks like White will lose a pawn.} Nf4 {The key to this ending
has been the relative strength of the knights; this is especially evident here.
} 33. Rd4 {After 33.Rxa7 Nd3+ 34.Ke2 Nxb2 35.Ne4 Nc4 Black is firmly in
control.} Rc6 34. Kf1 {34.Nf1 Rb6 35.Rd2 Rxb2 36.Rxb2 Nd3+} Rb6 35. Rd2 f5 {
Black’s kingside majority finally announces its presence with deadly effect.
I cannot stop ...Nd5, ...f4 and ...Ne3 with 36.Kf2 because of the 36...Rxb2
trick and so I am already fighting to stay alive.} 36. Ne2 {I didn't have any
constructive way of passing, which I would like to do in order to meet ...Nd5
with Kf2 and then ...f4 with Nf1.  36.Kf2 Rxb2} Nd5 37. Kf2 f4 38. g3 {It’s
generally a good idea to exchange pawns when defending a difficult ending and
here it is useful to soften up f4.} Kf6 39. gxf4 gxf4 40. b4 {The 40th move is
often a bad one but I don’t feel I had anything better on this occasion;
indeed, I think I am in some sort of Volkswagen, as Nigel Short would say,
which is zugzwang to the rest of us:  40.c4 Ne3 41.c5 Rxb2 42.Rxb2 Nd1+ 43.Ke1
Nxb2 44.Nxf4 Kf5-+ wins quite cleanly for Black.  40.a4!? may have been my
best try. However unpleasant my position, it’s not simple for Black to win
material.} Ra6 {40...Rc6 is met by 41.Rd4!} 41. c4 Ne3 42. Nxf4 {42.@5! was
better. I was afraid I would regret not taking on f4 but given that I am
almost lost by force in the game I should have accepted the possibility of
future self recrimination.  This ‘fear of regret’ is an aspect of
Perfectionism, which we will consider in Chapter 6.  I general I think I
suffer from the problem of being too impatient in difficult positions.  The
art of defending often consists in being ‘willing to be worse’ for a
number of moves. Those who find it hard to play inferior positions are liable
to try to relieve the tension too quickly, thus accelerating their demise.  
After 42.c5 , we have the following lines: 42...Nd5!? 43.Rd3 Ra4 44.Rb3 makes
it hard for Black to make further progress.  But 42...e5 43.Rd7 Rxa3 44.Rxb7
Ra1 was my main concern.  I tend to be quite scared of mating-nets, especially
because some nets seem to get bigger and stronger as you try to escape from
them, but here my fears seem unfounded for the net has a hole on e2.  I just
play 45.Nc3∞ after which the position looks quite unclear. So after all that
I’ve said I don’t know how Black can prove his advantage after 42.c5. 
These lines highlight just how big the drawing margin can be in chess. Despite
lots of dubious moves, from an objective point of view I still had good
drawing chances.  However, we cannot escape from the subjective during play
îîStartBracketîîsee Chapter 5îîEndBracketîî.} Nxc4 43. Rd7 Rxa3 {A risk-free
and dispiriting move. I was hoping for the more ambitious 43...b5 , which
gives me certain counter-chances after 44.Rb7 Nxa3 45.Nd3 .} 44. Rxb7 Ne5 45.
Nh5+ Kg6 46. Ng7 {This is a bad miscalculation and again a sign that I’m
trying too hard to force the draw and am unwilling to play a bad position.  46.
Nf4+ Kf5 47.Ne2! had to be tried. Jonathan Tisdall’s advice on ‘The art of
playing bad positions’ led me to this conclusion.  In such seemingly
hopeless situations, it can be helpful to ask ‘what’s good about my
position?’ and I think the only positive aspect is the activity of my rook
and the possibility of attacking Black’s a-pawn.  So I should head for b5
with my knight, although it seems that I’m still losing with best play: 47...
Rxf3+ 48.Kg2 Ra3 49.Nd4+ Kf6 50.Nb5 Ra2+ 51.Kg3 Nc6 .  Now Black is probably
winning with or without rooks because the e-pawn is too far from the white
h-pawn for the white king to stop the e-pawn queening while protecting the
h-pawn, but it’s close enough for Black to home in on the h-pawn without
leaving the e-pawn vulnerable to attack.  It seems rather unfair that Black
can ‘have it both ways’ in this respect, but this is no surprise, given
that chess seems more often to be surprising than fair!} Rxf3+ {Now all the
tactics are sweet for Black.} 47. Ke2 {47.Kg2 Rf7 48.Rb5 Rxg7 49.Rxe5 Kf6+  47.
Ke1 Rf7 48.Rb5 Nf3+} Rf7 48. Rb5 {48.Rxf7 Kxf7 49.Nh5 Nc6} Nc6 {0-1  York 1999}
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "The Theory of Infinite Resist"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Theory of Infinite ResistanceîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîNever give in. Never. Never. Never. WINSTON CHURCHILL
îîEndBlockQuoteîîA second gumption trap, in which the spectre of the result
can prevent you from making the most of your chances, is the lost position. 
Such positions are often accompanied by depression, defeatism and even
self-destructiveness.  How can you feel gumptious in such situations? Well, we
start from a simple premise: a lost position is not a hopeless position.  To
retain your inner composure in a lost position, you need to forget the idea of
losing and focus on the hope.  The crux of the solution is given by ‘the
theory of infinite resistance’, originally devised by an Australian player
called Bill Jordan.  GM Ian Rogers describes it thus: “It is a theory
designed to encourage players to fully utilize the defensive resources
available in a bad, or even strategically lost position.  The theory
postulates that when a player makes a serious mistake or reaches a bad
position, if he or she continues to try to find the best possible moves
thereafter he or she can put up virtually infinite resistance and should not
lose...  Of course some positions are beyond even perfect defence but their
number is far smaller than imagined.”  If you examine your own games closely,
you may see some evidence for this theory.  It is not at all easy to win won
positions if your opponent does not cooperate. Thus, if you can find the will,
your last line of defence can be made extremely difficult to break down. 
However, finding this will-power is in some ways the most difficult aspect of
the theory, especially in passive positions which seem to offer only the
tiniest chance of a draw and no chances of victory.  My aim is to encourage
you to feel gumptious even in these situations and the following is a
compendium of things to do to keep your spirits up in lost positions.  1 - The
Goalkeeper’s Glory  One way to create enthusiasm for the draw is to compare
yourself to a soccer goalkeeper trying to save a penalty. Your aim is in one
sense purely negative.  You don’t ‘gain’ anything by saving the goal and
you might think that your role is merely to prevent your adversary from
gaining.  But actually, if you save the penalty, you could say that you win
and the striker loses, even though in actual fact the score of the game
remains exactly the same.  The key thought-shift is to limit the contest to
that precise moment. Your team may already be 2-0 down but that is irrelevant
to the goalkeeper’s purpose; he has to abstract his task from the game at
hand and do his best in the given situation.  In his effort to save the
penalty he is ‘playing for a win’. It’s just that he’s not playing a
soccer match as such but playing goalkeeper vs penalty taker; the penalty
taker has an aim (1 goal) and the goalkeeper has an aim (no goal) .  Similarly,
when you have that ‘depressing position, your task is to ‘keep the same
score’, i.e., to draw, and to see the value of this you have to forget the
game as a whole and what you wanted out of it.  So, it’s like both players
have an internal contest over two results.  The defender fights over 1/2 and 0
and the adversary over 1/2 and 1. The winner is the player who gets their
favoured result. So, you can still play for a ‘win’ in a lost position!  2
- Cause Some Trouble  This is quite a subjective notion but crucially
important for playing bad positions. Basically, you have to play on your
opponent’s fears.  Most players are guilty of some degree of Wanting and so
when they get their winning position, they will become attached to the idea of
victory and cling to this result, becoming fearful of losing it in the process.
So, they won’t want any ‘trouble’, by which I mean active pieces in
their territory, unpredictable developments, vague threats to their king and
so forth.  It’s not so important for you to cause actual problems for your
opponent on the board, but it’s very important to make him feel that you
potentially could and in doing so you will undermine his confidence.  Another
way to see this, is that you need to keep your position ‘breathing’, like
the bad guy in the films whom you had assumed was dead but suddenly opens his
eyes and springs a surprise.  3 - Keep the Third Result  The sneaky hope that
you might pull off a win against the odds does wonders for your gumption and
helps to keep the opponent nervous.  So, if at all possible, try to retain the
idea of your own victory on the agenda.  It doesn’t matter if it’s
far-fetched, as long as it is somehow conceivable.  If your opponent has to
think about not losing as well as winning, there is more chance that he will
stay away from any sort of tactics for fear that he might miss something
terminal.  4 - Blackmail Technique  If you can’t retain the idea of victory,
then you can try to blackmail your opponent  with lost endgames in which he
will have to take a long time to win and display some technique in the process.
Some players love to do this of course, but most players with winning
positions ‘want’ to win as quickly as possible, and will tend to avoid
lines which will continue the game for a long time, even if the result is more
or less assured.  5 - What’s Good About My Position?  Most lost positions
have something about them which is attractive even if it’s not especially
relevant to the position at hand.  Try to exaggerate the significance of the
good aspects of your position in your own mind and look for ways to impose
these aspects on your opponent.  All of these techniques are evident to some
extent in the following game, in which my opponent only needed to draw to make
his final GM norm and title.  From my own experience I know how difficult such
games can be, and I wanted to make my opponent fight hard for his draw,
knowing that he would probably not be at his best that day.  However, these
roles were quickly reversed and I had a great but unintended opportunity to
show the theory of infinite resistance in action} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Barsov vs. Rowson - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/pQ1b1ppp/4p3/q2p4/8/P5P1/1P1bPPBP/R4RK1 b - - 0 16"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black has some compensation for the lost material. White has not yet fully
coordinated.  How should Black hinder White's development?} 16... Ba4 {By
controlling d1 I help to keep the bishop locked in position on d2. This is not
the main thing though; what matters most is that my bishops are 'in his face'
in the sense they are irritating him and as far as possible I am imposing my
will on the opponent.} 17. Ra2 {I think he was now planning 17.b4 Qb6 18.Qxb6
axb6 but despite the exchange of queens, this is a favourable transformation
for Black: ...Bc3 and ... d4 will help to keep the rooks out and White's
queenside pawns are not going anywhere in a hurry.  White is probably still
winning, but that's not the point. 19.Ra2 Bc3 20.Rc1 Bb3 is the type of scare
that’s likely to keep him away from this type of position.} Qc5 {The hassle
continues. Now White's coordination is a little strange.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Barsov vs. Rowson - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/p1Q2ppp/2b1p3/2qp4/8/PP4P1/R2bPPBP/5RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White is still unable to coordinate. How should White play?} 1... Bg5 {
It's time for the bishop to go to its natural home on b6.  Note that although
he has succeeded in getting the bishops out of his face, I have extracted a
concession in the form of a slightly weakened queenside and an improvement in
coordination.} 2. Raa1 Bd8 3. Qf4 {I’m still preventing a ‘clean’ e4
break.  21...Qe7 is met by 22.e4!} Bb5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Barsov vs. Rowson - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/p3qppp/1b2p3/1b1p4/1Q6/PP4P1/R3PPBP/2R3K1 b - - 0 24"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White is fond of changing queens trying to solve the problems.  What did they
omit?} 24... Qxb4 {Of course! The double pawns are now useless.} 25. axb4 f5 {
An excellent if obvious move, which my op- ponent had missed. Now I am very
close to equality.  The b6-bishop is well-placed and stable, so there will be
no threats to my queenside and White cannot do anything with his extra pawn
there.  Moreover, my visions of counterplay against f2 have come to pass and
if I were playing a weaker player I might almost fancy my chances of winning
with Black!} 26. e3 g5 {Played quickly and confidently - I knew he wouldn't
like this. Anything else may have given him time to orientate himself.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Barsov vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "65"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2 cxd4 7. Nxd4 d5 8.
cxd5 Nxd5 9. Qb3 Qa5 {9...Qb6!?} 10. Bd2 Nc6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. O-O {I don't
normally play the Nimzo and was a little unfamiliar with this line.   I knew
that they normally played 12...Bxc3 with play continuing 13.bxc3 Ba6 14.Rfd1
Qc5!? , and I think I would have been relatively happy with this, but it
struck me that if I tried to play this way my opponent could bail out by 13.
Bxc3! (the exclam is for appropriateness: if I don’t swap off now, I’m
clearly worse) 13...Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Qxc3 15.bxc3 Ba6 , when the position is about
equal, and between players of similar strengths a draw is extremely likely. On
realizing this, I fell guilty to Wanting because, having had good fortune
against the same opponent earlier in the tournament (it was a double-round
tournament) (, I wanted a complex game in which he would really have to
‘sing for his supper’.  On seeing that the most obvious move could lead to
a very drawish position, I assumed there would be a good alternative for Black,
but there isn’t.  My error was to think that somehow there is something
wrong with the position if it doesn’t fit in with my desire to play it in a
certain way, rather than seeing the error as my own misplaced desire.)} Rb8 {
On @ealizing this, I fell guilty to Wanting because, having had good fortune
against the same opponent earlier in the tournament îîStartBracketîîit was a
double-round tournamentîîEndBracketîî, I wanted a complex game in which he
would really have to 'sing for his supper'.  On seeing that the most obvious
move could lead to a very drawish position, I assumed there would be a good
alternative for Black, but there isn't.  My error was to think that somehow
there is something wrong with the position if it doesn't fit in with my desire
to play it in a certain way, rather than seeing the error as my own misplaced
desire.  Nunn's dictum 'LPDO' îîStartBracketîîLoose pieces drop
offîîEndBracketîî would have helped to avoid this slip. It is easy to make big
mistakes like this when you fall prey to 'script writing', as I did in this
game.  I decided that this game was going to be a long tough fight in which my
opponent would have to sweat it out for his GM title.  Then when the position
didn't comply with my script, I didn't question the script but rather
manipulated my thoughts to fit it.  This is another classic case of
self-deception- you see what you want to see.  I knew that they normally
played 12...Bxc3 with play continuing 13.bxc3 but it struck me that if I tried
to play this way my opponent could bail out by 13.Bxc3! îîStartBracketîîthe
exclam is for appropriateness: if I don't swap off now, I'm clearly worse 13...
Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Qxc3 15.bxc3 Ba6  when the position is about equal, and between
players of similar strengths a draw is extremely likely. Ba6 14.Rfd1 Qc5!? and
I think I would have been relatively happy with this.} 13. Nxd5 cxd5 {I
offered a draw here, putting my cards on the table and turning myself in:
'Guilty as charged officer, completely lost position, no good excuse, but
please give me a draw. It would be too embarrassing to lose like this. It's a
good deal: you get your GM title and I get a lucky break, whaddya say?'} 14. a3
{'I @uess that's a 'no' then. I don't suppose it would help if I said please?
Bugger. 'I've done it again,' I thought.  What a plonker. The day before I had
bungled a shockingly winning position îîStartBracketîîtwo extra connected
passed pawns for no compensationîîEndBracketîî against Sutovsky and only drew.
So here I was 'bungling' again and a grievous 'poor me' mindset was creeping
in from every corner.  I am completely lost now. At best I lose an exchange
for nothing in a position where he can use the c-file for his rooks and a7 is
weak.  I didn't know what to do, but I was sure I wasn't going to resign.  Two
comforting thoughts gave me a glimmer of hope. The first was the previous day
and the disbelief that accompanied my failure to win: 'perhaps if I can screw
up that position, it's conceivable that he can screw up this one'.  The second
was the gruff wisdom of a former club-mate from Aberdeen called John Ewen.
Whenever we'd look at a position and one side was losing the exchange, he'd
say something like, 'It doesn't matter, you lose one îîStartBracketîîa
rookîîEndBracketîî and you get one back îîStartBracketîîa bishop or a
knightîîEndBracketîî and the game goes on.'} Bxd2 15. Qxb8 Bd7 {The position
has stabilized. Black's position is bad, but he is still breathing. I resolved
to play the best moves from here until the end of the game. What kind of moves
are 'best' in such a lost position?  Almost anything that disturbs the
opponent and makes him fearful. My d2- bishop is no doubt an annoyance for
White because he can't use the c-file so it's important to try to keep this
'annoyance factor' or at least extract some concession if we have to let it go.
White has no real weak points, but Black can 'cause some trouble' by eyeing up
f2, perhaps eventually by putting the bishop on b6 and playing ...f5.  Also,
White's g2-bishop is not really contributing. This entails the answer to the
question 'what is good about my position?'.  In this case it's my central
control and dark-squared bishop, which has no counterpart. Not only should I
strive to prevent the rooks from coming easily into the game, but I also need
to prevent e4 if possible or at least have a good answer in return - like ...
d4.  White should still be winning after this, but it's a concession and not
something White really wants. You may think the idea of counterplay against f2
is a complete fantasy, and I suppose you'd be right, but no one is completely
immune to the fear of ghosts and I have to have something to 'threaten' my
opponent with, if only to keep my gumption levels high.} 16. Qb7 {An
@rritating move, preventing ...Rc8 but probably not the best.  16.Qe5! asks
the question as to where my d2-bishop is going to go, and also threatening e4
16...Rc8 is then possible and is what I intended. Now, on the bright side, all
my pieces are playing.   Then 17.e4! Ba4! 18.exd5 îîStartBracketîî 18.b4 Qa6
19.exd5 Bc3 should still be winning for White, as he will emerge a clear pawn
up, but this line is exactly the type of thing which doesn't appeal to you
when the position seems to be winning without tactics.îîEndBracketîî 18...Bb3
causes some trouble and thus White may not be inclined to go in for this, but
it's winning quite easilyafter 19.Be4! e.g. 19...Rd8 20.Qd4 exd5 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7
22.Qd3+ .These lines indicate the following crucial point: you have to play
not only on your opponent's fallibility, but on their own awareness of their
fallibility.} Ba4 {By controlling d1 I help to keep the bishop locked in
position on d2.  This is not the main thing though; what matters most is that
my bishops are 'in his face' in the sense they are irritating him and as far
as possible I am imposing my will on the opponent.  I think he was now
planning 17.b4 Qb6 18.Qxb6 axb6 but despite the exchange of queens, this is a
favourable transformation for Black: ...Bc3 and ... d4 will help to keep the
rooks out and White's queenside pawns are not going anywhere in a hurry. 
White is probably still winning, but that's not the point.  19.Ra2 Bc3 20.Rc1
Bb3 is the type of scare that’s likely to keep him away from this type of
position.} 17. Ra2 Qc5 {The hassle continues. Now White's coordination is a
little strange.} 18. b3 {18.@4 Qc3 19.Qxa7 Bb3 20.Raa1  îîStartBracketîî 20.
Rxd2!? is possible, but Black has some chances due to his active queen and
because White's bishop remains ineffectual.îîEndBracketîî 20...Bc4 21.Bf3 e5!
is an important line, mainly because the more of my prospects for counterplay
he sees, the more likely he is to doubt himself and feel the risk of losing. 
Indeed, I think it was this sort of vision in my opponent's head which led him
to make a compromising queen exchange later.} Bc6 19. Qc7 Bg5 {It's time for
the bishop to go to its natural home on b6. Note that although he has
succeeded in getting the bishops out of his face, I have extracted a
concession in the form of a slightly weakened queenside and an improvement in
coordination.   The direct 19...Ba5 leads into a favourable version for White
after 20.b4 Bxc7 21.bxc5 , where White is playing for two results.} 20. Raa1
Bd8 21. Qf4 Bb5 {I'm still preventing a 'clean' e4 break.  21...Qe7 is met by
22.e4! Note that it's very important to resist the trappings of Materialism 
of which 21...e5? 22.Qxe5! Bf6 23.Qf4 Bxa1 24.Rxa1 is a good example, so
please forgive me for being tangential here. If a rook is worth 5 points, a
pawn 1, and a bishop 3, then we' ve improved our position by 1 point.  However,
it's obvious our position hasn't improved, firstly because Black's position
has no quality any more there's nothing good about it, and secondly we would
now be playing 'for two results' - the slim possibility of a black win has
vanished and not only is White winning, but his position has become very easy
to play.} 22. Rfc1 {Another try can be 22.Qd2 and then 22...f5 23.Rfc1 Qd6 24.
e3 Bb6 25.a4 Bd7 26.a5 Bc5 and of course White is better but Black can still
fighting.} Qe7 23. Ra2 Bb6 {Now I am still losing, but I've definitely enjoyed
an upward trend. Somehow, my position looks more respectable now.  More to the
point, it has been almost ten moves since the catastropheand White still
hasn't shown the superiority of his rook over my dark-squared bishop, nor is
it especially easy to do so.} 24. Qb4 {A sign of impatience and anxiety, my
uncertain counterplay against f2 must have unnerved Barsov considerably. To be
fair, this is a quite a pragmatic move for my opponent in the circumstances
because with the queens off he has almost no chance of losing and is thus
assured of his GM title with still some chance for a win.  However, this is a
very significant achievement for Black and I already felt that the draw was in
sight.  24.Qd2 allows 24...f5 but after 25.e3 it's hard to believe in Black's
attack.  It's not one-way traffic, but I think White can soak up the pressure,
especially given the useful defensive idea of a4-a5 with tempo.} Qxb4 25. axb4
f5 {An excellent if obvious move, which my opponent had missed. Now I am very
close to equality. The b6-bishop is well-placed and stable, so there will be
no threats to my queenside and White cannot do anything with his extra pawn
there.  Moreover, my visions of counterplay against f2 have come to pass and
if I were playing a weaker player I might almost fancy my chances of winning
with Black!} 26. e3 g5 {Played quickly and confidently -I knew he wouldn't
like this-. Anything else may have given him time to orientate himself.} 27.
Bf1 Bd7 {The white bishop is not especially productive while my own morsel on
d7 acts as spiritual guardian of my centre and keeps out those nasty rooks.  
(At this point, I broke with chess etiquette and offered a draw again,
thinking that I had improved my position enough to justify it. Barsov thought
for a while, remembered that this would finally give him the coveted title and
then accepted with a mixture of bemusement and relief.)   If 27...Bxf1? 28.
Kxf1 f4 29.gxf4! gxf4 30.Ke2 White is clearly better.} 28. Rca1 {28...f4 is
not better because of 29.Rxa7 Bxa7 30.Rxa7 the bishop on d7 is threatened.} Rb8
29. Rxa7 Bxa7 30. Rxa7 Bb5 31. Re7 Bxf1 32. Kxf1 Rb6 33. h3 {This seems to be
White's best course, but Black has excellent drawing chances. I have to say
that this draw gave me immense satisfaction, much more than most of my
victories.  I think this can only be because I began a new game on move 14 and
felt like I had won that game.  York 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 3 - Wanting"]
[Black "Putting the Ball in the Back "]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîPutting the Ball in the Back of the NetîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîChess games are won not by good positions but by good moves.
' GM JAN-HEIN DONNER îîEndBlockQuoteîîThe final gumption trap that I wish to
consider is the nervousness that can accompany a winning position.  Whoever
said that there is nothing more difficult than winning a won position was
doubtless exaggerating, but it is certainly true that it often seems to be no
simple matter.  The problem begins with the very idea of ‘winning’. 
“Are you sitting? (Yes) Are you playing? (Yes) I see you are you laughing;
have you been drinking? (Yes) Are you winning? ...” Well, it’s not so
clear what the question means, even if you haven’t been drinking.  I don’t
want to be too pedantic, but I think that present participles have a lot to
answer for.  Normally an ‘-ing’ word denotes some sort of ongoing process
which can be identified by observing an activity, but in chess we often say
that such and such is ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ or ‘drawing’ without
realizing the difficulties involved.  In passing, I wonder if this is less of
a problem for those whose first language doesn’t feature continuous tenses -
it would be quite a revelation if your native language turned out to be a
chess handicap!  In any case, when we think we are ‘winning’ we run the
risk of thinking that there is some sort of objective process going on, akin
to playing or moving, but actually we’re just playing and we have made the
assessment that if nothing too drastic happens we will win.  ‘Winning’ is
not a type of ‘playing’ at all, but our own judgement about what the
result of the game should be.  So, the danger is that once you start to think
that you are ‘winning’ you will erroneously change the way you are
‘playing’ and move from a relatively undisturbed and natural mindset to a
state of mind where you feel self-imposed pressure to play in accordance with
your judgement about what the result should be.  I find it hard to explain
this idea, but basically, I’m suggesting that it’s a mistake ever to think
that you are ‘winning’ because the very word puts pressure on you.  It’s
better just to be very keen on your position and continue playing, with the
tacit knowledge that playing chess includes the aim of checkmating your
opponent.  This slightly strained thought has been confirmed in my own
experience of talking with top-class GMs.  Indeed, in post-mortems with Gulko,
Rozentalis, Speelman, Hodgson, Miles and others I have often tried to provoke
a definitive assessment about a position but rarely does the answer take any
definite form.  Questions like “Is this position winning with best play?”
just don’t seem to register with them and they’ll usually just reply with
something like “Well, there are good chances to win”, which is a small but
very significant difference.  Moreover, see Speelman’s comment to my game
against Neil McDonald in Chapter 1 (Thinking) . In this game I was paralysed
by the thought that I was winning and therefore felt an enormous
responsibility to win, but in doing so I made things very difficult for myself.
It’s one thing to be playing with good winning chances but once you feel
that you are ‘winning’, you are stuck by your value judgement and your
thinking can lose its previous fluency and flexibility.  Another way of
putting this, with yet another piece of Hodgson chess lingo, is not to
‘chalk it up’ before the score-sheets are signed.  If this idea doesn’t
grab you then I recommend ‘Selbstgesprach’ which is German for
‘conversations with yourself’. If you have trouble staying calm when you
have a winning position, get into the habit of talking yourself through your
own doubts:  “Now it’s important to stay calm, I mustn’t overestimate
his counterplay, there’s nothing difficult or unusual about winning this
game, so let’s just make it happen. ” This is a little at odds with my
previous comments about ‘just playing’ and won’t work for everyone, but
it still has its uses.  A more radical idea is the ‘pre-time-trouble
sprint’, which was the suggestion of GM Tiger Hillarp Persson.  It seems
that many games reach their climax just before the time-control and this is
often when our worries about winning reach their height. Tiger suggests that
when you have about fifteen minutes left to make the time-control (often
around move 30 at international level) you just go for a little run outside to
relieve nervous tension!  When you return, so the theory goes, you are less
prone to the ‘baggage’ caused by earlier events in the game and more able
to focus and adapt to the crucial tasks at hand when they arise.  Moreover,
the oxygen hit does wonders for your concentration.  It goes without saying
that this technique won’t suit everyone, but it’s well worth bearing in
mind.  My main practical suggestion is just to try to enjoy the process of
winning. It seems crazy that we put ourselves through such inner turmoil at
the times when our positions are at their best.  So, enjoy those moments when
you can demonstrate your position’s superiority. Not only should you not
rush to finish the game, but savour these positions and don’t doubt that
you’ll win them.  After all, the pressure should be on your opponent! 
îîHeaderStartîîConclusion:îîHeaderEndîî  Wanting is evident when we make
mistakes because of our thoughts about the result of the game. Rather than
play just for a result, and estrange yourself from the process of playing, try
to enjoy the contest and see the result as an integral part of it, but not its
defining feature.  Be watchful of your ‘gumption’ levels before and during
the game and be aware of the extent to which you identify with the task at
hand.  Look out for ‘gumption traps’ based on the game not heading towards
the result you desire, and try to use some of the techniques suggested above
to keep your gumption for chess high.  This allows for the possibility of
experiencing ‘flow’ - the ultimate high for any competitor.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Materialism"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîMaterialismîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîToo many people
spend money they haven’t earned, to buy things they don’t want, to impress
people they don’t like.   EndBlockQuote  WILL ROGERS  Shortly after learning
how the pieces move, we are told of their relative worth. Thereafter our
judgement is severely handicapped.  We need many tools to navigate through
chess complexity, but faced with a thick jungle of muffled answers, we cry out
for something tangible, a single weapon to cut down the thickets of confusion
that swarm all around us.  But we choose a knife with an uncertain blade. 
This uncertain blade is material; something we can see, weigh and count.  But
in cutting only parts of the jungle, it leaves others untouched, and some even
more threatening than before.  We have here the most commonplace of sins, rife
throughout humanity, and tempting to the core.  Although it seems we are all
prone to Materialism, that is not to say that we are all 'materialistic'. 
This term normally refers to the style of a player who delights in grabbing
material, defending for a while, and then converting the material advantage at
a later stage.  Also, there are many players who love to sacrifice material,
and although they do play with a knowledge of the value of the pieces, we tend
not to think of them as 'materialistic'.  Materialism is a bit different,
because it refers to a condition that afflicts almost all of us, bar Kasparov,
and perhaps a few dozen others.  This is a condition in which material is the
axis around which our thinking processes rotate.  It is formed by the ways in
which we learn chess, cultivated by our early experience of the game, and
reinforced by chess language and symbolism.  I considered the following game
in the process of working with a student.  The aim was to learn how to play
the white side of the King's Indian Sämisch, but it turned out to be even
more useful for highlighting the problem of Materialism.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Soloviev - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1rb1rnk1/3nqpbp/p2p2p1/2pPp2P/1pP1P1P1/1QN1BPN1/PP2B3/1K4RR w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{An interesting moment. How should White continue here?} 1. Nd1 {with
aggressive intentions based on Nf2, g5, Ng4, etc. An interesting moment. In
general if you have a space advantage it is better to avoid the exchange of
pieces.  The reason is related to ‘capacity’, as I learned from Michael
Stean’s classic Simple Chess.  1.Na4!? This is how Tal decides to play. 
Why? The short answer is that I don’t know, but perhaps he was attracted to
the relative simplicity of the game continuation and maybe it’s a matter of
‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ in that there are already enough
attackers on the kingside.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Soloviev - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1r3rkb/3nq2p/pn1p2p1/2pPp1P1/2P1P1P1/Pp2B1NQ/1P2B3/1K4RR w - - 0 29"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{White has a much superior position due to the space advantage, but Black
still has some resources.  How should you counter Black's counterplay?} 29. Nf5
{is the way to do it, after which Black is completely lost. Play continued: 
29.Rg2? Rf4! 30.Rgh2 Nf8 and stopped here because I felt White had gone astray.
In case you don't see why White can't just win material after: 31.Bxf4 exf4 32.
Nf1 Nbd7 and focus on the thematic positional compensation. It's not too much
to say that Black is winning here.} gxf5 30. gxf5 {White was at least clearly
better and probably winning, but somehow he didn't allow himself to make such
an assessment before sacrificing the piece, preferring to think of the
position as unclear.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Soloviev - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1r3nkb/4q2p/pn1p2p1/2pP2P1/2P1PpP1/Pp5Q/1P2B2R/1K3N1R b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{This position came out of the analysis of the game. It's nice to see how
tactical resources sprout when the pieces are well coordinated.  Can you find
a convincing continuation for Black?} 1... Nxc4 {Demolishing White's position!}
2. Bxc4 Qxe4+ 3. Qd3 {3.Bd3 Qe1} Qe1+ {Black wins.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Soloviev"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r1q2/2r3bk/p2p1pRp/2pP1P2/BpP1P2Q/5P2/PP6/1K4R1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "13"]

{White is in a good position, but how can he progress?  Can you imagine any
plan?} 1. Bd1 {Bringing the bishop to the kingside!} Re8 {Now the plan is
clear.} 2. Be2 a5 {What else?} 3. Bf1 a4 4. Bh3 a3 5. b3 {Blocking!} Rf7 6. Bg4
Ra7 7. Bh5 {White creates new threats.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Soloviev - Exercise 4"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r1q2/r5bk/3p1pRp/2pP1P1B/1pP1P2Q/pP3P2/P7/1K4R1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White is not lacking ammunition on the kingside, but there appears to be no
way through... Can you find how White continue the attack?} 1. Rxg7+ {Of
course! The bishop was a miserable piece, but a loyal defender which had to be
removed to increase the scope of White's remaining pieces.  There is no forced
win here and Joe wasn't entirely sure that this is what White should do, but
then he saw that White has to do this, and there is ultimately no other
winning try.  I suspect many players would have looked for a 'winning'
combination in vain, become flustered because they knew they really ought to
win this game, break with e4-e5 at the wrong time, and get mated on b2! Such
things can and do happen.} Rxg7 2. Bg6+ Kg8 3. Qxh6 {Black position is
hopeless. Tal won a few moves later.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Soloviev"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "105"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5. Be3 d6 6. f3 e5 7. Nge2 c6 8. Qb3
Nbd7 9. O-O-O Qe7 {Since there is no pressure on e4, the queen would be better
placed on a5, where it at least has a few lustful thoughts about the white
king and can support ...b5.} 10. Kb1 Re8 {Another 'half move'. Kasparov is
fond of this term, which tends to denote moves which are vaguely useful but
don't really get to the heart of the position.} 11. g4 a6 12. Ng3 Nf8 {Black's
last three moves contain an interesting idea: to play ...Ne6-d4. However,
there are aspects of Egoism here because clearly White is not going to wait
for this to happen.} 13. d5 {Of course, now that Neddy on f8 is far from
optimally placed.} N6d7 14. h4 c5 {Another error; Black intends queenside
'counterplay' with ...b5 without asking whether such play will really counter
White's ideas.} 15. Be2 Rb8 16. Rdg1 b5 17. h5 b4 18. Na4 {An @nteresting
moment. In general if you have a space advantage it is better to avoid the
exchange of pieces. 'The reason is related to' capacity, as I learned from
Michael Stean's classic Simple Chess. In the given instance Black's pawns
provide enough space for about four or maybe five pieces to live comfortably,
which makes things rather cramped for the eight who have to live there now. 
By allowing the exchange of one of Black's pieces, Tal concedes some
lebensraum îîStartBracketîîliving roomîîEndBracketîî to his opponent and seems
to make it easier for him to organize a defence to the pending kingside attack.
For another example of ‘capacity’, see Emms-Webster in Chapter 2. So why
did Tal choose this instead of retreating his knight and moving it towards the
kingside?  The short answer is that I don't know, but perhaps he was attracted
to the relative simplicity of the game continuation and maybe it's a matter of
'too many cooks spoil the broth' in that there are already enough attackers on
the kingside.  In any case, Joe Redpath, a promising Scottish 14-year-old,
with a rating around 2000 heading upwards fast, preferred 18.Nd1, partly to
keep Black cramped but also with aggressive intentions based on 19.Nf2, 20.g5,
21.Ng4, etc.  We then looked into this line to see if we might understand
Tal's reasoning. I took the black pieces, and although we didn't understand
Tal' s decision any better, Joe soon displayed some interestingly 'sinful'
thoughts.  We continue:  18.Nd1 Nb6 19.Nf2 Bd7 20.Qd1 b3 21.a3 Rec8 22.Qc1 Be8
23.hxg6 fxg6 24.g5 Bd7 25.Ng4 Bxg4 26.fxg4 Nfd7 27.Qf1 Rf8 28.Qh3  28.Nf5!?
Bh8 29.Rg2? Rf4! 30.Rgh2? Nf8 , and stopped here because I felt White had gone
astray. We can quibble with many of these moves, but none of them are
ridiculous and only now does the position reveal something important about
Materialism.  Taking on f4 is undesirable, so it is not clear what White
should do next. Indeed I prefer Black now, as White has run out of steam and
g5 is very weak. What went wrong for White? Missing the key moment (Blinking)
on move 29 was caused by Materialism. To begin with, Joe didn’t see the idea
of 29...Rf4 at all, presumably because it seems to lose an exchange.  And yet
this is clearly Black’s only idea! We might add the sin of Egoism here
because Joe was so involved with his own ideas that he forgot Black could do
anything creative. 29.Nf5! is the way to do it, after which Black is
completely lost. Joe considered this move, and I could see him thinking about
it, but in the absence of a forced win he couldn’t bring himself to
sacrifice material.  To my mind 29.Nf5 is absolutely crying out to be played.
If I had set up the position after 29...gxf5 30.gxf5 and asked for an
assessment, I’m sure Joe would have thought White was at least clearly
better and probably winning, but somehow he didn’t allow himself to make
such an assessment before sacrificing the piece, preferring to think of the
position as unclear.  Yet after the space invaders inevitably land on f6 and
g6 and White’s unopposed light-squared bishop has its way, Black will be
mated. “I don’t like sacrificing material”, said Joe, as an attempted
explanation.  Not an untypical view, but I think I managed to convince him
that playing 29.Nf5 was clearly the correct move, and essential in that 29...
Rf4 allowed Black back into the game (though then 30.Nf5 is still good for
White) .  What’s more worrying, and indicative of the stubbornness of our
chess patterns and personal habits in general, is that I’m not sure Joe
could bring himself to play 29.Nf5 even if he had the opportunity again, and
this is also not untypical. Two things went wrong here, both related to
Materialism.  Firstly he paid inadequate attention to a move which sacrificed
material largely because he didn’t ‘want’ to sacrifice or at least
because he lacked the courage to do so, not seeing any single clear line which
led to mate or the return of the material.  The other issue is perhaps more
significant though.  Most GMs would see that 29.Nf5 is not only correct but
also ‘timely’ because Black threatens ...Rf4. The two ideas are linked.
But Joe didn’t see ...Rf4 at all.  I believe he ‘missed’ this in much
the same way that he ‘missed’ illegal moves like ...Rb8-g7.  His chess
experience just didn’t give rise to such an exchange sacrifice, in the same
way that it didn’t give rise to illegal moves.  His brain hadn’t seen any
such pattern before. Similarly, he didn’t see 29...Qe6 or 29...Bf6. Not that
they are illegal, but they give away material too, and so they are
unconsciously eliminated from the available options.  It’s not too much to
say that Black is winning here.  The g5-pawn is terminally weak, b2 is
vulnerable, the f-pawn is a major asset and e4 is en prise (although it’s
not clear if Black wants this pawn since it opens a file for the white rooks) .
To my slight annoyance, 32...Nxc4! is actually even more decisive, but less
instructive, and it’s important to appreciate that Black is positionally
winning regardless of this tactic  33.Bxc4 Qxe4+ 34.Bd3 Qe1#} Nb6 19. Nxb6 Rxb6
20. Qd3 Rb7 21. Qd2 f6 22. hxg6 Nxg6 {22...hxg6 23.Bd3 leaves Black horribly
tied up, and after Qh2 White will have threats including some sequence of f4,
g5 and Nf5} 23. Nf5 Bxf5 24. gxf5 Nf4 {Black hopes that he can hold the king's
position and prevent White from breaking in the centre as White will find it
difficult to challenge for the dark squares.  This seems somewhat wishful, but
at least it's an idea, and it's the only one Black has managed to implement so
far.} 25. Bd1 Kh8 26. Qh2 h6 27. Bxf4 exf4 28. Rg6 Qf8 29. Qxf4 Kh7 30. Ba4 Rd8
31. Rhg1 Ra7 32. Qh4 Rc7 33. Bd1 Re8 34. Be2 a5 35. Bf1 a4 36. Bh3 a3 37. b3
Rf7 38. Bg4 Ra7 39. Bh5 Rd8 {White is not lacking ammunition on the kingside,
but there appears to be no way through. ..} 40. Rxg7+ {Of course, the bishop
was a miserable piece, but a loyal defender which had to be removed to
increase the scope of White's remaining pieces.  There is no forced win here
and Joe wasn't entirely sure that this is what White should do, but then he
saw that White has to do this, and there is ultimately no other winning try. 
I suspect many players would have looked for a 'winning' combination in vain,
become flustered because they knew they really ought to win this game, break
with e4-e5 at the wrong time, and get mated on b2! Such things can and do
happen.} Rxg7 41. Bg6+ Kg8 42. Qxh6 Qe7 43. Bh7+ Kh8 44. Bg6+ Kg8 45. Kc1 {
I always like it when the king plays a distant role in an attack against the
opposing king. In this instance White wants to play f4 without allowing ...
Qxe4 with check} Rd7 46. Rh1 Kf8 47. f4 {Now we do see the value of 'material'.
White's extra pawn decides the game.} Rc7 48. Kd2 Rd7 49. Kd3 Rc7 50. Re1 Kg8
51. e5 dxe5 52. fxe5 fxe5 53. Rh1 {A sweet finale. White's rook shuffle leaves
Black defenseless. The rook was needed on e1 to prevent Black from taking on
e5 with the queen. On returning to h1 it finds it has two new allies in the
form of deadly passed pawns and the threat of f6 in particular.  In view of 
53.Rh1 Kf8 54.Qh8+ Rg8 55.f6! Qd6 56.Qh6+ One of my main aims in this chapter
is to get the reader away from thinking of the pieces in terms of 'points' and
instead looking at them all in the light of their unique characteristics. I
will do this with every piece at different places throughout the chapter. 
Here I offer my thoughts on the queen, a piece that played a very important
role in the game we've just considered.  Riga 1955} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The Queen"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/8/8/3q4/8/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe QueenîîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîîWhy are we so
attached to the queen?' îîEndBlockQuoteîîReuben Fine, in his dogmatic Freudian
critique of chess, The Psychology of the Chess-player, argued that we
associate the queen with our mothers.  Since chess, he tells us, is basically
all about patricide (murdering the father = checkmating the king) we want to
keep the queen so that we may have our way with her, after ‘the father’
dies.  But I think this is just nonsense, and as Hartston and Wason suggest,
the only evidence in its favour is the utter vehemence with which
chess-players deny it! Even so, many of us do show a reluctance to sacrifice
our queens or even to swap them.  This may partly explain why an attack on the
queen is considered a ‘half check’ which compels, if not forces, us to
move or cover her. Furthermore, GM Neil McDonald tells me that when working
with very young players he often hears them say things like “He won my queen,
but I won his queen too”; they rarely mention winning other pieces, and the
milder idea of ‘exchanging’ queens comes later.  Certainly some
explanation for this type of attachment seems called for, but I can’t think
of anything to compete with the audacity of Fine’s approach.  Perhaps our
attachment is simply based on the fact that the queen is the most powerful
piece.  We move it a lot when we learn the moves of the game, perhaps
enraptured by the elegance of her effortless mobility, being able to cover
vast distances and all directions in a single move. In the centre she controls
no fewer than 27 squares.  This is a lot in itself, but we rarely consider the
dynamic aspects of the pieces when we ask how many squares they control and it
could be argued that the queen controls a great many more squares because of
her mobility.  Indeed, if we imagine an exposed king on h2, which perhaps only
has an h3-pawn to cover it, in a single move the queen can give check on e5
and suddenly controls another 16 squares or a check on d2 and that’s another
14, not to mention the checks or attacks that follow these.  So you might say
that any piece on a stray square accessible by the queen from e5 or e2 was
also attacked by the queen, because of the position of the king.  This applies
to all pieces of course, but especially to the queen, because she is so mobile.
I thank GM Julian Hodgson for this insight.  However, I think the defining
feature of the queen is not her strength but her vulnerability.  She is
perpetually stalked wherever she goes, and because she is the most famous and
glamorous piece, she makes me think of a Princess hunted by the paparazzi. 
Thus I am inclined to think of the queen as the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
I wonder what Reuben Fine would make of that.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Early Learning"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîEarly LearningîîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîîOld habits
die hard'. îîEndBlockQuoteîîPROVERB  One of my earliest chess memories was
watching my brother, Mark, play and lose to our Egyptian neighbour when I was
about six. At some point there was an issue of ‘winning’ two rooks for a
queen.  My brother went for it, and later couldn’t understand what went
wrong, only to be told that he was simply mistaken to think that the queen was
worth nine points, because actually it was worth ten!  This was something of a
revelation of course, because we, in the ‘Rowson school of chess’ had
assumed that material values were fixed and universally accepted.  Like almost
every other chess-player, one of the first things we learned was something
like the following:  Piece: King Value (Infinite pieces)  Queen Value (9
pieces)  Rook Value (5 pieces)  Bishop Value (3 or 3.5 pieces)  Knight Value 
(3 or 3.25 pieces)  Pawn Value (1 pieces)  These values are slightly different
sometimes, bishops and knights are often just 3, the queen is sometimes 10,
etc., but whatever values you learn, they tend to be fairly non-negotiable at
the time.  In any case, we didn’t ever stop to ask what ‘a point’
referred to, nor did it bother us that teachers at school would adjudicate the
game when it was time to pack up (we didn’t use chess clocks or adjournments
in primary school) .  The reason it didn’t bother us is because it seemed to
be an objective process that could be performed by any numerate person.  It
was thought to be entirely fair that the player who had taken more
‘points’ off the opponent should be called the winner. So you just had to
look at the side of the board.  With a bit of simple arithmetic you would see
that since Jack had captured a rook, a knight and three pawns (5 + 3 + 1 + 1 +
1 = 11) while Stewart had only taken two rooks (5 + 5 = 10) then Jack was the
clear winner.  This is a deliberately implausible imbalance, which suggests a
highly unusual position. We didn’t really consider the position though, just
the material, and at the time we didn’t even call it material, it was just
‘points’.  Come to think of it, it wasn’t even ‘points’, just
numbers. Curiously, this process was made even easier by the fact that we
tended to line up the pieces we had taken in a very orderly and elegant manner.
What was off the board was considered even more significant than what was on
it, and we’d spend half our time admiring our collection of the opponent’s
pieces, while anxiously looking at the opponent’s collection of ours.  Sound
familiar? This may not be quite how it happened to you, but I am sure that the
vast majority of chess-players have similar stories, and memories of just how
materialistic our understanding of chess was just after we learned how to play.
In any case, it seems indisputable that a dominant pattern of thinking in
chess is to start with a material count and then move outwards from there. 
Material is the conceptual homeland to which we naturally return, but it is
something which never leaves us on the chessboard, however far from home we
may venture.  Material is like a womb that forms and structures our thinking
processes and largely determines our approach to the game.  Since we are all
born into the chess world by the teaching of similar rules and basic
guidelines, very few of us are immune to this type of habit formation. It’s
time to consider how this came about, and why it matters.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "What's the Point?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîWhat’s the Point?îîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîA cynic
is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
îîEndBlockQuoteîîOSCAR WILDE  It is a tired truism that the no scale of value
can be relied upon in every type of position.  We tend to be comfortable with
this, and the implicit claim that although these values hold in general (a
rook is worth a minor piece and two pawns, a queen is worth a rook, minor
piece and pawn, etc.) there will be exceptions to these values, and so we
shouldn’t adhere to them too rigidly.  My first problem with this state of
affairs is that we have taken it for granted that there is a single unit of
value in chess. The point system is built upon a little-known but seriously
shaky axiom.  In almost all scales, the point, that building-block of the
numerical labels we assign to all the pieces, is the pawn. When you say that a
queen is worth 9, you are really saying that it is worth nine pawns.  The pawn
is the unit of value. Why is this? We have seen that chess is a complex system,
inhospitable to simple rules, but it is also a closed system, in that the
relative values within the game cannot be given a value from outside the game.
It’s meaningless to say that a pawn is worth one pound, or one cabbage, or
one kiss, but no less so to say that it’s worth one point, unless you can
show what a point is within the closed system.  You could say that a point is
worth one minute, because time is part of the closed system, but no one is
likely to believe you unless you’re playing blitz.  More likely you’ll
seek to latch onto the simplest, most numerous, predictable aspect of the game
and use that as a measure of all the other aspects.  Our ‘forefathers’,
going back before Staunton, felt there was only one sensible way to do it, and,
understandably, they chose the pawn as the smallest unit of value.  Thus they
drew up a material contract to which we all tacitly sign shortly after we
learn the moves.  But there is a hidden clause. What we have agreed to is not
the table above but something like the table below: Character: Pawn - 1 Pawn 
Character: Knight - 3.25 Pawns  Character: Bishop - 3.5 Pawns  Character: Rook
- 5 Pawns  Character: Queen - 9 Pawns  Character: King Infinite Pawns  This is
bonkers. How can you compare nine pawns with a queen? What do we learn from
the fact that a pawn is worth a pawn?  Are we to think that two rooks are
better than a queen because ten pawns are better than nine? The questions
abound, and they don’t rest easy.  It seems that they stem from a mild form
of incommensurability. Suppose you enjoy lasagne and eat it every day. 
Let’s say you are also a gangster film fanatic who spends all his time
watching gangster movies. Then one night, after years of eating lasagne and
watching gangster movies, you make the mistake of eating late and therefore
having too much cheese before bedtime. So you have a nightmare.  There is a
Sicilian gangster holding a gun to the temple by your left ear and demanding
an answer to the question you never thought would be asked: what is the
relative value of the only two things in your life?  Now what you want to say
is that it depends on the quality of the film, or the taste of the lasagne,
right? But this gangster is a bit of a punk, and he’s fiercely determined to
force a definite answer.  He wants to know not only which you prefer, but by
how much you prefer it.  So his gun effectively compels you to say how much of
one you would give for the other, because you have no idea how to evaluate
anything outside of lasagne and gangster movies.  You wrestle furiously with
your problem, but you hit the same impasse.  In this strange world there are
only two things of value: lasagne as the source of nourishment and the films
for entertainment.  You need the lasagne to stay alive, but there would be
nothing to live for without the gangster movies.  It’s not so much that you
couldn’t imagine life without either because the gangster is not threatening
to take anything away, but you just can’t think of how to compare them... on
feeling a little extra pressure on your temple, you wake up in a cold sweat. 
Your problem was that you had incommensurable values. If you had the same
question about lasagne and money, there would have been no such problem
because you buy the lasagne and therefore know what one is worth in terms of
the other.  But here you couldn’t even compare the lasagne and films in
terms of price, because there is no money in your value system.  There is a
problem of incommensurability in chess too because we are asked to compare
pieces with vastly different ‘personalities’ and which we value in
different ways in different positions not only amongst themselves but also,
ultimately, to pawns.  We will be able to make an informed comparison later,
when we look at the personality of all the pieces, but for now it is worth
considering the uniqueness of the pawn.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The Pawn"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/8/8/8/8/8/3P4/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe PawnîîHeaderEndîîThe humble pawn This is the morsel
against which we unwittingly compare the others.  One might assume that this
would make the pawn very charismatic, containing aspects of the characters of
the pieces that it measures, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. The only
way in which this is true is that the pawn has the unique characteristic of
being able, potentially, to become any of the other pieces (other than the
king) , but beyond that it has quite a limited personality.  In this respect
he’s a bit like someone whom you feel has lots of ideas and could be very
interesting, but is shy to the point of paralysis and prone to live a life of
‘quiet desperation’, never becoming who he might have been. However, it is
noteworthy just how much potential a pawn has, and it didn’t strike me until
I embellished the diagram above. In some ways he’s like a hitch-hiker who
walks down a straight road but is always on the look-out to go somewhere else.
That said, he is rather feeble.  He only controls two squares at once, and
when he’s on edge, not even that.  He is generally worth more when he is
centered, but that’s just because we tend to assign higher values to
centralization for every piece, other than rooks, perhaps. The most
significant dynamic that the pawn qua pawn has is that it tends to become more
dangerous for the enemy the further it ventures down the board (most computer
programs acknowledge this in their evaluation function, e.g. white pawn on e2
= 1, white pawn on e5 = 1.3 but of course there are many exceptions so the
computer often gets it wrong) .  Indeed, the pawn contains the threat of a
complete change in personality from a rather limited ‘straightforward’ guy,
to a near omnipotent lady who can travel anywhere in theory, and often very
fast.  On the other hand, the further it advances, the fewer potential squares
it can control, and so it leaves many ‘gaps’ in its wake. It also becomes
more vulnerable, because it is less likely to be supported by its fellow pawns
and cannot cover itself from any direction beyond the two squares it controls.
We tend to think of the pawn as a foot soldier, which seems reasonable given
that it is the lowest rank in the chess army, but it’s a limited view
because it doesn’t tell us anything of the pawn’s character. This
shouldn’t be taken too seriously, but if we are to understand how to make
good use of our pawns, and give them an appropriate value, it may be worth
having a slightly more acute view of their chess ‘personality’.  You may
wish to choose your own model, but I tend to think of the foot soldier as a
civilian too, and in this respect he is a shy and vulnerable hitch-hiker.
Before you latch onto this idea (I wish!) please consider that it’s not wise
to bring such a notion to practical play.  I am only considering these things
in abstract because I want to make better sense of Materialism.  In so far as
this might benefit your game, my aim is to dislodge entrenched patterns in
your brain with alternative models, and thus give you a little more freedom to
think for yourself.  Now the main point of all this is to consider the
absurdity of comparing a pawn to the other pieces when they have such utterly
different characters.  This will become clearer as the chapter progresses, but
for now we have an instructive example showing the pawns in action and the
dubiety of traditional material values.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Saidy vs. Jansa- Exercise #1"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/5K1p/3k4/8/2pp4/8/7P/6R1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{Try to calculate until the very end. How should White play here?} 1. Kf6 {
White’s task is relatively straightforward if Black tries to push the d pawn:
} c3 {is the most challenging move. After  1...d3 2.Kf5 Kd5 is equivalent 3.
Kf4 Kd4 4.Rg7! c3  4...d2 5.Rd7+ Kc3 6.Ke3+- 5.Rd7+ Kc4 6.Ke3+-} 2. Kf5 Kd5 3.
Rc1 {Ypu should anticipate this move!} Kc4 4. Ke4 {White is winning!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Saidy vs. Jansa - Exercise #2"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/7p/8/2kpK3/2p5/7P/2R5 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White is winning but you have to be precise. Can you find the way to win?} 1.
h3 {1.h4?? h5! White finds himself on the wrong side of the reciprocal
zugzwang which is really the key to this ending.} h5 2. h4 d3 {What else?} 3.
Ke3 {White king arrives on time!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Saidy vs. Jansa"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5K2/7p/3k4/2pp4/8/8/7P/6R1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "14"]

{Most readers will know the general ‘rule’ that two pawns on their sixth
rank beat a rook.  In this position, based on Saidy-Jansa, Polanica Zdroj 1968
(where the same position arose, except that White’s pawn was on h3 rather
than h2) , the pawns are only on their fourth rank, but the black king
supports them and it is not so easy for the white king to come back in time. 
Moreover, it’s not totally clear at this stage which side the h-pawns help
because both have a chance to win the opposing h-pawn at some point.  Whatever
you think, clearly the material factor is not the most important.  The rook
may triumph, but not because it is worth three extra pawns.  What matters more
is time - the value of the material is basically a function of speed here, not
on the clock but on the board.  It’s a question of tempi. Later we will
consider whether time may be every bit as important as material in chess, but
for now the question is: will the passed pawns become deadly before White
gains control?} 1... c4 {1..@d4! is the way to do it. The seemingly irrelevant
distinction is highly instructive.  Then: 2.Kf7  2.Kg7 with the idea of
winning the h-pawn, is not going to win unless Black can be stopped from
queening a pawn and this doesn’t look likely with the wayward king on h7. 2..
.d3  2...c4 3.Kf6! transposes to the note to Black’s 2nd move 3.Kxh7?! this
makes it tricky to draw.  3.Kf6 is the line b 3...c4 4.Rd1  4.Rg8 Kd5 is no
improvement for White Ke5 5.h4  5.Kg6 Kd4 6.h4 c3 Ke4 and now White has to be
a little careful to hold the draw.  Perhaps the most thematic line to
illustrate this is 6.h5 c3 7.h6?!  7.Rxd3 Kxd3 8.h6 c2 9.Kg7 c1=Q 10.h7 is a
simple draw c2 8.Rh1? and  8.Re1+ Kd5 9.Rc1 d2 10.Rxc2 d1=Q 11.Rc7 both
theoretical draws  8.Rxd3 c1=Q 9.Rd7 d2 9.Kg7 d1=Q 10.Rxd1 cxd1=Q 11.h7 Qd7+
12.Kg8 Kf5 13.h8=Q Kg6 with a well-known finish where White cannot prevent
mate despite material equality d3!! I found this move, which justifies the
importance of 1...d4, highly revealing.  To avoid losing, Black has to use the
king and the two passed pawns as an allied force.  It is essential that each
of the three finds a role that complements the others. I think the majority of
players would intuitively feel that  2...c4 3.Kf6! transposes to the note to
Black’s 2nd move, and so wins  EndBracket   was the correct move, because we
want the pawns to support each other and we all have the established pattern/
rule of ‘two pawns on the sixth beats a rook’ pulsating in our neural
pathways.  But here we have to ‘jump out of the system’ and get to the
heart of the matter. Black needs to stop the white king from reaching the
e-file and he can only do that with his king on the d-file. T he d-pawn
advances, partly because it wants to be a queen, but also to provide squares
for the king. This allows ‘the big guy’ to hold off ‘the bad guy’, who
would gladly gobble the foot-soldiers.  As for the c-pawn, he is patient and
doesn’t feel the need to compete with his advanced colleague. As long as the
white king is not close enough to smell him, he’s happy where he is for now
3...Kd5!  3...c4? 4.Kf5 Kd5 5.Kf4 Kd4 6.Rg7 demonstrates another key element
of pushing the d-pawn as far as it can go:  Black doesn’t generally want to
put his king on a square where it blocks the pawns because this places him in
danger of zugzwang; in the given instance, Black can no longer stop the king
reaching the e-file so White wins after 6...Kc3 7.Ke3 Kc2 8.Rd7 Kc3 9.Rd4
White wins 4.Kf5 Kd4!  4...c4 5.Kf4 Kd4 6.Rg7 Kc3 7.Ke3 Kc2 8.Rd7 Kc3 9.Rd4+-
5.Kf4 d2! and then 6.Rg8  6.Rg7!? Kc3  6...Kd3 should met by 7.Rd7+ and not  7.
Rxh7 c4 8.Rd7+ Ke2 9.Re7+ Kf2! when Black is winning Ke2 8.Re7+ Kf2 7.Rd7  7.
Rg1? Kd3! Kc2 8.h4 h5! 9.Ke4 c4 10.Ke3 c3 11.Ke2 Kb1 12.Rb7+ Kc1 13.Rd7 Kc2
Kd3 7.Rd8+ Kc2 the alternative  7...Ke2 also leads to a draw 8.Ke4 c4 9.Ke3
d1=Q 10.Rxd1 Kxd1 11.Kd4 Ke2= 12.Kxc4 Kf3 13.Kd3 is a draw because the white
king is close enough to stop Black’s h-pawn.} 2. Kf7 Ke5 {This is a
reasonable attempt to accomplish the same aim of keeping the white king out,
but it doesn’t make good use of Black’s pawns at all, and so the black
king becomes over-burdened with responsibility.   The alternative is 2...d4
White’s task is relatively straightforward if Black tries to push the d pawn:
3.Kf6!  White’s task is relatively straightforward if Black tries to push
the d pawn: 3...Kd5  3...d3 4.Kf5 Kd5 is equivalent  3...c3! is the most
challenging move. After 4.Kf5 Kd5 White has to be very accurate in order to
win. 5.Rc1 Kc4 6.Ke4 h6 and then 7.h3!  7.h4? h5! White finds himself on the
wrong side of the reciprocal zugzwang which is really the key to this ending. 
The position is drawn. In the original Saidy-Jansa game, where the pawn was
already on h3, White would have had nothing better than this, implying that
both 1...d4 and 1. ..c4 would both have drawn in the actual game.  However,
the pawn being back on h2 gives White a vital extra possibility... h5 8.h4 d3 
8...Kb3 9.Kxd4 9.Ke3 wins for White, which suggests that there is indeed a
qualitative difference between pushing the d- or c-pawn in the modified
starting position} 3. Rg5+ {White is aiming to attack the 'tail' of the pawn
chain.} Ke4 4. Ke6 d4 5. Rg4+ Ke3 6. Ke5 d3 7. Rxc4 d2 8. Rd4 {White wins.
Without the h-pawns the position is drawn, but since the black king is so far
from f8, White’s king will take his h-pawn for a walk to h8, disposing of
the enemy en route.  Polanica Zdroj 1968} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The King"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/1k4K1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe KingîîHeaderEndîî   The previous example saw an
interesting struggle for supremacy between the kings, and so it’s worth
pausing to consider the features of this piece, which we generally consider to
be ‘priceless’ in the sense that we don’t attach any number to it. 
Curiously, just after I learned that ‘priceless’ meant ‘so valuable that
you can’t put a price on it’, as an impressionable 9-year-old, I confused
it with ‘worthless’, which may be indicative of materialism generally in
that I had come to associate worth with price (no price, no worth) .  Anyway,
one day when trying to impress my classroom sweetheart, I told her that she
was worthless to me!  She didn’t know what I meant, which was fortunate in a
sense, but as fate would have it the teacher was nearby at the time and she
sensed that I couldn’t possibly have meant what I said.  When she explained
the difference between priceless and worthless to the two of us, needless to
say I was rather embarrassed, but as I remember my (very) petite amour was by
no means upset and we returned to building sandcastles, closer than ever
before.  To avoid such confusion, let’s just say that the king is of
infinite value.  This is of course true in that when you lose the king, you
lose the game.  However, it does rather obscure the fact that the king can and
does function in much the same manner as the other pieces, and in the endgame,
when it is less vulnerable to attack, it can be every bit as valuable as a
minor piece, if not more so.  It is also worth stressing that it’s not just
in the endgame that the king has some material value, since it often does an
important job of defending weaknesses in the middlegame too, or, as we saw in
Short-Timman, can even be an important attacking piece.  So it is very easy to
misjudge the value of the king, because we don’t tend to assign it a
material value, and yet it matters in the sense that it contributes like any
other piece.  I tend to think of the king as ‘The Boss’, ever since
reading an article by IM Richard Forster about kings being used in attacks
entitled ‘When the Boss Takes Over’.  He is like a boss in the sense that
he is demanding and much of our attention is based on what he will ‘think’
of our ‘work’ on the board (is he in danger? are we neglecting him?) .  He
is also like a boss in the sense that his concern is the work of the other
pieces while they are, say, at the office, but then he only starts to work
himself when the office becomes much quieter.  In any case, I offer the
following example of how easy it is to underestimate ‘The Boss’.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Van Delft - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4nbk1/5p1p/p5pP/1p1p2P1/5P2/P1N1B3/1PP5/1K6 b - - 0 34"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Black is going to lose the d-pawn and his tight position looks like it will
soon collapse, but there is an effective method of getting back into the game.
How should Black play to achieve this?} 34... f6 {This is absolutely forced.
After  34...Nc7? 35.Bb6 White has complete control. This attempt to hold on to
the material was, of course, the line I saw first} 35. Nxd5 fxg5 36. fxg5 Kf7 {
Compare the kings. I may have an extra pawn, but Black is effectively ‘a
piece’ up!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Van Delft - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3n4/7p/p5pP/1p4P1/1PP1k3/1P2B3/3K4/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White has gone from being in a better position to having to fight for a draw.
But for this they still have to play accurately. How should they have played
here?} 1. Bc5 {Is not the only way, but probably the easier.  1.c5? Too
optimistic! This is what actually happens in he game and a serious mistake.
The b pawn falls with any compensation.} Ne6 2. Be3 {Black cannot progress in
this position anymore.} Nc7 {2...Kf3?? 3.Kd3+-} 3. Bc5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Van Delft"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4nbk1/5p1p/p5pP/1p1p2P1/5P2/P1N1B3/1PP5/1K6 b - - 0 34"]
[PlyCount "27"]

{This position arose on move 34 in a fairly informal game within a four-player
rapid event organized by Dutch chess enthusiast Karel van Delft.  I misplayed
the opening and was pleased to reach a relatively safe haven in the endgame. 
Indeed, it now seemed to me that I was going to win this game, partly because
on balance I felt I was the stronger player and had experienced a favourable
trend since the opening, but mainly because it seems that I’m going to win a
pawn.  However, in thinking of the material I forgot about the quality, and
didn’t realize that I am actually in danger of becoming worse in this
position} 34... f6 {Thi@ is absolutely forced. After 34...Nc7? 35.Bb6 White
has complete control. This attempt to hold on to the material was, of course,
the line I saw first.  After 34...f6 it looks like Black’s king will become
active very quickly and g5 will be weak.  A moment before I had thought of
Black’s king as ‘boxed in’ and the h7-pawn as weak; how things can
change in a move! This is an example of the problems we saw in Blinking.  I
was guilty of looking at the position, but missing the movement
îîStartBracketîîbad ‘trend sensitivity’îîEndBracketîî.  The position
before 34... f6 looks good for White, but after this move it’s far from
clear. However, during the game I just assumed that I was still better,
because after all I will be a fairly clear pawn up in an ending.  This was
related to Wanting, in that my desire for victory seriously clouded my
judgement.} 35. Nxd5 fxg5 36. fxg5 Kf7 {Compare the kings. I may have an extra
pawn, but Black is effectively ‘a piece’ up!} 37. Nb4 {At the time I
assumed this was an error because it leaves me with no winning chances, but
actually it’s my best chance for equality!  37.c4!? is an alternative,
urgently trying to use my king.  After 37...bxc4 38.Kc2 I have swapped
material for some quality but after 38...Ke6 the weakness of my kingside pawns
is still the most significant factor in the position} Bxb4 {Or  37...Nc7!? 38.
Bb6 After  38.Bf4 Ne6 the knight is not very well placed, because it gets in
the way of Black’s main asset – the king. However, it does seem enough for
equality: 39.Be3 Nc7! Bd6 39.Bxc7 Bxc7 40.Nxa6 Bf4! leaves Black in no way
worse, despite being two pawns down.  His ‘quality’ is much higher than
White’s and soon he will have two connected passed pawns.} 38. axb4 {I was
surprised at just how badly my pawns are compromised here and also struck by
the pain of not being able to control the light squares, in particular c6. 
The biggest problem with the pawn-structure is that the pawn fixed on b4
limits the scope of my bishop and will need to be defended when I play c4.} Ke6
{How@ver, the main issue is the strength of Black’s king. It was probably
through considering such positions that some players îîStartBracketîîGMs Ian
Rogers and Julian Hodgson come to mindîîEndBracketîî have said that the king
is ‘a four point piece’ in the endgame.  This means that, other things
being equal îîStartBracketîîwhich they never are!îîEndBracketîî, a king is
better than a minor piece but worse than a rook, assuming it is invulnerable
to mating attacks.  I suppose the reasoning is that it can hassle a knight and
control squares a bishop cannot, but it has to submit to a rook, which can cut
down its scope across a file or rank.  However, I’m trying to get you away
from thinking of pieces in terms of points! I mention this point value as it
helps to highlight just how important the king is in the endgame.  Also, the
reason we often underestimate just how important it is, is that we don’t
have a material value for it, and so unconsciously assign it to the domain of
‘les autres’ which are considered ‘beneath’ material considerations. 
There are better ways to avoid doing this than giving it a point value, but
for now it still seems a useful piece of information and it certainly helps to
highlight the problems that I faced in this game.} 39. b3 Kd5 40. Kb2 Nc7 41.
Kc3 Ke4 42. Bc5 Nd5+ {This was accompanied by an entirely reasonable draw
offer. I should have accepted, but played on through obstinacy because I was
still hung up about the ‘winning position’ which I had assumed I had a few
minutes before.  The next few moves are embarrassingly bad but they give a
good example of ‘losing the plot’:} 43. Kd2 Nc7 44. c4 Ne6 45. Be3 Nd8 46.
c5 Nc6 47. Bf2 Nxb4 {Here I offered a draw, but he declined. Then he exchanged
all the queenside pawns and I blundered by allowing a knight fork.  Apeldoorn
rpd 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Exceptional Chess"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^StartBlockQuoteîîTo generalize is to be an idiot.
îîEndBlockQuoteîîWILLIAM BLAKE  I tend to leave the quotations to speak for
themselves, but this one calls out for qualification.  Although harsh in
itself, it might draw your attention to the distinction between what is
generally the case in chess, and the utter uniqueness of each and every
position.  Let’s just say for a moment that it is true that, in general, the
(pawn) point system above applies to chess quite accurately and basically does
us a good service.  Does this mean that it’s a question of averages, so that
a rook may be worth 7 in some positions and 3 in others, but when you average
it all out it comes to 5?  This would make for what I call ‘stretchy’
material values and then you could start talking about ‘a material
advantage’ when you’re the exchange down, because your wonderful knight in
the given instance is worth 5 pawns, while your opponent’s useless rook is
worth only 3.  However, this seems strange to us, and we’d rather say
something like: the side with the knight has ‘more than enough compensation
for the exchange’.  This much is convention, but it’s problematic.  It
would seem from the examples in this chapter and elsewhere that a rook is not
always equivalent in value to five pawns, and in some positions a pawn can be
more valuable than a knight, even though a knight is meant to be worth three
pawns.  We tend to consider such examples as exceptions rather than the norm,
and so we feel it safe to generalize about the value of the pieces, as long as
we’re on the lookout for these exceptions.  Yet there is great danger in
such generalizations, because they tend to become the dominant patterns in our
thinking (see Chapter 1) .  Moreover, general advice can distract your
attention from the specific context in question.  It doesn’t matter whether
a rook is better than a knight in general while you are playing your game;
what you do need to know is whether this rook is better than this knight in
the position at hand.  Yet our understanding of chess was formed on the basis
that ‘in general’ these material values hold and since our outlook on the
game was established on this basis, we tend to conform to the generalization. 
Stronger players are often capable of seeing when the old values aren’t
appropriate, but what we have underestimated is that it is extremely difficult
for most players to separate the general from the specific.  I know of many
players who have an incredibly hard time even considering going into positions
in which they are material down, because they wrongly associate material loss
with error.  They may understand that in a certain position it is correct to
sacrifice material because there are other important things going on, but they
have enormous difficulty spotting such instances, and even when they do, they
seem to lack courage, and so they stick to the safety of the general.  But
this is a huge handicap, because, as we will see, there is more to chess than
material.  The biggest issue here though is that positions in which the point
system accurately reflects what’s going on are few and far between.  It is
actually quite rare to see a position in which one side has, say, a knight,
which is worth exactly the same as the opponent’s knight.  I don’t know
how rare of course, and I’m not sure how you might test this empirically,
but in my experience of chess, and not just in my own games, there are more
exceptions than rules when it comes to value of the pieces.  Forgive the
cliché, but it does not seem wrong to say that ‘it all depends on the
position’.  The point seems to be that chess, as a rule, is exceptional, in
the crucial sense that we play one game at a time.  This is why generalizing
is so perilous; every game has rules of its own, especially with regard to the
value of the pieces. There is also a deeper sense in which ‘it depends on
the position’, which is that the value of a piece in any given position will
never be separate from its function with relation to the other pieces.  So the
d- and c-pawns both make each other ‘worth’ more than they would when
considered by themselves and a knight can be better than a rook, perhaps
because of a certain pawn-structure, or because the rook is pinned by a bishop.
So to generalize about the value of a piece as if it could be given a value
all by itself is ‘idiotic’ for this reason too, because the piece is never
by itself in a real game, there are usually lots of other pieces and pawns in
your own position which affect the value of the piece, and there are always
relationships to your opponent’s pieces too.  It’s a bit like the way we
tend to emphasize different parts of our personality, depending on who we are
talking to. So the value of every piece is related to the position as a whole,
including factors like piece relationships, harmony and coordination and thus
the saying that ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’ applies very
acutely to chess.  Die-hard materialists may not even want to engage in such
talk, and could argue that the material is always worth the same amount
regardless of the position, but somehow other factors can override material
considerations.  This would make those who generalize ‘idiotic’ not
because they can’t separate the general from the specific, but because they
are not very good at gauging compensation.  It could be that after the 29...
Rf4 sacrifice in the note to White’s 18th move in Tal-Soloviev (at the start
of this chapter) , Black is ‘material down’, and it’s just that other
factors are more important in the given instance.  It could also be true that
the h8-bishop is ‘worth’ just as much before White captures on f4 as after.
In Saidy-Jansa, the black pawns are all worth one point and no more, despite
the fact that two of them are connected, passed and far advanced, while the
third is isolated and vulnerable.  Strange though this may seem, there may be
nothing logically incoherent with such a view.  I suppose material values
could be the constants in a game of variables. It strikes me as peculiar
though, to say that a white pawn on the seventh rank about to queen is still
worth the same as its former self on the second rank, even given the
qualification that we place a separate (high) value on the white position as a
whole instead because it is about to gain material.  It may just be a question
of preference as to how the total value of the position is added up.  A pawn
could remain one point, and then your advantage may be based on the extra
bonus points you gain for ‘queening potential’, or whatever.  As Scots
poet Robert Burns would say in support of the contention, “For awe that, and
awe that, a pawn’s a pawn for awe that”.  On this view, Soloviev’s
h8-bishop may be worth three points regardless of whether or not there’s a
pawn on e5 blocking the way, and it’s not that your knights are worth more
because you suddenly have the e5-square and can attack b2; the knights are
still worth three, it’s just that you have new value in the form of
‘attacking potential’, ‘passed pawn’ or whatever.  But this does
violence to common sense. Theoretical perspectives can do a lot of damage and
this is a classic example.  You may never have thought about it or felt you
needed to, but the whole notion of ‘compensation’ strongly implies that
material values are not only the most important values in a position, but that
they are constant values, and this is blatantly not the case! 
‘Compensation’ is considered to be that variable factor which you look at
after you’ve counted the material balance, but this is very dangerous.
Indeed it creates the corrosive habit of thinking of positions in terms of
material first and then quality second.  The time factor tends to be thought
of as another realm, which we usually dismiss as ‘tactics’ but is often
considered only in relation to how it affects the material balance (see ‘The
Four Dimensions of Chess’ below) .  This is understandable in a sense,
because all we visibly see are the pieces on the board (material) and so
it’s only natural that we should assign the visible a value.  You can point
to a knight and say ‘three’ because that’s what we’ve learned and
assumed, but what do you point to when you want to show that you have full
compensation worth ‘three’?  It’s difficult because in one sense
compensation is ‘invisible’, and therefore tricky to label with any number.
In order to stick to numbers you can either give numerical values to things
like important diagonals, king safety, pawn-structure, etc., in which case it
would be almost impossible to assign the correct value to each, or else you
can knock points off the value of the pieces and say that their values are not
constant after all, which is also a problem because it creates the possibility
of the nonsensical situation in which you are a queen down, but material
ahead!  However, we do say things like ‘my bishop is better than yours’
‘I have a better pawn-structure’.  Yet if one piece is ‘better’ than
another, in what sense are they worth the same? It seems that whatever way we
look at it, we see that there is more than material to consider in our chess
assessments.  The problem we have at the moment is that we have no way to give
them a numerical value, and so we are highly prone to give disproportionate
value to material because we can count it, and underestimate or overlook other
factors, because they are much less tangible, and there’s no way to count
them. This is another problem of incommensurability: how can we compare the
tangible with the intangible? Instead of exploring this with lasagne and
gangsters, I offer the following game.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Mercs vs. Rowson - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/pp1b1ppp/1q6/3pPp2/P2P3P/1Pb1BNP1/5P2/1R1Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{How should Black play here?} 1... f4 2. Bxf4 Bh3 {So I win the exchange. This
was the first round of a weekend tournament, and I’m playing an opponent
rated more than 500 points lower than me on the Elo scale.  Although it was
very naughty of me, I did make the mistake of ‘chalking it up’ at this
point and thinking that the game would soon be over !?  20...Bf5!? !? with
massive light-square ‘compensation’ for the pawn, and the chance to win
the exchange at will, would have posed more practical problems for my opponent.
} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Mercs vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/pp3ppp/1q6/3pP3/P2P3P/1Pb1BNPb/5P2/1R1Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Think about this position.  What is Black's best move?} 1... f6 {This may
have been a good moment for this move. There's no rush capturing the exchange.
This move prevents the threat Ng5 and capturing on f6 is also good for Black.
After this move Black can continue with Qe6 or Qa6 with a great position.  1...
Qa6?! I was more than happy to win the exchange and exchange material, thus
falling back on ingrained habits and the typical recipe ‘when you are
material up, exchange pieces’.  1...Bb4!? 2.Ng5 Bxf1 3.Qxf1 f6-+  1...Bxf1
not the best version.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Mercs vs. Rowson - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp1r1k2/7p/3pPKbp/P2P4/1P6/5P2/2R5 w - - 0 46"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{After a long battle, we have reached this position.  How should White play
here?} 46. f4 {Of course!  46.e6+? ? Careless. The likely explanation for this
blunder is that it was now almost 11 o’clock in the evening, and my opponent
had been working all day.  However, even here I feel we see Materialism. White
was so attracted by the idea of winning a rook with a mere pawn that he seemed
to forget that any other move was possible. 46...Ke7 47.Rc8 Rd8 48.Rc7+ Kd6 49.
Rxb7 Rf8+   47.f4 Bxf4 48.Kxf4 Kxe6 is now at least clearly better for Black
but was a better defensive try.  Even after all I’ve said about Materialism,
it’s usually a good idea to win a piece when you can.} Bxf4 47. Kxf4 Ke6 48.
Rg1 {White is not worse} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Mercs vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "98"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. Be2 Nge7 7. O-O Ng6 8. Be3
Qb6 9. b3 Be7 10. a4 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. cxd4 O-O 13. Bd3 Rac8 14. g3 Bb4
15. h4 Ne7 16. Nd2 Bc3 17. Rb1 Nf5 {Black should avoid  17...Bxd4 18.Nc4! dxc4
19.Bxd4 Qxd4? 20.Bxh7+} 18. Bxf5 exf5 19. Nf3 f4 20. Bxf4 Bh3 {So I win the
exchange. This was the first round of a weekend tournament, and I’m playing
an opponent rated more than 500 points lower than me on the Elo scale. 
Although it was very naughty of me, I did make the mistake of ‘chalking it
up’ at this point and thinking that the game would soon be over. 20...Bf5!?,
with massive light-square ‘compensation’ for the pawn, and the chance to
win the exchange at will, would have posed more practical problems for my
opponent.  20...Bf5!?} 21. Be3 Qa6 {This may have been a good moment for  21...
f6!? but in second gear I was more than happy to win the exchange and exchange
material, thus falling back on ingrained habits and the typical recipe ‘when
you are material up, exchange pieces’.  This was actually one of the first
‘rules’ I learned at school.  However, I would have been better off with
the queens on here, because that would make it much riskier for White to
create kingside counterplay and it would be easier to protect d5 and attack b3.
For example:  21...Bb4!? 22.Ng5 Bxf1 23.Qxf1 Be7 24.Nh3 Rc3 25.Nf4 Rd8 26.Qg2
Rxb3} 22. Ng5 Bxf1 23. Qxf1 Qxf1+ 24. Kxf1 {‘And the rest is a matter of
technique’, as they say; but when they say it they often forget that good
technique requires some very hard thinking, rather than just a leisurely
finishing off.  Black is material ahead, but White has much more quality in
his position.  The d5-pawn is very weak and easily attacked by the knight,
which may force me to defend it passively with a rook.  White’s space
advantage and kingside pawn-majority give him a fairly clear plan of generally
advancing on the kingside, while it is quite difficult for my rooks to do
anything.  White’s king is also the more useful of the two. So it really is
a battle between quality and material.  Black has to show that his material
advantage means something while White wants to keep the aspects of the
position that make the material less significant.  And what will determine who
wins this little battle? Time. Will Black be able to do anything with his
rooks quickly enough to undermine White’s quality and stop it from becoming
more and more significant?  Here we have an example of the phenomenon we’ll
see later. There are three dimensions to this position, only one of which is
material.  While playing this game I was rather blind to the quality and time
aspects and assumed my material advantage would somehow prevail of its own
accord.  It’s true that for various reasons I was very tired during this
game, but my rather pedestrian play which follows is a natural result of
thinking that the position was already won because of the material advantage.}
Bb4 {Cle@ring the c-file and allowing my rook to enter c2, but this was not a
priority because the rook does nothing on c2. Let’s consider other ideas: 
24...f6!? was possible, but I didn’t want to complicate matters in any way. 
This is understandable given that I thought my material advantage was the only
significant aspect of the position, but unforgivable when you consider the
quality and time aspects.  This move improves the quality of my king and
diminishes the quality of White’s extra pawn and space advantage. Then: 25.
Nf3 Kf7 puts Black in control.  White’s main asset, the knight, is on a bad
route and has nowhere significant to go.  This change in structure following
25.exf6 After  25.Nf3 Kf7 puts Black in control.  White’s main asset, the
knight, is on a bad route and has nowhere significant to go. This change in
structure following 26.exf6 gxf6!? doesn’t harm Black because White is
unlikely to be able to attack these pawns.  More important is to control e5
and render White’s majority insignificant. Quickly guess what White should
now play – look for quality and check for time 27.Ng1!? is the best try in a
bad position.  The knight ‘wants’to be on f4, but is it going to happen 27.
..Bb4! 28.Ne2 Bd6! îîStartBracketîîno! White understood the quality aspect,
but so did Black, and because of the time aspect, White cannot realize his
plan, thus leaving material as the most significant aspect of the position; 
White can only improve the quality of his knight by exchanging bishops but
this weakens d4 and allows Black’s rooks to enter the position  EndBracket  
29.Bf4 Ke6!? 30.Re1 Kd7 31.Bxd6 Kxd6 32.Nf4 Rfe8 25...Rxf6  25...gxf6 26.Ne6
Rfe8 27.Nf4 looks at least playable for White 26.Nh3! Bb4 27.Nf4 Rd6 playable
for WhiteîîEndBracketîî 26.Nh3! Bb4 27.Nf4 Rd6 Black is better, but there is
still some quality in White’s position and Black remains tied to d5.  This
is perhaps slightly better for Black, although the trend is in White’s
favour  24...b5!? looks plausible.  I want to protect d5 with an active rook
on b5, but there are a few tactical issues which would discourage most players,
including myself, who wanted a quiet way to convert the extra material into
victory.  After 25.axb5 Rb8 26.e6 fxe6  26...f6 27.Nh3 Rxb5 28.Rc1! 27.Nxe6
Rfc8 28.Rc1 it seems that 28...Rxb5 is possible, but it’s hard to imagine
wanting to play this way in the circumstances.  Following 29.Bd2 Re8 30.Nc7
Bxd2 31.Rd1 Rxb3 32.Nxe8 Ba5 Black has achieved a satisfactory transformation
into a better ending.  So from considering these options, it seems that I do
have some advantage in this ending, but it is quite a small advantage, and not
so easy to convert into victory.  Yet somehow because it is a material
advantage, and not any other type, we are more inclined to think that it
should ultimately be decisive.  This was my problem during the game. I
didn’t sense the urgency of the situation.  It felt like a static material
advantage but once the knight arrives on f4 we could say that White has a
quality advantage.  So I should have used my short-term time advantage to make
a favourable transformation before this quality advantage was established.  We
tend to think of such quality and time aspects as ‘compensation’ but this,
I think, distorts our perception.  Indeed it implicitly says that material is
the ultimate reference point for assessment, and thus makes us lose sight of,
or at least underestimate, the other elements we should consider, which are
often more important than material.} 25. Nh3 Rc6 {To prevent e6 ideas and
maybe to play ...Rb6 later.} 26. Nf4 Rd8 {Is the d8-rook better than the
f4-knight?} 27. Kg2 {Now I should have woken up to the fact that I needed a
plan, but I just assumed that the material would ultimately prevail, so I
continued to play thoughtless moves.} Kf8 28. Kf3 Ke8 29. g4 {I could see that
my opponent was beginning to enjoy himself and I began to feel some unpleasant
pressure. Moreover, I no longer see any reason to think that Black is better.}
Rd7 {I did have some sort of plan. I wanted to improve the quality of my
position by bringing my king to a more useful square on the queenside.
Possibly to b4 eventually, but maybe just to c6, after ...Rc2.  The difficulty
was partly Egoism, in that I didn’t acknowledge my opponent’s ideas but
also that I misjudged the time aspect. White’s kingside play is rather too
imminent for such grand ideas.} 30. g5 Kd8 {30.@.g6 allows White to open the
h-file for his rook; moreover, after the exchange on g6 îîStartBracketîîhxg6
hxg6îîEndBracketîî, White might play e6, followed by winning Black's g-pawn
and threatening to queen his own} 31. Kg4 {Freeing the f-pawn and trying to
provoke ...g6} Rc2 32. Nh5 Bf8 33. Nf4 {White could have been more ambitious,
but now that the threat of ...Bd2 is gone, he simply asks what I’m going to
do next.} Ke8 {Hmmm. Well it can’t be that bad, and my king began to feel
uncomfortable on d8. Moreover, you’ve guessed it, the time-control was
looming.} 34. h5 Rc6 35. Rh1 Rb6 36. g6 fxg6 {Opening the h-file looked too
dangerous, and I didn’t like the look of a knight on g6 after  36...h6 37.
gxf7+} 37. hxg6 h6 {A critical position} 38. Rc1 {Slo@py.  As we saw in
Chapter 2, when you have such an abundance of choice, it’s important to
sense that the moment has added ‘weight’. White has played very well up to
here, but didn’t talk to his pieces and showed a lack of ‘position
sensitivity’. The knight wants some action but the g6-pawn is weak.  The
rook wants an unopposed c-file. Which piece can help to make all this happen? 
38.Kf5! suggests itself. Given that taking on b3 is perilous, I felt during
the game that I would be close to lost here. My only real asset is my
protected passed h-pawn, but that’s far from being relevant.  Even though
Black is material up, White’s position has much more quality.  That said, it
seems that Black can probably hold on after 38...Rc6 not  38...Rxb3? 39.Rc1
Rb6 40.e6 Rdd6 41.Rc8+ Rd8 42.Rc7 looks like trouble for Black, as Nh5 is a
big threat 39.Ne6 Re7! 40.Nf4  40.Nxf8 Kxf8 and now 41.Rc1!? is a move many
players would be inclined to miss, since in general we shouldn’t exchange
rooks when we are the exchange down.  This is partly because we need a piece
to compete on the files and ranks, but also because the side with two rooks
often finds that one of them is superfluous:  41.Bxh6? gxh6 42.Rxh6 Rf7+! 41...
Rxc1 Then  41...Rec7 42.Rc5 Rxc5 43.dxc5 îîStartBracketîîthis is an
interesting try, but now the h-pawn does matter and Black may even be
betterîîEndBracketîî 43...Ke7 44.e6  44.f4 Rc8 45.Kg4 Ke6 46.Bd4 Rf8 and it
looks like Black is in control Rc6 45.Bd4 Rxe6 46.Bxg7 Re2 47.f4 h5 is an
interesting position for analysis, but somewhat beside the point given the
strength of 41...Rxc1 42.Bxc1 Rc7 43.Ba3+ Ke8 44.Ke6 Rc3 45.f4 Rxb3 46.Bd6
Rg3! 47.f5 h5 Rd7 41.Rc1!? Rdc7  41...Rxc1 42.Bxc1 is, I thought at first,
very promising for White because of the idea of putting the king on e6 and
advancing the f-pawn, but there is an important detail which was hard to see
at this stage 42...Rc7 43.Be3 Rd7 44.Ke6± 42.Rc5!? Bxc5 43.dxc5 Rxc5! gives
back some material to improve the quality of the black position.  After  43...
d4 44.Bxd4 Rd7 45.Ke4 a5 46.e6 Re7 47.Kf5 44.Bxc5 Rxc5 45.Ne6 Rc3!? 46.Nxg7+
Ke7 47.f4 it’s hard to be sure, but although White looks better, it seems to
be a draw 47...d4 48.Ke4  48.Nh5 d3 49.g7 Rc8! 50.Nf6 d2 d3 49.Nf5+ Kf8 50.e6
Rc6 51.e7+  51.g7+ Kg8 52.e7 Re6+ 53.Kxd3 h5 54.Kd4 h4 55.Kd5 Re1 looks drawn,
though I suppose White can play for a whileîîEndBracketîî Ke8 52.g7 Rg6 53.
Kxd3 h5 54.Ke4 h4 55.Nxh4 Rxg7 56.Nf5 Rg6 White is not worse, but it looks
like Black has escaped in this particular line} Rc6 {Maybe my opponent missed
this, or perhaps he was just worried about losing his b3-pawn.} 39. Rb1 {
I doubt if the rook was very happy about this.} Be7 {threatening ...Bg5} 40.
Nh5 Rxg6+ {I was not displeased to remove this thorn from my side, but maybe I
was again guilty of ‘chalking it up’} 41. Kf5 Kf7 42. Rc1 {Now I should be
winning, but it’s still not simple because White’s pieces are very active
and I cannot challenge the c-file. At the time I thought there was a neat
tactical solution, but it turns out to be flawed.} Rg5+ {This looks like quite
a cute idea, and I even double-checked it, but I fell prey to Materialism, and
missed a rather crucial detail.  42...Rb6! is better, and although it allows
some activity, it looks like Black should win. Here is one possible line: 43.
Nf4 g6+ 44.Kg4 Kg7 45.e6 Rd8 46.Rc7 h5+ 47.Kf3 Kf6 48.Nxg6 Kxg6 49.Rxe7 Rf8+
50.Ke2 Kf6 51.Rh7 Kxe6 52.Rxh5 Rxb3} 43. Bxg5 g6+ 44. Kg4 gxh5+ 45. Kf5 {
Of course. The h5-pawn is fairly useless, but since it is a pawn, and
there’s no other way to win material on that move, I just didn’t consider
anything other than  45.Kxh5 when I chose 42...Rg5+.  It’s also a basic
psychological/cognitive problem that we tend to forget which aspects of the
position have changed.  Playing 43.. .g6+ was accompanied by the emotional
feeling of pleasure and relief because I was pushing the king back. I had no
intention of ever allowing it back to f5 and somehow felt I had finished with
that sort of thing.  But then on a different level of thought I saw this
flashy tactic, and broke with all the cautious feelings and the patterns that
go with that feeling.  You might simply say that when I took the g6-pawn I
lost my sense of danger.} Bxg5 46. e6+ {Careless. The likely explanation for
this blunder is that it was now almost 11 o’clock in the evening, and my
opponent had been working all day. However, even here I feel we see
Materialism. White was so attracted by the idea of winning a rook with a mere
pawn that he seemed to forget that any other move was possible. After  46.f4!
Bxf4 47.Kxf4 Ke6 48.Rg1! White is not worse} Ke7 47. Rc8 {47.f4 Bxf4 48.Kxf4
Kxe6 is now at least clearly better for Black but was a better defensive try.
Even after all I’ve said about Materialism, it’s usually a good idea to
win a piece when you can.} Rd8 48. Rc7+ Kd6 49. Rxb7 Rf8+ {The main thread of
this game was the struggle between rook and knight, which was very nearly
decided in the knight’s favour.  Rather than compare the two pieces in terms
of points, there is value in looking at the pieces with fresh eyes, and
allowing yourself to see new things.  I reiterate that such caricatures are
not models to be emulated, but just examples to provoke a new way of looking
at the pieces on the board, and to understand their unique needs and desires. 
Sheffield 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The Knight"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/8/8/8/4N3/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe KnightîîHeaderEndîî   I once asked GM Paul Motwani: If
you were a chess piece, which would you be?” Paul replied that he’d be a
knight, because it can get everywhere, albeit slowly.  This is perhaps why the
knight, which controls far fewer squares than a bishop in the centre of the
board (8 compared to 13) is considered to be of similar value, because it is
limited only by its relative mobility, which is slow, rather than its ability,
which is essentially unlimited.  Of course it may also be related to the
knight’s ability to ‘jump’, especially over pawns which can block much
mightier pieces.  The most important feature of a knight from a tactical point
of view is that the way it moves is not related at all to any of the other
pieces and so it can attack as many as eight squares without being attacked by
any piece on those squares in return.  It’s also worth remembering that a
knight attacks squares of an opposite colour to that on which it sits.  That
said, to see the unique value of the knight we need a geometrical perspective.
If we try to imagine chess without knights, we find an impoverished game with
lines, squares, files, ranks and diagonals, but no curves.  We should be
thankful to the knights, for they are the curvy pieces that bring a circular
aspect to an essentially linear game.  Judging by Donner’s account in The
King, there was a rather heated dispute in Dutch chess around the early 1970's
concerning the geometry of the knight.  Some saw the knight as the bisector of
the bishop’s diagonal and the rook’s line, but this, according to Donner,
overlooks the fact that the knight makes such a short jump.  The correct
appraisal of the knight in Donner’s eyes is that it “moves along a
circle”.  The circle can be seen, with a sympathetic eye, on the diagram
above.  The sense in which it “moves” is related to its “essential
infiniteness” ... “For it is the paradox of this piece that while it is
the most jumpy, it is by nature also the most static” ... “Every other
piece not played for twenty moves or more is a poor thing, but the opposite
goes for the knight: a knight often cannot find the place where it belongs.”
With this in mind, I tend to think of the knight as a lazy cowboy on top of a
horse which can move, but does so only in short bursts, and usually with some
coercion.  The cowboy stands in the middle of a field with a lasso, and is
capable of controlling the circle around it by virtue of the threat of reining
in any of the opponent’s pieces that would dare step into that circle.  Thus
to my mind the knight is a fascinating piece with an intriguing personality.} 
1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The Rook"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/8/8/8/1R6/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe RookîîHeaderEndîî   The rook, by contrast, I find a
little dull. I have placed it on b4 as it has the unique feature of
controlling the same number of squares (14) from any square, and so we don’t
add to its stature by placing it on a central square.  This may seem obvious
to you, but I only realized this on a conscious level after I became a GM!  It
doesn’t matter crucially of course, but it does tell us something about the
rook’s character, which is far-reaching, but tangibly two-dimensional.  Its
main problem is that because it can only move in straight lines, it takes at
least two steps to reach most squares, and usually more when there are pawns
around.  I have a somewhat Freudian feeling in this respect, which is that
rooks seem to have some sort of ‘bishop envy’.  The rook cannot help but
compare itself with the queen, but in doing so it feels inadequate because the
queen ‘has a bishop’, in that it can move along diagonals, while the rook
feels this absence.  If this leads you to wonder why a rook and bishop are not
generally thought to be worth a queen, it’s mainly because the queen, being
able to shift from one colour complex to another, has a type of ‘deluxe
bishop’ (‘hermaphrodite’) , which doesn’t have the limitation of only
being able to control half the diagonals.  Another important aspect of rooks
is that they tend to need space in which to work.  Indeed, in many positions
in which one side is said to have a ‘space advantage’, it’s just that
the rooks are more effective than their counterparts.  Moreover, rooks excel
on open files or when they can access their seventh rank. Perhaps the greatest
value of the rook though is the way in which it can ‘cut off’ an opposing
king or hold back pawns along a rank.  Finally, I tend to think of the rook as
‘sliding’ rather than ‘moving’ because they can travel such long
distances so fast.  If forced to make a caricature of the rook, I’d say he
was an envious ice-skating beginner (can only move in a straight line; happy
on the edge) , and I apologize if that’s not going to help you win your club
championship!} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Are We More Materialistic tha"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîAre We More Materialistic than Computers?îîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe real question is not whether machines think, but
whether men do. îîEndBlockQuoteîîB.F. SKINNER  Watching an analysis module
like Fritz or Hiarcs wade through chess variations, it is striking just how
much value they seem to place on material in their evaluative functions.  More
to the point, when we play these programs, we are invariably crushed viciously
if we give away material.  Computers take pawns we would barely think of
taking and show us time and time again that there are far fewer limits to
materialistic thinking than we had thought.  Thus we come to the conclusion
that chess computer programs are more materialistic than humans.  Indeed,
there are those who delight in ‘tricking’ the computer by giving them
positions that we know they will misevaluate because they will give a
disproportionate value to material.  Recently I was fortunate to have the
chance to speak with GM Joel Benjamin about his time working with Deep (er)
Blue for six months prior to its victory against Kasparov in May 1997. 
Benjamin was keen to stress that there are fewer limitations on chess computer
programs than we might imagine and he also dispelled a lot of disinformation
wielded out as propaganda against the IBM team.  In the following I will use
Deep (er) Blue as the paradigm chess computer, even though it is in fact
rather exceptional.  Some commercial PC software makers think their evaluative
functions are better than Deep (er) Blue’s and that the main strength of the
computer that beat Kasparov was that it was excellent at meeting anti-computer
chess, largely because Joel Benjamin worked on it for so long, and he may be
the best anti-computer player on the planet!  In any case, different chess
programs don’t always ‘think’ alike, but the basic process of using an
evaluative function to select moves is, I think, common to them all.  The key
insight is that the way a computer thinks tends to be much more ‘holistic’
than we might imagine.  So there is no notion of ‘priorities’that would
make a computer ‘decide’to retreat a bishop attacked on g4 after h3
instead of capturing the knight that it was pinning.  It’s not a single
question for the computer at all. When it makes that decision, the computer
looks at every aspect of the given position, ‘sees’ millions of variations
and then ‘goes with the numbers’ in that it will select the move which
leads to positions with a relatively high point score.  So it is not that
computers are taught to favour bishops over knights or anything of the sort 
(although some programs give it a slightly higher static score, maybe by 0.1) .
The computer will consider the decision, not on priorities but on prospective
numerical outcomes. The relevance to this chapter is that in ‘going with the
numbers’, the computer doesn’t just go with material.  Unlike humans,
computers have numerical values for non-material considerations too. There is
no ‘preference’ for material over other factors and the computer, of
course, doesn’t even consider ‘material’ in abstract at all.  What is
true is that in most evaluative functions the programmers give high numbers
for material and relatively low numbers for factors like pawn-structure,
mobility, king safety, etc. Furthermore, in most programs the pieces will have
fixed values.  Say a knight is worth 300. This will be part of a total score
of maybe 1500 in which positional considerations are also assigned values and
included in this total.  Now if this knight were badly placed, the computer
doesn’t give fewer points to the knight itself, but will give a
‘penalty’to the side which might bring the total down to 1450 or a
‘bonus’ if it’s well placed, in which case the total may be 1530.  The
value in considering this is that it seems computers are, in one sense, quite
‘blessed’ not to see chess from a materialistic perspective.  In having
only numbers to compare, they are not blinkered by material judgements. 
Unlike ourselves they don’t look at material ‘first’ and then look at
other factors when they evaluate, rather they consider all the different
aspects in a position, such as material, mobility of material, king safety,
pawn-structure, two bishops, queening potential, etc., simultaneously.  This
is one of the reasons why they seem to ‘see’ tactics so much faster than
us; they don’t have to ‘pause’ to count the material as the vast
majority of human players do and then get their bearings about the other
aspects of the position.  Thus it is not only fairly meaningless to call
computers ‘materialistic’, it is also somewhat hypocritical.  So at the
risk of being provocative, I would say that human players are more prone to
Materialism than computers, because computers ‘think’ exclusively with
numbers, while humans artificially divide their thoughts into numerical and
non-numerical aspects.  A few days before sending off the manuscript, Dave
Gomboc, from Edmonton, Canada, an expert on chess computer evaluative
functions, whom I had asked to check over this section, advised:  This isn’t
strictly true - often a program will look at material, and maybe one or two of
the biggest positional terms, and decide ‘is it at all likely that even if
everything else is my way, that this position will be better than what I’ve
already found I can achieve?’  And sometimes the answer is no.  It’s just
like if you calculate from a position that is dynamically balanced, and you
look at a line where you end up a queen down... you go ‘Is it realistic that
I could have compensation for that?’ and if the answer is no, you reject
that continuation and look elsewhere.  The main difference with computers is
that they look at terrible lines all the time, because they look at so many in
total, so it is actually effective to have this test present.  This is an
important caveat that slightly undermines my argument.  Even so, the main
point, that computers ‘go with the numbers’ and that these numbers do not
exclusively concern material, still stands.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Shirov vs. Kasparov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1b1pb1/p2pp3/4n1pp/3NP3/1P3P2/P1P1NBPP/R2Q1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{“I immediately felt this move was not very good, as it creates a certain
disharmony among the white pieces' said Kasparov about White Nce2 move.  How
Black can take advantage of White's slow development?} 1... g4 {Hitting the
castle!} 2. f4 h4 {The point! This is the move you must find before playing h4!
} 3. fxe5 {Not the best continuation If  3.c4 g3 4.hxg3 Ng4 gives Black a
strong attack against an unprepared king.} dxe5 {Black is doing fine here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Shirov vs. Kasparov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1b1pb1/p2pp3/4n3/3NPPpp/1P2B3/P1P1N1PP/R2Q1RK1 b kq - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Kasparov has managed to advance the h and g pawns to the fifth rank.  How
should Black continue here?} 1... h3 {Exactly! This pawn will be always an
issue for White. The knight stills untouchable and the only move for White is
how Shirov has played.   “... the white king has a strong alien in his camp,
i.e. the h3-pawn. White has to be very careful as the first check to his king
may very well be the last one.' GK} 2. g3 Nc6 {“The future importance of the
long diagonal a8-h1 is not yet clear, but from my experience I can guarantee
that the white king is potentially in a much worse position than his black
colleague...' GK  In fact, the pawn on h3 can be seen as a material advantage
for Black, because it is so important that you could value it as a whole piece!
} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Shirov vs. Kasparov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1p1b1pb1/p1npp3/8/3NPPp1/1P1QB1Pp/P1P1N2P/3R1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{The main feature of the position is still the long-term weakness of the white
king and Black’s ‘material advantage’ in the kingside structure.  How
should Black continue here?} 1... f5 {Strong move! Hitting the h1-a8 diagonal.}
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Shirov vs. Kasparov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/1p1b2b1/p1npp3/q4p2/2PNPPp1/1PNQB1Pp/P6P/3RR1K1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black is actually better due to the bishop pair and this 'monster pawn' on h3.
Can you find the most effective way to play this position?} 1... e5 {Of
course! Black is already prepared to make this breakthrough hitting the center.
A very strong move due to the bad coordination os the white pieces.} 2. Nxc6
Bxc6 {White's position collapsed a few moves later.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Shirov vs. Kasparov"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1p1b2b1/p1npp3/q4p2/2PNPPp1/1P1QB1Pp/P3N2P/3R1RK1 w - - 0 23"]
[PlyCount "12"]

{Kasparov's latest move has been somewhat inaccurate. Here, White has a move
that would have upset Kasparov's last decision. Think about how should Shirov
have played here.} 23. Qd2 {Whi@e should have played this move!  'Surprisingly,
Shirov did not even look at this move. He probably did not want to exchange
queens; but this exchange would have given him a normal game.'  Remember what
I said about attachment to the queen? It seems that even the great Shirov is
not immune.   23.Nc3? Kasparov calls this a very bad mistake, partly because
the knight is 'indirectly hanging' îîStartBracketîîdue to the a5-queen and
g7-bishopîîEndBracketîî and also because it fails to take the opportunity to
exchange queens.  The black queen has more prospects to cause White problems
than vice versa and this, according to Kasparov, is because '... the white
king has a strong alien in his camp, i.e. the h3-pawn.  White has to be very
careful as the first check to his king may very well be the last one.'  This
last line is rather poetic, but many players might be surprised that Kasparov
seems so unconcerned with his own king.  The fact is, however, that it is
perfectly safe, as White cannot create any serious threats around it. So the
'rule' that you shouldn't move pawns in front of your king needn't dominate
your thoughts.  The key is not to think of the rule, but to shake yourself out
of your preconceptions and just look at the position. 23...Rae8 The rest of
the game is rather thematic, though not without a few errors from both sides. 
In any case it has been annotated elsewhere and there's just space for the
moves now because this game has been milked for more than enough material. 24.
Rfe1? e5! 25.Nxc6 Bxc6 26.b4 Qa3?! 27.b5 exf4 28.Bxf4 axb5 29.cxb5 Qc5+ 30.
Be3? Qxc3 31.bxc6 Qxc6 32.Qxd6 Qxe4 33.Qd5+ Qxd5 34.Rxd5 Bc3 35.Re2 Re4 36.Kf2
Rfe8 37.Rd3 Bf6 38.Red2 Rxe3} Qxd2 24. Rxd2 Rf7 {and now:} 25. Nxc6 {After  25.
Rfd1 Bf8 26.Nc3 Re8 27.exf5 exf5 28.Nd5 Bg7 I prefer Black, and Kasparov
points out that the two bishops and advanced kingside structure make up for
the weaknesses on the d-file.} Bxc6 26. Rxd6 Bxe4 27. Bd4 {is met by The pawn
on e6 is hardly hanging, because after  27.Rxe6 Rd8 Black occupies the d-file
and can face the future with great optimism. -Kasparov.} Bf8 28. Rxe6 Rd8 {
gives Black at least 'good compensation' for the material, and it would
certainly be easier to play Black.  It's also worth mentioning that Deeper
Blue didn't assign any higher value to bishop than knight, but it did give
bonus points for the two bishops. We will consider this in more detail when we
look at the bishop.  Despite this line, White should have played 23.Qd2!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Shirov vs. Kasparov"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "76"]

{I will point out, as far as I understand it, how computers differ from humans
in their evaluation of material in the last few games of this chapter but
first of all I present a game which reveals some of the many original ways in
which Garry Kasparov looks at material and I will compare this to a
computer’s perspective where the comparison seems useful.  Notes are based
on Kasparov’s in New In Chess magazine no. 3, 1997 and his notes in
Informator 69.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4
7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 10. Be2 h5 11. Bxg4 Bxg4 12. f3 Bd7 13. O-O Nc6
14. Bf2 e6 15. Nce2 {'I immediately felt this move was not very good, as it
creates a certain disharmony among the white pieces. I found a nice way to
prove my assessment. '-GK  15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bd4 Be5=} Ne5 16. b3 g4 17. f4 h4
18. Be3 {18.c4 g3 19.hxg3 Ng4 gives Black a strong attack against an
unprepared king.} h3 19. g3 Nc6 {'Th@ future importance of the long diagonal
a8-h1 is not yet clear, but from my experience I can guarantee that the white
king is potentially in a much worse position than his black colleague.  Any
further opening of the long diagonal or the appearance of the queen on the
second rank will create a deadly threat on g2.  In fact, the pawn on h3 can be
seen as a material advantage for Black, because it is so important that you
could value it as a whole piece.  It not only helps the queen to create mating
threats, but in most endgames, this pawn will also guarantee Black a winning
edge because of the threats that Black can create against the h2- pawn, when
the black h-pawn is very close to the promotion square.'- Garry Kasparov. 
This is a remarkably instructive comment from a very human perspective
îîStartBracketîîthough of course he's exaggerating a bitîîEndBracketîî.  GM
Joel Benjamin tells me that DeepîîStartBracketîîerîîEndBracketîî Blue did have
a 'pattern' to recognize this type of far-advanced rook's pawn, but I'm quite
sure that its numerical value would not have been anywhere near the equivalent
of a piece!  Moreover, Dave Gomboc further advises me that, while he can't
speak from first-hand knowledge of Deep Blue's evaluation function, strong
programs would indeed assess this kingside structure as favourable for Black. 
However, it wouldn't be in the form of pattern-recognition that humans are
familiar with.  Instead, 'The computer would deduct points for White's poor
king safety and the colour complex weakness: White's pawns are far from the
'f2-g2-h2 in front of a king on g1' idea îîStartBracketîî'the box'!
îîEndBracketîî worse - Black has a solid grip on g2 and f3, and g2 is adjacent
to White's king.  To compound the problem further, White doesn't even have a
light-squared bishop to try to limit the damage with.  Still, depending on the
program, the penalty terms may only kick into high gear when the program can
see Black beginning to exploit these factors within its search horizon, by
which time it may well be too late for the program to do anything about it.  I
suspect Kasparov's understanding of the value of this structure is largely
based on memory, which of course computers also have, but their memories have
no emotional content.  It is quite likely that Kasparov has seen or played
many games in which this type of structure left a favourable or unfavourable
impression, inducing feelings of confidence or fear.  Moreover, a human feels
uncomfortable with the feeling that this pawn îîStartBracketîîon
h3îîEndBracketîî will always be an issue, while a computer sees the pawn in
the same way in every position.  Kasparov also knows how psychologically
unpleasant this is for White in general, as is revealed by the emotive term
'alien', which he later uses to describe the pawn on h3.} 20. Qd3 O-O 21. Rad1
f5 22. c4 {22.@xc6 Bxc6 23.exf5  23.Qxd6 Qxd6 24.Rxd6 Bxe4 25.c4 e5
'immediately, to avoid the exchange of dark-squared bishops' is slightly
better for Black according to Kasparov.  Note the value Kasparov places on the
two bishops. exf5 24.Bd4 Be4 25.Qd2 d5⩱ was given by Kasparov as slightly
better for Black.  Many players would see the IQP, the 'bad bishop' on e4, and
the 'weaknesses' around Black's king, but it's important to get these things
in perspective.  The main feature of the position is still the longterm
weakness of the white king and Black's 'material advantage' in the kingside
structure.  It is conceivable that White's queenside may become weak too
îîStartBracketîîqueen coming to a3, advance of a-pawn, half-open
c-fileîîEndBracketîî.  It will be extremely hard to attack or win d5 because
of the monster bishop on e4 and so there is really nothing 'weak' about this
pawn.  Indeed, the structure is basically good news for Black due to the extra
space and the half-open c-file.} Qa5 {Com@enting on the position after 22.c4,
Kasparov gives an excellent insight into his resistance to Perfectionism:
'After the text Black has to make some further choices I felt that I have to
play quickly and went 22...Qa5. He just made a choice on intuitive grounds and
put the ball back in his opponent's court.  Reading between the lines, it
seems that the fact that Shirov had no time to compose himself for what might
happen next was more important than being completely accurate on the chess-
board.  However his notes in Informator 69 mention  22...Qe8!? without comment.
Which is also a very tempting move, heading for f7 or g6, where the queen will
secure the kingside and operate on light squares - White's more vulnerable
complex.  This would also have avoided Shirov's equalizing opportunity that he
didn't play in the game îîStartBracketîî23.Qd2îîEndBracketîî. What I find
instructive is that it seems Kasparov felt thinking was not appropriate here.}
23. Nc3 {Kas@arov calls this a very bad mistake, partly because the knight is
'indirectly hanging' îîStartBracketîîdue to the a5-queen and
g7-bishopîîEndBracketîî and also because it fails to take the opportunity to
exchange queens.  The black queen has more prospects to cause White problems
than vice versa and this, according to Kasparov, is because '...the white king
has a strong alien in his camp, i.e. the h3-pawn.  White has to be very
careful as the first check to his king may very well be the last one.'  This
last line is rather poetic, but many players might be surprised that Kasparov
seems so unconcerned with his own king. The fact is, however, that it is
perfectly safe, as White cannot create any serious threats around it.  So the
'rule' that you shouldn't move pawns in front of your king needn't dominate
your thoughts.  The key is not to think of the rule, but to shake yourself out
of your preconceptions and just look at the position.  White should have
played  23.Qd2! 'Surprisingly, Shirov did not even look at this move. He
probably did not want to exchange queens; but this exchange would have given
him a normal game.'  Remember what I said about attachment to the queen? It
seems that even the great Shirov is not immune. 23...Qxd2 24.Rxd2 Rf7 and now:
25.Nxc6  After 25.Rfd1 Bf8 26.Nc3 Re8 27.exf5 exf5 28.Nd5 Bg7 I prefer Black,
and Kasparov points out that the two bishops and advanced kingside structure
make up for the weaknesses on the d-file. Bxc6 26.Rxd6 Bxe4 27.Bd4 is met by ()
The pawn on e6 is hardly hanging, because after  27.Rxe6 Rd8 Black occupies
the d-file and can face the future with great optimism. -Kasparov. 27...Bf8!
28.Rxe6 Rd8 gives Black at least 'good compensation' for the material, and it
would certainly be easier to play Black.  It's also worth mentioning that
Deeper Blue didn't assign any higher value to bishop than knight, but it did
give bonus points for the two bishops. We will consider this in more detail
when we look at the bishop.} Rae8 {The rest of the game is rather thematic,
though not without a few errors from both sides. In any case it has been
annotated elsewhere and there's just space for the moves now because this game
has been milked for more than enough material.} 24. Rfe1 e5 25. Nxc6 Bxc6 26.
b4 Qa3 27. b5 exf4 28. Bxf4 axb5 29. cxb5 Qc5+ 30. Be3 Qxc3 31. bxc6 Qxc6 32.
Qxd6 Qxe4 33. Qd5+ Qxd5 34. Rxd5 Bc3 35. Re2 Re4 36. Kf2 Rfe8 37. Rd3 Bf6 38.
Red2 Rxe3 {Linares 1997} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Angst"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîAngstîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîWhen the only tool
you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail.'
îîEndBlockQuoteîîABRAHAM MASLOW  It seems that Materialism is so deeply
imbedded in our chess minds that we are inclined to feel uneasy when we are
material down, almost regardless of other features of the position.  In fact a
major aspect of this sin is the failure to make good use of promising
sacrifices because we ‘cash in’ much too quickly.  In this respect GM Efim
Geller makes an instructive insight while commenting on the reasons for his
opponent’s loss in game 19 of The Application of Chess Theory: “Black was
let down by ... the purely subconscious desire to restore material equality at
the first opportunity.  It so often happens that, after sacrificing a pawn, a
player aims not to obtain the initiative for it, but to regain the sacrificed
material.  This is a typical mistake, but it is instinctively committed by
strong and experienced masters.”  It is ‘instinctive’ because we are so
prone to Materialism.  It seems that our early experience of chess has created
certain psychological dispositions that we find hard to shake.  I’m not sure
about you, but back then a material disadvantage was associated with defeat,
regret and hope that you will soon win the material back.  When I was playing
for my school it was even associated with guilt, because at times my
team-mates would look at the side of the board, see that I was material down,
and then look at me with concern.  Whether it’s because of these early
experiences or just because of the tangibility of material, it seems that many
players do experience a certain amount of ‘angst’ when they are material
down.  This feeling in turn leads to another - the desire to remove the angst
by restoring material equality. This attitude places huge restrictions on the
variety of problems you can cause for an opponent.  Moreover, it’s not so
easy to be material up either! Indeed in those cases we tend to feel some
angst too.  In particular we start to think in terms of ‘technique’ in a
way we don’t when we have an advantage in time or quality, and also we fear
that we will lose our material advantage, and never find anything to replace
it.  Ukrainian GM Romanishin has spent much of his chess career being a pawn
down in sharp lines of the Catalan.  He claims that his opponents tend to feel
very uncomfortable when they have extra material, because the unbalanced
material makes it difficult for them to play ‘normally’.  Again it comes
back to the fact that there is much more in a position than just the material
situation.  So if we take an example like the Benko Gambit Accepted  1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 6.Nc3 Bxa6 the white-player seems to be a
safe pawn up for a long time but unless you are a strong player who has
studied this line carefully it is extremely difficult to avoid drifting
planlessly with the vague aim of ‘converting your extra pawn’.  Partly
because of this type of difficulty, many strong players are quick to give back
the material they win in favour of other types of advantage which are easier
to play with and more immediately unpleasant for the opponent.  Being able to
make these types of transformations, whereby you may win material but give it
back and then sacrifice, win material again but this time in the ending, etc.,
is a crucial aspect of a chess-player’s arsenal.  This relates to something
a little beyond the scope of this chapter, namely the importance of the
initiative, but the basic idea is that we would do well to relinquish our
emotional attachment to material, and move towards thinking of chess in a
pluralistic way.  The following game shows your author quite willing to trade
material for other advantages, but then handicapped by a feeling of angst at a
crucial moment.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Yuneev - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2b1k2r/7p/pB3pn1/1p2p3/2r5/3R1B2/P1P2P1P/1K1R4 b k - 0 36"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Angst! My opponent has wasted an opportunity that would have put him back in
the game. How should he have played?} 36... e4 {An active move! This leaves
White struggling to find sufficient dark-square compensation, but the position
is still tense.  36...Kf8!? 37.Rd6 Kg7 38.Bd5 Rb4+ 39.Kc1!? Bf5 40.Bd8! Rf8 41.
Bb3 Rh4!? 42.Rxa6 Rxh2  This critical position arose just after a wee
time-scramble in which it subjectively felt like I gained the upper hand. I
have been a pawn down for most of the game, but during that time I have had a
significant initiative based on the two bishops and a development advantage.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Yuneev - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3B1r2/6kp/R4pn1/1p2pb2/8/1B6/P1P2P1r/2KR4 w - - 0 43"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{This critical position arose just after a wee time-scramble in which it
subjectively felt like I gained the upper hand.  I have been a pawn down for
most of the game, but during that time I have had a significant initiative
based on the two bishops and a development advantage. What is What is the best
continuation for White?} 43. Ra7+ {43.Rdd6?! However tempting this may have
been, I really should have seen that this was heading for a drawish position. 
Somehow I assumed a pair of rooks would come off, which would probably allow
my king to cover the h-pawn, and of course I was generally very keen to get
rid of all the potential queens on the kingside. 43...Rxf2 44.Bxf6+ Kh6! 45.
Bxe5 Kg5 The position is beginning to stabilize, but now Black’s position is
very well coordinated while the strength of his h-pawn and the supporting king
is as important as the two bishops.} Kh6 44. Bb6 {Now I am still material down,
but a quick ‘quality check’ would have put me at ease.  Black’s
coordination has been seriously distorted; his king is uncomfortable and his
h-pawn is blocked. Black’s h2-rook, which doesn’t cooperate with the rest
of his army, looks especially silly.  Moreover, he will find it very hard to
defend the b5-pawn and so I should soon have equal material as well as
everything else. All in all, I think White is clearly better.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Yuneev"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "107"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. g4 Nc6 7. g5 Nd7 8. Ndb5
Nb6 9. Bf4 Ne5 10. Qh5 Ng6 11. Be3 a6 12. Nd4 d5 13. O-O-O Bb4 14. Nde2 Nc4 15.
exd5 Qa5 16. Kb1 Nxb2 17. Kxb2 Qa3+ 18. Kb1 Bxc3 19. Nxc3 Qxc3 20. Rd3 Qb4+ 21.
Rb3 Qe4 22. Rg1 Qxd5 23. Bg2 {During the game I felt that White should have
more than enough compensation here, but perhaps I was a bit over-confident
because Black has very few weaknesses to latch onto and my options are limited
because of the weakness of my own king.} Qc4 24. Bc1 e5 25. Bf1 Qh4 26. Qxh4
Nxh4 27. Ba3 b5 {I became concerned that I might be worse here and I think
this took the pressure off my opponent, if only on a psychological/
‘telepathic’ level.  I wrote the following in my post-game notes: “When
things prove to be more difficult than you thought they would, it is important
to retain balance/ confidence and remember that your opponent is feeling the
pressure too.”} 28. Re3 Be6 29. Be2 Ng6 30. Rd1 f6 31. gxf6 gxf6 32. Bf3 Ra7
33. Bc5 Rc7 34. Bb6 Rc4 35. Ra3 Bc8 36. Rad3 Kf8 {36...e4! leaves White
struggling to find sufficient dark-square compensation, but the position is
still tense.} 37. Rd6 Kg7 38. Bd5 Rb4+ 39. Kc1 Bf5 40. Bd8 Rf8 41. Bb3 Rh4 42.
Rxa6 Rxh2 {This critical position arose just after a wee time-scramble in
which it subjectively felt like I gained the upper hand.  I have been a pawn
down for most of the game, but during that time I have had a significant
initiative based on the two bishops and a development advantage.  Even so,
just as my opponent was worried about some killer tactic in that time, I have
been worried about my initiative drying up and being left a pawn down against
a Russian; not for the first time either!  So when I saw my chance to win
‘my’ material back while keeping the two bishops I considered it the
logical outcome of my play up to this point and went for it whole-heartedly. 
I didn’t really pause for thought much, because it seemed inconceivable that
there would be anything better than this.  Yet had I thought less about the
material balance, and more about the position as a whole, I could have put my
opponent under serious pressure.} 43. Rdd6 {However tempting this may have
been, I really should have seen that this was heading for a drawish position. 
Somehow I assumed a pair of rooks would come off, which would probably allow
my king to cover the h-pawn, and of course I was generally very keen to get
rid of all the potential queens on the kingside.  I had a good alternative
though, which keeps much more tension in the position:  43.Ra7+! Kh6 44.Bb6!
Now I am still material down, but a quick ‘quality check’ would have put
me at ease.  Black’s coordination has been seriously distorted; his king is
uncomfortable and his h-pawn is blocked.  Black’s h2-rook, which doesn’t
cooperate with the rest of his army, looks especially silly.  Moreover, he
will find it very hard to defend the b5-pawn and so I should soon have equal
material as well as everything else.  All in all, I think White is clearly
better.} Rxf2 {After  43...Rxd8 44.Rxd8 Rxf2 45.Rg8+ Kh6 46.Rxf6 White has all
the winning chances.} 44. Bxf6+ Kh6 {44.@.Rxf6!? is promising. During the game
I even saw a consistent line of play which ends in Black’s favour: 45.Rxf6
h5 îîStartBracketîîBlack’s small army works very well together; when there
are so many imbalances, conventional material values are of limited
importanceîîEndBracketîî 46.Rfb6?!  46.a4!? bxa4 47.Bxa4 h4 48.Be8 h4 47.Rb7+
Kh6 48.Rxb5 h3 49.Rxe5 h2 50.Bd5 Rxc2+ 51.Kd1 Rc5-+ and Black wins} 45. Bxe5
Kg5 {The position is beginning to stabilize, but now Black’s position is
very well coordinated while the strength of his h-pawn and the supporting king
is as important as the two bishops.} 46. Bd4 {46.Bf6+ Kg4 47.Rd2!?} Re2 {
The rook is well placed on the second rank, mainly because it limits the
activity of my b3- bishop. However, this does lose some time, so there was
something to be said for keeping the momentum.  I haven’t made a conclusive
analysis of this position, but it seems in general that although the position
is ‘unclear’, it should eventually lead to equality.  In most lines White
will have to give up a bishop for the h-pawn but Black will lose his b-pawn. 
This will leave Black with an extra piece but no pawns to make anything of it.
However, there is plenty of scope for error, as the following line suggests: 
46...Rf1+ 47.Kd2 h5 48.Rab6  48.Rd5 h4 49.Bc5 Rb8 50.Bd6 Re8 51.Rxb5 h3 h4 49.
Rxb5 h3 50.Be3+ Nf4 51.Rd4 h2 52.Bd5 Rd8 53.Be4 Rxd4+ 54.Bxd4 Ne6! and White
has to be very careful not to lose.} 47. Rab6 h5 48. Rxb5 h4 49. Kd1 Nf4 50.
Bg7 {Maybe there is something better for White around here, but the nervous
tension of the first half of the game had worn me out and I didn’t have the
energy to look, never mind find, a convincing line.  Even now there seem to be
a lot of blind alleys for White; the h-pawn remains the most important aspect
of the position.} Rfe8 51. Bf6+ {51.Rf6 looks promising, but there doesn’t
seem to be a knockout, and it’s emotionally difficult to allow Black to keep
that potential queen on h4. 51...Re1+ 52.Kd2 R1e5 53.Rxe5 Rxe5 54.Rf8 Re2+ 55.
Kd1 h3 56.Bh6+ Kxh6 57.Rxf5 Rf2-+ is winning for Black, to give a fairly
plausible example.} Kg4 52. Bxh4 {It was a good practical decision to take the
h-pawn. This allows me to play for ‘two results’ while keeping up some
pressure.  However, my experienced opponent was up to the challenge.} Rh2 53.
Bf6 Ree2 54. Kc1 {½-½ My draw offer was timely in that I could barely think
any more. Black has a few scary tactical tricks, and in any case best play
seems to lead to a draw:  54.Kc1 Bxc2 55.Bxc2 Rxc2+ 56.Kb1 Rxa2 57.Rb2  Wijk
aan Zee 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The Bishop"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/8/8/3b4/8/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe BishopîîHeaderEndîî   When I think of the bishop I am
reminded of Aristophanes, the famous comic poet who appeared as a character in
Plato’s Symposium, who contended that men and women were originally
hermaphrodites with eight limbs, back to back, complementing each other
perfectly.  These hermaphrodites became so strong and vigorous that they tried
to attack the gods.  Zeus decided that the only way to end their wickedness
was to weaken them and thus he bisected them, leaving men and woman. Legend
has it that they have been searching for each other ever since.  Although
there is no supporting historical evidence, I cannot but feel that the
bisho-pair were originally a single glorious piece, majestically patrolling
all the squares on the board.  Indeed there is something tragic about the
bishop by itself, but this is best appreciated in light of its virtues: in the
centre it controls 13 squares and two corners.  It has the benefit of being a
long-range piece, which, for example, controls a8 as well from h1 as it does
from b7.  Moreover the bishop can still control a8 on any square on this
diagonal before a8, when it looks back on itself and sees h1.  This gives the
bishop an ability that the knight does not have, namely that it can continue
to protect or attack some of the squares it controlled before it moves (I
hadn’t thought of this explicitly until I read it in Steve Mayer’s
excellent book Bishop vs Knight: The Verdict) .  Moreover, the bishop was
given its current numerical value before the fianchetto was common practice. 
This mode of development often utilizes the bishop’s long-range strength so
effectively that in overlooking one of the most important roles a bishop can
play, they may not have understood the bishop well enough to give it an
accurate value.  However, no matter how well placed or effective it may be,
the bishop is cruelly and fundamentally limited.  You might say it’s
visually impaired, for it can only see half the board. This lies at the heart
of the value of ‘the two bishops’, which I only began to appreciate quite
recently.  We all know that the two bishops are supposed to be an asset, but
it’s useful to have some understanding for why this may be.  In this respect
it’s no exaggeration to say that I learned more about the two bishops from
Plato than I have from any chess manual.  Firstly, consider that the two
bishops in the centre of the board (the hermaphrodite) control a massive 26
squares, only one less than a centralized queen, and arguably the same as two
rooks, who cannot help but control two of the same squares twice.  The point
is that they complement each other perfectly, just like, allegedly, men and
women.  All the strong points of the bishop remain but the shortcomings are
not in evidence if you see ‘the two bishops’ not as two pieces but as one.
This is the reason why the fabled ‘two bishops’ are spoken of in a way in
which the ‘two knights’are not.  Although the pair of knights can be very
effective, we don’t speak of them as ‘a pair’ because there is nothing
one knight can do that the other can’t in principle and so there is no great
change in either of them when seen as a pair.  It doesn’t make sense to talk
of the knight-pair any more than it does to talk of a ‘rook-pair’ or
‘queen-pair’. The ‘pair’ aspect is redundant.  There may be something
good about ‘the two knights’ in a particular position, but this is purely
accidental, for there is no reason in principle why a pair of them should be
more than the sum of their parts.  On the other hand, one bishop makes up for
the shortcomings of the other, and takes care of its own shortcomings in the
process.  So what happens when you capture the opponent’s bishop is not only
that you remove one piece of value, but that you ‘weaken’ the other bishop
too.  Whereas before it was part of a pair that in principle could attack and
control anything, now it is ‘alone’ and utterly impotent on half the board.
Therefore it is less threatening in its own half too, because the
‘inhabitants’ of the bishop’s colour complex know that they can move to
a safe haven on the other colour complex when the need arises.  To impose such
a thing on your opponent is a significant achievement, almost as if you gain
material in the process.  This may lie behind Tony Miles’s comment to the
effect that the bishops are an advantage you can win with.  Thus any sceptics
who think that ‘the two bishops’ is just an invention to give annotators
something to write about should think again.  In support of this point, it’s
worth pointing out that John Watson concludes a statistical survey of the two
bishops with these words:  “While it bears repeating that the strength of
the bishops or knights is dependent upon the particular features of the
position, it is also true that in a majority of actually arising positions,
the two bishops will beat either the knight-pair or a bishop or knight.” 
Moreover, computer chess programs have long set the point equivalent for a
bishop and a knight to be identical or nearly so, and awarded a separate bonus
for possessing the two bishops.  To sum up, there is much to be said for
thinking of the bishop as ‘half’ of a powerful piece more than twice its
value.  This will help you to appreciate its unique strengths and weaknesses. 
I see the logical problem with this of course, but that just makes me like it
all the more.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Blocks of Wood or Bundles of "]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîBlocks of Wood or Bundles of Energy? The E = mc2 of
ChessîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîBut if every gram of material contains
this tremendous energy, why did it go so long unnoticed? The answer is simple
enough: so long as none of the energy is given off externally, it cannot be
observed. îîEndBlockQuoteîîîîStartBlockQuoteîîIt is as though a man who is
fabulously rich should never spend or give away a cent - no one could tell how
rich he was.îîEndBlockQuoteîîALBERT EINSTEIN  îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe fact that
the mass of a particle is equivalent to a certain amount of energy means that
the particle can no longer be seen as a static object, but has to be conceived
as a dynamic pattern, a process involving the energy which manifests itself as
the particle’s mass.'  EndBlockQuote  FRITJOF CAPRA, The Tao of Physics 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîWhen you play against Kasparov, the pieces start to go
differently.' îîEndBlockQuoteîîGM EVGENY BAREEV  It is time to consider ways
in which we might strive to overcome our propensity to Materialism.  My two
main suggestions are quite different, but they both contain the idea that
there is always more to be seen in a chess position than just material, if you
know how to look.  My first suggestion is to borrow from science and look at
how the stupendous equation E = mc2 is relevant to chess.  The simplicity of
the equation easily lends itself to distortion and so my aim is merely to
consider its essence, which is that mass (material) and energy (what a piece
can do) are, in a sense, the same thing, without pretending that this can fit
chess in any comfortable or scientifically valid way.  If you’re willing to
roll with me for a while though, it seems that a creative application of this
equation can help us break free from the shackles of Materialism.  The
starting point is that chess is a universe unto itself, and just like our
universe, it contains energy and matter. My idea is to make a suggestive link
between ‘material’ in chess and ‘matter’ in physics.  If you’ll go
with me this far, then given that ‘mass’ is the fundamental characteristic
of a body (chess piece) , determined by the amount of matter (material value)
it contains, we begin to see that when we are discussing what a chess piece is
worth, the physical analogy suggests that we are asking how much mass it has. 
Now, E = mc2 tells us that mass, when multiplied by a constant (large) number,
is equal to energy. Are you still with me? Good.  If you accept that
Materialism is a problem in chess, maybe we can solve this problem by looking
at the subject of the problem (matter) in a different way.  The key is to see
the pieces not as blocks of wood, but as bundles of energy. When we refer to
an ‘active’ king, or any other sort of activity, what do we mean? It seems
to me that we are implicitly referring to some sort of energy.  Now
‘energy’ means many different things, but the most basic definition is
that energy is the ability of a system to do work.  Looking at the Capra
quotation above from a chess perspective, and replacing mass with material
value, particle with piece, and energy with the ability to do something useful
in a position, we get this:  “The fact that the material value of a piece is
equivalent to a certain amount of energy means that the piece can no longer be
seen as a static object, but has to be conceived as a dynamic pattern, a
process involving the ability to do something useful in the position which
manifests itself as the piece’s material value.”  This suggests that we
should look at chess positions from the perspective of material (the mass or
quantity of the pieces) and energy (what they can do) .  Now this is no
revelation, and to an extent we do this anyway, but in a chess context we have
a terrible time seeing material and energy as equivalent.  Indeed, we
invariably look at the pieces firstly as mass (point count) and only after as
energy (what they do) . Einstein’s quotation above helps us to see why we do
this.  The energy, unlike the mass, ‘cannot be observed’. In other words
what you see is what you get. We know that a knight can fluctuate in value,
depending on its location and prospects, but we still see a knight on the
board as mass, rather than energy.  In thinking of it as a fixed material
value we neglect the fact that this mass is also energy, and significantly,
that its mass is convertible to energy. We are fixated by our vision, but in
being so we are half blind.  Now if mass and energy are basically equivalent,
you might think that one side’s ‘capacity to do work’ depends on how
much material it has, and so the more material you have, the more likely it is
that you’ll achieve your aims (work) on the chessboard.  This is the truth,
but it’s not the whole truth and when you look at it from the perspective of
energy you get a rather different view.  One side cannot have any more
material (mass) than their capacity for work (energy) allows.  So on seeing a
position in which one side has an extra bishop and three pawns (for instance) ,
you might think that that side has a much greater capacity to do work, but
then if you look at the position and see that the side with less material has
a winning attack, it seems that this is not the case at all.  The only
relevant work is stopping the pending mate, and the side with the extra
material doesn’t have the ability to do that work. It doesn’t have the
energy.  The material, when seen from the perspective of energy, is not matter
at all.  Quite literally, it doesn’t matter. So it’s almost like what we
think of as the ‘smaller’ mass, which is about to deliver mate, is
overflowing with energy while the ‘larger’ mass looks like it has no
energy at all.  But this a distortion because when you apply E = mc2 the
amount of the mass depends on the amount of energy.  From a scientific
perspective, it doesn’t matter which you look at ‘first’ because the
whole point is that they are both there and neither precedes the other, but in
a chess context it matters hugely because ‘the ability to do work’ is all
that counts and in this sense, energy is more important than matter in chess. 
Abstract material values (mass considered as separate from energy) may or may
not be useful from a theoretical perspective, but they are hugely misleading
when you look at chess move by move because they won’t point you in the
direction of the work that needs to be done.  If the material values could
‘stretch’ depending on their capacity to do work, then we would begin to
look at material in a much more flexible way, and would perhaps be less
susceptible to some of the problems that we have seen in this chapter.  Or
maybe even better would be to do away with material values altogether, but I
wouldn’t want to suggest that without offering a convincing alternative.  It
seems to me that the best thing to do is just to have lots of different
perspectives and look for good moves rather than rely on any theoretical model
to do your thinking for you.  A further creative analogy is that energy has
two main aspects: kinetic (energy in motion, or simply what the pieces are
doing in the position at hand) and potential (what the pieces are capable of
doing in certain foreseeable circumstances) .  So when you say that your
pieces have considerable energy (ability to do work) you could be referring to
what they are doing in the given position and/or what they are capable of
doing in the future.  Thus in a typical Hedgehog position, the material and
energy aspects may be perfectly balanced, but the tense equilibrium can be
understood by seeing that although White has lots of kinetic energy, and is
seemingly more ‘active’, in an important sense Black is every bit as
active, because his position has a huge amount of potential energy.  This has
the same relation to mass (material) as the ‘more active’ but only
kinetically energetic white pieces. When considering whether to use these
ideas in the book, I was concerned that it may seem too abstract or contrived
for most readers and hard to apply to their real games.  However, then I was
reminded of the Bareev quote above, and I felt compelled to proceed. One of
the biggest gaps between stronger and weaker players is that the stronger
players have more ways of looking at a position.  So even if I’m not making
any sense, or if you only partly understand what I’m saying, the main thing
is to have the courage to look at chess with new eyes.  For now I’m just
saying that when you view the pieces as energy rather than mass, they do
indeed ‘start to go differently’ and that’s just what many players need
- a new start.  When all is said and done though, I am not radically
undermining what we have known for a long time: material is a hugely important
aspect of the game and often the most important one.  Indeed, one of the most
significant aspects of E = mc2 is that it says we need a massive amount of
energy to create a little bit of mass (c2, the speed of light squared,
although constant, is a huge number) .  This might suggest that there is good
reason to look at material before ‘energy’ because the cases when there
will be enough relevant energy will be few and far between.  However, this is
too easy an escape because there is no real constant  c2 in chess, other than
the fact that for every move one side plays, the opponent gets another.  This
suggests to me that the relevant c2 in chess would be a rather small number,
perhaps simply one, to reflect the constant fact that ‘one move’ involves
a move by both sides.  ‘The speed of light squared’ may loosely refer to
the speed at which we can do things, and that is related to the fact that we
can only make one move at a time.  This may be pushing it too far, but if
I’m right to think that the c2 in chess is best viewed as one (so that
material and energy can be viewed as exactly equal) then it reflects the time 
(initiative) aspect of the game too because the relationship of mass and
energy in a given position will depend on one side’s use of the material on
the available move, and the prospective response.  This links us to the next
section, because if what I’m saying makes sense then I could tentatively
suggest that E (quality) = m (material) c2 (time) would be the way in which
chess ‘fits’ the world’s most famous equation.  The fourth dimension
would merely be that in which we wrestle with the equation above.  However,
for now let’s get our heads out of the clouds and put our feet on the ground
with an instructive example of my basic point; which is that you should see
your pieces as mass and energy.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Capablanca vs. Em. Lasker - E"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "R2nkb1r/2p2ppp/8/1p1rP3/8/8/1P1N1PPP/2B2RK1 w k - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Energy! This is an important and illustrative moment.  How can White continue?
} 19. Ne4 {This is a very strong move which maximizes the energy in White’s
position!  After  19.Nf3 Be7 20.Be3 Kd7!?  20...O-O !? 21.Rc1 Re8 Black is
significantly better.} Rxe5 20. Rd1 Be7 21. f3 {A nice move. White takes the
initiative!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Capablanca vs. Em. Lasker"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "R2nk2r/2p1bppp/8/1p2r3/4N3/5P2/1P4PP/2BR2K1 b k - 0 21"]
[PlyCount "13"]

{Black's a pawn up but White is more active.  Can you think what is the best
way to neutralize White's threats.} 21... c6 {looks like crass materialism,
but actually Black just wants to dilute some of White’s dynamism by making
him exchange rooks in the process of winning the pawn back.  21...Rf5? The
beginning of a collapse, seemingly caused by the desire to keep the extra pawn.
This is what actually happens in the game.  22.Rc8! O-O 23.Rxc7 White has a
serious initiative, based on his pieces having more energy than Black’s
somewhere between slightly and clearly better for White. This persisted until
move 100, when Black managed to draw.} 22. Bf4 Rd5 {The point playing c6!} 23.
Rxd5 cxd5 24. Nc3 {after  24.Nd6+ Bxd6 25.Bxd6 Kd7 Black will emerge with a
clear extra pawn after untangling with . ..Re8 or ...f6 and ... Nf7} O-O 25.
Nxd5 {25.Nxb5 Ne6 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8= is equal too, although there is still some
play in the position} Bc5+ {This check gains an important tempo.} 26. Kf1 Ne6
27. Rxf8+ {The position has stabilized.} Kxf8 {It looks dead equal.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Capablanca vs. Em. Lasker"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "45"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5
Be6 9. Nbd2 Nc5 10. c3 d4 11. cxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Bxe6 Nxe6 14. Qf3 Rd8
15. a4 Qd5 16. Qxd5 Rxd5 17. axb5 axb5 18. Ra8+ Nd8 {I t@ok this example from
Purdy’s The Search for Chess Perfection.  Purdy is keen to express that all
we really mean by ‘dynamic play’ is play with the pieces.  He suggests
that we should picture the game as “a hand to hand struggle between the
pieces” and that: “The woodshifter, as the name implies, sees the pieces
as blocks of wood, whereas the real player ... sees them as units of energy
which he can combine in beautiful ways, just as the musical composer can build
up bewitching melodies out of scales of mere sounds, each in itself no more
interesting than a wooden chess figure.”  Crucially, he goes on to say:
“Don’t look at chess in this way because it’s romantic. It is, but look
at chess this way because it is a way to win.”  In any case, what do you
think you would play in this position if you had not been told that there was
something special to see? Tarrasch, in the book of the tournament, says that
99% of players would play 19.Nf3.  This estimate is by no means implausible
and I certainly doubt that I would be one of the 1% ‘savants’ who saw
beyond this conventional knight hop.  The attraction to this move is that
it’s so natural and obvious; you defend your e5-pawn, develop your knight to
a reasonable square and open the way for your bishop. What more could you ask
of a single move? Perhaps you couldn’t ask for more.  In fact the key, in a
sense, is to ask for less. Purdy suggests this with the lucid and instructive
insight that “the fallacy in this reasoning – truly a popular one – is
that the pawn needs defending.”  I think most players would just take this
for granted. The e5-pawn is attacked, White has no particular combinational
opportunities, so the e-pawn must be defended.  This is quintessential
Materialism. Your thoughts on material values shape your perception of what is
happening in the position and your primary concern is the material balance. 
Capablanca’s genius was to see that White’s problem was not so much that
he was threatened with loss of material îîStartBracketîîmassîîEndBracketîî,
but that he was threatened with the loss of the ability of his pieces to do
anything significant îîStartBracketîîenergyîîEndBracketîî.  It can be very
foolish to hold on to your material îîStartBracketîîmassîîEndBracketîî when
this mass has very little energy.  Indeed, the most important question here is
how to maximize the energy îîStartBracketîîeffectivenessîîEndBracketîî of your
remaining material îîStartBracketîîmassîîEndBracketîî.  The great Cuban saw
the first two reasons for moving his knight, to develop it and free the bishop,
but his vision was not limited by the trappings of material. Purdy’s insight
is again revealing:  “Capablanca rebelled against the tyranny of the pawn
and looked at the position from the viewpoint of the pieces. Undoubtedly the
knight should move, ... but where to? What square gives him the most power?”
In other words, Capablanca has no fear of losing material when the energy of
his pieces is improved and doesn’t want to limit the energy of his pieces by
making them hold on to material.} 19. Ne4 {Thi@ is a very strong move which
maximizes the energy in White’s position. Purdy, unsurprisingly impressed
with this move, goes on to give the impression that White is now clearly
better and that Black is under enormous pressure, but this is highly
misleading.  Looking at the variations, it seems to me that Capablanca’s 19.
Ne4! showed a deep understanding of the relative quality of the positions
before his 19th move.  If White just plays ‘normal moves’ Black has an
excellent position based on White’s pawn weaknesses on e5 and b2 and the
lightsquare weaknesses generally.  What is paradoxical is that 19.Ne4 is not
so much an attacking move, but a highly creative defensive effort. It’s only
because Lasker responded badly that White looked like a swashbuckling hero.  
After 19.Nf3 Be7 20.Be3 Kd7!?  20...O-O !? 21.Rc1 Re8 Black is significantly
better. White has no convincing plan and is in severe danger of drifting.
Black’s knight will soon be well placed on e6 while White’s knight
doesn’t have any particular ideas.  White’s bishop is restricted by the
fact that there are two pawns on dark squares. Black’s rook is excellent on
d5, where it defends b5, controls the d-file and ties White down to e5 while
White’s rook on c1 seems to be where it should be but somehow looks a little
gormless.  Black’s king is not in any serious danger and the relative
activity of the kings (potential and actual) almost rules out a double rook
exchange for White. Black has a very healthy queenside majority while
White’s kingside majority is crippled.  All in all, things are highly
unpleasant for White, who desperately needs a constructive plan. Now: ( a-) 
22.Kf1? is a natural move that would show a lack of ‘trend sensitivity’.
Things go from bad to worse if you don’t face up to the direction of the
trends and it’s time for White to seek a transformation. After 22...Ne6 23.
Rxe8 Kxe8 24.Ke2 Kd7 with everything stabilized, the above comments about
Black’s positional advantages can be seen even more clearly.  White should
not lose with best play, but it’s extremely difficult to play the best moves
with such a lifeless position. White’s problem is not that he has fewer
pieces but that these pieces are not as effective as their counterparts.  If
you look at mass first, you’ll assume equality is nearby, but if you look at
energy, and what both sides can do, it begins to look like White will have to
do something very creative in order not to lose.  b-îîEndBracketîî  22.Nd4! is
called for: After 22...Rxe5  22...Ne6!? 23.Ra5! Bf6!? Black has to return the
pawn, and this seems the best way to do itîîEndBracketîî 24.Rxb5 Rxb5 25.Nxb5
Ne6 given what we know about the king as ‘a four-point piece’, you’ll
understand why White is not totally out of the woods here:  the essence of the
position is that b2 is significantly weaker than c7 because of the positions
of the kings, so in the relevant arena, where all the action is, Black is
effectively a piece up, but it feels as though White has good chances to hold
this position all the same 26.Nc3 Rb8 27.Rd1+ Kc6 28.Bc1 Bxc3 29.bxc3 Rb3 30.
Bd2 Nc5 Black still has some initiative and White will have to defend well for
a while} Rxe5 20. Rd1 Be7 21. f3 Rf5 {The beginning of a collapse, seemingly
caused by the desire to keep the extra pawn. In any case, I suspect Black
missed White’s next move, which is somehow peculiar-looking.  Alternatively:
After 21...O-O 22.Bf4 Rf5 23.Bxc7 Ne6 24.Ra7 White retains some initiative due
to the activity of his pieces, but it looks like Black should hold.  21...c6!
looks like crass materialism, but actually Black just wants to dilute some of
White’s dynamism by making him exchange rooks in the process of winning the
pawn back.  Following 22.Bf4 Rd5 23.Rxd5 cxd5 24.Nc3 after  24.Nd6+ Bxd6 25.
Bxd6 Kd7 Black will emerge with a clear extra pawn after untangling with ...
Re8 or ...f6 and ...Nf7 O-O 25.Nxd5  25.Nxb5 Ne6 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8= is equal too,
although there is still some play in the position Bc5+ 26.Kf1 Ne6 27.Rxf8+
Kxf8= ,it looks dead equal.} 22. Rc8 {A difficult move to see. Somehow the
a8-rook seems to belong on the eight rank now, so you don’t expect it to
come back to c7.  Maybe it’s just me who finds this strange though?} O-O 23.
Rxc7 {Whi@e has a serious initiative, based on his pieces having more energy
than Black’s   StartBracket  somewhere between slightly and clearly better
for WhiteîîEndBracketîî.  This persisted until move 100, when Black managed to
draw.  St Petersburg 1914} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "The Four Dimensions of Chess"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Four Dimensions of ChessîîHeaderEndîîAs you’ve
probably gathered by now, I am keen to look at positions in terms of quality 
(positional aspects) and time (initiative, tactics) as well as material.  This
idea of looking at chess in a plural way (several aspects) , rather than a
monist way (material) has been with me in theory if not in practice for a long
time and I originally learned about it from no less a player than Garry
Kasparov.  However, I know of few chess thinkers other than Kasparov, even
those as brilliant as Nimzowitsch, Suba and Watson, who have tackled chess at
what I would call an ontological level.  Ontology is just a question of what
there is. So to ask about chess ontology, is to ask about how we might reduce
this enormously complex pursuit to its most basic aspects.  I don’t believe
in creating theoretical models or algorithms for chess, because the game is
simply too rich and full of wonder and paradox to be trapped by theory in this
way.  However, there is some utility in saying what chess is not, so that at
least if you cannot protect players from the chaos and complexity of the game,
you can at least save them from the doom of dogmatism.  Looking at chess from
the three basic aspects above is not rigid or overly formulaic, but it’s
very useful for seeing an ontological alternative to the idea that chess is
all about material:  I call chess the game of three dimensions because you
deal with three different subjects: material, time and quality.  Material is
understood by any beginner... you know you are one pawn up, or a piece up, or
one rook down; that is how every amateur - and every computer - is
anticipating the position.  But then if you grow then you learn to calculate
the time factor as well: ‘if I have a very strong attack, and I sacrifice
this piece then my passed pawn will be promoted’.  There you have to compare
time and material. Many players can deal with these two factors, but then you
go to the most difficult factor, which is quality.  Now you have a strong
knight, or you have a pair of bishops, or better pawn-structure, now you have
to deal with three dimensions.  ‘If I sacrifice this pawn now I will be two
tempi behind but I have a better pawn-structure for the endgame, and I have a
very good piece here’ ... this is also a major problem for computers. 
Computers cannot operate in such an unexplained subject as quality, and this
is also a problem for most chess-players, even top players ...how to
understand quality, because quality doesn’t have an exact relation to every
position.  And that’s why if you play in these three dimensions, in every
game you can have your moment of inspiration. Garry Kasparov, interview with
Brian Redhead - Kasparov’s Winning Moves 1993 .  These are precious words 
(though I think he’s wrong about computers) from an ingenious mind and we
should treat them with great respect. What astonished me is that they seem to
have received no attention.  Players seem more interested in the latest
novelty in the Dragon than in what chess is all about at the most fundamental
level.  However, although I learned an enormous amount by considering these
words, I felt there was something missing.  We have learned that we live in a
four-dimensional universe with three dimensions of space: up/ down; left/
right; backwards/forwards and a fourth dimension which is different in
character from the other three, but not essentially separate - time.  Now this
suggested to me that Kasparov's insight, though brilliantly lucid, could
perhaps be made more complete by adding a fourth dimension.  Just as we
navigate ourselves through the three dimensions of space, we navigate
ourselves through material, time and quality.  But movement in the three
dimensions of space takes place within the fourth dimension of time. 
Similarly, we consider the competing claims of material, time and quality with
the clock ticking - a crucial part of the game and one that we constantly have
to weigh against the other three dimensions.  From an objective perspective,
Kasparov's three dimensions make a lot of sense, but I think this ontology is
best applied to chess as a subjective contest with an understanding that a
player actually has to deal with four subjects during the game: material, time,
quality and what I would now like to call 'ticking'.  The following game is
well known, but even if you've seen it before, I'd like it to be the first
game you consider with the idea that chess is a game of four dimensions.} 1. Z0
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Kasparov vs. Shirov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qk2r/1b3ppp/p2p1b2/2nNp3/1R2P3/2P5/1PN2PPP/3QKB1R w Kkq - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Can you suggest the best continuation here?} 1. Rxb7 {Brilliant! What's the
idea behind this move?} Nxb7 2. b4 {A w@nderful idea, regardless of whether or
not it was found over the board.  The key idea is that White has stripped
Black of all the quality in his position, for a relatively small amount of
material.  Black's two minor pieces are not only bad in the given position
îîStartBracketîîlow kinetic energyîîEndBracketîî but they have very few
prospects in the long term either îîStartBracketîîlow potential
energyîîEndBracketîî.   Moreover, given that Black's only advantage is his
extra material, he will seek to openfiles for his rooks. Black also has
problems with coordination, and this creates a significant time aspect in the
position as well.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Kasparov vs. Shirov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rq3rk1/1n3ppp/3p4/3Np1b1/1PN1P3/3B4/5PPP/3QK2R w K - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black's last move ...Qb8 threatening the maneuvre...Qa7-d4 is a bit slow. How
can White react in this position?} 1. h4 {A very important move in terms of
keeping White's upward trend. Kasparov gives us a good example of 'moment
sensitivity'.  The change in queenside structure has also left d4 as a post
for Black's pieces so White must show some controlled urgency to prevent the
trend from turning in Black's favour  On g5 the bishop controls two useful
diagonals h6-c1 and h4-d8 and thus controls a lot of squares. This move forces
it to give up one of the diagonals and thus gives White useful information for
deciding on the best way to proceed.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Kasparov vs. Shirov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3nk3/5ppp/3p3b/1P1NpQ2/2B1P2P/q7/2r2PP1/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{White's position is winning, but sometimes win this kind of positions can be
a hard task. What is the best continuation for White?} 1. Qxh7 {Powerful move,
destroying Black's hideaway!} Rxc4 2. Qg8+ Kd7 3. Nb6+ {The point of the
combination.} Ke7 4. Nxc4 {White is winning!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Kasparov vs. Shirov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3n2Q1/4kpp1/3p4/1P2p3/2NqP2P/R7/5PP1/2b3K1 w - - 0 38"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Can you find an efficient method to neutralize Black threats?} 38. Ne3 {
A pleasingly harmonious move to end a superlative game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Kasparov vs. Shirov"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "75"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bf4 e5 8.
Bg5 a6 9. Na3 b5 10. Nd5 Be7 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. c3 {Re-@outing this wayward
knight is a priority. White is not certain where the bishop should go, or
whether he might castle, but what is clear is that this knight should not stay
on a3.  I demonstrated this game to the Edmonton chess club in Canada, and
most of the audience were desperate to get castled, as if they felt guilty for
neglecting development.  However, there isalmost no prospect of the position
opening quickly, and we really have a manoeuvring contest on our hands, so the
placement of our pieces îîStartBracketîîqualityîîEndBracketîî matters more
than the number of them in play îîStartBracketîîtimeîîEndBracketîî.  The other
interesting thing is that some members of the club, having accepted that
improving the knight is a priority, were quite tempted by the idea of playing 
12.c4!? so as to re-route the knight with gain of time by attacking b4.  The
problem with this move is that it erroneously gives time priority over quality,
in a position where time is not such a crucial factor.  Black plays 12...b4 13.
Nc2  13.Nxb4 Qa5  13.Qa4 Bd7 14.Nxb4 Nd4 with huge compensation. 13...Rb8 and
now the outpost granted to the black knight on d4, and the dark-square
weaknesses generally, would be a major quality concession for White,
especially since he has no dark-squared bishop to cover these weaknesses.} Bb7
{Based on my comments to the previous move, one of the more experienced
players in the audience, FM Jack Yoos, suggested that since Black's plan with
this move involves the following unorthodox knight manoeuvre, and that 12...
Bb7 is not an essential part of this plan. Black might consider  12...Nb8!?
intending the same idea, but avoiding the problems associated with having the
bishop on b7, and keeping the option of moving it elsewhere, probably e6. 
This left me rather speechless, and so impressed that I asked Jack to be my
partner in the doubles tournament a few days later.  If we follow the
traditional recipe we are left hungry for more because after 13.Nc2 Black's
lack of development after 12...Nb8 does raise a few metaphorical (bushy) eye-
brows though, and although these eyebrows were no use at the time, they now
help me see that after all I said about c4 not being a good idea 'in this type
of position'  13.c4! is a rather convincing antidote, because Black no longer
controls b4. 13...Nc6 14.cxb5 Nd4 is an amusing gambit, but I suspect that
White will have the last laugh.  This is a good case of 'jumping out of the
system' - despite c4 being generally bad, you should understand the reasoning
why this is the case, and then be alert for the exception to this 'rule'.  You
won't be able to do this within your established patterns, because they will
'censor' 13.c4 as 'bad'; you have to learn to 'jump out', and this requires
some original thinking and looking at the position as it is, rather than as
you see it with your established patterns.  This is what I failed to do during
the lecture but all the same I didn't regret playing doubles with Jack, who
taught me a great deal in the process. Nd7 14.a4 bxa4 15.Rxa4 Nc5 16.Rb4 Bb7
whatever Black chooses, I'm sure it wouldn't be 16...Bb7 and in any case I
rather like Black's position} 13. Nc2 Nb8 {Players with experience in
Sicilians with ...e5 will appreciate the idea behind this move, but those who
have never played this opening must think that this move is some sort of wind-
up.  As I have said, the most important dimension in this position is quality
and so Black doesn't mind spending time improving his pieces.  The key square
is d5 and almost everything revolves around this square. On c6, the knight not
only fails to challenge for this square but prevents the b7-bishop from doing
so.  However, it is not so much that Black wants to make exchanges on this
square, but rather that he needs to organize his forces around it so that it
cannot be used to significant effect.  Moreover, the knight has few active
possibilities for itself on c6 but on d7 it can come to f6 or b6 to help fight
for d5 or, more likely, go to the c5-square and apply some pressure on e4.
Indeed there are some similarities with this move here and 19...Nd7 in
Shaw-Rowson in Chapter 2  The c2-knight and f1-bishop can be seen as
‘superfluous’ in that they are under-performing on any square other than
d5. Hence, Black wants to remove the knight from a square where White might be
able to exchange it and in doing so keeps some ‘curviness’ in his position.
} 14. a4 {A t@mely advance. Black's regrouping does improve his quality, but
there is some cost in time, and so Kasparov hurries to exploit this.  In an
ideal world Black would continue...Nd7-c5, ... 0-0, ...Bg5, ...g6 and ...f5
with good play. In the absence of the a4 pawn-break, which Black's knight
manoeuvre threatens to prevent, it's not clear what White should do.  By the
way, I think it's fair to say that Black has a small material advantage here,
in that he has the hermaphrodite îîStartBracketîîtwo bishopsîîEndBracketîî. 
White has 'compensation' for the material in the form of better quality
îîStartBracketîîmore flexible structure, good outpost on d5, a4
breakîîEndBracketîî and time îîStartBracketîîcan generate threats
quicklyîîEndBracketîî.} bxa4 15. Rxa4 Nd7 16. Rb4 {Thi@ was a novelty at the
time. Kasparov aims to exploit his early initiative
îîStartBracketîîtimeîîEndBracketîî by irritating Black before he can establish
quality in his position.} Nc5 {The most consistent move, defending the bishop
and begging the question of why Kasparov has wasted so much time with his rook.
From a theoretical perspective Black is thought to be fine after 16...Rb8!?.
At this point in the lecture I asked the audience to suggest a continuation,
with the condition that I would only accept a two-move idea, and that a single
move wasn't enough because it could easily be a guess.  Many members of the
club thought of the move played, but couldn't think of a 'continuation' of the
sort they were looking for.  16...Rb8!?} 17. Rxb7 Nxb7 18. b4 {A w@nderful
idea, regardless of whether or not it was found over the board. The key idea
is that White has stripped Black of all the quality in his position, for a
relatively small amount of material.  Black's two minor pieces are not only
bad in the given position îîStartBracketîîlow kinetic energyîîEndBracketîî but
they have very few prospects in the long term either îîStartBracketîîlow
potential energyîîEndBracketîî.  Moreover, given that Black's only advantage
is his extra material, he will seek to openfiles for his rooks.  They'll do
nothing on the c-file, so Black will need to open the a-file or f-file if he
is to gain any sort of play. But playing ...a5 further weakens Black's
impoverished light squares and gives White a significant asset in the form of
a passed b-pawn, while playing ...f5 also further weakens the light squares,
and makes his king more vulnerable in the long term too. Black also has
problems with coordination, and this creates a significant time aspect in the
position as well.  Although there are no wonderful squares for Black's pieces,
they can be significantly improved and there is one soft spot in White's
position, which is the dark square f2.  There is no massive urgency, but White
would do well to cause some trouble before Black gets organized. The problem
for Black is that he needs to use the d8-square to improve the knight but
moving the queen from d8 weakens the d8-a5 and d8-h4 diagonals and thus
increases the scope of the d5-knight.  However, if we imagine something like
Black's knight on e6, the queen on a7 and the imminent prospect of ...f5, the
position no longer looks so one-sided.  Therefore, if White is to keep the
pressure, he needs to do more than celebrate the prettiness of his position. 
That said, it is rather pretty and if nothing were to happen it would get
prettier. The c2-knight will come to c4 to pressure d6 and loiter with the
intent of jumping to b6 and then maybe to d7.  The light-squared bishop's
position doesn't matter so crucially, because we can quickly manoeuvre it when
necessary, but it looks like it belongs on d3, discouraging f5 and supporting
c4 and e4.  White will eventually castle kingside and then the queen will go
somewhere suggestive like f3, but more likely g4, with an eye on the d7-square.
The white rook will probably rest on d1, protecting the d3-bishop but it may
stay on f1 to protect f2. If this all seems a bit easy, it is because there is
an abundance of quality in White's position, and it is very difficult for
Black to attack anything.  However, as the following few moves show, Kasparov
was highly sensitive to the time aspect, and asserted his authority as quickly
as possible.  GM Joel Benjamin felt that this idea of Kasparov's is like a
litmus test for a computer's ability to understand chess. Most programs would
certainly give a 'trap penalty' to the b7- knight because it cannot move and a
'bonus' to the unassailable d5-knight.  However, Benjamin doubted if any
computer program would find enough relevant factors to compensate for the loss
of the material, and I agree.  However, 99.9999% of human chess-players
wouldn't understand this position either, until it was explained to them, and
even most grandmasters found Kasparov's idea something of a revelation.  By
the way, the first two-move suggestion from the audience was 17.Rxb7 followed
by 18.Ncb4 threatening, albeit vaguely, to jump in with the knights before
Black can organize himself.  This is fairly typical of the type of
continuation we look for when we sacrifice material.  In our 'angst' we look
for tactical-looking moves which show some promise of winning material back.
However, when you view chess as a game of four dimensions this sequence of
moves is not properly called a sacrifice, but a transformation.  White has
traded material for quality and some time. Moreover, by seizing the initiative
îîStartBracketîîpsychologically if not on the boardîîEndBracketîî and forcing
the opponent into uncharted and uncomfortable territory, White is liable to
gain time on the clock too.  Thus, although White loses in one dimension
îîStartBracketîîmaterialîîEndBracketîî, he is gaining in all the other three. 
If these moves still don't make sense, we can also view Kasparov's idea from
the perspective of E = mc 2.  All of White's remaining pieces
îîStartBracketîîmatterîîEndBracketîî are full of 'ability to do work' and thus
have more energy, while Black's pieces have few claims to any such ability. 
Although Black seems to have more mass on the point system, from the E = mc2
perspective he is not material up at all.  I don't want to overload this
explanation, but this last point seems rather important because no matter how
much some players appreciate all of the above, they are left with the feeling
that they couldn't imagine playing this way themselves.  As one guy put it to
me: 'I see that the knight on b7 is bad, and I can see that Black is the
exchange up.  Now that b7-knight can move, but how is White going to win back
the exchange?' The first part of the answer is not to look for compensation,
but to consider all the dimensions.  Even if you cannot get beyond your
material 'angst' then it's important to see that White's 'compensation' is not
a matter of 'time' in that he's going to strike while that knight is bad. 
It's instead a question of quality, which will last for the foreseeable future
and extends beyond the bad placement of one piece.  You need somehow to see
the whole position rather than just think of the material and then look for
the compensation.  I'm not pretending this is easy, but it has to be done.} Bg5
{If @8...O-O 19.Nce3 with the intention of 20.Nc4. I deliberately told the
audience that Black's last move prevented this idea îîStartBracketîîof
bringing the knight to c4 îîEndBracketîî and I was amazed that they almost all
believed me!  Virtually nobody saw that it could also get to c4 via a3. There
was a huge handicap based on the fact that the knight doesn't look at all good
on a3.  The 'knight on the rim is dim' cliché simply closed off a whole idea
because one step of the application ran contrary to established patterns. 
What I liked more was that around four people mentioned this moment to me,
with a huge amount of excitement, as if they had surprised themselves with
their own blindness and could see their folly for the first time.  When you
see that the knight wants to be on c4 it's no problem to go there via a3 but
for many players the desire to put their knight on a good square has much less
of a hold on them than 'rules' which they've known for several years.} 19. Na3
O-O 20. Nc4 a5 {Quite a big decision for Black because this move weakens b5
and gives White a passed pawn.  20...f5!? looks more threatening for White,
but according to Kasparov White is clearly better after 21.Bd3 f4 22.Qg4±} 21.
Bd3 axb4 22. cxb4 Qb8 {The pseudo-active  22...Ra2?! 23.O-O Qa8 24.Ncb6 Qa3 25.
Bc4 Rd2 26.Qg4 when White has a commanding position and Black's minor pieces
still look a bit lost.  22...Bh6!? as suggested by Kasparov, may be Black's
best try to gain a playable position.  After 23.O-O Qg5 Black's quality has
improved somewhat, and although his knight has been neglected, his queen and
bishop prevent White from doing anything on the kingside and the rooks can see
each other for the first time.} 23. h4 {A v@ry important move in terms of
keeping White's upward trend. Kasparov gives us a good example of 'moment
sensitivity' that we saw in Chapter 2. Black's last move, vacating d8 for the
knight and threatening ...Qa7-d4, gives a typical 'sign' in terms of pending
counterplay.  The change in queenside structure has also left d4 as a post for
Black's pieces so White must show some controlled urgency to prevent the trend
from turning in Black's favour îîStartBracketîîsensitivityîîEndBracketîî.  The
last move also had a draw- back, however, in that it weakened a lot of squares
îîStartBracketîîespecially e7îîEndBracketîî and temporarily places the queen
on a funny square îîStartBracketîîsignalîîEndBracketîî. There is a simple
point to Kasparov's move.  On g5 the bishop controls two useful diagonals
îîStartBracketîîh6-c1 and h4-d8îîEndBracketîî and thus controls a lot of
squares. This move forces it to give up one of the diagonals and thus gives
White useful information for deciding on the best way to proceed.  This shows
Kasparov is highly attuned to the time aspect of the game.  The pedestrian  23.
O-O ? allows Black to coordinate by 23...Nd8! 24.Ncb6 Ra7! when Kasparov even
thinks that Black is slightly better, perhaps because 25...Ne6 and 26...Bd8
threatens to push White back and there is no obvious plan for White. 
Personally, I would still rather be White here but I agree that the position
has gone downhill.} Bh6 {A difficult decision. Black weakens e7 and f6 but
offers hope to the b7-knight, who can still find a new life for itself past
the shores of d8. After  23...Bd8 24.g3! White wants to castle, and in the
absence of ...Nd8-e6, Black has no particular threat that has to be attended
to 24...Qa7 25.O-O Qd4 26.Qb3± White is again clearly better.  The proud
queen on d4 has no support and even though Black can exchange rooks with 26...
Ra1 27.Rxa1 Qxa1+ 28.Kg2 Black remains utterly planless and has no way to use
his remaining rook, while White can slowly try to creep his queen into the
queenside to annoy the crippled black knight.} 24. Ncb6 Ra2 25. O-O {At last.
Many would find it unbearable to have a king in the centre in the presence of
such a menacing-looking major piece as the rook on a2, but when looked at
calmly you'll see that Black's prospects for counterplay are really rather
limited.  Moreover, only now, when White has used the pieces in action to keep
Black uncoordinated, is it necessary to think about using the rook. Note that
instead 25.Nd7 is met by 25...Qa7, attacking f2.  25.Nd7 Qa7} Rd2 26. Qf3 Qa7
27. Nd7 {The following analysis by Kasparov suggests that White missed a
chance to transform the nature of his advantage here:  27.Bb5! Nd8 28.Nd7 Ne6
29.Ne7+!  29.Nxf8 Kxf8 30.Rc1 Qb8 31.Qc3 g6= is just equal because black is
well organized. Kh8 30.Nxf8 Qxe7 31.Nxe6 and now: 31...Qxe6  31...fxe6? 32.
Rc1!  32.Ra1 g6 33.Ra8+ Kg7 34.Qa3 Qxh4 35.Qa7+ Kf6 36.Re8 Rd1+ 37.Bf1 Kg5∞
is unclear according to Kasparov. Qd8 Kasparov doesn't mention  32...g6 but
presumably 33.Rc8+ Kg7 34.Bc4 threatening Bxe6 is convincing because 34...Rc2
35.Bxe6 Rxc8 36.Bxc8 Qxh4 37.b5+- is winning 33.Rc6± and White is clearly
better. 32.Bc6⩲  Is given as only slightly better for White by Kasparov but
such a position is horrible to defend and White's better bishop and passed
pawn are enduring features that mean that Black will be under pressure for a
long time.} Nd8 {Shirov should have played  27...Ra8! 28.N7b6! when Kasparov
gave  28.Ne7+ Kh8 29.Qxf7 Rxd3 30.Nf8 Qa2 31.Qf5 g6 32.Nfxg6+ hxg6 33.Qxg6 Qd2
34.Qf7 Bg7 35.Nf5 Bf8 36.Qh5+ and White would have to settle for perpetual
check 28...Rf8 transposing back to the game at move 26. But Nunn points out 
28...Qa3⩱} 28. Nxf8 Kxf8 29. b5 {The hitch-hiker wakes from a long sleep by
the side of the road, and decides that he's going to make something of himself.
One of the less spoken about features of this game is the vigour with which
Kasparov played the technical phase.  Many of us might relax now that we've
got our material back and kept some positional advantages, but Kasparov
notices that Black has some problems with time too, and he takes full
advantage of all available tactics to use this time advantage to gain material.
} Qa3 {Black missed a way to make things more difficult for White with  29...
Qd4! Kasparov's analysis begins with 30.Rd1!  30.Qf5 Ke8 Rxd1+ 31.Qxd1 Ne6 32.
b6 Nc5 33.Bc2 Qxd1+ 34.Bxd1 Ke8 35.Bg4 but now his line continued 35...Nd7??
also is a straightforward blunder  35...Kd8 is necessary 36.Nb4! is given a
winning for White by Kasparov, but 36...Ne6 then looks most resilient, White
is of course much better, but I don't see an inmediate knockout 37.Bh5 g6 38.
Be2 looks promising however 36.Bxd7++-  36.b7 Nb8 37.Be2 Kd8 38.Bb5 Bc1 39.h5
Ba3 40.Kh2 Bc5 41.Kg3 Ba7 42.f3 Nd7 43.Bxd7 Kxd7 44.h6! gxh6 45.Kg4 Kc6 46.Kh5
Kxb7 47.Kxh6 Kc6 48.Kg7! Kc5  48...f5 49.exf5 49.Kxf7 Kd4 50.Kg7 Kd3 51.Kxh7
Ke2 52.Kg6 Kf2 53.g4 Kxf3 54.Kf5+- Kxd7 37.b7 wins trivially} 30. Qf5 Ke8 {
30...Rxd3 is met by 31.Qd7+- and White is winning.} 31. Bc4 Rc2 {31...Qc5 32.
Qxh7! Kd7 33.Qf5+ Ke8 34.Bb3 Rb2 35.Bd1+- is winning for White. -Kasparov.} 32.
Qxh7 Rxc4 33. Qg8+ Kd7 34. Nb6+ Ke7 35. Nxc4 Qc5 {Even now there are some
technical problems and it's entirely possible to cause a trend turn from
winning to clearly better if White plays anything less than the best move here.
Still, talking to your pieces should give a clear answer. Which piece has been
modestly watching the proceedings but is now needed as reinforcements for Her
Majesty?} 36. Ra1 Qd4 {36...Qxc4 37.Ra7+ Ke6 38.Qe8++-} 37. Ra3 {37.Ra8? Ne6!
38.Re8+ Kf6 39.Rxe6+ Kxe6 40.Qc8+ Kf6} Bc1 38. Ne3 {A pleasingly harmonious
move to end a superlative game. Horgen 1994} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 4 - Materialism"]
[Black "Summary and Suggestions"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Materialism is a multi-faceted sin. It is based on the fact that there is a
conceptual flaw in the ways in which we assign values to material.  It limits
our imagination because material factors are so entrenched and inflexible in
our thoughts that we often cannot see good moves which involve giving it up.  
Material values may hold ‘in general’ but chess is exceptional and we play
exceptional positions, one game at a time.  We tend to suffer from angst when
material down, and instinctively associate material loss with error. I suggest
three main ways to try to overcome this predicament.   1- Try thinking of all
the pieces as unique characters rather than just a certain number of points. 
2- Think of the pieces as ‘bundles of energy’ to be judged on their
ability in a given position rather than ‘blocks of wood’ with a static
value that never changes.   3- See chess as a game of four dimensions, only
one of which is material.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîEgoismîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe desire to get
rid of ego implies a contest: ego is charged with killing ego; ego battles
with ego; ego wins!îîEndBlockQuoteîîCHERI HUBER Egoism ‘Ego’is not just
about Muhammad Ali prancing around the ring and proclaiming he’s the
greatest. Nor is it just about thinking you are much better than you actually
are. Ego is there every time you think of yourself as yourself and feel the
presence of an ‘I’.  Chess is about my ‘I’ against your ‘I’;
it’s ‘me’ against ‘you’.  It’s one ego against another. We all
have egos, and chess without ego is unimaginable.  The sin of Egoism thus
encompasses all those errors that stem from your ego: lack of 'objectivity',
failing to think of your opponent's ideas as carefully as your own, feeling
fear, self-doubt, feeling 'over-awed' by your opponent's rating, being aware
of people watching your game, thinking of how great your play is during the
game and so on and so on.  The essence of this sin is captured by GM Jonathan
Tisdall (Improve Your Chess Now) :  'We prefer to think about what we want to
do, and often forget to give our opponent his proper status in our reckonings',
while the significance of Egoism is expressed by Jeremy Silman (The Amateur's
Mind) :  'The most common error that the amateur makes (in any situation) is
to ignore the opponent's possibilities.  Only when a direct threat (real or
imagined) appears on the board do they respond, though this response tends to
be filled with panic.' I will touch on some of these aspects more than others.
My main aim in this chapter is to highlight the fact that we play chess from
an unavoidably 'subjective' viewpoint, and that striving for 'objectivity' is
not necessarily helpful.  I will look at what this means for our chances of
outwitting the opponent, and then focus on two main ideas designed to tame the
worst excesses of our Egoism: 'responsibility' and 'prophylaxis'.  I begin
with as triking example that brings out many aspects of Egoism} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Jansa vs. Bilek - Exercise #1"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r3k1/p2bppbp/3p2p1/1q1P3P/1pr3P1/1N2BP2/PPPQ4/1K1R3R w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{It's White to move and there is an important question concerning the c2-pawn.
Consider the quality in the positions after that exchange and you'll notice
the awesome mobility of Black's queen, the weakness of the kingside pawns and
the uncertain future of White's king. Not to mention the hermaphrodite, and
the initiative being entirely in Black's hands.  Knowing this, what should
White move here?} 1. Na1 {Chess humour? “This Na1 is much better than Rc1
because the rook is needed for attack, not defence!”} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Jansa vs. Bilek - Exercise #2"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r3k1/p2bppbp/3p2p1/1q1P3P/1pr3P1/4BP2/PPPQ4/NK1R3R b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{White's last move Na1! renews some threats against the Black king. Try to
visualize those threats. What is the best way for Black to continue here?} 1...
Be5 {'is more promising', according to Jansa and Hort, who add: 'but even then
White can maintain his advantage; e. g.,  1...e6 2.hxg6 hxg6 3.Qh2 exd5 4.Qh7+
Kf8 5.Bh6 Positional carnage on top of everything else.  Black must have 'lost
the plot' after 1.Na1 5...Bxh6 6.Qxh6+ Ke8 7.Qh8+ Ke7 8.Qh4+ f6  8...Ke8 9.
Rde1+ Be6 10.Rxe6+ fxe6 11.Qh8++- and wins 9.Rhe1+ Kd8 10.Qxf6++- White has a
winning position.} 2. hxg6 fxg6 {Followed by ...Rf8  2...hxg6 3.Qf2 e6 4.Qh4
exd5 5.Bg5 is consistent with their assessment.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Jansa vs. Bilek - Exercise #3"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/p2bpr1p/3p2p1/1q1Pb3/1pr3PQ/4BP2/PPP5/NK1R3R w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "4"]

{How can Black play after Nb3?} 1. Nb3 Bf5 {Of course! In fact, much as I
admire 1.Na1!, and would like to hail it as a winning move, it’s more a
question of damage limitation, just like 19.Ne4! in Capablanca-Lasker in the
previous chapter.} 2. Rd2 {What else?} a5 {Black is doing fine here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Jansa vs. Bilek"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r3k1/p2bppbp/3p2p1/1q1P3P/1pr3P1/1N2BP2/PPPQ4/1K1R3R w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "19"]

{It's White to move and there is an important question concerning the c2-pawn.
Does Black threaten to take here?  If you've absorbed my suggestions from the
previous chapter, you'll do more than see the line whereby White gains two
rooks for queen and pawn, and thus, after a quick calculation (9+1 = 10 = 5+5)
, conclude that it's nothing to worry about.  Surprisingly, this was precisely
the reaction from many of those to whom I have shown this position.  So if you
do fall into that leaky boat, consider the quality in the positions after that
exchange and you'll notice the awesome mobility of Black's queen, the weakness
of the kingside pawns and the uncertain future of White's king.  Not to
mention the hermaphrodite, and the initiative being entirely in Black's hands.
So either we defend c2 or else we put the ball in the back of the net on the
kingside.  The latter option look sun likely at this stage, and although it is
worth checking out 1.hxg6 or 1.Bd4 before proceeding, you'll find that they
don't stop the main threat.  Hence, those who have enough awareness of their
opponent will probably resign themselves to the awkward-looking rook-shift 1.
Rc1, but in fact there is another solution.} 1. Na1 {Chess humor? There you
were, all kitted- out in your caveman outfit ready to give mate on the
kingside, and the best move turns out to be a retreat to what looks like the
least attacking square the board.  When I tried to solve this puzzle in Hort
and Jansa's classic, The Best Move, I didn't even consider such a retreat and
was startled to find that it was there at all.  I settled for the sub-standard
1.Rc1 only to read that: 'This 1.Na1 is much better than 1.Rc1 because the
rook is needed for attack, not defense!  Though a simple statement, this is
quite a profound insight, and, together with the move, it relates closely to
some of the issues we've seen in the previous chapters.  First of all, it
considers the character of the pieces and their role (what they 'say') in the
given position; secondly, it treats the position as whole (gestalt) - the
knight looks dreadful on a1, but the rest of the army are enormously grateful
to the knight for accepting such a claustrophobic post.  Finally, and most
significantly, White's moves and plans are considered not in abstract, but
directly in relation to Black's.  I suspect that most players, assuming they
saw it, could never bring themselves to play such a move just because they
would only see the knight on a1, and not consider it as part of the whole
position.  However, although Black's queenside play looks rather imposing, it
really only has two objects - the c2-square and chasing the knight with ...
a5-a4.  So with this one move White effectively holds up a whole army. 
Moreover, whereas the knight had no particular way to attack the black king,
the d1-rook is very useful where it is, in that it's more difficult for Black
to move his e-pawn (weakness) and it can also come to the h- or e-file if
necessary.  This is prophylaxis at its best, but it's very difficult for us to
see this type of move because most of the time we are too absorbed in our own
plans to be willing to play such a 'compromising' move to halt those of our
opponent.  Egoism could manifest itself either in not seeing the strength of ..
.Rxc2, deceiving yourself into thinking that there was no need to defend
immediately 1.Bd4 or 1.hxg6, seeing the need to defend but not looking closely
enough at your opponent's ideas and how they relate to your own 1.Rc1, or
seeing 1.Na1 but feeling that it's too submissive a move and refusing to allow
your opponent to make you play such 'passive' chess.  Maybe 1.Rh2. The
following lines are my own interpretation of why 1.Na1 was called for:  1.hxg6
Rxc2! 2.gxf7+ Kxf7 3.Qxc2 Rxc2 4.Kxc2 Qe2+ 5.Bd2 Ba4 it overwhelming threats. 
1.Bd4 Rxc2! 2.Qxc2 Rxc2 3.Kxc2 Qe2+ and White will lose at least three pawns 
1.Rh2 Rxc2! 2.Qxc2 Rxc2 3.Rxc2 gxh5! and White's position crumbles.  1.Nd4
Qxd5 2.Nf5 Qxd2 3.Nxe7+ Kf8-+ and Black wins  1.Rc1!? a5 2.hxg6  2.Qh2 g5! 3.
Bxg5 f6 4.Be3 Qxd5 is a bit messy but I think Black is better. fxg6 3.Qh2 h5!
4.gxh5  4.Nd2 Qxd5! 5.Nxc4 Qxc4 the hermaphrodite and queenside play give
Black the better prospects. e.g. 6.gxh5 Be6! Bf5 5.Na1  5.Nd4 Rxd4 6.Bxd4 Bxd4
7.hxg6 Bg7∓ b3! 6.axb3 a4! and Black arrives first.} e6 {1...Be5 'is more
promising', according to Jansa and Hort, who add: 'but even then White can
maintain his advantage; e. g., 2.hxg6 fxg6  2...hxg6 3.Qf2 e6 4.Qh4 exd5 5.
Bg5+- is consistent with their assessment. 3.Qf2 looks like an improvement,
but then the sober After  3.f4 Bg7! it seems like Black can hold the kingside
and even claim some advantage  3...Bc3? This is sloppy analysis and much is
unsaid.  Let's look a little deeper: 4.Qh2 h5 5.bxc3+- 4.Qh2 h6 5.f5 g5 3...
Rf8! 4.Qh4 Rf7 5.Nb3 Bf5! In fact, much as I admire 1.Na1!, and would like to
hail it as a winning move, it's more a question of damage limitation. Such a
consideration may detract from the romance of 1.Na1 but it serves to highlight
its strength as the move the position needed.  Such a surprise can often turn
the prevailing trend, and, as the alternatives revealed, without the 'humble'
1.Na1,White could have been crushed very quickly.  This is another aspect of
Egoism - the difficulty in accepting that your good moves don't necessarily
leave you with a good position. As someone wise and witty once put it, 'your
opponent also has the right to exist'.} 2. hxg6 hxg6 3. Qh2 exd5 4. Qh7+ Kf8 5.
Bh6 {Positional carnage on top of everything else. Black must have 'lost the
plot' after 1.Na1} Bxh6 6. Qxh6+ Ke8 7. Qh8+ Ke7 8. Qh4+ f6 {8...Ke8 9.Rde1+
Be6 10.Rxe6+ fxe6 11.Qh8++- and wins} 9. Rhe1+ Kd8 10. Qxf6+ {White has a
winning position.  Polanica Zdroj 1968} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Subjects and Objects"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîSubjects and ObjectsîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîIt is
an illusion to think that the subjective decision does not really exist - that
once the objective truth is established, there will be a smooth transition to
subjective acceptance. This illusion is rooted in a profound ignorance of the
nature of personal decision-making, and a desire to shirk the anguish of
subjective choice.îîEndBlockQuoteîîSØREN KIERKEGAARD, Concluding Unscientific
Postscript  îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe erasure of subjectivity in order to be
objective is itself a subjective act. What else can it be?îîEndBlockQuoteîîR.
D. LANG, What’s the Matter with Mind?    StartBlockQuote  The point of view
that we can be without a point of view is a point of view... The new physics,
quantum mechanics, tells us clearly that it is not possible to observe reality
without changing it.îîEndBlockQuoteîîGARY ZUKAV, The Dancing Wu Li Masters 
Why does the word ‘subjective’ have such negative connotations? We don’t
seem to have a problem with being ‘subjects’, and rightly object to people
treating us like ‘objects’, but when we make decisions from a
‘subjective’ viewpoint we tend to think that we are making some sort of
mistake, and should strive instead to be ‘objective’.  This seems peculiar,
and since Egoism stems from our subjective perspective, there may be some
value in trying to understand it.  The most concise description of objectivity
in chess I have seen comes from GM Paul Motwani’s lively and instructive H.O.
T. Chess:  “By this objectivity I mean the ability of a player to assess
positions accurately. This quality of being able to see things the way they
really are is extremely valuable to a person, and not only in chess. It can be
very tempting to view things the way one wants them to be, instead of seeing
them the way they actually are.”  I think Paul is saying that you are
capable of being objective in so far as you are capable of seeing the position
without any desire for it to be a certain way, as if you were to have the eyes
of a third party.  This would indeed be a useful quality, but although
striving for such a perspective is well-motivated, I have my doubts as to
whether it is possible during practical play.  Indeed, it seems to me that
during a game we can only be objective from a subjective perspective.  I am
not only saying this because it accords with my personal experience, but to
see things as they ‘actually are’ would be an enormous achievement which
goes against the grain of human perception.  This discussion could easily
become more philosophical than useful so I’ll limit myself to referring the
reader back to Thinking, and reiterating that humans by their very nature are
enormously self-deceptive, will only see that which experience has shown them
to be there, cannot help but want the position to be a certain way and will
always see the position from a background of emotional memories and
pre-established patterns.  I mention this now because in the context of Egoism,
it’s important to realize that you cannot escape your subjective perspective
during the game.  This is not to say that subjectivity is unambiguously a good
thing, but just that you may simply confuse or limit yourself if you try too
hard to be ‘objective’.  ‘Objectivity’ is a very important quality
after the game, when you try to determine what was happening during play.  If
you genuinely and dispassionately want to understand a game in isolation from
the psyches of the contestants, then some sort of objectivity is attainable,
and desirable if you are to annotate the game well.  But during play you are
locked in to your own thoughts and feelings.  You want certain things. You are
scared by some moves and pleased to find others. Most of all you are sitting
opposite another subject.  There is an object, and this is the chess-board,
but it lies in wait between two subjects, longing for interpretation.  Neither
player can see the board as it is, but only with their own, subjective eyes.
This subjective perspective leads to a lot of mistakes, as we see in the next
two games.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Speelman vs. Hartston"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1r1q1r2/2nnppkp/3p2p1/1p1P4/1p2P3/2N4P/2PQBPP1/R4RK1 w - - 0 18"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White has space advantage and a comfortable position.  How should White
continue here?} 18. Qd4+ {Of course!  18.Na2?! Why to trade the well placed
c3-knight for this horrible knight on c7? Na6! 19.Nxb4 Nxb4 20.Qxb4 Nf6 Black
is very close to equality now. 21.Bxb5 Nxe4 22.Qxe4 Rxb5 23.Ra7 Re8 Black
offered a draw in this position.  Speelman declined, thinking he was slightly
better, and not wanting to play another game that day, but he made an unsound
pawn sacrifice in the process of overpressing, and lost.} Kg8 19. Qxb4 Nc5 20.
Rfe1 {White is better here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Speelman vs. Hartston"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "46"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. d5 d6 4. e4 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Be2 Na6 7. O-O O-O 8. Bf4
Nc7 9. a4 Bg4 10. Qd2 a6 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Nd7 13. Be2 Rb8 14. Bh6 b5 15.
axb5 axb5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 {Thi@ game was played with one hour each on the clock
and the commentary was recorded after the game, for presentation on British
television, so this was not a hugely serious contest, but the comments are
revealing all the same.  The two subjects
îîStartBracketîîplayersîîEndBracketîî give a report on their thoughts about
the object îîStartBracketîîthe gameîîEndBracketîî.  Notice how many times the
pronoun ‘I’ is used:  Speelman: “I’ll attack on the queenside with
pawn to b4. If I don’t do that he’ll attack me there, and I would much
rather be the aggressor.”  Speelman’s motivation comes from an awareness
of his opponent’s intentions but it is supported by a personal preference.}
17. b4 {Hartston: “Yes, I was worried about that. I wanted to push my b-pawn
but he’s prevented me expanding on that side. If I take the pawn he can
check and win it back. Still, I must take. I’m under some pressure here.” 
Hartston is also aware of the opponent, but rather than make an objective
assessment of the form ‘White is slightly better’ he makes the assessment
from his own perspective.} cxb4 {Speelman: “I suppose I could play queen
check but I think I’ll play knight back and then try to retake with the
knight and get it to the nice square c6.”  This is a good example of Egoism.
For one move Speelman ‘forgets’ about his opponent, and doesn’t consider
his opponent’s likely reaction nor compare the options in any non-subjective
way.  It sounds a bit harsh, but basically he followed the dictates and
desires of his ego.  Many players would like the look of their knight on c6
and also try to get it there, but it’s important to ask whether your desire
can be realized, given that your opponent also has desires.  Hartston: “Well,
that’s a pleasant surprise. I can exchange this horrible knight on c7 when
he takes the pawn back. Wonder why he didn’t give the queen check.”} 18.
Na2 {18.Qd4+ Kg8 19.Qxb4 Nc5 20.Rfe1⩲} Na6 19. Nxb4 Nxb4 20. Qxb4 Nf6 {
Black is very close to equality now.} 21. Bxb5 Nxe4 22. Qxe4 Rxb5 23. Ra7 Re8 {
Black offered a draw in this position.  Speelman declined, thinking he was
slightly better, and not wanting to play another game that day, but he made an
unsound pawn sacrifice in the process of over pressing, and lost.  The Master
Game, London 1975} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "N. Thomas vs. Redpath - Exerc"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2bppp/4pn2/8/2B5/5N2/PPPNQPPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 10"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Key moment.  How should White continue his development?} 10. b3 {Strong move!
Followed by Bb2, Rad1 and Ne4, which would bring considerable pressure to bear.
Black is several tempi behind and White will start to attack before Black is
ready to defend.  10.Ne5 This seems to help Black develop and leads to the
exchange of the queen’s knight rather than the more important horse on f6. 
It’s not such a bad move, but I prefer the simple 10...Nbd7 11.Ndf3 Nxe5 12.
Nxe5 Black is by no means out of the woods here but it’s still not easy to
develop the c8-bishop.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "N. Thomas vs. Redpath - Exerc"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1b3k1/pp3ppp/4pn2/2b1N3/2B5/8/PqP1QPPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 17"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White is a piece down and must play with energy. How should they continue?} 
17. Nd3 {The best try!  17.Rd8+? Bf8 18.g4 Qb6 19.Qd3 Qc7 20.g5 Nd5 21.Re8
Qxe5 22.Qa3 Qe1+ 23.Kg2 Qb4 It might seem that the mistakes made in these
games were caused by a lack of objectivity, but I think this is only partly
true at best.  It certainly seems that the players were, at times, highly
subjective, and too egocentric to find the best moves, but it doesn’t follow
that the antidote to this is to be more objective. To maximize your chances of
competitive success, it is essential to be aware of your opponent’s likes
and dislikes and all their human fallibilities. You must remember that you are
a subject playing another subject. an alternative outlook.} Bxf2+ {17...Qb6?
18.Nxc5! Knigh can't be recaptured. White is not worse here.} 18. Qxf2 Qb6 19.
Nc5 {When he at least retains some swindling chances.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "N. Thomas vs. Redpath"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "46"]

{White is rated around 2065 and Black is the promising junior I mentioned in
the notes to the first game of the last chapter} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4.
exd5 Qxd5 5. dxc5 Bxc5 6. Ngf3 Nf6 7. Bc4 Qd8 {7...Qc6! is thought to be fine
for Black from a theoretical point of view.} 8. O-O O-O 9. Qe2 {Thi@ position
reminds me of a famous game Nunn-Levitt, Lloyds Bank Masters, London 1983,
annotated in detail in Secrets of Grandmaster Chess.  Nunn makes an
instructive comparison with the main lines where Black plays ...cxd4.  In the
process of regaining the pawn on d4 in those lines Black exchanges off the c6-
knight îîStartBracketîîNb3-d4îîEndBracketîî which is not a particularly
important piece for Black, but here White can exchange off the f6-knight
îîStartBracketîîNe4îîEndBracketîî, which could leave the black king without
any defenders.  White’s most effective plan is b3, Bb2, centralizing the
rooks and playing Ne4 at a suitable moment, to remove the main kingside
defender.  Black’s problems stem from lack of development and poor control
of the e5-square, which prevents him from developing his bishop or challenging
White’s piece dominance in the centre.} Be7 {Ego@sm. Black has his own idea
of how his position should develop, i.e. by ...b6, ...Bb7, ...Nbd7 and ... Qc7,
but pays insufficient attention to what White might do in the meantime. Joe
shows a good sense of where the pieces belong in this respect, especially
because the f6- knight needs to be ‘replaced’ by the other knight. 
However, in seeing a drawback to the immediate implementation of the idea, he
didn’t stop to ask whether his position was good enough to allow for such a
set-up without making any concessions to the opponent.  The problem is that
what is best for Black is entirely dependent on what White will do, and thus
we need to look at the position from the point of view of White’s intentions
if we are to discover how Black should proceed.  Looking at the position after
the game, and not as one of the players, I can approach something like an
‘objective’ assessment, but during play it is often better just to be more
aware of your opponent.  In this respect Joe saw the reaction to the move he
wanted to play, but did so from his own perspective; “I want to do this, but
then he’ll do that, so I’ll do this instead, and then ... well, he has no
obvious reply”.  As an essential complement to this way of thinking, we need
also to think something like:  “His main idea is this; how do I relate to
that?”.  In the given position, a close look at White’s plans would reveal
that Black’s biggest problem is lack of time.  If you only see Black’s
side of the board you won’t see this, but once you acknowledge the speed of
b3, Bb2 and Ne4, losing more time with 9...Be7 would not be on the agenda.  9..
.Nbd7!? 10.b3 b6 11.Ne4 Is similar. Black should play  9...b6! but Joe
didn’t like the look of 10.Ne4! and didn’t see a suitable answer, but
despite the strength of this move, he simply had to persist in trying to get
the pieces out, viz 10...Nbd7! 11.Nxc5 Nxc5  It’s not pleasant to give away
the bishop-pair like this, but in return Black is almost fully mobilized. 
Egoism often manifests itself in this way – the refusal to make concessions
to your opponent, even when they are necessary.  Moreover, it takes a strong
player to know how to play with White now and most would mistakenly attack on
the kingside. He can choose between: 12.Rd1!?  12.b3 Bb7 13.Bb2 and now Black
does best to choose 13...Qc7!  The queen looks ‘safer’ on e7 but it
doesn’t in any way contribute to the central struggle and Nd4-f5 may be
irritating. It’s important to realize that Bxf6 is rarely a positional
threat in such positions. Again it’s a question of trade-offs.  You double
your pawns and slightly weaken your king, but your opponent loses the
hermaphrodite and unopposed bishop.  Just as we saw in Chapter 2, it’s a
question of the ways in which advantages and disadvantages are transformed.
However, when you suffer from Egoism you tend to see the position exclusively
from your own point of view.  Thus you wouldn’t be willing to give up the
two bishops by allowing Nxc5, because you’d be blind to what your opponent
was trading in return.  Similarly you wouldn’t want to allow Bxf6 because
you would feel the concessions in your position much more intensely than your
opponent’s.  In this position White is perhaps slightly better, but Black
can face the future with some confidence because his forces coordinate well
and there’s a good chance that White will overestimate his position and fail
to find a good role for the c4-bishop.  Following 14.Ne5  14.Qe5 looks better,
but Black is quite active, and after 14...Rac8 15.Qxc7 Rxc7 16.Be2 Nd5! Rad8
and Black might continue with ...Nfe4-d6 and maybe a timely ...f6 and ... e5,
reminding White that he also has a trump in the form of an extra centre pawn.
Qc7 13.Qe5! Qxe5 14.Nxe5 Bb7 15.f3! is the way to do it – the so-called
Steinitzian restriction method.  You prevent the knights from gaining any good
squares and slowly gain space while keeping your bishops as long-rangers, well
away from any tactical inconveniences.  White can follow up with Bf1, Be3 and
then a gradual advance of the queenside pawns with a significant but by no
means overwhelming advantage.  This would have been a consistent line of play.
Another aspect of Egoism is the propensity to assume favourable assessments
are attainable more quickly than they actually are îîStartBracketîî‘I want
it all, and I want it now!’  EndBracket  .  In the given instance Black had
‘no right’ to look for equality on move 9, because he was Black and had
already made a mistake îîStartBracketîî7...Qd8îîEndBracketîî.  With best play
Black probably shouldn’t lose from such a position, but if he tries to
equalize too quickly he is liable to make his position worse.} 10. Ne5 {
This seems to help Black develop and leads to the exchange of the queen’s
knight rather than the more important horse on f6. It’s not such a bad move,
but I prefer the simple  10.b3! followed by Bb2, Rad1 and Ne4, which would
bring considerable pressure to bear. Black is several tempi behind and White
will start to attack before Black is ready to defend.} Nbd7 11. Ndf3 Nxe5 12.
Nxe5 {Bla@k is by no means out of the woods here but it’s still not easy to
develop the c8-bishop.  Given White’s advantage in time, Black is probably
obliged to trade in a little quality îîStartBracketîîe.g. give away the two
bishopsîîEndBracketîî but in any case White’s initiative is at least
enduring with best play} Qb6 {Thi@ looks obtuse, but it’s not so easy to
find anything that makes much sense for Black here. The idea behind this move
is simply to play ...Bd7 without allowing tricks on e6.  This shows good
tactical awareness from Joe, and also some acceptance that he will now have to
make some sort of concession.  Many players would not even want to play
because it gives away the two bishops, but, as I’ve said, when your position
is bad, a quest for instant equality will be in vain. Unless your opponent is
very helpful, you have to get there one step at a time.  That means that the
two bishops are a small price to pay for getting your pieces out. Still, there
were better moves here: Not  12...Bd7? 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Bxe6 After 
12...Nd7 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Bf4 Nxe5 15.Bxe5 Qc6 Black still hasn’t solved the
problem.  12...Qd4!? 13.Rd1 Qe4 14.Bg5 Qxe2 15.Bxe2 h6 looks promising and may
be Black’s best equalizing try.  With the queens off, the development issue
is not quite so urgent.  12...Qc7!? 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Rad1 Nd5
îîStartBracketîîacknowledging that the problems cannot be easily solved, and
gaining the two bishops in return for a pawn 15.Bxd5 exd5 16.Rxd5 Be6 17.Rxd6
two bishops are almost worth a pawn – it will certainly take your opponent a
long time to show otherwise 17...Qxd6 18.Ng6 Qb4 19.Nxf8 Rxf8 and the
opposite-coloured bishops make a draw the most likely result.  One has to be
very resistant to Egoism to make this type of transformation. What you have to
see is that although being a pawn down is no great pleasure for you, being a
pawn up in an opposite-coloured bishop position would seem like a poor trade
for your opponent, given his prior optimism concerning his development
advantage. When we have an advantage, most of us want to exploit it quickly. 
So offering your opponent a long difficult ending, even if it’s bad for you,
may well divert him from the strongest line of play} 13. Rd1 Rd8 14. Be3 {
I find that such impulsive-looking moves are often related to the desire to
win a spectacular game. This desire is of course related to the ego’s need
for recognition.  The difficulty lies in thinking too much about
self-satisfaction after the game, and not enough about your opponent’s
possibilities during it. White was impatient for satisfaction, and in looking
to the ‘glory beyond’ he made a simple miscalculation Instead  14.Rxd8+
Qxd8 15.Bg5 keeps the initiative.  White will remain clearly better until
Black manages to solve his development problem} Qxb2 15. Bc5 Rxd1+ 16. Rxd1
Bxc5 17. Rd8+ {White should play  17.Nd3!? Bxf2+! 18.Qxf2 Qb6 19.Nc5 when he
at least retains some swindling chances.} Bf8 18. g4 Qb6 19. Qd3 Qc7 20. g5 Nd5
21. Re8 Qxe5 22. Qa3 Qe1+ 23. Kg2 Qb4 {It might seem that the mistakes made in
these games were caused by a lack of objectivity, but I think this is only
partly true at best.  It certainly seems that the players were, at times,
highly subjective, and too egocentric to find the best moves, but it doesn’t
follow that the antidote to this is to be more objective.  To maximize your
chances of competitive success, it is essential to be aware of your
opponent’s likes and dislikes and all their human fallibilities.  You must
remember that you are a subject playing another subject. Consequently, to view
the position objectively is to miss an enormous reservoir of insights into the
ways in which the game is perceived during play.  To be ‘objective’ is to
treat as an object that which is primarily a battlefield between subjects. As
we saw in the Preface, the object has no character until we give it one.  It
is useful to be ‘objective’ away from the heat of battle, but during play
you are an ego up against another ego.  To wrench yourself out of this context
and try to view the game dispassionately from a third-party perspective may
cause more problems than it solves.  Not only do you disturb your natural
inclination to be subjective and by-pass the rhyme and reason of your own
sensibilities, but in doing so you undermine your capacity to sense your
opponent’s subjective perspective, and miss opportunities to exploit this. 
I certainly think I held back my own chess development by trying too hard to
be objective.  For a long time I was told by various trainers and chess
friends that I should ‘be more objective’ but in trying to do so I
definitely lost some of my competitive edge.  I began to view chess more as a
series of intellectual problems than a fight, and thus behaved more like an
academic than a warrior.  I also felt that this aim of becoming more objective
was some sort of burden that stifled my enjoyment of the game. In fact, the
strenuous efforts I made to be ‘objective’ made me increasingly aware of
my subjective point of view.  The ‘objective side’ of the game is not
without interesting features, but the pursuit of beauty and truth is
incidental to the battle between psyches over the board.  In contriving to
escape from my subjective perspective during play I lost my sense of balance
at several crucial moments.  In games against grandmasters I found that they
were almost never asking ‘is this move true?’ but rather ‘will this move
work?’.  Somehow we have to strive to feel strong in our subjective
perspective during play, without forgetting that there is a difference between
what we would like to happen, and what is likely to happen.  Being subjective
has its problems, but so does being objective. It seems we need an alternative
outlook.  Edinburgh 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Inter-subjectivity"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîInter-subjectivityîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîA
problem shared is a problem halved. îîEndBlockQuoteîîPROVERB  Perhaps the most
reliable way to overcome our own subjective predicament is to share it with
the opponent!  You do this formally in any case of course, but I am suggesting
that we can benefit by being more conscious of our opponent as a subject and
an ego and incorporating an awareness of this into our over-the-board
decision-making.  Thus our aim is not to look at the game as an object and be
‘objective’, but to play with a full awareness of ourselves as a subject,
and an equal awareness of the subject sitting opposite.  I have coined the
term ‘inter-subjectivity’ to characterize this perspective, which is like
a ‘third way’ in that it refuses to be either entirely subjective or
entirely objective, but instead seeks to retain the best of both.  I was
prompted to think of this perspective after my six-game match with GM Michael
Adams in 1998.  I ‘celebrated’ my 21st birthday the day the score turned
3-0 and Mickey later told me that he was surprised I was so young: “I
didn’t realize you were so young Jon; if I’d known I might have played a
bit differently.  At your age you tend to see things just from your own point
of view, but when you get a bit older you start to see it from both sides.” 
This comment made a deep impression on me, and the current chapter is an
attempt to make sense of it.  If you’ve ever had the pleasure of playing
through the games of Tal, or reading his annotations, you may have been struck
by the way he seems to be acutely aware of his opponent’s sensibilities and
the magical way he seeks to exploit them.  I certainly was when I began to
acquaint myself with Tal as an impressionable 14-year-old and I remain
captivated today.  There is a sense in which Tal was completely oblivious to
the claims of objectivity, as is suggested by many successful attacks that
were refuted in ‘objective analysis’ after the games.  However, there is a
more subtle sense in which he was deeply ‘objective’, not in the
conventional sense of considering the position without personal prejudice, but
in a full and considered awareness of how his opponent is thinking and feeling
about the position.  It wasn’t that Tal just followed the dictates of his
ego and passionately sacrificed to please the crowd, it was rather than he was
acutely aware that just as he had fears, emotions, regrets, doubts, desires
and confusing thoughts, so did his opponent.  Donner puts it like this in The
King:  “Tal has put paid to all that... There is no system, there is no
correctness or incorrectness, there is only success. This way of thinking
without norms, apart from the infallibility of the self, doesn’t stand a
chance in everyday reality, where it will founder inevitably. But in the game
of chess it is the greatest source of inspiration. That is why it is wrong to
regard Tal as a swindler. He just realizes that although self-criticism and
self-knowledge are necessary, objectivity at the chessboard is a fiction.” 
The following game includes selected insights from Tal's wonderfully lucid
annotations in his book on the 1960 World Championship. I think they form an
excellent basis for the idea of 'inter-subjectivity' in action.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Botvinnik - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3k2r/pp1n1pp1/2pbpnp1/q5B1/2BP4/6N1/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 12"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{White's last move 11.0-0 was a conceptual error and now, after 11...Qa5, they
have to solve some problems due to the strong rook on h8. How can White play
here?} 12. f4 {Tal@ 'Terrible.' 'Anti-positional.' 'Incredible.', etc., etc. 
White's last move was adorned by all the commentators, without exception, with
such epithets. The advantages of this move are less obvious
îîStartBracketîîthan its drawbacksîîEndBracketîî, but they are nevertheless
there, even though they may not lie within the realm of the 64 squares of the
chessboard.  First of all, this move will have to be refuted, which should
entail the possibility of a double-edged tactical struggle, which, judging
from Botvinnik's style of play in this match, would not be desirable for him. 
Secondly, the weakness in White's camp can only be exploited by breaks in the
centre, but after the moves ...c5 and ...e5, the strength of White's bishops
significantly increases.  And finally, Black will only be able to attack the
kingside after castling long, and then White's pawn-mass on the queenside can
be set in motion.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Botvinnik - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2kr3r/pp2qpp1/1np1pnp1/8/1PPP1P2/P2Q2N1/4B1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "9"]

{White has more space but the central pawn structure is still overextended. 
How can you fight against the treats?} 19. a4 {Creating some problems for
Black! This was preferable but that he didn't like the look of  19.Rab1?! Too
slow. Tal states that the immediate 19...Qd7! 20.Rbd1 Inconsistent, but there
was nothing better  20.Rfd1 Rh4 21.Qe3 Qc7 22.Rf1 Qd7=} Qxb4 20. a5 Nxc4 {
due to} 21. Qxc4 Qxc4 22. Bxc4 Rxd4 23. Rac1 {This line was preferable for
White that the played in the game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Botvinnik - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "k6r/1pqr1pp1/p1n1pnp1/P1P5/3P1P2/5BN1/1Q4PP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 31"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{The knight on f6 does not allow his white counterpart to go to e4 and then to
d6, and in view of this, it does not allow itself the possibility of occupying
the solid square d5. Here’s where the inter-subjective viewpoint is very
useful because when you look at the knights from both sides you see that they
are actually in some sort of mutual stand-off. How can White try to improve in
this position?} 31. Bxc6 {The exclamation marks are mine, given mainly because
I found this move so shocking. 'It is very regrettable that White has to part
with this bishop, but the threats to the d-pawn force this.  As compensation,
White gets some freedom of movement for his rooks. These are not the words of
a man surfing on the wave of his own ego. The fact that White could have
played  31.Ne2 means that this move was not forced as such.} Qxc6 32. Rf3 {
'No@ all White's hopes are pinned on the square b6.' Remember that Black
doesn't want to play ...Nd5 îîStartBracketîîto cover b6îîEndBracketîî because
this would free the knight on g3!  The rook now can go to b3 or even to d3.
White is not worse here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Botvinnik - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r5/kpqr1pp1/pR2p1p1/2Pn4/3P1P2/Q5N1/6PP/1R4K1 w - - 0 38"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{The last move 37...Nd5? wasn't played in the game by Botvinnik and so he
preferred to capture the f-pawn with the queen.  What continuation did Tal
have against the centralization of the knight in d5?} 38. Ne4 {The knight is
untouchable! Besides which 38.c6 is also threatened.'  Regardless of objective
threats, it can't have felt too comfortable for Black to be looking at this
rook on b6.  At such moments we are inclined to look at the variations as if
we were looking over our shoulder checking there is nobody behind us.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Botvinnik - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r5/kp1r1pp1/pR2pnp1/2Pq4/3P4/1Q6/4N1PP/1R4K1 w - - 0 40"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{The last move 39...Qd5 was a terrible mistake. How did Tal played here?} 40.
Rxa6+ {Destroying Black's shelter. The rook is untouchable.} Kb8 41. Qa4 {
Followed by Ra8 or Qa5. Black resigns.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Tal vs. Botvinnik"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "81"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Bc4 e6 7. N1e2 Nf6 8.
Nf4 Bd6 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. Bg5 Nbd7 11. O-O Qa5 12. f4 {Tal@ 'Terrible.'
'Anti-positional.' 'Incredible.', etc., etc. White's last move was adorned by
all the commentators, without exception, with such epithets.  It might be
supposed that the player who had White was absolutely unfamiliar with any
chess book that writes about the game from White's point of view and it is
actually impossible to play like this since 12.f4 weakens the dark squares,
shuts the g5-bishop out of the game, and puts the white king in a dangerous
and compromising position.  I think the reader will not consider me immodest
if I say that I took all of this into consideration during the game.' Tal
continues to describe his train of thought, stressing the problems with
retreating the bishop îîStartBracketîîinconsistentîîEndBracketîî, exchanging
it îîStartBracketîîno gain whatsoeverîîEndBracketîî ... and the move 12.f4 is
simply bad.  Thus all the continuations seem to be negative. And finally, my
roving eye again fell on 12.f4...  The advantages of this move are less
obvious îîStartBracketîîthan its drawbacksîîEndBracketîî, but they are
nevertheless there, even though they may not lie within the realm of the 64
squares of the chessboard.  First of all, this move will have to be refuted,
which should entail the possibility of a double-edged tactical struggle, which,
judging from Botvinnik's style of play in this match, would not be desirable
for him.  Secondly, the weakness in White's camp can only be exploited by
breaks in the centre, but after the moves ...c5 and ...e5, the strength of
White's bishops significantly increases.  And finally, Black will only be able
to attack the kingside after castling long, and then White's pawn-mass on the
queenside can be set in motion. It is possible that Black should simply have
answered 12...0-0, but this is not a refutation.  There is a lot to take in
here, but what stands out for me is the resistance to what anybody else might
think of this move.  Tal was fully aware that he would be considered 'weak'
for playing it, but follows his own lead, rather than the superficial pointers
of others.  Another outstanding feature is that he thinks of 12.f4 not
'objectively' îîStartBracketîîwhen it seems rather badîîEndBracketîî, but with
a full awareness of the alternatives he îîStartBracketîîsubjectîîEndBracketîî
perceives, and how his opponent îîStartBracketîîsubjectîîEndBracketîî will
react to each of them.  In the end he decides that since there is no way to
apply positional pressure, he will apply psychological pressure because
Botvinnik is given the responsibility to refute this move, and, as we will see,
this is not easy.  12.Qd2 Drawish  12.Qc1 Passive} O-O-O 13. a3 Qc7 {More than
half an hour was spent on this, and this is good. It seems that it is not so
simple to immediately refute 12.f4. Tal again reveals an acute awareness of
his opponent.  The words 'this is good' show a recognition of the frustration
caused by a fruitless search and the build-up of tension this causes in the
opponent.} 14. b4 Nb6 15. Be2 Be7 16. Qd3 {'White's moves are obvious enough
and therefore it is now easy for him to play. At the same time, Black has a
wide selection of tempting continuations, but he has to find only one, that
which is objectively the strongest which at the same time should conform to
the creative attitude in which he is playing.'  Poor Botvinnik! So many good
moves available but he can only play them one at a time.  Tal has enough good
moves to keep the psychological equilibrium, but is not under any pressure to
play them because they are all so obvious.  Such factors should not be
underestimated. Regardless of how the position looks 'objectively', it is seen
by the contestants during the game with a brain which has already been exerted,
excited, confused and disappointed.  The longer the game lasts, and the more
tension in each and every move, the more difficult it is to see the position
as it really is.  Botvinnik's position on the board may be better here, but
there is more pressure on him because he has to prove something.} Nfd5 {
With the text move, Black attains a definite positional advantage, since after
the exchange of the dark-squared bishops, the weakness on f4 becomes
noticeable, but psychologically, White would have another chance:  it turns
out that one of the 'drawbacks' of the move 12 f4 - the locking-out of the
g5-bishop - is not a drawback at all. Again Tal reveals just how subjective
our thought-processes are.  It would indeed seem like a small victory for
White to exchange this wayward bishop and a concession for Black, who couldn't
exploit it.  Such little battles are only won or lost in our own head, but
they are hugely significant in shaping the mood of the contestants. 
Botvinnik's shaky play before the time-control can, I think, be traced back to
the tension caused by the little conceptual defeats at this early stage. After
16...c5 17.bxc5  17.c3 c4 lives White without counterplay Rxd4 18.cxb6 Rxd3 19.
bxc7 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Rxg3 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22.Bf3 White 'shouldn't see lose' according
to Tal.} 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. c4 Nf6 {Botvinnik was obliged to spend some
important time evaluating a tempting piece sacrifice here:  18...Nxc4 19.Qxc4
Qh4 20.Rf3 Nxf4 21.h3 Rxd4 22.Qc5 it turns out that the bishop is better than
the three pawns.  Once again a little tension is built into Botvinnik's psyche
regardless of the fact that all his moves have been very strong. Indeed,Tal
seemed to underestimate the danger he faced here, and made a small but
significant mistake.} 19. Rab1 {Too slow. Tal states that the immediate  19.a4
was preferable but that he didn't like the look of 19...Qxb4 20.a5 Nxc4 due to
21.Rfb1?? Qd2 22.Qxc4 His analysis went on 22...Qxd4+?? However, he missed
that  22...Qe3+! wins by force. 23.Qxd4 Rxd4 when it might appear that Black
has the initiative, but he points out that 24.Bf3! denies Black time for 24...
Rxf4? 25.a6 and so White can regroup with Ne2, after which the position is
about equal. therefore White has nothing better than 21.Qxc4.  Despite the
popularity of Tal's annotations, later in his career he admitted that they
were a source of embarrassment for him because they contained so many mistakes.
Still, a striking feature of this game is the way that Tal steers clear of all
the drawish lines. Despite his position being 'objectively' worse, it seems he
thinks this is less important than the psychological predicament of both
players.} Qd7 20. Rbd1 {Inconsistent, but there was nothing better  20.Rfd1
Rh4 21.Qe3 Qc7 22.Rf1 Qd7} Kb8 21. Qb3 {21.a4!? Nxa4 22.Qa3 Nb6 23.Rd2
followed by Ra1 gives White reasonable compensation and was probably an
improvement on this sluggish move, which loses a lot of time.} Qc7 22. a4 Rh4
23. a5 Nc8 24. Qe3 {The situation has changed somewhat. Now Black has
strengthened his position with natural moves and White is forced to solve a
difficult problem, as well as handle the joyless task of defending his
weaknesses.  The position remains extraordinarily complicated and the decisive
moves will occur in mutual time-pressure.  It seems that Tal places much more
emphasis on the fact that the position is complicated than whether one side is
better or worse.  During a game both sides experience and respond to the
complexity, but a judgement of the form 'Black is slightly better' is really
rather meaningless in a game where the tension is felt so acutely, and errors
are likely at any time. This reminds me of something GM Peter Wells told me of
a post- mortem with GM Stuart Conquest in which Peter asked  'Did you think
you were better here?', to which Stuart replied: I don't have such thoughts
during the game. I just look for ideas.' This is a little at odds with my
suggestion about having some feel for whether your position is getting better
or worse, but it is a valuable insight all the same.  Certainly in games which
are exceptionally tense, like last-round games for example, you might do more
harm than good by trying to keep track of the 'objective' assessment because
the errors which decide the outcome will be more closely related to the
tension than to the assessment.} Ne7 25. Qe5 Rhh8 26. b5 {Objectively a risky
continuation but I did not see any other means of strengthening the position.
Black intended to play 26.-- Nf5 and after 27.Nxf5 exf5 a rook would quickly
go to e8 .  Therefore White decides, ignoring the weaknesses of the position,
that he cannot wait any longer to open up lines on the queenside.'  Tal is
determined not to give Botvinnik the initiative. Part of playing from an
inter-subjective perspective is that you try to keep your opponent under some
sort of pressure all the time, whether it be psychological, clock related, or
just in the position.} cxb5 27. Qxb5 {'Now the b-file has been opened and the
white bishop obtains some free doom of movement along the diagonal. But this
was achieved at an expensive price: the weakness of White's pawns take on a
catastrophic character.'  Tal seems to know that what he is doing is a little
risky from an objective perspective, but allowing his opponent to settle down
and assume the initiative is also risky, albeit from a more subjective
perspective.} a6 {Tal was quite willing to give up the a-pawn and Botvinnik
seems to be in no hurry to take it. During play it is impossible to be sure of
when or whether Black should take this pawn.  All that is clear to both
players is that it is double-edged and so whenever it is taken, the
psychological tension will rise. If  27...Nc6 then 28.Qb2} 28. Qb2 Rd7 29. c5
Ka8 30. Bf3 Nc6 {'Now White's position is extraordinarily difficult to improve
and the d-pawn gets weaker and weaker. It is interesting that the opposing
knights on g3 and f6 will be there almost until the end of the game.  The
knight on f6 does not allow his white counterpart to go to e4 and then to d6,
and in view of this, it does not allow itself the possibility of occupying the
solid square d5.  On the other hand, it is not to White's advantage to
withdraw the knight, since on e2 it would have a passive position.  To make
the position more lively, White goes in for still another positional sacrifice.
' Tal's comments about the knights are very instructive.  I kept on thinking
that if I were White, improving this piece would be my first priority. Here's
where the intersubjective view-point is very useful because when you look at
the knights from both sides you see that they are actually in some sort of
mutual stand-off.  In any case, Botvinnik has played very well, but has taken
a long time over his moves and the game has been very tense. Moreover, his
king position is still a little precarious.  However, I consider Tal's next
move a stroke of practical genius.} 31. Bxc6 {The@exclamation marks are mine,
given mainly because I found this move so shocking. 'It is very regrettable
that White has to part with this bishop, but the threats to the d-pawn force
this.  As compensation, White gets some freedom of movement for his rooks.
These are not the words of a man surfing on the wave of his own ego.  The fact
that White could have played  31.Ne2 means that this move was not forced as
such. What is so admirable is that Tal shows so little attachment to the gem
in his own position îîStartBracketîîthe f3-bishopîîEndBracketîî, and such keen
awareness of what the moment required.  Throughout this game Tal has
maintained the 'equilibrium' not in the objective sense that the position has
been equal, but in that he never allowed Botvinnik to impose his will
exclusively on the game.  He would have acknowledged that Black was setting
the pace and thus put Botvinnik at ease, but Tal insists that the tension be
felt by both players.} Qxc6 32. Rf3 {'No@ all White's hopes are pinned on the
square b6.' Remember that Black doesn't want to play ...Nd5 îîStartBracketîîto
cover b6îîEndBracketîî because this would free the knight on g3.} Qa4 33. Rfd3
Rc8 {33...Rhd8 34.Ne2 Nd5 followed by a gradual preparation of ...f6 and ...e5
may have been stronger. Botvinnik has shunned several sharp lines and now,
with no clear way to improve his position, he decides to grab the a-pawn. To
do so he first needs to cover the c6-square.} 34. Rb1 Qxa5 {'It is possible
that this capture is appropriate, since Black's defensive resources are very
great, but nevertheless, it is very risky in time- pressure.'  I suspect that
both players knew that it was perfectly sound to take this pawn from an
'objective' point of view, but at the moment it was taken I'd imagine
Botvinnik felt a tinge of regret, and Tal a jolt of optimism.} 35. Rb3 {
35.Ra3 Qd8 and after ...Rc6 Black covers everything} Qc7 36. Qa3 Ka7 37. Rb6
Qxf4 {'The concluding phase of this game is quite characteristic of play in
time-pressure. White basically sets up a double threat. Now Black cannot
continue  37...Nd5? in view of 38.Ne4 besides which 38.c6 is also threatened.'
Regardless of objective threats, it can't have felt too comfortable for Black
to be looking at this rook on b6. At such moments we are inclined to look at
the variations as if we were looking over our shoulder checking there is
nobody behind us.} 38. Ne2 {'Probably White would have got sufficient
counterplay for a draw in the variation  38.Qb4 Qxd4+ 39.Qxd4 Rxd4 40.Rxb7+
Ka8 41.c6 but now there is a different outcome!'  Tal doesn't indicate whether
he saw this drawing option but decided to play for more, but it wouldn't
surprise me if he did.  It seems that Tal was motivated not so much by what he
'should' do from an 'objective' perspective, given that his position is worse,
but rather what he should do from an intersubjective perspective, given that
his opponent was nervous and running short of time.} Qe4 39. Qb3 Qd5 {In the
time-scramble, Botvinnik did not find the only defence to the threat of Rxa6+,
which is  39...Ka8 I do not maintain that then White would have a strong
enough attack to save himself, but in my opinion, there would be many tactical
resources in the position.  Possible, for example, would be 40.h3 or  40.Rb4
After both continuations, the position would be very sharp.  Now the game is
over very quickly. When I loaded this game from ChessBase's Mega Database the
only annotation given was 39...Ka8-+, which I saw after I had read Tal's notes.
At first I wanted to check the position to discover which was closer to the
truth, but then I realized that this was missing the point.  The
interpretations are not in fact at odds, it's just that they come from
different perspectives.  From an objective point of view, Black would remain
two pawns up after 39... Ka8 and since White has no convincing way to continue
the attack, we would have to conclude that with best play Black's position is
winning.  I suspect Tal would agree with this, and his note seems to do so
implicitly.  However, from an intersubjective point of view, it is highly
unlikely that anyone, even Botvinnik, could play the best moves from here
until the end of the game after such enormous nervous tension during the
course of the game and in a position full of tricks, so to call the position
'very sharp' is also a reasonable assessment'.} 40. Rxa6+ Kb8 41. Qa4 {World
Ch match (game 17) , Moscow 1960} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Responsibility"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîResponsibilityîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe greater
part of all the mischief in the world arises from the fact that men do not
sufficiently understand their own aims.' îîEndBlockQuoteîîGOETHE  Tal’s
precarious sacrifices weren’t always ‘objectively’ sound. By this I mean
that third-party analysis frequently showed that stronger defensive play would
have shown them to be erroneous.  Yet during play his opponents often
collapsed inexplicably, as if they had been knocked off balance by the sudden
change of course the game had taken.  This was far too common an occurrence to
attribute simply to Tal’s good fortune and many have spoken in general terms
about the practical difficulties in defending against such attacks.  However,
by far the most acute insight I have read on this matter comes from an
idiosyncratic book called Dynamics of Chess Psychology by Cary Utterburg. 
According to Utterburg, the key concept for understanding the success of
Tal’s ‘psychological sacrifices’ is existential responsibility. 
Utterburg argues that the human mind possesses the capacity to understand
chess ‘existentially’, i.e. in a manner which defies any objective,
well-defined formulation.  So in the normal course of things we are
‘existentially responsible’ for the course of the game and feel ourselves,
as subjects, to be conscious co-creators of the game and therefore responsible
for its outcome.  This ‘existential state’ is, I presume, much like that
which I described as ‘just playing’ in Chapter 3.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Averbakh vs. Tal - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qr1k1/pp3pbp/3p2p1/2pn1b2/4NB2/8/PP1NBPPP/RQ3RK1 w - - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{“Tal’s psychological sacrifices tended to estrange his opponents from
their sense of responsibility, leaving them in a temporary state of
disorientation similar to that which weaker players encounter every day.” 
Averbakh was a strong grandmaster and however obvious this defence may look
now, it would be irresponsible (!) of us not to place ourselves in the context
of the game, which is when the decisions had to be made.  How should Averbach
have play here?} 15. Bg3 {15.Bxd6? This is how Averbach actually played ? Nf6
16.Bf3 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Bxe4 Qxd6 19.Qc2 Re7 The rest of the game is not
hugely relevant to this chapter, but it is quite instructive and enjoyable.}
Qe7 16. Bf3 Rad8 17. Re1 {Followed by  17...-- 18.Qc1 way White could have
gotten decisive advantage.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Averbakh vs. Tal - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r2k1/p4p2/1p3qp1/2p5/P2b2Bp/1P4P1/5P1P/3Q1R1K b - - 0 30"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Tal wants to play here 30...Bxf2, but the simple 31.Qe2 would leave black's
bishop pinned.  Is this something Tal should be concerned about?} 30... Bxf2 {
Of course its possible!} 31. Qe2 Rd2 {Only after this move we can see Black is
winning.} 32. Qe8+ {32.Qxd2 Qc6+} Kg7 {White has nothing else.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Averbakh vs. Tal"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "70"]

{The claim is that Tal’s psychological sacrifices dislodged opponents from a
perspective where they could ‘just play’ because his sacrifices were often
so outlandish as to make the opponent feel like they were no longer a
co-creator.  Now I’m not sure what you make of all that and I know that the
very word ‘existential’ is enough to put many people off, but maybe
you’ll have more sympathy for the idea in the context of the following:} 1.
d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Be2 Bg7 8. Nf3 O-O
9. O-O Re8 10. Qc2 Na6 11. Bf4 Nb4 12. Qb1 {“Black’s next move is
ultimately incorrect, but it’s interesting from a practical point of view
because it seizes sole existential responsibility for the nature of the
struggle; whereas White has been implementing ideas of his own thus far, now
they’re irrelevant since Tal has essentially redefined the game along his
own lines.” – Utterburg.} Nxe4 {“Objectively better was  12...Qe7 ,
leading to a position with dynamically equal chances.  Nevertheless, with a
psychological sacrifice, Tal has disoriented his opponent by seizing
responsibility for the game; since White is a modern master whose existential
understanding is grounded in the recognition that he’s responsible for the
game, Tal’s sacrifice has severed an essential component from his
opponent’s psyche.”  This last line struck me as highly pertinent.  Tal
does indeed take something away from the opponent when he sacrifices in this
way and it may be best thought of as the opponent’s ego.  Indeed it seems
that he confiscates his opponent’s ego, only to hand it back in a bruised
state after the ‘shocking’ complications are over.  In doing so, he shows
us how difficult it is to play chess well without our egos; without the
feelings of responsibility, confidence and personal power it gives us.  Have
you ever felt that you were marching to your opponent’s tune during a game,
only to ‘wake up’ after resigning and realize that you were barely
conscious at the board?  More simply, do you ever find yourself complying with
your opponent’s ideas and never creating any of your own? Even more
generally, do you ever finish a game and say something like:  “I just
wasn’t there tonight”? All of these cases seem to stem from a failure to
take responsibility for your actions.  This is why I think Utterburg’s
insight is so compelling – a close look at Tal’s games does seem to
suggest that for several moves his opponents are playing perfectly normally
and then suddenly they seem to lose their balance and allow Tal to walk all
over them.  Although it may seem abstract, the perspective of existential
responsibility makes better sense of this than any other explanation I have
read.  We don’t need the ‘existential’ to take this idea on board. All
you need to appreciate is that it is hugely important that you feel
responsible for the direction and outcome of the game, that you don’t let
your opponent take this responsibility from you, and that you strive, whenever
possible, to take it from your opponent} 13. Nxe4 Bf5 14. Nfd2 Nxd5 15. Bxd6 {
Kho@mov recommended instead  15.Bg3 Qe7 16.Bf3 Rad8 17.Re1! “Tal’s
psychological sacrifices tended to estrange his opponents from their sense of
responsibility, leaving them in a temporary state of disorientation similar to
that which weaker players encounter every day.”  Averbakh was a strong
grandmaster and however obvious this defence may look now, it would be
irresponsibleîîStartBracketîî!îîEndBracketîî of us not to place ourselves in
the context of the game, which is when the decisions had to be made} Nf6 16.
Bf3 {16.Bxc5 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Qd1 Qg5!} Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Bxe4 Qxd6
19. Qc2 Re7 {The rest of the game is not hugely relevant to this chapter, but
it is quite instructive and enjoyable. Black’s extra pawn is not so
significant in itself because with opposite-coloured bishops it is hard to
create a passed pawn that could advance to light squares without being taken. 
The real advantage of the extra queen-side pawn is that it enables Black to
attack on the kingside!  The extra pawn has huge value in that it provides an
‘anchor’ for the bishop when it arrives on the d4-square. This blocks the
d-file and makes it difficult for White to exchange rooks.  Moreover,
Black’s bishop will have an influential and secure post while White’s
bishop will have little to do. White is vulnerable on h2 and f2 in particular,
and has no way to compete with Black on these squares.} 20. Bf3 Rae8 21. Rad1
Bd4 22. a4 b6 23. b3 Re5 24. Rd2 h5 {Black anticipates g3 and brings another
unit into the attack} 25. Re2 Rxe2 26. Bxe2 h4 27. Kh1 Qf4 28. g3 Qf6 29. Qd1
Rd8 30. Bg4 {30.Kg2 looks more stubborn at first glance, but Black wins by
force with the following elegant manoeuvre: 30...Bc3 31.Bd3 otherwise ... Rd2
31...Qc6+ 32.Kg1 h3!  32...Qd5!? 33.Be2 Qg5 34.Qc1 Qf6 35.Rd1 otherwise ...Rd2
35...Bd4 36.Rf1 hxg3 37.hxg3 Qe5! 33.f3 Qd6 34.Be2  34.Bc2 Qe7 35.Qc1 Qe2 Qe7
35.Qc2 Rd2 36.Qxc3 Qxe2-+} Bxf2 31. Qe2 Rd2 32. Qe8+ {32.Qxd2 Qc6+} Kg7 33.
gxh4 Qd4 34. Bh3 Qd3 35. Bg2 Rd1 {The@e last two moves remind me of a rule
îîStartBracketîîor guidelineîîEndBracketîî suggested to me by GM Neil McDonald
îîStartBracketîî‘McDonald’s Rule’îîEndBracketîî:  'When one side has
domination of one colour complex, the winning breakthrough invariably takes
place on the other colour complex.'  35...Rd1 After 36.Qb5 Rxf1+ 37.Bxf1 Qe4+
38.Bg2 Qxh4 the two extra pawns and ever-present danger to the white king
ensure victory.  To support further the idea of ‘responsibility’,
Utterburg considers the difficulties for a subject playing against the
opponent’s initiative:  “Why should anyone be troubled by the fact that
his opponent has seized the initiative îîStartBracketîîassuming that he has
enough material ‘in the bank’ to balance the chances  EndBracket  ?  Under
the model of îîStartSquareîîexistential responsibilityîîEndSquareîî an
opponent’s initiative is less firmly grounded than one’s own, causing it
to seem more chaotic and unmanageable îîStartBracketîîmy responsibility is
closer as a subject than other people’s responsibility...  EndBracket   ” 
There seems to be a lot of truth in this and many a dodgy attack succeeds
because the attacker felt responsible for having started it and therefore
wants to see it conducted well, while the defence is placed in that situation
involuntarily and doesn’t feel the same responsibility for defending well. 
Bearing this in mind, I am reminded of two players who scored very well
against Tal:  Korchnoi and Polugaevsky.  Both of these players had very strong
characters and worked enormously hard both at the board and away from it. 
They both identified themselves with their chess games and thus had no
problems taking responsibility for all aspects of their games against Tal.  If
you still have some doubts about the value of the idea of ‘responsibility’
in chess, think of the way it flows naturally from the ‘inter-subjective
perspective’.  It’s like there is a battle for responsibility of an object
between the subjects.  This reminds me of the Paul McCartney and Michael
Jackson song The Girl is Mine: “no she’s mine”, ...“yes she’s
mine”, “the girl is mine” “I don’t belieeeve it!”. Whatever.
Let’s move on.  USSR Ch, Riga 1958} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Populist Prophylaxi"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîPopulist ProphylaxiîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe
greatest skill in chess lies in not allowing the opponent to show you what he
can do.' îîEndBlockQuoteîîGM GARRY KASPAROV  Prophylaxis.  It’s an awkward
word that I can never remember how to spell and I feel pretentious every time
I say it.  Many players think of it as something profound that Nimzowitsch
conjured up but nobody fully understands, and I suspect most club players
consider it an entirely foreign concept, not applicable to the hustle and
bustle of your average game.  Watson (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy) does
an excellent job of surveying recent thinking on the matter, including the
instructive writings of Dvoretsky and Yusupov (Positional Play and Training
for the Tournament Player) and Tisdall (Improve Your Chess Now) but in all of
these cases I have the impression that many readers must find the whole idea
of prophylaxis a bit perplexing, occurring only in exceptional circumstances
and something which only happens over 2600 level.  This is certainly my
experience when teaching the idea to junior and adult players.  There is an
inclination to admire prophylaxis from a distance, as if it were something to
be revered as a part of chess culture, but not incorporated into chess below a
certain level.  This is sad because it’s really not such a regal or
exclusive area, and I believe it can and should be used and understood by
players of all strengths.  What is more significant in the context of this
chapter is that prophylactic thinking arises naturally from viewing chess from
an inter-subjective perspective.  Once you start to look at positions with an
awareness of your opponent’s perspective, you are already thinking
prophylactically to a extent.  Indeed, as far as I can tell, prophylactic
thinking needn’t be considered as anything more than a state of mind whereby
you are aware of your own plans and how they relate to your opponent’s. 
This is not such an easy state of mind to attain, but having seen the value in
‘inter-subjectivity’ with reference to chess psychology and responsibility,
it shouldn’t be too difficult to add the positional aspect of
‘intersubjectivity’ into your arsenal.  And if you can, the rewards should
be plentiful.  Indeed, through a long and somewhat alcoholic grapevine in
Holland I heard that GM Artur Yusupov, who had recently been coaching in
Apeldoorn, had proclaimed that “If you understand prophylaxis, you
understand chess”.  A few months after hearing this I found myself climbing
up a more sober grapevine and on reaching the top I was pleased to have the
opportunity to speak to the man himself.  I asked if this quotation was an
accurate reflection of what he had said and, not surprisingly, was told by
Yusupov that he did not make such an extravagant claim.  However, he did say
that although the given statement is an over-simplification, it is not very
far from the truth and that a close study of top players and their thinking
processes reveals that prophylaxis is never far from the minds of the
strongest players.  Yusupov singled out Kasparov in this respect, whom he
referred to as “deeply prophylactic”, and suggested that Kasparov’s
famous victory against Karpov (World Ch match) (game 16) (, Moscow 1985) in
the Taimanov with 8...d5 was an exquisite demonstration of the power of
prophylactic thinking.  I suspect that this game can easily be found elsewhere
by readers so I will just single out the following moves, all of which strike
me as being “deeply prophylactic”: 17...h6, 18...b4!, 21...g5!!, 23...Nd7!,
24...Qf6!, 27...Bg6! and 28...g4!.  Yusupov was also keen to stress that
prophylaxis should not be seen as in any way defensive or passive, but rather
as a very active, even aggressive way of looking at chess.  This was a
particularly interesting insight because another aspect of the average
player’s thoughts on prophylaxis is that it tends to lead to highly profound
but usually quite defensive moves, and of course this may not appeal to your
average 1800 hacker.  The truth, however, is that prophylaxis is every bit as
important in attack as it is in defence. It’s all about seeing chess as a
struggle between subjects.  Prophylaxis is ‘active’ in the sense that
every aspect of a battle is ultimately about defeating the opponent.  The
attackers who are most likely to succeed are those who acknowledge the
opponent’s right to defend himself.  They strive to work around these
defences that they have seen ahead of time, and always make plans for
themselves with reference to the opponent.  I felt the best way to
‘popularize’ prophylaxis here was by talking my way through a few of my
own games.  Hopefully an account of my own thought-processes, and
consideration of my opponent’s, will reveal just how ubiquitous prophylaxis
is, and that it’s not an especially difficult notion when you allow yourself
to become aware of your opponent’s intentions.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. L. Cooper - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pbpp2bp/1p3np1/3P1p2/8/P1N2NP1/1P2PP1P/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{One obvious way to remove a defender of d5 is ... Na6-c5-e4, after which
Black’s forces will coordinate rather effectively.  That said, how should
White play here in order to avoid this plan?} 9. Rb1 {A s@range-looking move,
but hopefully it makes sense in light of the above. I am only two moves from
castling and since the centre is relatively closed there is no great urgency
to develop. The main thing is the quality of White’s development, not the
quantity, and this move seriously hinders the quality of my opponent’s
development  9.Bg2 Is of course met by 9...Na6! and 10.O-O When  10.b4 Ne4 is
problematic Nc5 leaves Black with a harmonious position and a clear object of
attack îîStartBracketîîd5îîEndBracketîî.} Na6 {is met by} 10. b4 {– shutting
out the knight is the idea.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. L. Cooper - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1bpp2bp/np3np1/p2P1p2/8/P1N2NP1/1P2PPBP/1RBQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black wants to take its knight to e4 vía c5.  How White should play here?} 1.
b4 {Now the knight in a6 is stuck.} axb4 2. axb4 {Restricting the knight
creating some space problems.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. L. Cooper - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1bpp2bp/np3np1/3P1p2/1P6/2N2NP1/4PPBP/1RBQ1RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "4"]

1... c5 {This looks like a big mistake in hindsight, but it’s not so easy
for Black to play with such passive queenside pieces.   What is the best
continuation for White?} 2. dxc6 {Exactly!} dxc6 {only move} 3. Nd4 {White is
much better here.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. L. Cooper - Exerci"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1bppq1bp/np3np1/3P1p2/1P6/2N2NP1/4PPBP/1RBQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Black's last move 13...Qe7 was a quite slow.  How can White continue here?} 1.
Bf4 {Playing energetically and allowing Black's next move.} Ne4 2. Nxe4 fxe4 3.
d6 {The point! White is on the top!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. L. Cooper"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "36"]

1. c4 b6 2. d4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb7 4. a3 f5 5. d5 Nf6 6. g3 g6 7. Nf3 exd5 8. cxd5
Bg7 {One obvious way to remove a defender of d5 is ...Na6-c5-e4 after which
Black's forces will coordinate rather effectively.  However, this is really
the only way in which Black can develop the queen's knight because ... d6
intending ...Nd7 would leave e6 and c6 gruesomely weak. ...c6 also leads to
serious weaknesses so if I can stop Black's above mentioned plan he'll have a
hard time making use of his minor pieces on the queenside and I can gradually
turn my attention to playing e4 or attacking on the kingside.  The best way to
do this seems to be just to wait for ...Na6 and then play b4, but this has the
shortcoming that it's liable to run into tactics on the h8-a1 diagonal.  So
the long and short of it is that I need to be in a position to meet ...Na6
with b4 without allowing tactical tricks based on ...Ne4 or ...Nxd5.} 9. Rb1 {
A s@range-looking move, but hopefully it makes sense in light of the above.  I
am only two moves from castling and since the centre is relatively closed
there is no great urgency to develop.  The main thing is the quality of
White’s development, not the quantity, and this move seriously hinders the
quality of my opponent’s development  9.Bg2 Is of course met by 9...Na6! and
10.O-O When  10.b4 Ne4 is problematic Nc5 leaves Black with a harmonious
position and a clear object of attack îîStartBracketîîd5îîEndBracketîî.} O-O {
9...Na6 is met by 10.b4! – shutting out the knight is the idea.} 10. Bg2 a5 {
This plan doesn’t turn out particularly well, but I don’t see a convincing
alternative for Black} 11. O-O Na6 12. b4 axb4 13. axb4 c5 {This looks like a
big mistake in hindsight, but it’s not so easy for Black to play with such
passive queenside pieces, e.g.  13...Qe7 14.Bf4 Ne4 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.d6!} 14.
dxc6 dxc6 15. Nd4 Qd7 16. Qb3+ Kh8 17. Ne6 Rfe8 18. Nxg7 Kxg7 {White is
clearly better due to the two bishops, Black’s weakened dark squares and
vulnerable queenside pawns. I won on move.  Walsall 1997.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Motwani - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/pp3qbp/1np1pnp1/2N3B1/3P4/5B1P/PP3PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 18"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{White's position is better due to the bishop pair and the poor backward pawn
on e6. But, how is the best way to play here?} 18. Bh4 {This is the key
prophylactic move and is a good example of what I was saying about prophylaxis
being a very ‘active’ notion. This move overprotects f2 and thus comforts
my king, and the main aim is to cover e5 from the g3-square.  These are all
‘negative’ aims, in the sense that I’m just preventing the opponent’s
plans, but only by doing so can I allow myself to implement my own plans
successfully, and part of the plan is to threaten to cause trouble by landing
my versatile bishop on d6.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Motwani - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/pp3qbp/1np1p1p1/2Nn4/3P3B/5B1P/PP3PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Profilaxys. How should White play here?} 1. Bg3 {Strong move! Black’s plans
have effectively been stopped and it’s hard to make sense of his position.  
On the other hand, White has threats of Bg4 and Bd6. It often happens this way
with prophylaxis: that when you ‘plug’ your opponent’s intentions, your
own plans flood into the position.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Motwani - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rrk1/pp3qbp/1np1p1p1/2Nn4/3P4/5BBP/PP3PP1/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White's last move Bg3 threats Bd6 and Bg4. How can Black try to resist this
position?} 1... e5 {An excellent practical decision. Those who know Paul will
not be surprised to hear that I consider him relatively resistant to Egoism! 
Here this manifests itself by having the serenity to accept that he is worse
and making a fight of it by starting a new type of game.} 2. dxe5 Nf4 3. Bxf4
Qxf4 {Now there are various ways to keep the extra pawn, but the presence of
opposite-coloured bishops and the difficulties in coordinating White’s
position mean that the battle is far from over.  Paul fought tenaciously, but
his position on the board and the clock were too bad to allow for a full
recovery, and I won on move 41.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Motwani - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5rk1/ppq3bp/1np2np1/2N1r1B1/8/5B1P/PP3PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Last move ...Rxe5 it's a serious mistake.  How can White punish this?} 1. Ne6
{Right! Now Black loses an exchange.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Motwani"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "42"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 g6 5. d4 Bg7 6. Be2 O-O 7. O-O Bg4 8. cxd5
Nxd5 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 e6 11. e4 Nb6 12. e5 N8d7 13. Ne4 Qc7 14. Bg5 f5 15.
exf6 Nxf6 16. Nc5 Rae8 {Black is fully mobilized and has a variety of ideas
including ...Nfd5-f4 and ...e5.  Although ...e5 will 'open up the position for
the two bishops' it will also give Black's rooks considerable activity which
is not ideal given my lack of development.  Moreover, the pawn-structure
allows Black to have a very well-anchored knight on d5, which in most cases is
at least as good as my light-squared bishop.  For these reasons I was keen to
prevent ...e5 and my thoughts revolved around this aim. I also realized that
if I could prevent ... e5, Black would be rendered very passive, and e6 could
become weak.} 17. Re1 Qf7 {The queen no longer covers e5, but Black has a
somewhat ominous presence on the f-file and ...Nfd5 and ...e5 is still pending.
17...e5 18.dxe5 Rxe5 19.Ne6 is a very important tactic here  17...e5 18.dxe5
Rxe5 19.Ne6} 18. Bh4 {This is the key prophylactic move and is a good example
of what I was saying about prophylaxis being a very ‘active’ notion.  This
move overprotects f2 and thus comforts my king, and the main aim is to cover
e5 from the g3-square.  These are all ‘negative’ aims, in the sense that
I’m just preventing the opponent’s plans, but only by doing so can I allow
myself to implement my own plans successfully, and part of the plan is to
threaten to cause trouble by landing my versatile bishop on d6.  18.Bf4 also
strong.  Didn’t seem so clear to me after 18...Nc4 didn’t like the
vulnerability of my bishop on f4, and the most forcing line seems to end in
Black’s favour: 19.b3  19.Qe2!? e5 20.dxe5 Nh5 21.Bxh5 Qxf4 22.Nd3 Nb2 23.
Nxf4 Nxd1 24.Nxg6 hxg6 25.Bxg6 Re6} Nfd5 19. Bg3 {Black’s plans have
effectively been stopped and it’s hard to make sense of his position. On the
other hand, White has threats of Bg4 and Bd6.  It often happens this way with
prophylaxis: that when you ‘plug’ your opponent’s intentions, your own
plans flood into the position} e5 {An excellent practical decision. Those who
know Paul will not be surprised to hear that I consider him relatively
resistant to Egoism!  Here this manifests itself by having the serenity to
accept that he is worse and making a fight of it by starting a new type of
game.} 20. dxe5 Nf4 21. Bxf4 Qxf4 {Now there are various ways to keep the
extra pawn, but the presence of opposite-coloured bishops and the difficulties
in coordinating White’s position mean that the battle is far from over. 
Paul fought tenaciously, but his position on the board and the clock were too
bad to allow for a full recovery, and I won on move 41.  Scottish Ch,
Edinburgh 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2qk1nr/pp1n2pp/2pbp3/3p1p2/2PP4/BP3BP1/P3PP1P/RN1Q1RK1 b kq - 0 9"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{It seems clear that dropping the bishop back to g2 will be a good idea sooner
or later, allowing for f3 intending e4, or maybe to put a knight on f3. That
said, what is the best way to continue the develpoment?} 9... Ndf6 {The closed
position means that there is no rush to develop the g8-knight and, in any case,
after  9...Bxa3 10.Nxa3 the knight is on its way to its ideal square, d3. This
is already prophylactic thinking - I am aware of where my opponent's pieces
should go.  On d3 the knight covers c5, e5 and f4, and can support b4 aswell.
Since it's not in my interest to help the knight get there, I decide how I
relate to my opponent's intention and in doing so I find the optimal
development for my pieces.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3k2r/pp3npp/2pqpn2/3p1p2/2PP4/1P4P1/P1QNPPBP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 13"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{What does White want here?  I decided that White's plans were based around
making use of his bishop, either with f3 and e4 or else a gradual advance on
the queenside and bringing the bishop into play on the f1-a6 diagonal.  I
could just castle and play ...a5 but that seemed a bit vague and wouldn't test
my opponent in any way. Knowing this, what should be the next move of Black?} 
13... h5 {The beginning of a plan! The main idea of this move is prophylactic
in that by targeting g3 I discourage the idea of f3 and e4 and by threatening
to soften the kingside I oblige the bishop to stay near the king.  The other
idea is actually to trap the bishop! I want to push the bishop to h1 with ...
h3 and then play ...g5-g4 after which, in theory, it is trapped because even
f3 and e4 cannot change the structure in any way which would allow the bishop
to move.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3k2r/pp3np1/3qpn2/3p1p1p/3P4/1P4P1/P1QNPPBP/2R2RK1 b kq - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{White wants to controll the c-file and if Black plays passively next move may
be ...Qc7 dominating the seventh rank with some pressure.  What is the most
human continuation?} 15... Kd7 {Machines prefer ...g5 or ...h4, but I like
this move preventing ...Qc7 and connecting the rooks.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7r/rp2knp1/p2qpn2/2Np1p2/1P1P4/3Q1PPp/P3P2P/2R2RKB b - - 0 21"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{White's last move 20.f3 inttending 21.e4 should be unpleasant, but here I
found a way to get the initiative.  How Black can continue here?} 21... b6 {
Forcing White to take a decision! This is more accurate than  21...f4 because
he gives White the murkly option of 22.e4 fxg3 23.e5 gxh2+ 24.Kxh2 Nxe5 25.
dxe5 Qxe5+ 26.f4} 22. Nxa6 f4 {with pressure. Black is doing well.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7r/r3knp1/Np1qpn2/3p4/1P1P1pP1/3Q1P1p/P3P2P/2R2RKB b - - 0 23"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black's position looks tight, but here I have a good move to solve these
problems. How?} 23... b5 {Freeing the knight, but making use of the rooks.} 24.
Nc5 Rxa2 {Now the rooks come into play!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4knp1/3qpn2/1QNp4/1P1P1pP1/5P1p/r3P2P/5RKB b - - 0 27"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White is playing without his white squared bishop.  How can Black take
advantage of his better coordination?} 27... Qc7 {A multipurpose move! Freeing
d6 for the knight, covering b7 and intending ...Qa7-a3.} 28. Rc1 Qa7 29. Kf1 {
This is a big mistake which clarifies the situation in Black's favour. White
has lots of alternatives, most of which leave the position unclear.} Ra1 {
From a practical point of view I would always prefer to play Black in such a
position, if only because it must be hard for White to adjust psychologically
to that bishop on h1.  It's like a corpse, which is there in body but not in
spirit or like the brain death of a family member over whom we cannot grieve. 
Although it may 'awaken' at any time, I can't help but feel that the position
wouldn't be so different if the white king were to nudge it off the board.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Cummings vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "65"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Bg4 3. Bg2 Nd7 4. d4 e6 5. O-O Bd6 6. b3 c6 7. c4 Bxf3 8. Bxf3
f5 {Ess@ntially we now have a Stonewall Dutch with Black having carried out
the task of the elaborate manoeuvre ...Bd7-e8-h5 followed by ...Bxf3 in two
moves instead of four.  I already prefer Black's position, if only because I
have the advantages of a Stonewall îîStartBracketîîspace, kingside attacking
chances, solidityîîEndBracketîî without the disadvantages
îîStartBracketîîfinding a role for the c8-bishop, dark-square weaknesses,
White's e5 outpostîîEndBracketîî.  That said, the position is still about
equal because there's nothing much wrong with White's position, and the two
bishops should ultimately count for something.} 9. Ba3 {This is a significant
positional error.  In the Stonewall it is generally favourable to exchange
these bishops, and often in this way, because White can try to exploit the
dark-square weaknesses in Black's position and hope to show the remaining
light-squared bishop to be 'bad'.  But here I have no bad pieces remaining,
and have no problems covering the dark squares with my knights. Indeed, I have
space for all my pieces and I feel sorry for White's remaining bishop on f3
which has, according to the appropriate cliché, to bite on granite.  However,
the main reason this move is mistaken is that it gives away the hermaphrodite,
which was the only positive feature of White's position. As was suggested in
the previous chapter, this is equivalent to giving away material.  I suppose
my opponent fell victim to the conventional idea that since my pawns are on
light squares, exchanging my dark-squared bishop must be an achievement, but
this is only one aspect of the position, and not the most significant one.  It
seems clear that dropping the bishop back to g2 will be a good idea sooner or
later, allowing for f3 intending e4, or maybe to put a knight on f3.  9.Bg2!?
seems to be the best move.  Moreover, it is useful to know where Black will
put his king's knight before developing the queenside pieces, and this move
order prevents 9...Nh6 9...Ngf6 10.Nd2 O-O 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.Rb1!? to keep the
bishop with Ba1 after ...Ba3 12...a5 13.Qc2 the game is balanced} Ndf6 {
The closed position means that there is no rush to develop the g8-knight and,
in any case, after  9...Bxa3 10.Nxa3 the knight is on its way to its ideal
square, d3.  This is already prophylactic thinking - I am aware of where my
opponent's pieces should go. On d3 the knight covers c5, e5 and f4, and can
support b4 as well.  Since it's not in my interest to help the knight get
there, I decide how I relate to my opponent's intention and in doing so I find
the optimal development for my pieces.} 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. Nd2 Nh6 12. Bg2 Nf7
13. Qc2 {What does White want here? I decided that White's plans were based
around making use of his bishop, either with f3 and e4 or else a gradual
advance on the queenside and bringing the bishop into play on the f1-a6
diagonal.  To keep the bishop at bay, it is in my interest to keep the centre
closed, so I wasn't too keen on plans involving central pawn-breaks like ...e5
or ...c5.  I could just castle and play ...a5 but that seemed a bit vague and
wouldn't test my opponent in any way. In the end I decided that my threesome
on the f-file indicate that I should seek play on the kingside, and my h8-rook
was very quick to agree.} h5 {The@main idea of this move is prophylactic in
that by targeting g3 I discourage the idea of f3 and e4 and by threatening to
soften the kingside I oblige the bishop to stay near the king. The other idea
is actually to trap the bishop!  I want to push the bishop to h1 with ...h3
and then play ...g5-g4 after which, in theory, it is trapped because even f3
and e4 cannot change the structure in any way which would allow the bishop to
move.  I didn't really think I would find time to achieve this, but I enjoyed
the idea all the same.  Moreover, I remember showing this idea to IM Luke
McShane a few days later when, after a momentary glance to check that the
bishop would indeed be trapped on h1, he couldn't contain his laughter!
îîStartBracketîî'the unexpected punchline'îîEndBracketîî.  This was my main
idea, but it's important not to be too rigid, and there is some chance that an
attack down the h-file might transpire if White is too slow with his
counterplay.} 14. cxd5 cxd5 15. Rac1 {intending Qc7} Kd7 {preventing Qc7 and
connecting the rooks.} 16. Qd3 {intending Qb5+} a6 {preventing Qb5+} 17. b4 {
b5 does not seem to be such a huge threat because I can just leave it, and
while White is working out what to do next I will probably play ...Ng5
intending ...Ne4 or nasties down the h-file. Nb3-c5 is a more serious idea
because I don't want to weaken the c6-square by playing b6, if only because b5
and Rc6 would then be dangerous.  I had quite a deep think and I saw even if
the knight gets to c5 there was a way I could try to remove it, so I went
ahead with my idea.} h4 18. Nb3 {After  18.b5!? Ng5!? I still prefer Black,
but I must admit that it's quite unclear.} h3 {There comes a point where you
have to commit, and I decided that h-file action was less likely to succeed
than the slower plan of playing against White's bishop.  Moreover, as we saw
in the last chapter, such an alien in White's camp is such a significant
positional feature that it can be considered as a material advantage for Black.
However, in a few moves I suffer from lack of kingside counterplay, so I
suspect that this was not the right time to play this move.} 19. Nc5+ Ke7 20.
Bh1 {The@text-move îîStartBracketîî20.Bh1îîEndBracketîî is not so kind to the
bishop, but it keeps the rest of White's position healthy and I have to stay
on guard against f3 and e4. When I showed this game to GM Dharshan Kumaran, he
raised his eyebrows at this point, and suggested that White should prefer  20.
Bf3 intending e3 20...Ra7 21.e3 Rha8 Black will play ...b6 and then probably ..
.g5 and maybe ...g4 to keep the bishop from breathing.} Ra7 {was pleased with
this move, which makes creative use of my rooks.  The main idea is just to
play ...Rha8 and then ...b6. Without this move, it is difficult to remove the
knight from c5, which is by far White's most effective piece in this position.}
21. f3 {I s@spect this is too ambitious, though it is admirable that White
should try to strike while his knight on c5 is still hot.  21.a4! intending to
fix the queenside structure with a5 and thus keep the knight on c5.  Looks
like a better way to cut across Black's plans îîStartBracketîîprophylactic
thinkingîîEndBracketîî.  White can afford to be a little slow now that the
kingside is closed. Even if I succeed in trapping the bishop with ...g5-g4
there is too much happening in the position for this to be a decisive gain.  I
have to admit that I think White is objectively a bit better after 21...Rha8?!
22.a5! because it is difficult for Black to use his rooks, but in a real game
the position would be felt to be more unclear than anything else, and there
are still plenty of chances for both sides.} b6 {This is more accurate than 
21...f4 because he gives White the murky option of 22.e4 fxg3 23.e5 gxh2+ 24.
Kxh2 Nxe5 25.dxe5 Qxe5+ 26.f4} 22. Nxa6 f4 23. g4 {23.gxf4 b5 24.Nc5 Qxf4
gives Black a dangerous attack. While  23.e4? fails to 23...dxe4 24.fxe4 fxg3
25.e5 Nxe5} b5 {Freeing the knight, but making use of the rooks.} 24. Nc5 Rxa2
25. Ra1 {The more pieces that are exchanged, the more significant is the
'burial' of the bishop on h1, so in principle White may have been better off
without trading rooks:  25.Qxb5!? Rb8 26.Nb7! Qd7 27.Qc5+ after  27.Qxd7+ Nxd7
28.Na5 Nd8! Black is in control. Ke8 28.Na5 Rxe2 29.Nc6 Ra8 30.Rc2 Rxc2 31.
Qxc2 Rc8 32.b5 Nd6 with a messy position.} Rha8 26. Rxa2 Rxa2 27. Qxb5 Qc7 {
Freeing d6 for the knight, covering b7 and intending ...Qa7-a3.} 28. Rc1 Qa7
29. Kf1 {This is a big mistake which clarifies the situation in Black's favour.
White has lots of alternatives, most of which leave the position unclear. 
From a practical point of view I would always prefer to play Black in such a
position, if only because it must be hard for White to adjust psychologically
to that bishop on h1.  It's like a corpse, which is there in body but not in
spirit or like the brain death of a family member over whom we cannot grieve. 
Although it may 'awaken' at any time, I can't help but feel that the position
wouldn't be so different if the white king were to nudge it off the board.} Ra1
30. Nb3 Rxc1+ 31. Nxc1 Qxd4 32. Qc5+ Qxc5 33. bxc5 {This is not as easy to win
as it looks because White's knight and c-pawn form an annoying pair and it's
not easy to defend the f4- and h3- pawns.  All the same, I eventually
prevailed on move 60. British League (4NCL) 1997/8} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 5 - Egoism"]
[Black "Other Faces of Egoism"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîOther Faces of EgoismîîHeaderEndîî1 - Luck It is often said
that there is no such thing as luck in chess, and that this is one of the
things that makes our game so noble. Yet there do seem to be times when we
feel luck is on our side, and there are certain players whom we refer to as
‘lucky’.  In my opinion, the luckiest players tend to be the most
confident players who play the most inter-subjective chess. There may even be
a correlation between the degree of ‘egocentricity’ a player shows and his
propensity to ‘luck’ but I’ve no idea how you might test this.  I
certainly think there is some truth in Benko’s claim that games lost through
‘bad luck’ were actually lost because of ‘bad psychology’. A ll I can
suggest in this respect is that with a healthy supply of self-confidence and a
robust ego that knows its limits, ‘luck’ can be attained in large measures.
2 - Fear “Fear has big eyes” according to a Russian proverb and all
chess-players experience fear.  This fear is often ego-related in that we
don’t just feel that a piece or king is under attack; more often than not we
think “I am under attack”, so fear is often felt as a response to a threat
to the ego.  It would foolish to say ‘have no fear’ because fear is
actually very useful in chess and life in giving us that vital sense of danger
which helps us to stay alive.  However, you mustn’t let fear dominate your
thoughts or be the cause of your decisions, and if you are afraid, try to
establish whether your fears are well grounded or whether they are based on
emotional memories or external factors like losing out on prize money.  Rather
than run from your fear, or let it overwhelm you, incorporate it into your
inter-subjective perspective during play. Once again, the best way to deal
with your psychological problems is to ‘share’ them with your opponent! 
The following quotation from Tal is instructive in this respect:  “Later I
began to succeed in decisive games. Perhaps because I realized a very simple
truth: not only was I worried, but also my opponent.”  It is important to
realize this, in order to cope with the nervous tension we experience during a
game.  Rather than be totally absorbed in your own anxieties, remember that
your opponent has problems too.  3 - Role Playing This is often related to
status or rating and occurs when one player assumes a ‘role’ during a game,
e.g. the weak player being outplayed by the club champion.  Sometimes players
just expect to lose and then when they find they have the worse position they
just take it as normal and wait for the inevitable.  This is related to Egoism
in that a big factor with ego is ‘self identity’and you will tend to try
to play out that identity in your chess games.  This can also occur to
stronger players who assume their role is to beat a weaker player and then get
frustrated and play badly when it turns out not to be so easy.  The key here
is to see yourself as a different person before every game. Don’t identify
yourself with any label or role. Dig deep into your own resources and try to
exploit your opponent’s expectations of how the game should develop.  4 -
Performing  This is related to the last point about identity and reveals
itself in those posers who think about how spectacular or impressive their
play is during the game, and hope that people are watching as they play a
certain cunning move.  It can also reveal itself in ‘premature
annotations’ for those who write a lot about chess. I myself have suffered
from this on a few occasions, where I started verbally describing my moves and
their logic to myself before the game was even finished!  ‘Performing’ can
also make you more afraid of ‘being outplayed’ than losing, since whereas
you can normally find an excuse for losing, it is a direct attack on your ego
if your opponent demonstrates a superior understanding of chess.  The day I
realized that I had this problem was the day I lost the game to Julian Hodgson
shown in Chapter 3. It made me laugh, and thankfully I think I’ve overcome
it now.  Above all else, ‘performing’ is very bad for concentration, and
is liable to take your mind off the more important task of playing good moves.
The only advice I can offer is that if impressing people matters to you then
you are much more likely to do this by being yourself and concentrating on the
game. Only then are you likely to play chess worthy of attention. 
îîHeaderStartîîConclusion:îîHeaderEndîîEgoism is a multi-faceted sin which is
the source of all errors stemming from our awareness of ourselves as subjects
during play.  The best way to try to overcome it is to adopt an
‘inter-subjective’ perspective, whereby you acknowledge your own
responsibility as a subject towards the outcome of the game and remain fully
aware of the presence of your opponent from a psychological (responsibility)
and positional point of view (prophylaxis) .} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîPerfectionismîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîPerfection is
spelt p-a-r-a-l-y-s-i-s. îîEndBlockQuoteîîWINSTON CHURCHILL  This, the most
noble of the sins, lies at the heart of the chess-player’s favourite excuse
- time trouble.  Yet time-trouble is not really a sin in itself, but rather a
result of certain thinking processes.  So it seems more useful to look at this
type of thinking in all its aspects before making general claims about why we
run short of time.  Perfectionism manifests itself as the desire to find the
best move on each and every occasion, but it is more than this in its
essential character.  The perfectionist looks to an ideal, a model of
perfection, and then tries to play in a way that resembles such a model. 
Perfectionists thus strive to play chess not as the chess-player they are, but
as the chess-player that they assume themselves to be when they are most
perfect.  I will focus on three faces of Perfectionism: ‘Moralizing’ 
(punishing the opponent) , ‘Copy-cat Crime’ (trying to emulate another
player) , and ‘Jam lust’ (asking too much of your position) .  Only then
will we be in a good position to look more closely at time-trouble and the
related problem of indecision.  My central claim in this chapter is that
Perfectionism results primarily from lack of confidence, and that most
perfectionists are players who don’t feel at ease with their current playing
strength.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Moralizing"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîMoralizingîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîJudge not, lest
thee be judged. îîEndBlockQuoteîîR.E.M., New Test Leper  There are many
players who have developed a good understanding of chess from strategic
guidelines outlined in books and many more who have detailed knowledge of the
do’s and don’ts of certain opening lines.  Such players should be very
careful when playing because there is a great temptation to ‘moralize’
about how certain positions should be played.  This is especially so when you
have formed your views on chess more from reading books and listening to
teachers than from playing, because you tend to look at moves with regard to
whether they make sense with reference to what you have learned, rather than
whether they are strong from a practical point of view.  There is sometimes a
temptation to think along the lines of ‘he shouldn’t be able to do that’,
‘that’s not the way you’re supposed to play such a position’, ‘in
this type of position that sort of idea is wrong and must be shown to be
wrong’.  This is some sort of hangover from seeing chess as a rule-governed
activity.  It is a typical problem for perfectionists who strive for the ideal
of perfect chess and feel any deviation from this perfection as something to
be treated very seriously.  This ‘desire to punish’ is very corrosive, and
leads you to see all sorts of problems and solutions that aren’t there.  The
problem manifests itself by thinking of yourself as some sort of moral
authority who can and should judge the validity of chess ideas.  This is
liable to lead you to spend copious amounts of time looking for non-existent
retributions for alleged immoral acts on the board and/or being blind to your
own mistakes, because in assuming the role of moralizer, you forget your own
failings.  I will explore these ideas throughout the following game, in which
I was up against a phenomenally strong player with the black pieces. I was
determined to play well, but somehow I felt I could only do this if I made
sense of his moves with reference to mine.  I anticipated that most of his
moves would be ‘perfect’ and thus I felt I had to react very severely to
any move which didn’t adhere to this standard, for I may not have another
chance.  This disastrous state of mind led to some comical thoughts, but they
are not so unique and I believe many players have this problem of
‘moralizing’.  Once you have decided that the game ‘ought’ to be
played in a certain way it is very difficult to make sensible assessments.} 1.
Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Morozevich vs. Rowson - Exerc"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/4bppp/p2p1n2/4p3/1p2P1PP/2N1BP2/PPPQ4/2KR1B1R w - - 0 14"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{The white knight on c3 is being attacked.  How should White continue?} 14. Na4
{Despite my experience on both sides of the Sicilian, I assumed that this was
some type of gain for Black and that the knight was badly placed here.  I also
had some strange thought along the lines of his kingside attack not being so
dangerous with the knight so far away.  This seems crazy now, and only makes
sense with reference to my 'moralizing' mindset. Other moves:  14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.
Qxd5 Be6 is good for Black  14.Ne2 Qa5 then 15.Kb1 Be6 16.Nc1 d5!? I tried
hard to force this type of position because it had made a strong impression on
me as a youngster. Things never seem so easy when you're sitting opposite a
2750 though, and Morozevich demonstrated that White is not worse even here:
after 17.g5 d4 18.Bxd4! Nxe4 19.fxe4 exd4 20.Bh3 Bc4! 21.Qxd4 Bb5 White's
extra pawn and central control seem to outweigh Black's structural and bishop
advantage.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Morozevich vs. Rowson - Exerc"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1rbq1rk1/4bppp/p2p1n2/4p1P1/Np2P2P/4BP2/PPPQ4/2KR1B1R b - - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Another crucial decision, now it is Black's turn.  What is the best square
for the attacked knight?  Try also to find out why.} 15... Nh5 {is the best
option. It holds up the kingside and makes 12...e5 look respectable.
Morozevich described this as 'normal'.  After  15...Ne8?! looks unimpressive,
but is probably better than what I played. Then 16.h5!? Qa5  16...Bd7 17.Nc5
Bb5 18.Bxb5 Rxb5 19.g6 17.b3 Bd7 18.g6 Bxa4 19.bxa4 favours White  15...Nd7?
Played quickly, still under the illusion that I was OK and looking forward to .
..Bb7-c6 I rejected other moves because they didn't seem consistent with the
idea of punishing him: 16.b3! A strong waiting move, which removes any worries
White may have over his wayward knight.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Morozevich vs. Rowson - Exerc"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1r1q1rk1/1b1nbppp/p2p4/4p1PP/Np2P3/1P2BP2/P1PQ4/2KR1B1R b - - 0 17"]
[PlyCount "6"]

{I played this ...f5 with some vague notion that I was now making sense of all
my pieces. Although it is a good idea to talk with your pieces, it is
important not to become too dogmatic about it.} 17... f5 {I played this with
some vague notion that I was now making sense of all my pieces. Although it is
a good idea to talk with your pieces, it is important not to become too
dogmatic about it.  Whatever I may have thought about my own pieces working
well together at the time, it is clear to me now that all of White's pieces
are better than mine. At the time I was too busy 'moralizing' to think that I
might myself be making some 'immoral' judgements.  This is fairly typical of
people who moralize, they rarely stop to question their own fallibility. The
fact that I might be totally lost hadn't occurred to me at all and yet this
now seems to be the case. 17...Bc6 would have been better, but 18 g6 still
looks very nasty indeed.  17...Bc6 18.g6} 18. Bc4+ {It @s shocking to think
that I was pleased to see this îîStartBracketîîbecause he could no longer take
en passantîîEndBracketîî. In my warped state of mind I considered this good
news since he now has to sacrifice a piece to attack my king.  This is typical
of what happens when your chess becomes 'idealistic'- you think in overly
general terms about adherence to rules and forget about the position in front
of you.} Kh8 19. g6 {Only now did I appreciate the finality of the threat of
h6. My position is completely lost, and as Nigel Short so kindly put it after
the game, it looks like the type of position he would expect to get in a
simultaneous display.} h6 {19...f4 20.h6! is the end and dur to this there's
no way to hold Black's position  19...fxe4 20.h6 isn't any better} 20. Bxh6 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Morozevich vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "51"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 Be7 8. Qd2
O-O 9. O-O-O Nc6 10. g4 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 {This move is under-rated and probably
no worse than  11.Bxd4} b5 12. h4 {12.g5 Nd7 13.h4 This is actually a
quasi-transposition to a Keres Attack with 6... Nc6 where White has chosen to
play the semi-relevant 13.f3 instead of the strong move 13.h5! which was
discovered by GM Paul Motwani.} e5 {Thi@ was my attempted 'punishment'.
Interestingly, when I asked him immediately after the game, Morozevich wasn't
so sure that 12...e5 was bad, but just that it was 'risky'.  This is typical
of my experience with superstrong GMs, they are reluctant to give definitive
assessments until they've had a very close look.  I give here a few
alternatives we considered in the post-mortem to show how the game might have
developed if I hadn't been so keen to play a perfect game:  After 12...Nd7 13.
h5!? was Alexander's main idea. Pushing the h-pawn before the g-pawn makes
good sense with the queen on d4 because of the threat of h6 and the mate on g7.
Now the position can become complicated very quickly, e.g. anticipating a
transposition with  13.g5 13...h6 14.g5!? Bxg5 15.Rg1 Ne5 16.f4 Nf3 17.Qd3 and
now: I tentatively suggested 17...Bh4!? as an alternative to the complications,
but it wasn't taken as seriously as I might have liked.  By stander GM James
Plaskett quipped 'Scottish school of chess'. Morozevich, surprise surprise,
was not intimidated: 'Scottish school hah
îîStartBracketîîsmilingîîEndBracketîî, well, this move I don't believe.' 
Indeed 18.Rh1 leaves my minor pieces in a bit of pickle.  17...Nxg1 18.fxg5
Nf3∞ We stopped this line here.  The position is very unclear. 18.Rh1  After
12...Qa5! However 13.g5 is critical  13.Kb1 b4 14.Ne2 e5 15.Qd2 Be6 16.Nc1
leads to the type of position I was seeking in the game. White's attack has
not yet developed and Black is well mobilized. 16...Qc7!?  16...d5!?  16...
Rfc8!? all leave Black with good play.} 13. Qd2 b4 14. Na4 {Des@ite my
experience on both sides of the Sicilian, I assumed that this was some type of
gain for Black and that the knight was badly placed here.  I also had some
strange thought along the lines of his kingside attack not being so dangerous
with the knight so far away. This seems crazy now, and only makes sense with
reference to my 'moralizing' mindset. Other moves:  14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Be6 is
good for Black  14.Ne2 Qa5 then 15.Kb1  15.a3 is met by 15...Rb8 It's strange
that I gave this much attention. Be6 16.Nc1 d5!? I tried hard to force this
type of position because it had made a strong impression on me as a youngster.
I especially liked the way that Black gained space and time with tempo
îîStartBracketîîsimilar ideas are seen in the Rauzer with ... a6 and ...
h6îîEndBracketîî.  Things never seem so easy when you're sitting opposite a
2750 though, and Morozevich demonstrated that White is not worse even here:
after 17.g5 d4 18.Bxd4! Nxe4  18...exd4 19.gxf6 Bxf6 20.f4⩲ looks slightly
better for White, because d4 is weak and it will be difficult for Black to
avoid the exchange of light-squared bishop 19.fxe4 exd4 20.Bh3 Bc4! 21.Qxd4
Bb5 White's extra pawn and central control seem to outweigh Black's structural
and bishop advantage.  The big problem here was that my moralizing prevented
me from seeing the position with any clarity. Assuming that such a line would
be good for me was wrong and trying to force it even when it wasn't remotely
forced was wrong.  I wrote in my post-game notes: 'This danger- ours pathology
of trying to navigate yourself towards a line that appeals to you is well
worth eradicating.'  Such a phenomenon is fairly typical of Perfectionism in
that you think there is a way the game ought to develop and then when your
opponent deviates îîStartBracketîîshows himself to be 'deviant'îîEndBracketîî
there is a temptation to think that he is 'guilty', rather than question your
own misplaced 'morality'.} Rb8 {Now I was happy, content to have sidelined the
knight and looking forward to attacking it. This is very poor judgement.  It
struck me after the game that I have some sort of problem of a more general
nature with the idea that a king-side attack cannot succeed with away ward
piece on the other side of the board.  This is interesting with regard to the
relationship between dynamics and statics in that when seen by itself the
knight is indeed statically bad on a4 because it has little scope and is
difficult to defend, but in fact the knight is by no means misplaced on a4. 
GM Danny King made the point very lucidly when he said that this one piece
holds up my queenside play, and since the main theme in the position is
competing attacks, the knight is a hero of the white army and an irritation
for Black.  Thinking dynamically, I should only reach this position with some
concrete variations in mind with regard to attacking this knight.  Moreover, I
think I kidded myself into thinking this was OK because I badly wanted to play
the line with 14.Ne2. I also wanted to take advantage of h4 instead of g5 and
thinking that I deserved to assume the initiative clouded my judgement.} 15. g5
Nd7 {Played quickly, still under the illusion that I was OK and looking
forward to ...Bb7-c6 I rejected other moves because they didn't seem
consistent with the idea of punishing him:  15...Ne8?! looks unimpressive, but
is probably better than what I played.  Then 16.h5!? Qa5  16...Bd7 17.Nc5 Bb5
18.Bxb5 Rxb5 19.g6 17.b3 Bd7 18.g6 Bxa4 19.bxa4 favours White  15...Nh5! is
best. It holds up the kingside and makes 12...e5 look respectable. Morozevich
described this as 'normal'.  After 16.Bc4 all I could think of was that it was
impossible to make progress on the queenside and that it would be difficult to
attack the a4-knight with ...Bd7 because of the tactical resource Nc5 16...
Bd7!? because of the tactical resource  16...Be6 17.Bb3 Qc7 is also
comfortable for Black 17.Nc5 This was Egoism as much as Perfectionism because
I didn't stop to think of how the respective positions looked from my
opponent's point of view.  However, my failure to evaluate these lines
correctly had more to do with my 'desire to punish', which I could only fulfil
if I could exploit that wayward knight on a4.  17.Bb3!? Qa5 18.Nc5 17...Bb5 18.
Bxb5 Rxb5 19.Nb3 White is no more than slightly better, if that, because his
knight is on a bad route and will soon be hassled by the a-pawn.  These lines
suggest that 12...e5 wasn't really so bad after all, but the spirit in which
it was played was woeful.} 16. b3 {A strong waiting move, which removes any
worries White may have over his wayward knight. 'I just wanted to show you
that you had nothing', said my opponent.  Indeed it is already very difficult
for Black to find an adequate answer to the inevitable pawn-storm on the
kingside.} Bb7 {Played with a certain amount of confidence, given that I had
assured myself that taking on b4 was not good for White.} 17. h5 {17.Qxb4 d5
gives Black strong counterplay.  It was fairly stupid even to think that my
opponent might grab such a pawn but the fact that he couldn't take it safely
made me feel quite 'righteous' about my strategy.} f5 {I played this with some
vague notion that I was now making sense of all my pieces. Although it is a
good idea to talk with your pieces, it is important not to become too dogmatic
about it.  Whatever I may have thought about my own pieces working well
together at the time, it is clear to me now that all of White's pieces are
better than mine.  At the time I was too busy 'moralizing' to think that I
might myself be making some 'immoral' judgements. This is fairly typical of
people who moralize, they rarely stop to question their own fallibility.  The
fact that I might be totally lost hadn't occurred to me at all and yet this
now seems to be the case. 17...Bc6 would have been better, but 18 g6 still
looks very nasty indeed.  17...Bc6 18.g6} 18. Bc4+ {It @s shocking to think
that I was pleased to see this îîStartBracketîîbecause he could no longer take
en passantîîEndBracketîî. In my warped state of mind I considered this good
news since he now has to sacrifice a piece to attack my king.  This is typical
of what happens when your chess becomes 'idealistic'- you think in overly
general terms about adherence to rules and forget about the position in front
of you.} Kh8 19. g6 {Only now did I appreciate the finality of the threat of
h6. My position is completely lost, and as Nigel Short so kindly put it after
the game, it looks like the type of position he would expect to get in a
simultaneous display.} h6 {19...f4 20.h6! is the end and dur to this there's
no way to hold Black's position  19...fxe4 20.h6 isn't any better} 20. Bxh6
fxe4 21. Rdg1 e3 22. Qxe3 d5 23. Bxg7+ Kxg7 24. h6+ Kf6 25. g7 dxc4 26. h7 {
The@final position deserves a diagram. I guess I didn't quite succeed in
punishing him after all. The moral îîStartBracketîî!îîEndBracketîî of the
story is not to moralize during a chess game.  Nobody plays perfect chess and
you are liable to make your chess much more imperfect if you strive to
'punish' your opponents for their imperfection.  In particular, don't assume a
move you hadn't expected is bad; often it's just a sign that you should look
at the position more closely to see what else you haven't seen.  British
League (4NCL) 1999/00} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Copy-Cat Crime"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîCopy-Cat CrimeîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîFollow that
will and that way which experience confirms to be your own.
îîEndBlockQuoteîîCARL JUNG  The ‘crime’ here is to play your moves in
accordance with what you think a player you admire would do in the same
situation.  This leads to very similar problems to those we saw in ‘The
Trappings of Analogy’ in Chapter 1 and this sort of ‘cut and paste’
approach to chess invariably fails to make best use of your abilities.  Before
we consider why this might be the case, please be clear that I am not saying
you should never think of how, e.g. Shirov, Karpov, or Petrosian would play
the position you have in front of you, because it can often be an excellent
way to ‘jump out’ of your patterns.  There are definitely times when this
is useful, but most of the time I think it will lead you astray. The most
important thing is not to use this type of technique as a matter of course. 
The player (s) you admire have developed their style over several years based
on unique personal experience and study.  What you think of as their
‘style’ is unlikely to be an accurate reflection of what their style
actually is, and they will usually be strong enough to ‘jump out’ of their
normal way of playing when the position requires it.  What’s more, it may
well be such a position you are considering when you try to ‘copy’ them. 
I mention this in the context of Perfectionism because it is consistent with
the idea of creating an ‘ideal’ against which to base your efforts.  It is
dangerous not only because the ‘ideal’ is not always as perfect as you
think it is, but we are liable to misunderstand the ideal in any case, and
since reaching it may be beyond us, even trying to get there may be mistaken.} 
1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Bryson vs. Rowson - Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rkr1/1p3pq1/p1b1pn1p/3p4/5P2/2NR2PQ/PPPRB3/2K5 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{I sensed that this was a key moment in the game and knew the time was ripe
for some sort of transformation.  In the game I didn't find the best
continuation. Can you find it?} 1... e5 {Why is so strong this move. After
looking at this position for a bit it was clear to all of us that White was
faced with big problems and had no significant counterplay. White’s king is
quite uncomfortable, and there’s no comforting move that will make it less
so.} 2. fxe5 Rxe5 {Seems at first sight very weakening, but when you look at
the position without prejudice you see that Black’s position now really
comes alive and all that is bad about White’s position comes to the fore. 
After looking at this position for a bit it was clear to all of us that White
was faced with big problems and had no significant counterplay.  White’s
king is quite uncomfortable, and there’s no comforting move that will make
it less so.} 3. Bf3 Qg5 {This move reveals the strength of the idea playing...
e5! Which is to have a safe square for the king on g7 and exploit White’s
jumbled pieces.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Bryson vs. Rowson"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4rkr1/1p3pq1/p1b1pn1p/3p4/5P2/2NR2PQ/PPPRB3/2K5 b - - 0 28"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{I sensed that this was a key moment in the game and knew the time was ripe
for some sort of transformation.  I would have placed this example in Chapter
2 had it not been for the way I went about deciding on my move. Shortly prior
to this game I had finished my six-game match with GM Michael Adams.  I
learned a great deal in the process of preparing, playing and analyzing for
the games with Adams and had begun to feel that I had some idea of how
‘Mickey’ plays chess.  So, after a little bit of personal rumination about
how to proceed didn’t yield any thing, I asked myself what Mickey would play
here.  At first I thought he would play a move which just improves the
position without changing it much, because he’s rather good at that sort of
thing. I couldn’t see such a move though, so I assumed he would calmly
re-route the f6-knight to c5 and slowly probe White into making a mistake. 
However, looking at this more closely didn’t convince me of its merits.  In
general I wasn’t keen to swap the g3-pawn for the h6-pawn, so it’s not
clear that my knight is any better on c5 than it is on f6.   After 1...Nd7!? 2.
Bd1 Nc5 3.Rd4 Qxg3 4.Qxh6+  I am still a pawn up, and no doubt better, but
it’s not clear what the future holds for my king. Therefore I figured he
would do something else. 28...Ne4 is clearly an idea but I wasn’t Bryson –
Rowson Aberdeen 1998 happy to relieve the tension so soon. Then, perhaps
unconsciously, I had something like a visual image of Mickey playing the move
28...Ne4 and without much further ado, convinced myself that there was nothing
better. What I find a little bit eerie is the absence of any real
justification for this move, other than the fact that I thought Mickey would
play it. I couldn’t understand why this transpired, and still don’t fully,
but the image of Mickey playing a strong ...Ne4 must have been lodged in my
memory banks with some emotional content because in games 3 (21...Nxe4) (and 5)
(22...Ne4) (of our match it was this move that hastened my downfall and even
now I can picture him playing these moves.  This is rather speculative of
course, but to my mind it seems the most compelling explanation. The lesson to
be drawn from this is that what we think a strong player would play is not
always related to an understanding of that player, but rather some memory of
that player doing something which made a particular impression on us.)} 28...
Ne4 {I was so sure that this was the moment where I missed a chance to assume
a decisive advantage that I showed it to GMs Julian Hodgson and Bogdan Lalic
at the end of the event. Julian agreed that this was ‘the moment’ and,
like me, wondered what Mickey would play here. He didn’t know, and was also
a little unsure about how Black should proceed. Bogdan, on the other hand,
just threw himself into the position and discovered quite a surprising
solution 28...e5! “it’s not a very Mickey move”.  Bogdan couldn’t
really say why 28...e5 looked right to him, but he felt that the awkward
position of the white king was a significant positional factor. 29.fxe5 Rxe5
Seems at first sight very weakening, but when you look at the position without
prejudice you see that Black’s position now really comes alive and all that
is bad about White’s position comes to the fore.  After looking at this
position for a bit it was clear to all of us that White was faced with big
problems and had no significant counterplay.  White’s king is quite
uncomfortable, and there’s no comforting move that will make it less so. 30.
Bf3 Qg5! reveals the strength of the idea, which is to have a safe square for
the king on g7 and exploit White’s jumbled pieces.  Black is in total
control of the game and it’s surprisingly difficult to make White’s king
feel any safer.  I find it an especially pleasing paradox that opening up the
position increases the security of my king.  Julian was quick to point out
that much as he appreciated 28...e5 , “it’s not a very Mickey move”.
Bogdan couldn’t really say why 28...e5 looked right to him, but he felt that
the awkward position of the white king was a significant positional factor. 
Looking at this example again a couple of years on, it strikes me that had I
been thinking of Speelman instead of Adams I may have looked at a move which I
didn’t consider during the game or after it.  Speelman is renowned for
somewhat manic chess where he brings positions to life in the most surprising
ways.  He is also excellent at justifying the crazy-looking moves he comes up
with, both verbally and with variations.  So when I asked myself what he would
play, I thought of 28...Bb5!? 29.Nxb5 allowing the bishops to be swapped
leaves me with no problems because I can play ...h5, ... Qg4 and ...Kg7, if
nothing else 29...axb5 By exchanging my least active piece and removing one of
my opponent’s most troublesome, I improve the harmony of my remaining pieces.
There is a cost in terms of the structural damage on the queenside, but the
dynamics seem to make up for this.  Given the relative ‘safety’ of
Black’s advantage on move 28, it seems strange to compromise the queenside
like this, but a closer look again reveals that White is poorly coordinated
and Black’s remaining pieces all have significant roles to play.  Moreover, .
..Ne4 is now a big threat which can only be sensibly stopped by 30.Bf3  30.Rb3
Ne4 31.Rdd3 Nf2 30...Ra8 31.Kb1 Qxg3 32.Qxh6+ Ke7 , when Black’s excellent
piece coordination leaves White in significant difficulties. So it seems that
both 28...e5 and 28...Bb5 would lead to a decisive advantage for Black, but
neither of these moves came from thinking about how Michael Adams would play
the position. Come to think of it, Mickey would almost certainly have played
one of these moves, if only because he so rarely misses opportunities, but
they are not the type of move that one would derive from a consideration of
his style, and therefore it was a mistake to think of what he would play in
this given instance.} 29. Nxe4 dxe4 30. Rc3 f5 {White’s pieces have
considerable freedom and I’ve exchanged off my king’s most reliable
defender.  I may well be better even here, but with the time-control
approaching everything became a bit random and we both overlooked chances
before finally agreeing a draw on move 46.  Bryson-Rowson Aberdeen 1998.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Bread, Butter"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîBread, Butter, and JamîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîYou’ve got bread. You’ve got butter ... and you want
jam!?!îîEndBlockQuoteîîGM JULIAN HODGSON.  These words should be borne in mind
by all players prone to Perfectionism.  The basic problem is asking too much
of your position, or not being content with what you have, even when it’s
more than enough to reach the required result.  I like to think of this as
‘jam lust’ because it usually occurs when we are already quite excited
about our promising position (bread and butter) , but get so excited that we
can’t contain our passion to make the position even better (we want jam on
it too) . It is a fairly typical perfectionist trait, because most
perfectionists feel that a good position (bread and butter) is not adequate 
(suboptimal) and they will only be satisfied with ‘a perfect position’ 
(optimal) , for which they need jam too.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Short - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/7p/p3n3/1ppkP3/3r1p2/1P3P2/PN2R1KP/8 b - - 0 44"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{Black is much better here.  How you can continue improving your position?} 
44... c4 {Per@aps more significantly, Short had been making visible progress
with every move and no doubt wanted this trend to continue.  44...h5 “Short
forgets where his pawn-majority is, and instead starts on some grand plan of
encirclement, the net result of which is to allow White to exchange h-pawns,
thus easing his defensive task.” – IM Crouch   StartBracket  writing in
Chess MonthlyîîEndBracketîî. 45.Kf1 h4 46.Kg2 Ng5 47.Kf2 h3 48.Rc2 White can
survive.} 45. bxc4+ bxc4 46. Na4 {otherwise ...c3 wins the knight} Rd3 {
with the idea of ...c3 and the assessment that Black is winning.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Short - Exercise #"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/p1k1n3/1pp5/5p2/1PR2P2/P3KN1r/8 w - - 0 55"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Karpov has avoided the suffocation and now is close to control the position. 
How must continue here in order to reduce the power of the Black rook?} 55. Kf1
{Karpov has defended calmly and now his pieces are quite well coordinated.
White is still lost due to Black’s superior activity, space advantage and
extra pawn.  However, the trend has turned in White’s favour and unless the
new trend is stopped by some incisive play by Short, Karpov has good drawing
chances.  Short did indeed miss a few wins, although nothing very simple, and
eventually drew on move 94.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Karpov vs. Short"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/7p/p3n3/1ppkP3/3r1p2/1P3P2/PN2R1KP/8 b - - 0 44"]
[PlyCount "22"]

{Black has a commanding position, with extra space, a potential passed pawn
and superior pieces.  Moreover, White’s e5-pawn is weak, and the b2-knight
is short of squares. Perhaps more significantly, Short had been making visible
progress with every move and no doubt wanted this trend to continue.} 44... h5
{“@hort forgets where his pawn-majority is, and instead starts on some grand
plan of encirclement, the net result of which is to allow White to exchange
h-pawns, thus easing his defensive task.” – IM Crouch
îîStartBracketîîwriting in Chess MonthlyîîEndBracketîî.  This seems a little
harsh, given that Black is still winning after this move, but it does seem
that the trend now turns in Karpov’s favour.  Short must have liked his
position very much, but perhaps didn’t feel that it was enough to slay the
mighty Karpov, so he went in search of something to add a little ‘flavour’
to the position.  Short’s aim is to advance the h-pawn to h3, thus leaving
White with even less space for his pieces. Given that he already had bread and
butter, such a desire seems like a classic case of ‘jam lust’.  The main
point is that the bread and butter was more than enough to win the game, and
the time taken to get the jam out of the cupboard and spread it on his bread
gives Karpov some breathing space to organize his position.  Short’s notes
in Informator just give  44...c4! 45.bxc4+ bxc4 46.Na4 otherwise ...c3 wins
the knight 46...Rd3 with the idea of ...c3 and the assessment that Black is
winning.  A little analysis by IM Colin Crouch confirms this to be the case 47.
Nb2  47.Rc2 Nd4 48.Rc3 Rxc3 49.Nxc3+ Kxe5-+ Re3 48.Rd2+  48.Kf2 Kd4-+ Nd4 49.
Nd1 Re2+ 50.Rxe2 Nxe2 51.Kf2 Nc1-+} 45. Kf1 h4 46. Kg2 Ng5 47. Kf2 h3 48. Rc2
Ne6 49. Ke2 Kxe5 50. Nd3+ Kd6 51. Nf2 Rd5 52. Rc3 Kc6 53. Nxh3 Rh5 54. Nf2 Rxh2
55. Kf1 {Kar@ov has defended calmly and now his pieces are quite well
coordinated. White is still lost due to Black’s superior activity, space
advantage and extra pawn.  However, the trend has turned in White’s favour
and unless the new trend is stopped by some incisive play by Short, Karpov has
good drawing chances.  Short did indeed miss a few wins, although nothing very
simple, and eventually drew on move 94.  The above manifestations of
Perfectionism are, I think, more widespread than we tend to imagine, but I’m
sure most chess-players would single out the greatest and most prevalent
problem with Perfectionism to be that old chestnut, time-trouble.  My aim now
is to consider why we are so inclined to fall short of time.  I will treat the
issue from a slightly unusual perspective and so the interested reader may
like to consult further reading on this matter, for which I recommend Krogius,
Psychology in Chess îîStartBracketîîChapters 5 and 6îîEndBracketîî and Nunn,
Secrets of Practical Chess îîStartBracketîîpages 59-61îîEndBracketîî. 
Candidates match (game 3) , Linares 1992} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Causes Of Time Trouble"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Causes of Time-Trouble (and a few remedies)
îîHeaderEndîî  îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe clock is just as much a part of the game
as the board and pieces, and losing because of time-trouble is no different to
losing because of weak play - it’s still a zero on the score-sheet.
îîEndBlockQuoteîîGM JOHN NUNN  It may seem that the following list doesn’t
describe issues related to Perfectionism but in fact most of them do, if we
look at Perfectionism broadly as the desire to follow a certain model towards
which you aspire.  After considering this list, I draw some more general
conclusions about time-trouble, and what to do about it.  My bottom line,
however, is that it is not always ‘sinful’ to run into time-trouble and we
shouldn’t always blame ourselves for doing so.  What is important is that
you realize just how important a part of the game the clock is, and if you
liked what I said in Chapter 4, it may be helpful to see it as one of four
dimensions of the game, to be treated with as much attention as the other
three.  1- Complexity of the game:  Some games are full of difficult,
time-consuming decisions that require both players to use a lot of time to
find the right moves.  The more complex the position, the more you will need
to use intuition to make decisions. A confident player will just trust his gut
feeling and accept that further thinking won’t make the decision any easier.
However, there are undoubtedly some games where time-trouble (less than a
minute per move is the standard, but not limiting, definition) is almost
unavoidable.  When you are up against a player who poses original problems,
you will need some time to solve them.  Kasparov, for example, frequently ran
short of time when playing Karpov, and now does so against Kramnik, although
in general he is fairly resistant to running short of time.  Michael Adams has
stated that one of his main strengths is avoiding time-trouble, but even he
gets short of time when up against the very best players.  2- Deliberately
running short of time:  This normally occurs when a player has a bad position
and wants to ‘blitz’ the opponent or just begin some sort of psychological
warfare by playing quickly (and often noisily) .  In my experience the players
who do this tend to be quite ‘macho’ and love the drama and adrenaline
rush of hand-to-hand combat under pressure.  I would say “don’t do
this!”, but I don’t see how that’s going to help, especially because
many players enjoy being in time-trouble.  The ‘hit’ you get from those
ten to twenty minute periods where big decisions are made very quickly is, for
many players, a big attraction of the game.  3- Poor theoretical preparation: 
This can lead to a doubtful mindset. If you begin the game slowly and
cautiously, this can undermine your confidence for the rest of the game. 
Opening preparation has as much to do with general confidence as getting a
good position out of the opening and, although it’s asking a lot, I would
simply suggest that you get your openings sorted out!  Indeed if you don’t
know your openings well, don’t have time to prepare something, or aren’t
suited to playing offbeat lines then it’s very difficult to avoid giving
your opponent the psychological advantage early in the game.  Moreover, I
firmly believe that the seeds of slow play later in the game are sown in the
opening.  I don’t think it’s wise to play the opening super-quickly
because then it will be hard to adjust when you have to think for yourself,
but in general you shouldn’t spend more than half an hour for your first ten
moves.  If you are doing this you either need to study your openings, or
prepare yourself for the game psychologically so that you are more confident
on arrival.  4- Lack of practice:  When you are ‘rusty’ you just don’t
see things as quickly as you do when you are well practiced. Moreover, your
awareness that you are below par is liable to lower your self-confidence.  The
only thing that might help here is to solve some combinational exercises or
have a few blitz games against a computer before playing.  However, a little
twist was pointed out to me by English IM Jonathan Parker, who has no problems
playing at over 2500 level despite long periods of inactivity.  The irony is
that you get short of time because you are rusty, but then the rustiness
doesn’t show itself as much in time-trouble because you can just play on
your judgement and experience.  Indeed Jonathan even said that getting into
time-trouble is the best cure for rustiness! Interesting stuff, but don’t
try this at home.  5- Doubts concerning analysis:  This leads to the constant
checking and rechecking of variations because you don’t trust yourself to
get it right the first time.  Normally this stems from a lack of confidence
and excessive fear of making a mistake. It also tends to afflict players who
don’t like to calculate much and so when they have to do it, they don’t do
it very well.  My simple advice would be to face up to the fact that mistakes
are inevitable.  Just allow yourself to make mistakes - it’s no crime!  The
biggest mistake is constantly to be afraid of making a mistake. It’s much
better that you just trust yourself; even if you do make a few little mistakes,
because then at least you’ll stop making this big one.  6- Fear of opponent/
seeing ghosts:  If you are informed that your opponent is a brilliant
tactician you may be inclined to spend time looking for non-existent tactics
or if you are up against a stronger player you may doubt your judgement.  The
key is to be confident of your own abilities, and know your strengths and
limitations.  It’s also worth remembering that your opponent is not
infallible, and whatever their abilities, he can’t change the rules of the
game.  As Julian Hodgson once put it when consoling someone about to play a
stronger player: “Don’t worry! For every move he gets, you get one back”.
7- Crucial game; extra tension:  Last rounds, grudge matches and crunch team
games all lead to games where the result increases in importance and errors
seem twice as significant.  Unless you are very confident of playing well
under this pressure, you will take extra time and care to be accurate.  The
best way to garner this confidence is pre-game preparation where you think
carefully about the psychological aspects of the battle at hand, including the
tension, before you arrive at the board.  Visualization is a useful technique
here, but anything that you think will make you feel more ‘at home’ during
such games should be considered.  8- Time-wasting thoughts:  Examples include
looking back at what might have been if you had played a different move,
thinking of variations in the game next to you, thinking of rating points
you’ll gain when you eventually win, etc.  You are less likely to do this if
you are confident that thinking of your own position will yield helpful
insights.  Also, as we’ll see in the next chapter, there are many different
ways to look at a position, and this can help solve the boredom caused by
seeing the same thing again and again.  9- Fear of the unknown:  If you lack
experience in certain types of position, you may be wary of entering them, and
pause looking for alternatives that either aren’t as good, or just aren’t
there.  This may involve a 1.d4 player being scared of Sicilian structures, a
general fear of sacrificing material, or maybe even a fear of the endgame in
general.  Here you just have to believe in your own creative ingenuity and
general understanding. Just because you haven’t been exposed to that type of
position before, doesn’t mean that you can’t play it well.  All I can
recommend in such situations is to find the courage to go ahead, because only
by embracing new territory do we learn new things.  10- Attraction to complex
positions:  Some players seek out positions that require a lot of thinking
time, hoping to probe their opponent’s understanding and nerves.  This is
not a problem in itself, but if it leads to games being lost in random
time-scrambles, something needs to be done.  The solution may be to navigate
your way through the complexity with your intuition and be confident, trust
your feelings and know that this is as reliable an approach as ‘thinking’
your way to a solution.  However, as we saw above, time-trouble is not always
avoidable.  11- General indecision:  You can’t make up your mind. The
‘which rook?’ question is a classic example. If you dither for twenty
minutes over Rad1 or Rfd1 then you are letting yourself down.  Just get on
with it!  At such moments it is worth asking yourself if you will need this
time more later than you do now, and more often than not, the answer is yes!
In such situations you are paralyzed by your choices and lack the confidence
to make an educated guess.  In this respect I am great believer in John
Nunn’s advice:  “Chess is all about making decisions. Postponing a
decision doesn’t necessarily improve it. Try to get into the habit of asking
yourself: is further thought actually going to be beneficial.”  Another
question to ask is: “is this problem solvable, and if so how long will it
take me?” Often the answer will be no, in which case you just have to make a
good guess; and if the answer is yes, but it will take a long time, you have
to gauge whether you can afford the time to work it out, because it might just
be more practical to guess.  12- Excessive attention to detail:  Spending many
minutes on the possible significance of very minor matters that, deep down,
you know to be fairly irrelevant.  Just face up to the fact that chess results
are rarely decided by such small matters. Most games include a plethora of
errors on both sides, and the biggest ones, the ones that really matter, often
occur when you’re short of time.  13- Excuse provision:  Many players simply
can’t handle losing on the board and fail to take responsibility for their
moves in time-trouble or the fact that they got short of time.  I have
absolutely no sympathy for this.  Time-trouble may be an explanation for a
certain decision, but it is never a good excuse. This is what Sartre would
call ‘mauvaise foi’ (bad faith) in that you don’t face up to your
freedom in relation to your circumstances.  Lack of confidence to compete over
the board leads to the ‘poor me, I got short of time’ mindset, which is, I
think, pathetic.  14- Going ‘walkabout’:  Some tournaments have the
toilets miles away from the playing hall, and the cafeteria is understaffed. 
In these cases you can spend a long time away from the board while your clock
is ticking.  You can also end up talking to friends, or being engrossed by
someone else’s position, or just generally wandering around.  I do all these
things myself and know that they are one cause of time-trouble.  However, I am
not sure I could counsel against doing this sort of thing, basically because
it tends to be fun! In so far as there is a remedy, learn to gauge when you
think your opponent will use a lot of thinking time, and limit your
‘walkabouts’ to two or three a game.  Curiously, Jonathan Parker, perhaps
the strongest IM in the world (now a GM) , considers ‘walkabout’ to be the
main cause of his time-trouble problems.  Furthermore, Michael Adams told me
that his results improved considerably when he conquered his ‘walkabout’
problem, and that lots of players let themselves down by wandering around.  I
suggested that stretching legs, going to the toilet or getting refreshments
were essential for some players, to which he replied that he used to think
that too, but one day he realized that he was deceiving himself and his main
motivation for leaving the board was actually to alleviate boredom!  If you
take chess at all seriously, it’s hard to accept this as a good reason. 
Indeed Mickey now leaves the board very rarely and usually only when he feels
he has seen all that’s worth seeing for the time being.  The advice here is
to try harder at the board. Mickey’s advice boiled down to “just stay at
the board and don’t miss things”.  Indeed, if you have to miss something,
it’s better to miss it through lack of ability than lack of effort.
Conquering the boredom factor will be touched upon in the next chapter.  15-
Deep thinks:  This can be problem if you habitually take more than twenty
minutes for a move more than twice a game. In my experience, it is very rare
for a think of more than twenty minutes to lead to a good move.  Normally if
you think for this long, or longer, you just end up confusing yourself, and
forget which line is which.  There may be a psychological/neurological basis
for this. For starters, Krogius writes:  “It is possible to detect in
players who experience a limited range of attention, a relative backwardness
in their understanding of the dynamics of play over the entire board, which is
revealed in their tendency to make a painstaking and productive analysis of
only one particular idea or variation. Probably such players are affected by
an effort to be excessively conscientious; they are striving for the best way
in which to penetrate an appealing idea as deeply as possible.”  In this
regard, psychologists speak of ‘the unitary nature of attention’ which is
described by Edward de Bono like this:  “It is in the nature of a
self-organizing patterning system to have a single area of stabilization. If
there are two competing areas at a time, the large one will expand and the
lesser one will disappear even if the difference is very slight. This arises
directly from the wiring of the system and is not an imposed condition. It
leads to one area of attention at a time.”  Having these deep thinks may be
mistaken, on this view, because you may not be thinking about as much as you
imagine.  It’s more likely that you’ll be going round in circles on the
same line and there is some reason to think that this arises because of the
nature of your brain.  Moreover, if you use the same neural pathway over and
over, there is a chance that this pathway will become ‘drenched’, as
neurologists put it, which means that more is by no means always better when
it comes to thinking.  That said, GM Emil Sutovsky once commended me for
having a half-hour think during a critical moment in our game which led to a
correct decision in a complicated position.  He explained that Russian GM
Bareev had told him all about ‘The Linares guys’ and how they use their
time, which made a big impression on him.  Apparently, if you watch the
world’s best playing live, you see a sequence of moves played fairly quickly
followed by a substantial pause.  They know all about the dangers of Blinking
and so use their time in these critical moments, but don’t worry so much
about small details at other moments and trust their fantastic judgement. 
This suggests that deep thinks may not be such a crime, but that you should be
careful how you begin your long think and be sure to make room for variety
instead of starting on a difficult line and getting ‘stuck’ there for
several minutes.  So if you do feel that a long think is required, make a
mental note of what you aim to achieve and a mini strategy for how you will go
about it.  16- Turning up late for the game:  This is a bit like walkabout in
that there is little point in saying ‘don’t do it’, when it’s often a
big part of your personality. What I find interesting is that many of the
players who turn up late are time-trouble addicts!  This makes me think of one
of the psychological explanations for late-coming in general, which is that it
is a form of self-punishment.  Such unconscious motivations are at once
plausible, subtle and speculative so there is little value in dwelling on them
here, but time-trouble generally and especially time-trouble addicts who make
things worse by turning up late do make me think of the following quote by
Kierkegaard:  “There is nothing man is so afraid of as knowing how
enormously much he is capable of doing and becoming.” Perhaps some players
are just more comfortable perpetually being ‘under-performers’ than
feeling the pressure of being the best they can be.  It does seem to me that
many players deliberately make it difficult for themselves to realize their
full potential by sabotaging themselves with time-shortage, a state in which
they feel ‘diminished responsibility’ for their actions and some relief in
the knowledge that their best is yet to come.  All I would say is that
although being on time, preferably a little early, suits most players who like
to soak up the atmosphere, the most important thing is that you are
psychologically prepared and feel ready for the game before it starts.  It is
possible to prepare yourself either on the way to the tournament hall or at
the board.  Personally, I find it easier at the board, as I tend to be more
prone to distractions elsewhere.  17- Failure to make adequate use of
opponent’s thinking time:  This is a very common shortcoming and I think
it’s related to boredom.  To tackle this problem we need to learn how to
concentrate better, which I discuss at the end of the next chapter.  18-
Attention seeking:  The most ridiculous cause of time-trouble is the shocking
desire of some players to attract attention by being short of time.  This is
somewhat absurd, and the only remedy I might suggest is to use other ways to
grab people’s attention, like wearing a funny hat, though preferably choose
one that won’t unduly disturb the opponent.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Pragmatism"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîPragmatismîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîî'Do or do not.
There is no try.' îîEndBlockQuoteîîYODA  Telling a hardened perfectionist to
be ‘pragmatic’ is a bit like telling a dog to be cat - it’s asking a bit
much, even in these days of genetic engineering.  Yet this is the type of
advice that the time-troubled perfectionist tends to hear.  “You just need
to be more practical”, “don’t forget about your clock”, “don’t
leave less than ten minutes for your last ten moves”, “never use more than
20 minutes for a move”, “turn up on time”, “stay at the board”,
“play the opening quickly” and so on ad infinitum.  Even though such
advice is perfectly sound and well intended, it rarely helps.  Pragmatism
simply comes more easily to some people than others.  Those who are not
troubled by the desire to play the uniquely correct move as part of a perfect
game are in some ways rather blessed, but it’s wrong to assume that
perfectionists can shake such habits (dreams?) at the drop of a hat.  The
perfectionist may lose many games through lack of time but they will also win
some spectacular games by digging deeply into a position that the pragmatist
may only have understood superficially.  Moreover, I think it’s limited to
assume that the only aim of a chess game is to win. While it may be true that
the pragmatist gets better results in general, we shouldn’t assume that this
is the model for everyone to follow.  Indeed, some players prefer to win one
beautiful game and lose two normal games than to win three normal games, but
create nothing particularly memorable.  However, for those of you who would
like to be a bit more pragmatic, and feel this to be attainable, I hope the
following game will give a good example of pragmatic thinking.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Gardner"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2kr3r/1b1nb1pp/pqn1p3/1pppPp2/3P1P2/2P2NPP/PP2N1BK/R1BQ1R2 w - f6 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black's last move ...f5 is a significant error that gives me many ways to
gain the advantage. Black clearly intends ...h6 and ...g5 with counterplay but
this is slow and I have many ways to cross the plan.  Think about how White
should continue here.} 1. Ng5 {With hindsight this may not have been the best
move, but I give the exclamation mark for pragmatism and speed in that I
played this in about three minutes. Black's last move gave me a lot of choice
and it would have been easy to spend half an hour or more at this juncture and
still been unsure which was best.  The alternatives are:  15.exf6 gxf6! 16.f5
e5! 17.dxe5 Ndxe5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Nf4 This may be better for White but what's
the point in looking further here.  15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Be3 Qc7 17.Bxc5! Bxc5 18.
b4 looked very promising at the time, and is almost forced too.  I will soon
put a knight on d4 and play a4, after which Black's b7-bishop is bad and his
king will be exposed.} Bxg5 2. fxg5 {Black’s position is not fundamentally
sound without his dark-squared bishop, and it is far from clear where his
counterplay will come from.  I can play on the queenside with a4 or the
kingside with g4 and Nf4. Another benefit of such a line is that it is quite
depressing for Black.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Gardner- Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2k3rr/1b1nn1pp/pq2p3/1p1pPpPN/2pP4/2P3PP/PP4BK/R1BQ1R2 w - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{White has dominated the kingside.  But, how can they improve his position?} 
19. b3 {The dark squared bishop threatens to breathe fire on the a3-f8
diagonal. Notice that it's an unmoved piece that can now go to a3.  It's not
in a hurry to go there because it does a good job of discouraging ...h6 where
it is, but for the first time in the game it seems clear on which diagonal
this bishop belongs and that's why it hasn't moved until now.} Ng6 20. a4 {
The breaktrough. Consequence of Black's last move ...Ng6. Black's passive
bishop is brought to life.  But this bishop also does a good job of defending
Black's king, so in the new circumstances of trying to attack the black king,
this bishop is not so 'bad' at all.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Gardner- Exercise "]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2k3rr/3n4/pq2p1np/3pPp1N/2bP4/2P3PP/5RBK/R1BQ4 w - - 0 25"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{How can White here to take advantage of Black king's position?} 25. Bf1 {
weakening a6 This is much more thematic than  25.Rb2 or  25.Ba3 which were
also occupying my attention.  My worry was that ...Nxe5 might happen somehow -
but this doesn't seem to be a problem and attacking Black's king is the name
of the game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Gardner - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7r/2kn4/4p1np/4Pp1N/2pP4/B1P3PP/5R1K/8 w - - 0 33"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Black's position is ruined.  How can you have a decisive advantage here?} 33.
Ng7 {Black king is misplaced and the e6-pawn is too weak.} Ngf8 34. g4 {
Crushing Black's position!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Gardner"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "81"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 {After a four-minute think. This made me feel good about my
opening choice.  Now my opponent took at least two minutes for each of the
following three moves.} 3. f4 a6 4. Nf3 b5 5. d3 Bb7 {Not so bad in itself but
there are other developing moves which are more flexible, and which should
perhaps have been played first.  The bishop is not well placed to aid
queenside play with ...b4 or for the central push ...e6 and ...d5, which will
almost certainly be met by the closing of the centre with e5 followed by d4,
when the bishop will be passively placed.} 6. g3 e6 7. Bg2 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. h3
d5 {Bla@k spent about ten minutes over moves 6-9, which suggests that he was
in a very doubtful state of mind, because they were all fairly obvious. 
However, this last move seems to be slightly inaccurate for the same reason
that 5... Bb7 was. ...d5 may or may not be a good idea, but  9...Nc6 is
certainly a part of Black's plan and so should have been played first 10.Be3
what else? 10...d5 11.e5 Nd7 12.d4 îîStartBracketîîthis is an improved version
for Black, since I don't usually want to play Be3 so soonîîEndBracketîî 12...
cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Qc7 I think Black is comfortable, if only because
White's king is a little weak in the long term, without pawns on the second
rank to protect it.  This reminds me of an elderly gentleman from Aberdeen
îîStartBracketîîI don't remember the details, it was, as they say, 'a long
time ago in a faraway land'îîEndBracketîî telling me not to open the king's
'box' in this way.  He explained that when the box is closed
îîStartBracketîîf2, g2, h2îîEndBracketîî the precious jewel
îîStartBracketîîkingîîEndBracketîî is safe from harm.  He may get a little
claustrophobic in the box and need a little breathing space, so to move one
pawn in front of the king is OK.  However, he felt that if you moved more than
one of these pawns, the 'box' could no longer protect the king with any
reliability.  This may be a good way to think of why we generally shouldn't
move pawns in front of our castled king: they are the 'box' which protects our
most vital asset from the dangers of the outside world.} 10. e5 {I could have
kept the tension with something like  10.Qe1 which is also playable, but the
text-move gains space and makes it easier to find a sequence of good moves. 
Once you start thinking of alternatives to 10.e5 you are almost certain to
lose a fair chunk of time for no reward. 10.e5 gives bread and butter. There
is no need to look for jam at this stage.} Nfd7 11. d4 {I had the option of
allowing him to play ... d4, which would allow me to use the e4-square, but I
didn't see any good waiting move and so no need to spend much time looking for
it because I already had a promising option.} Nc6 12. Ne2 {Since the d5-pawn
is going nowhere in a hurry, the scope of this knight had to be improved at
some point.  Now there are two potentially favourable outcomes: either I get
time to hold the centre with c3, or there will be a good knight on d4. Black's
position is still perfectly healthy, but I was already more than twenty
minutes up on the clock.  If we do think of chess as a game of four dimensions,
then we can perhaps compare these dimensions and assign them some sort of
relative value.  If so,I'd imagine twenty minutes is worth about a third of a
pawn, a move, or a wee bit of quality.} Qb6 {A reasonable move, preparing to
castle queenside and pressurizing d4, but now I was pleased to fortify my
centre.} 13. c3 O-O-O {My opponent took a good while over this move, which I
sensed he wanted to play since he had shown no interest in castling kingside. 
The black king's 'box' is even more stretched than mine! I was aware that
there was now going to be some sort of race, so I improved my most valuable
piece first, and waited for a signal from my opponent as to what I should do
next.  13...a5! ! looks like a good waiting move, supporting ... b4 and
planning to activate the bishop on a6.  On the one hand this will make the
queenside even less safe for the black king, but on the other hand it's not
clear how I should continue.  Every developing move seems to have a drawback.
14.Kh2 intending f5, Black plays  14.f5 is double-edged because of the ...
Nxe5 ideas.  14.Be3 doesn't nullify ...Nxe5 tricks 14...g6! when 15.g4 is
needed the keep the momentum but is met by 15...h5! when my king embarrassed
himself} 14. Kh2 {I a@ ready to play a simple move like Be3, but ideas like f5
îîStartBracketîîand Nf4îîEndBracketîî or a4 are already in the air.} f5 {
This is a significant error that gives me many ways to gain the advantage.
Black clearly intends ...h6 and ...g5 with counterplay but this is slow and I
have many ways to cross the plan.  From a psychological point of view, the
move I feared most was just  14...Qc7!? eyeing up my king from afar again, and
freeing b6 for the knight.  This would have been especially unpleasant if
played quickly because I hadn't yet decided what I was going to do with my
position. However, 15.a4 b4 16.Bd2 looks reasonable in this respect.  14...h6
looks more flexible, but then my opponent may have worried about 15.f5 exf5 16.
Nf4 Nf8 17.dxc5 when I have some initiative.} 15. Ng5 {Wit@ hindsight this may
not have been the best move, but I give the exclamation mark for pragmatism
and speed in that I played this in about three minutes. Black's last move gave
me a lot of choice and it would have been easy to spend half an hour or more
at this juncture and still been unsure which was best.  I quickly saw that
this move gave some advantage, even if it's of a slow, strategic nature. I
also saw that capturing on c5 or f6 may be good, and was aware that a4 can be
considered too.  I almost felt 'the desire to punish' here in that I could
sense there should be a way to get a clear advantage with one of these lines,
but then I just asked myself if there was any chance that I would play
anything other than 15.Ng5 after further thought and the answer was a
resounding 'no'!  I was aware that I may have been missing out on some jam,
but I decided it wasn't worth the wait, and went on munching my bread and
butter.  The alternatives are:  15.exf6 gxf6! Black now has a positional
threat of ...f5 followed by ...Nf6-e4 16.f5 e5! 17.dxe5 Ndxe5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.
Nf4 This may be better for White but what's the point in looking further here,
in a position where my opponent has counterplay, when I can have at least as
big an advantage more certainly and without risk?  15.dxc5 was the main
contender.  I can start a queenside attack quite quickly here. 15...Nxc5  15...
Bxc5 16.Ng5 Rde8 17.b4 Bf8 18.a4 16.Be3 Qc7 17.Bxc5! îîStartBracketîîI don't
want that knight coming to e4 and it's important to keep the momentum 17...
Bxc5 18.b4 looked very promising at the time, and is almost forced too. I will
soon put a knight on d4 and play a4, after which Black's b7-bishop is bad and
his king will be exposed.  However, it is much less clear than the game
continuation and is sufficiently murky to make it a 'three results' position
in the sense that a little slip is all it would take for Black to assume the
initiative.  Indeed, although I seem to have an overwhelming initiative, I am
very weak on the dark squares and I don't like the look of ...g5 and ...h5
coming my way.  Given that I don't see a reasonable line for Black here, this
may have been stronger than 15.Ng5 but I still prefer the move I played,
partly because it assures me of a large and safe advantage, and because in
playing it quickly I kept the psychological pressure on my opponent.} Bxg5 16.
fxg5 {Black's position is not fundamentally sound without his dark-squared
bishop, and it is far from clear where his counterplay will come from. I can
play on the queenside with a4 or the kingside with g4 and Nf4.  Another
benefit of such a line is that it is quite depressing for Black.  Unlike
taking on c5 and giving him the dark squares, there is really very little to
make Black happy here.  Moreover, to play well now he has to move out of the
counter-attacking gear that led to ... O-O-O and . ..f5 and try to keep his
position as flexible as possible from a purely defensive point of view.} c4 {
Thi@ makes it difficult for me to attack the black king and removes any
worries Black may have had about dxc5, but on the other îîStartBracketîîlarger
and more significantîîEndBracketîî hand I have no weaknesses to worry about
any more.  Also, although the position looks blocked, I have three pawn-breaks
to prise it open îîStartBracketîîb3, a4 and g4îîEndBracketîî.  My opponent
played this move quite quickly compared to his other moves but this was
actually a moment where some deep thinking would have helped.  Indeed, after a
major exchange of pieces or change in pawn-structure it is generally a good
idea to take a fresh look at the position.  It takes your thoughts and
emotions a while to catch up with the positional changes so there is a danger
that you will apply an outdated aggressive mindset, for example, to a new
position in which you need to be defensive.  16...cxd4 17.cxd4 seems on a
superficial level to expose Black's king and open the position for White's
bishops but much more significant is that White has to defend d4 and Black has
at least some scope for his rooks down the c-file îîStartBracketîîremember
that the main feature of a space advantage is that it tends to make your rooks
better than the opponent'sîîEndBracketîî.  Moreover, Black's b7-bishop can
live again on a6 after ...b4 and ...a5 whereas White's g2-bishop, although
formally 'good', is actually a bit short of ideas. White is still clearly
better, but Black is not without chances to hold.} 17. Nf4 Ne7 18. Nh5 {
This knight manoeuvre leaves Black tied up and has the bonus of overprotecting
g3.} Rdg8 19. b3 {The unopposed prelate threatens to breathe fire on the a3-f8
diagonal. Notice that it's an unmoved piece that can now go to a3.  It's not
in a hurry to go there because it does a good job of discouraging ...h6 where
it is, but for the first time in the game it seems clear on which diagonal
this bishop belongs and that's why it hasn't moved until now.} Ng6 20. a4 {
As a consequence of this move, Black's passive bishop is brought to life. But
this bishop also does a good job of defending Black's king, so in the new
circumstances of trying to attack the black king, this bishop is not so 'bad'
at all.} Bc6 21. axb5 Bxb5 22. bxc4 Bxc4 {I w@s pleased to be relatively
resistant to jam in this game.  A part of me wanted to open the queenside and
leave him with his bad b7-bishop, but then I realized there wasn't much reason
why his b7-bishop was any worse than mine on g2 îîStartBracketîîindeed it's
actually more relevant to the positionîîEndBracketîî and so I brought it out
to c4 with the intention of exchanging it.} 23. Rf2 h6 {Or  23...Ngxe5 24.Rb2}
24. gxh6 gxh6 25. Bf1 {This is much more thematic than  25.Rb2 or  25.Ba3
which were also occupying my attention.  My worry was that ...Nxe5 might
happen somehow - but this doesn't seem to be a problem and attacking Black's
king is the name of the game.} Bb3 {Ironically. Black needs to keep the bishop.
25...Qc6 is met by 26.Bxc4 Qxc4 27.Rfa2 Nb8  27...Kb7 28.Rxa6 Qxa6 29.Rxa6
Kxa6 30.Qa4+ 28.Ra5!} 26. Qe2 a5 {26...Bc4 27.Qe1 Qc6 28.Bxc4 Qxc4 29.Rfa2 Kb7
is more stubborn. However, 30.Rxa6 Qxa6 31.Rxa6 Kxa6 32.Nf6 then looks very
strong.  A pure material count is not so encouraging, but White's queen is in
her element here due to the exposed king and Black's knights look a bit stray.
I don't see a defence for Black to the assorted ideas of Qe2-h5, Ba3 and c4}
27. Qa6+ Qxa6 28. Bxa6+ Kc7 29. Rxa5 {White now has a clear extra pawn as well
as positional advantages.} Ra8 30. Ra3 Bc4 31. Bxc4 Rxa3 32. Bxa3 dxc4 33. Ng7
Ngf8 34. g4 fxg4 35. Bxf8 g3+ 36. Kxg3 Rg8 {A creative defensive try: Black
wants to take on f8 and g7,and then try to hold the rook ending, but it turns
out that I can keep my extra piece.} 37. Rf7 Kc6 38. Bd6 Nb6 39. Kf3 Nd5 40.
Nxe6 Nxc3 41. Nf4 {Edmonton 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Confidence"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîConfidenceîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîConfidence is a
preference.îîEndBlockQuoteîîBLUR, Park Life  So, the perfectionist may do well
to be more pragmatic, but such trite advice is not going to help very much. 
In so far as there is hope for the perfectionist, it comes from the fact that
Perfectionism seems to be caused, in many ways, by some sort of lack of
confidence, and I think it’s easier to become more confident than it is to
become more pragmatic.  The latter requires that you change your character but
the former merely asks you to believe in it.  There will be exceptions to this
claim, but players who are so desperate to get things perfect often give the
impression that they are not fully at ease with their current playing strength,
and aspire to bigger and better things.  Those who are more pragmatic tend to
be more at ease with themselves.  They don’t need to strive for an ideal
because they don’t need to show themselves that they are worthy of it.  This
can be seen at the highest levels of chess with (at some stage in their
careers) GMs like Glek, Wells, Motwani and even Korchnoi, all of whom give the
impression of understanding chess better than their ratings or results would
suggest.  Perfectionists also tend to study chess away from the board a lot
and so inevitably compare the clarity and thoroughness of study to the
confusing mesh that typifies practical chess, but crucially without drawing a
clear line between the two.  In any case I find that many perfectionists are
essentially aspiring and bring their desire to be better to their games.  This
aspiration makes it difficult to be practical because they want to ‘play
well’ almost as much as they want to win.  There seems to be a strange
vicious circle in this respect.  Some perfectionists aren’t sufficiently
sure of themselves to trust their intuition, think long and hard and outplay
players higher rated, feel confident, mess it up in time-trouble, which
undermines their confidence, start again a little unsure of themselves, play
slowly and so it goes on.  I have seen this with many players and it has made
me think that the perfectionist’s problem, before lack of pragmatism, is
lack of basic self-belief.  Now I use the word ‘basic’ for good reason
because many chess-players seem more confident than they actually are, many
more are self-deceptive in that they think they are confident when they
aren’t and still more are contingently confident and quickly become less
sure of themselves in unfamiliar territory.  If you’re taking ages to make
your moves it suggests that you are terrified of making a mistake. But why be
so terrified? You make mistakes anyway, and so does your opponent, right?  To
my mind, basic self-belief is not about thinking you will never go wrong, but
rather knowing that you can and will go wrong, but that these mistakes don’t
define you.  As John Barton once said: “Nothing splendid has ever been
achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was
superior to circumstance.”  You have to see that it’s OK to make mistakes.
Part of being a strong practical player is having the serenity to know that
you will make mistakes, and that although you are responsible, in one sense it
could be said that it’s not your fault because chess is such a difficult
game and no one can play it for long without making mistakes.  I mention
Barton’s quote because it’s important to have the confidence that even if
a mistake messes up your position (circumstances) , you are still a good
enough player to fight back.  The confidence I’m talking about is the
durable confidence that you will do well in spite of your errors, not the
fragile confidence that you won’t make any at all.  The problem for the
perfectionist is that he finds this very hard to take and feels highly
sensitive about being the cause of error.  If you can’t face up to this you
are liable to spend minutes on end doubting yourself over and over: “have I
got it right?”, “could I do better?”.  Now such thoughts are often quite
stimulating, but if you have too many of them, doubt becomes your dominant
mindset and that’s when Churchill’s quotation at the start of this chapter
kicks in.  We tend to think of doubt as something cognitive, but it can hold
us in its clutches so firmly that it seems like an emotion.  Indeed,
‘doubtfulness’ seems to be the defining characteristic of the
perfectionist during the game.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Wells vs. Ibragimov"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bqk2r/p1ppnppp/2pb4/8/N3P3/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Look at this position and think about how Black is going to continue to
develop.  You must have the confidence to make the next move, can you find an
idea?} 8. h4 {'I like this move. Since the advance ...f5 involves definite
risks, Black's only real hope to coordinate his awkwardly placed minor pieces
rests on playing ...Ng6 followed by ...Be5 or ...Be7. The text predicts this,
and offers excellent prospects of keeping Black tied up.'  This is indeed a
strong move, but it took a fair amount of time and energy for White to
convince himself that it was correct.} O-O {8...f5?! 9.Qd4! threatening e5 9...
fxe4 10.Qxg7 Ng6 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Nc3±} 9. h5 {preventing ...Ng6} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Wells vs. Ibragimov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/p1ppnpp1/2pb3p/7P/N3P3/8/PPP2PP1/R1BQKB1R w KQ - 0 10"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Now that Black has castled he is threatening ... f5 in some circumstances. 
How could the White follow its development?} 10. g4 {Another strong but
unusual move! Avoiding f5 and threatening g5 at some point! White's play is to
be commended, but these moves work due to the specifics of the position and
are not in any way stereotypical, so it's entirely natural that Pete spent a
fair amount of time on them.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Wells vs. Ibragimov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bqrbnk/p1p2pp1/2p4p/3p3P/N3P1P1/3BB3/PPPQ1P2/2KR3R w - - 0 15"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White's position looks promising although they still have to play in a
precise way.  What´s the best way to secure the advantage in this position?} 
15. f3 {White keeps some space advantage, retains long-term attacking chances
against the black king and enjoys a structural edge on the queenside. The
a4-knight does a good job of controlling c5.  15.exd5? 'Such a moment in the
game, when the initiative is clearly slipping, presents very severe
psychological problems.'  Pete admitted that he was generally very 'doubtful'
here. 15...Bxg4! 16.Rdg1 Qxd5! Black wins a pawn and develops his pieces.} dxe4
{For example, leads into White's advantage.} 16. Bxe4 Qxd2+ 17. Rxd2 {shows
White's advantages in their pure form, but even if Black fails to cooperate on
move 15, White has plenty of ideas, including Qc3, Qa5, Bc5 and also g5.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Wells vs. Ibragimov - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2Q5/5ppk/5b1B/p6q/P3r3/8/1PP2P2/1K4R1 w - - 0 32"]
[PlyCount "9"]

{Of course! This was a tragedy for Pete, who didn't have time to find this
move, with tactical motifs!} 32. Bg5 {32.Be3? Rxa4 Material equality, but
Black's bishop attacks and defends, while White's does neither.} Bxg5 33. Qf5+
Qg6 34. Rxg5 Qxf5 35. Rxf5 Rxa4 36. Rxf7 {White would have excellent winning
chances, assuming he could have made four more moves before his flag fell;
always a traumatic 'if' to have in a good position.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Wells vs. Ibragimov"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "76"]

{Now I can’t really give advice about how to be more confident, but I do
think that confidence is often a matter of choice.  If it doesn’t come to
you naturally I suggest that you take some time before your games to remind
yourself that it’s OK to make mistakes and that you believe in yourself
enough to risk making them.  It is difficult to prove any of the above but I
hope the following game, based on the annotations of a self-confessed
perfectionist, will bring some of these issues to light.  Notes are based on 
(and include some quotations from) those by GM Peter Wells in ChessBase
Magazine} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nxc6 bxc6 {This is
provocative, and probably not very good, but such moves invite punishment, and
therefore lure the opponent into the snare of Perfectionism.} 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Na4
Bd6 {Further provocation. It is conceivable that Ibragimov, knowing of Pete's
propensity to get short of time, deliberately played moves that would lead his
opponent to think.  It's more likely that this was prepared though, and if so
White's next move puts Black's system in some doubt  7...Bb6 8.Nxb6 axb6 9.
b3⩲ looks slightly better for White.} 8. h4 {'I like this move. Since the
advance ...f5 involves definite risks, Black's only real hope to coordinate
his awkwardly placed minor pieces rests on playing ... Ng6 followed by ...Be5
or ... Be7. The text predicts this, and offers excellent prospects of keeping
Black tied up.'  This is indeed a strong move, but it took a fair amount of
time and energy for White to convince himself that it was correct.} O-O {
8...f5?! 9.Qd4! threatening e5 9...fxe4 10.Qxg7 Ng6 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Nc3±} 9. h5
{preventing ...Ng6} h6 {9...f5?? 10.Bc4+ Kh8 11.h6 g6 12.Qd4+ is catastrophic
for Black.} 10. g4 {Another strong but unusual move. White's play is to be
commended, but these moves work due to the specifics of the position and are
not in any way stereotypical, so it's entirely natural that Pete spent a fair
amount of time on them.} Re8 11. Be3 {'A classicist at heart, I felt it was
about time to develop some pieces.' - Wells.  This is an instructive remark
for what comes later.  White's early advances have given him a large amount of
territory and have made it very difficult for Black to mobilize. If White just
completes development he will have a significant positional advantage.} Kh8 12.
Bd3 {Thi@ is not the mistake; in fact this is a perfectly good move that
strengthens the centre and gets another piece out. The mistake was not to play
it sooner.  It was quite right for White to have a look at 12.g5 and 12.Bc4
but I think he should have opted for the 'bread and butter' option as soon as
he realized that the complications from these 'jam moves' were quite difficult
and by no means clear.  There is a question of confidence here because if you
fear that you'll only get one opportunity in a game, you are inclined to dwell
on your decisions more than you should. This is especially true when you are
already behind on the clock.  Black wasn't playing especially fast either but
it's bad to be short of time regardless of your opponent's time when you have
the advantage because if you reach a mutual time-scramble, as they did in the
game, the game will be very random and the position will matter less than the
clock.  Let's have a closer look at White's alternatives:  12.g5!? 'Every
'chessical' bone in my body told me îîStartBracketîîand continues to tell
meîîEndBracketîî that this is the right move.  It was, also, unsurprisingly,
the one my opponent was most afraid of.'  My intuition is at odds with Pete on
this one, although it's not surprising that Black was afraid of the most
aggressive move.  My hunch is that it's too early for White to develop a
significant attack, but that White's long-term positional advantages are very
significant indeed.  While thinking over his 12th move, Pete spent a long time
trying to find a convincing follow-up after 12...Ng8 but there doesn't seem to
be one. 13.gxh6  13.Qd4 hxg5 14.h6 Qf6 15.hxg7+ Kxg7 seems quite OK for Black.
13.Qd2 Rxe4 14.Nc3 Rxe3+!  14...Bb4!? 15.Qxe3 Qxg5 I prefer Black, because of
the bishops and the ragged structure.  13.Bd3!? see the next note. Nxh6 and
then 14.Bd3 Pete felt that  14.Bg2!? Qf6 15.Qd2 probably favours White, but
the position is full of complexity and it's easy for both sides to make
mistakes.  White is 'playing for three results' here whereas in the game he
had a chance to play for just two. Pete also considered  14.Bc4 'at some
length' but saw nothing to encouraging after 14...Ng8 15.Bxf7 Rxe4 16.Nc3 Re7 
16...Bb4 17.Bg6 Re7 17.Bg6 Be5 when Pete felt that the white position was 'a
bit loose'.  Indeed, Black's pieces coordinate well and ...Rb8 and ...d5 will
make things even better. 14...Qf6 Pete doesn't mention in his notes, but looks
more combative to me. With White king in the center, ...d5 could cause some
problems.  14...Bf8!? with White's king in the centre . ..d5, could cause some
problems 15.Qd2 was White's best try, and by implication, that 12.g5 was the
right move, but I'm not so sure.  With the knight on a4 and the long-term
structural weaknesses, White is relying on his early initiative to bring in
the jam, but such a position looks more unclear than anything else to me. 
Black can play...Bf8 and ...d5 quickly, and there's always a ...Ng4 irritation
in the air, like insects on your jam.  12.Bc4 Ng8 13.Bxf7 Rxe4 14.Nc3 Re7  14..
.Bb4 15.Bg6 Re7 15.Bg6 Be5 Black's pieces coordinate well and ...Rb8 and ...d5
will make things even better} Ng8 13. Qd2 {'Again it is difficult to make the
'violent' things work'.  13.g5 hxg5 14.Qd2 Be7! and now: 15.O-O-O  15.h6 Nxh6
16.O-O-O d5 17.Rdg1 dxe4 18.Rxg5 exd3  18...Bxg5 19.Bxg5 f6 20.Bxh6 exd3 21.
Bxg7+ Kxg7 22.Qh6+ is a draw 19.Rxg7?! Kxg7 20.Bxh6+ Kg6 doesn't seem to work
for White.'  The wayward position of the knight on a4 is most keenly felt in
such lines. d5 16.h6 Nxh6 17.Bd4 Bf6 and Black defends.} Bf8 {Overprotecting
h6 and freeing the d-pawn.} 14. O-O-O {14.g5 d5 15.f3!? is given as slightly
better for White by Pete. I find it curious that he's so keen to make g5 work.
Personally, I am reluctant to weaken White's structure in this way, but maybe
I'm just not aggressive enough.} d5 15. exd5 {'Such a moment in the game, when
the initiative is clearly slipping, presents very severe psychological
problems.' Pete admitted that he was generally very 'doubtful' here; doubting
he was better any more, doubting he ever was better, doubting if he'd make the
time-control, doubting if he should let the queen out like this.  In such a
doubtful state it's very hard to see things clearly. In fact it seems to me
that White has been much better and is now, but the advantage is more
positional than dynamic and so White should pretty much try to keep things as
they are.  With 15.f3! White keeps some space advantage, retains long-term
attacking chances against the black king and enjoys a structural edge on the
queenside. The a4-knight does a good job of controlling c5. White may only
have bread and butter, but it's a big fresh loaf and the butter is newly
churned.  I'm sure if you'd shown this position to Pete as a third party he
would agree that White is better and that 15.f3 is the best move and I think
he would make these judgements very quickly.  But curiously Pete told me that
he was only dimly aware of 15.f3 as a possibility during the game.  I suspect
this is due to the 'hyper-drive' state he put himself in with those pawn
advances and looking at all those complex variations where he doesn't quite
mate the opponent's king.  Pete was still primarily looking at the position
from the point of view of mating Black and then lost the plot when there was
no answer to the question he was asking the position.  15.f3! White has plenty
of ideas, including Qc3, Qa5, Bc5 and also g5 15...dxe4?! 16.Bxe4 Qxd2+ 17.
Rxd2 shows White's advantages in their pure form, but even if Black fails to
cooperate on move 15.} Bxg4 16. Rdg1 Qxd5 {Black wins a pawn and develops his
pieces. Pete does extremely well to stay in the game now.} 17. Nc3 Qd7 18. Rh4
Bf5 19. Rd4 Qc8 20. Rf4 Bxd3 21. Qxd3 Qe6 22. Re4 {The black queen is given no
rest and White does have some compensation now due to Black's broken structure
and the sensitivity of the pawns on f7 and g7.} Qh3 23. Qc4 {There was a
brilliant idea behind this move.} Qxh5 {Black shows a good sense of danger,
and now the position heads towards equality. The beautifully geometric
sequence  23...Rxe4 24.Nxe4 Qxh5 25.Ng5! hxg5 26.Qxc6+- was White's intention.
Whenever Pete shows me such ideas, often in the context of a game he lost on
time, I can't help but feel that he's often too creative for his own good.} 24.
Qxc6 Nf6 25. Rxe8 Rxe8 26. Qxc7 a5 27. a4 {It's tricky to play such a position
in mutual time-trouble.  This move is desirable in general but not especially
urgent. Pete suggest that White should occupy the key diagonal with  27.Bd4!
Qh4 28.Rd1 leaves White's pieces slightly more actively placed.} Kh7 28. Kb1
Ne4 29. Nxe4 Rxe4 30. Qc8 {Already with the following tactical shot in mind.
Unfortunately I failed to realize that it prepares a tactical blow in two
parts, and without the follow-up Black will recompose himself and White's king
is suddenly the more vulnerable.} Be7 31. Bxh6 {A sensational blow, especially
given that Pete's flag was hanging.  However, it's often difficult to continue
after such a move because it makes you so excited that you lose your normal
sensibilities.  Indeed it would be good to have a commercial break at such
moments to give you time to marvel at the move, and also take in the position
as a whole.  I'm not sure if this applied to Pete in the given instance, but
the problem is that your thoughts are overwhelmed by the move, and you take it
out of context, forgetting there's still a game to be played.} Bf6 32. Be3 {
A tragedy for Pete, who didn't have time to find  32.Bg5! Bxg5 33.Qf5+ Qg6 34.
Rxg5 Qxf5 35.Rxf5 Rxa4 36.Rxf7 White would have excellent winning chances,
assuming he could have made four more moves before his flag fell; always a
traumatic 'if' to have in a good position.} Rxa4 {Material equality, but
Black's bishop attacks and defends, while White's does neither.} 33. Qc6 Rh4
34. Qa6 {I tried to find an improvement for White here, but I would have lost
on time.} a4 35. Qd3+ g6 36. Qd7 Kg7 37. Rd1 Rb4 38. Bd4 Qxd1+ {A painful game
to lose given that Pete played so many excellent moves. Pulvermühle 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 6 - Perfectionism"]
[Black "Conclusion"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîConclusionîîHeaderEndîîPerfectionism manifests itself in
many different ways, principally time-trouble. It would be naïve to think
that time-trouble can be avoided altogether, but it happens to some players
much more than it should.   Players falling short of time would do well to
think deeply about their self-confidence, as only from this basis do they have
a chance of becoming more pragmatic.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîLoosenessîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîIn walking, just
walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don’t wobble.
îîEndBlockQuoteîîYUN-MEN  This final sin, although distinctive, includes
shades of all those we have considered thus far.  It can be described as that
state where you are prone to fall prey to all of the sins at one time, as if
overwhelmed by a cascade of misplaced thoughts and feelings.  More precisely,
‘looseness’ refers to the feeling that you are not in control of the game,
whether you are drifting, overwhelmed by nerves, or tricked by emotional
memories (‘echoes’) .  The name of the sin was chosen in recognition of
that general feeling of ‘looseness’ when you don’t feel together somehow
and lack focus or the ability to concentrate.  This is the sin that underlies
that seemingly inexplicable phenomenon - ‘losing the plot’, or ‘losing
the thread’ as they call it in North America.  I prefer the former
description and will use it here, mainly because the idea of an unfolding
story in which we, the main characters, have to keep track of the plot and
contribute towards it, appeals to me, and also because it seems more emotive. 
Indeed, I associate ‘plot’ with drama and suspense, but ‘thread’ makes
me think of woolly jumpers. Nunn (Secrets of Practical Chess, page 15)
suggests that losing the thread/plot is mainly a result of carrying over an
inaccurate evaluation from one position to another.  The idea, consistent with
my argument in Chapter 1, is based on the fact that humans tend to evaluate at
some level before calculating.  As a result, they will tend to look at
variations and assess their relevance with reference to their initial
evaluation, which is, thinks Nunn, inherently unreliable because it is not
based on concrete analysis of the position in question.  I will refer to this
as ‘Nunn’s hangover theory’ because it is based on a mistake you make at
one moment ‘hanging over’ to cause problems in the next moment, just as
too many drinks at night hang over to cause problems the next morning. 
Nunn’s insight is useful, and this type of thinking can indeed lead to
problems of a plot-losing character (although it’s also extremely useful in
rapidly cutting down on the lines we feel compelled to consider as well, as
Nunn points out) .  However, I have always felt that ‘losing the plot’ is
a much more multi-faceted phenomenon, and has as much to do with emotions and
memories as thinking processes.  So although I will come back to ‘Nunn’s
hangover theory’, I also want to look at the role of nerves in chess, what
happens when we collapse, why we drift without direction and how our memory
plays tricks on us.  I believe all of these contribute to that feeling of
‘looseness’ which every chess-player knows only too well.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Tension Transference"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîTension Transference and Neural HijackingsîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThe modern chess game requires such tension. It’s
impossible for a normal human to with-stand. îîEndBlockQuoteîîGM VIKTOR
KORCHNOI  How often do you feel totally out of control? How often are you so
overwhelmed with anger, lust, joy, excitement or anxiety that you can’t
think straight and feel strangely detached from your actions?  It happens more
than you might think, and recent studies in neuroscience suggest that we can
quite literally lose our rational faculties as they are swamped by emotion. 
These emotional avalanches have been called ‘neural hijackings’ and their
reality and importance has been uncovered in the research of Dr Joseph Le Doux,
presented in his book The Emotional Brain (1998) .  The evidence suggests that
at these moments a centre in the limbic brain proclaims an emergency,
recruiting the rest of the brain to its urgent agenda.  The ‘hijacking’
occurs almost instantaneously, triggering the reaction crucial moments before
the ‘neocortex’, the thinking brain, has had a chance to get to grips with
what’s happening, and even longer before it gets round to deciding if the
relevant stimulus is threatening.  The defining feature of these ‘hijacks’
is that once the moment passes, those possessed have the sense of not knowing
what came over them.  It’s like our brains detect emergencies without our
consent and have a neural shortcut that allows the ‘amygdala’ (a cluster
of interconnected structures above the brain stem, thought to be the brain’s
‘emotion specialist’) to take control of our response while the neocortex
is still coming to a decision.  This, of course, has huge survival value in
evolutionary terms because it allows us to react to danger before we are
consciously aware of it.  In chess terms too, it can have some beneficial
effects in that you will steer clear of certain lines that are considered
unfavourable by your emotional memory.  However, much of the time these
‘hijackings’ are the cause of us losing the plot, which in turn can be the
cause of us losing the game. Indeed, at particularly tense moments,
chess-players are inclined to ‘lose it’ in a way very similar to the
outcome of ‘neural hijackings’.  When Kasparov lost to Ivan Sokolov in
Wijk aan Zee 1999, for example, the game, although still theoretical, was
unusually sharp and tense before Kasparov went wrong with 21...Rxh7 instead of
21...Kf8, which was the move favoured by theory. After the game Kasparov could
only say:  “It was a complete collapse of my nervous system not to play 21...
Kf8” and this expression “complete collapse of my nervous system”
resonated well with many of my own experiences of losing the plot.  The
relationship between the nervous system and the amygdala is not entirely clear,
but the idea of the nervous system collapsing intuitively seems a lot like
being flooded with emotion. Certainly the more ‘steely’ your nerves, the
less likely you are to be ‘hijacked’.  This reminds me of something
Spassky said on his loss to Fischer in Reykjavik in 1972.  I don’t remember
the exact words but it was something to the effect that at the start of the
match his health was in excellent shape but his nerves were in tatters, and
that this weak nervous system was the principal cause of his defeat.  It would
be interesting to look again at this match with the aim gauging how often
Spassky was ‘neurally hijacked’! It should be stated that these hijackings
are quite rare under normal circumstances.  In general, the thinking brain is
like the manager of your thoughts, but when you unconsciously detect an
‘emergency’ in any shape or form, the hijack mechanism comes into play and
makes your decision for you.  It should be said that such ‘emergencies’
are also triggered by extreme positive emotions.  So a state of overwhelming
excitement can also give your system such a shock that it feels the need to
‘hijack’ your brain and protect you from this extreme state, whether
there’s really any threat at hand or not.  However, a chess contest is not
really a normal situation by human standards and we frequently find ourselves
feeling a degree of tension that leads the brain to the conclusion that an
emergency is imminent.  Moreover, other brain scientists have shown that in
the first few milliseconds of our perceiving something (e.g. a new position)
we not only unconsciously comprehend what it is (‘check!’) but we also
decide whether we like it or not (‘it’s just a check’) .  It seems that
the cognitive unconscious presents our awareness with not just the identity of
what we see, but an opinion about it too. Our emotions literally have a mind
of their own, and it can form and hold views independently of the thinking
mind.  Not all feelings take a direct route to the amygdala, but those that do
include the most charged and basic like fear and anxiety.  These are the types
of feelings which chess-players are exposed to during a game, and much as this
may cause you to err on the chessboard, I’m not sure I can offer much advice
against billions of years of evolution which have led to your existing neural
circuitry.  I could proclaim the virtues of ‘staying calm’, but I doubt if
that would help. However, there is no reason to be defeatist - we just have to
understand how to use these emotions intelligently, without pretending it will
be easy.  Given that this type of hijacking is most likely to occur in
important games where you are short of time, a slightly more useful piece of
advice is to suggest that you expect, or at least prepare yourself for, the
unexpected.  They say you conquer fear through knowledge, and so you can deal
with your fear by facing up to the fact that you are not under threat of any
physical harm during a game and that since your opponent can’t change the
rules of the game, he’s limited in the types of surprise he can pull.
Moreover, at the end of the day, if you lose you lose, and life goes on.
However important the game may be, it’s useful to get this into perspective
before you start playing.  Then when the game becomes really tense, you’ll
be able to keep a healthy distance, and won’t be such an attractive host to
the ‘hijackers’.  Talking of tension, I have noticed that there is an
interesting issue of ‘transference’ in this respect in that we often seem
to release tension on the board as a means of relieving the tension that we
feel ourselves.  Indeed I’ve noticed that players who are capable of keeping
the tension on the board for a long time (e.g. Karpov, with his ‘elastic
manoeuvring’) tend to have a very strong nervous system and good control of
their emotions.  The ability to keep the tension on the board is a very
important one indeed, but unless we look after our own nervous tension, we
will find it virtually impossible. This 'tension transference' is a fairly
typical feature of Looseness in that the moves on the board stem from our own
emotional frailties.  I think it is quite a common problem for chess-players.
Your understanding of the position may well tell you to 'keep the tension!'
but the tension on the board, and the perpetual uncertainty it brings,
increase your nervous tension and so your body is at odds with this advice and
often seems to scream 'release the tension!', leaving you torn and confused. 
Much chess mastery consists in winning such internal battles, and retaining
conscious control of your decisions.  If I could offer advice on this, I would,
but the following example suggests that you might be better off looking
elsewhere.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r5r1/1b2k1pp/1pq1pp2/2b4Q/1p6/2B1PN2/PP3PPP/2RR1K2 w - - 0 31"]
[PlyCount "7"]

31. Bxf6+ {Of course!  As I played this move, I experienced a wave of relief
mixed with an excitable impatience for the game to end soon. I was guilty of a
little self-congratulation in that I was aware that I had played this game
rather well.} gxf6 {Or 31...Kxf6? 32.Qg5+ Kf7 33.Ne5+} 32. Qxh7+ Kf8 {Only move
} 33. Rd7 {Now I knew I was completely winning but I think I was already
susceptible to the hijackers as a result of my highly excitable state.  Julian
looked disgusted with himself, and admitted later that 31.Bxf6+ was a complete
surprise.  He put on his best grisly face, looked left, then right, saw there
was only one sensible thing he could do in the circumstances, and got on with
the game.} Qxd7 {Forced.} 34. Qxd7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4kr1/3Q4/1p2pp2/2bb4/1p6/4PN2/PP3PPP/2R2K2 w - - 0 35"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{I can't really explain what this was all about my next move, but in the game
I couldn't find the best continuation.  How should White play here?} 35. Qh7 {
A very strong move with the principal threat of Nh4-g6. Looks like the
cleanest kill.   After 35.e4? Rg7! Ah. I didn't expect that one, and he played
it very fast.  I now saw a promising ending and used a good chunk of my
remaining time deciding whether to keep the queen.  35...Bxe4? Was my first
thoughts. 36.Qxe6 with overwhelming threats. 36.Qb5 And the game continues. 
After 36.Qxg7+ Kxg7 37.exd5 Rxa2! is actually good for Black But I spent most
of my time musing over  37...exd5 38.Ra1! followed by Nf3-e1-d3} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Hodgson - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r5r1/1b3kpp/1pq1pp2/1pb5/8/2B1PNQ1/PP3PPP/2RR1K2 w - - 0 29"]
[PlyCount "28"]

{This game was full of tension for me because the score was tied in our
six-game match and I wanted to take advantage of the promising position I
achieved from the opening and place my opponent in an uncomfortable 'must-win'
situation for the last game.  This position is quite murky but I liked. my
position because of the superior activity of my rooks and I wasn't experienced
enough to be in any way concerned about the two bishops.  Now I saw a very
promising idea, and felt a rush of excitement when it seemed that my opponent
had no convincing defense.} 29. Qh3 b4 {Thi@ loses. Black is quite far behind
in time îîStartBracketîîdevelopmentîîEndBracketîî and it looks like he may
need to surrender some material to catch up. Black should consider  29...
Rgd8!? which takes away d7 from my rook and reduces my firepower at the cost
of the h7-pawn.  White is clearly better then, but the two bishops provide
compensation, and although it's a clear pawn extra, the fact that it's an
h-pawn will make it difficult to exploit.  After 30.Qxh7 Rd5  After 31.a3 Rad8
32.Rxd5 Qxd5 Black is fully in the game.  31.e4 Rxd1+ 32.Rxd1 e5 looks
precarious for Black, but there's no obvious break-through and e4 is weakened.
The pressure would be on White to prove something before the time-control.} 30.
Qh5+ Ke7 {30...Kf8 is no better 31.Bxb4! Qb5+ 32.Kg1 Qxb4 33.Rd7 Be7 34.Nd4!
Bd5 35.Rxd5} 31. Bxf6+ {As I played this move, I experienced a wave of relief
mixed with an excitable impatience for the game to end soon. I was guilty of a
little self-congratulation in that I was aware that I had played this game
rather well.  It was difficult to be calm, especially since we were now in
mutual time-trouble, with both of us having about five minutes to reach move}
gxf6 {Or 31...Kxf6 32.Qg5+ Kf7 33.Ne5+} 32. Qxh7+ Kf8 33. Rd7 {See next
diagram. Now I knew I was completely winning but I think I was already
susceptible to the hijackers as a result of my highly excitable state.  Julian
looked disgusted with himself, and admitted later that 31.Bxf6+ was a complete
surprise.  He put on his best grisly face, looked left, then right, saw there
was only one sensible thing he could do in the circumstances, and got on with
the game.} Qxd7 34. Qxd7 Bd5 {Now that all happened a little fast and I must
admit that my heart rate was probably not at a particularly healthy or
sustainable level.  Winning this match was suddenly a distinct possibility and
as a 19-year-old who had read about Hodgson in magazines from a young age I'm
not sure I was ready for such an achievement.  In any case, the tension was
becoming unbearable, and my nervous system was screaming for relief.  In an
effort to remove the tension from my body, I yielded to it by quickly playing
a line that seemed to release the tension on the board.  In fact only his most
cooperative response leads to the end of the game but it seems that the
decision was enacted by my emotional brain before my thinking brain could
catch up and overrule.  Another curious thing about this position is that when
we looked at it after the game, Julian felt that it wasn't so clear and
thoughtfully massaged his bishops as if to say that they shouldn't be
underestimated!  They certainly make a strong visual impression and when
you're short of time that counts for a lot.  However, Black is completely lost
and I have a choice of fairly simple wins. Julian is well known to be quite an
optimistic player and it seems this can do your nerves a lot of favours!  I
find it very instructive that whereas I was giving myself a heart attack with
the thought 'I'm winning! I'm winning!' Julian didn't have any thought like
'I'm losing'.  Instead he just did what he had to do at the time, and enjoyed
the more pleasing aspects of his position.} 35. e4 {35.Qh7! with the principal
threat of Nh4-g6. Looks like the cleanest kill.} Rg7 {Ah. I didn't expect that
one, and he played it very fast. I now saw a promising ending and used a good
chunk of my remaining time deciding whether to keep the queen.   I can't
really explain what this was all about, but since my first thought was 35...
Bxe4 36.Qxe6 with overwhelming threats, it's like my nervous system was saying,
OK, OK, looks good... whatever, you're winning in any case, just hurry up and
finish.  'More generally, this is a fairly typical mistake in time-trouble';
to have a one-track mind about certain variations and be over prone to assume
forcing moves like checks and captures are best. 35. Qh7! with the principal
threat of Nh4-g6 looks like the cleanest kill.} 36. Qb5 {I w@uld have played
this more quickly had I seen 35...Rg7 coming, but I suddenly felt a little
worried that I might blow this position îîStartBracketîîthis match was full of
missed opportunitiesîîEndBracketîî and was distracted by a safe alternative. 
The clock kept ticking, as clocks do, and by the time I had played 36.Qb5 I
experienced a cocktail of regret 35.e4?, anxiety îîStartBracketîîmore mistakes
to come, little time leftîîEndBracketîî, confusion îîStartBracketîîweird
position, how to clarifyîîEndBracketîî , impatience îîStartBracketîîthe game
is lasting longer than it should have, let's get it over withîîEndBracketîî
and all this was shaken and stirred with more than a capful of adrenaline. 
Julian, on the other hand, was beginning to look less dejected and could sense
that this might be his lucky day.  After 36.Qxg7+ Kxg7 37.exd5 Rxa2! is
actually good for Black. But I spent most of my time musing over 37...exd5 38.
Ra1! followed by Nf3-e1-d3} Bxe4 37. Qc4 {Giv@n my shaky state of mind, I
should now have taken this chance to clarify the situation, even if it lessens
my advantage somewhat.  37.Rxc5 bxc5 38.Qxc5+ Kf7 39.Qxb4 Bxf3 40.gxf3 Rxa2 41.
h4 , would have brought me to the time-control safely, and given me a position
which I certainly shouldn't lose, and have good chances of winning
îîStartBracketîîit's very difficult to coordinate the rooksîîEndBracketîî.} Bd5
{For some reason I had missed this retreat, and this oversight only served to
make me more 'loose'.} 38. Qh4 Ke7 39. Ne1 {Not particularly bad, since it's
no longer easy to clarify the situation. I wanted to preempt the threat of ...
Rag8.} Rxa2 40. Nd3 {A big mistake, but it's hard to play quiet moves when
short of time and my emotional brain was doing all the 'thinking'.} Bxg2+ {
I'll never forget Julian's face as we replayed these events in the post-mortem:
he munched this pawn with a long arm action, smiled, and said something like
'Well I thought 'thanks', I'll keep taking them if you don't mind.} 41. Ke2 {
I've managed to coordinate my pieces but at the huge cost of three pawns. I
doubt if Black is worse any more, and even if he were, it wouldn't matter too
much because by this point we were both nervous wrecks.  Neither of us could
quite believe what had just happened and we both anticipated further errors to
come.} Bd5 42. Qh8 Rg4 {Thi@ was accompanied by the practical suggestion that
we should call it a day. I was bit surprised by this draw offer and accepted
very quickly. I had forgotten, in all my anxiety, that my opponent didn't
experience this game without emotion either.  Moreover, although Black has
experienced a favourable trend, my post-crisis walkabout îîStartBracketîîin
those days a common occurrenceîîEndBracketîî had calmed me down. In any case,
my queen suddenly looks like rather a strong piece. Rotherham (5) 1997} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "A Quick Survival Guide"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîA Quick Survival Guide to Time-TroubleîîHeaderEndîî 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîEither this man is dead or my watch has stopped.
îîEndBlockQuoteîîGROUCHO MARX  Given that the looseness in the game we have
just examined occurred, as it often does, in time-trouble, this is a good
moment to consider briefly how to avoid this type of collapse when you fall
into time-trouble in your own games.  Time-trouble may occur because of
Perfectionism but once you are in time-trouble you are much more liable to be
‘loose’ than to strive for perfection.  Some think the solution is simply
not to get into time-trouble in the first place, but I find this far too
utopian, and as I said in the last chapter, getting into time-trouble is often
justified.  The first thing to be aware of is that time-trouble makes you
highly prone to go for all he old certainties such as checks, captures, queen
moves, forcing moves, simplification, materialism, king safety - all the
things we were attracted to when we learned the game.  This is a type of
defense mechanism whereby your nervous system wants to minimize tension by
eliminating the uncertainty of non-forcing or non-simplifying moves. All you
can really do is be aware of this propensity and consciously try to override
it when it seems misplaced.  The second point is that time-trouble is very
different from blitz despite the superficial similarities. There are lots of
players who play well in one and hopelessly in the other and vice versa.  The
reason for this is linked to memory, which, as we’ll see later, plays a big
role in our thinking processes.  Basically, your thoughts in a game are always
linked to prior events in the game and so the decisions you make are not
‘fresh’ as they are in blitz, but are full of baggage from earlier parts
of the game.  The relevance of this is that the position often changes very
fast in time-trouble, and it’s difficult to snap out of some ideas and
evaluations if you’ve held for such a long time.  The key is to keep
conscious evaluation to a minimum during time-trouble and just look for
effective ideas.  The third issue is that nerves make you very ‘jumpy’ and
it’s difficult to look at a variation long enough to reach a firm conclusion
because before you know it you’ve ‘jumped’ to looking at something else.
For this reason, Krogius recommends that you ‘regulate the attention’ and
strictly don’t allow yourself to look at new moves until you have at least a
working hypothesis about the value of the others.  Also, in general you are
less likely to be ‘jumpy’ when you are attacking than if you’re
defending because the costs of a mistake are rarely as high. Indeed, in
general it is easier to attack than to defend when short of time.  Finally,
don’t forget your opponent! You may be wrapped up in anxiety, but if all you
think about is your internal confusions, you lose your sense of balance and
miss the chance to exploit your opponent’s shaky emotional state. 
Furthermore, because time-scrambles are highly inter-subjective, momentum is
even more important than normal.  All that I said about trends in Blinking is
even more true in time-trouble.  It doesn’t matter so much if your position
is worse, what matters is that during the emotional trauma of time trouble you
concentrate on improving it.  As you saw in the game above, your opponent (in
this case me!) will often gift you further opportunities if you can somehow
get some favourable momentum going.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Drifting and Slippage"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "24"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîDrifting and ‘Slippage’îîHeaderEndîî 
îîStartBlockQuoteîîBe not afraid of going slowly, be afraid only of standing
still. îîEndBlockQuoteîîCHINESE PROVERB   It is very easy to drift. It only
takes a couple of moves where your concentration fades a little, and your
intent dwindles, for you to find yourself in a compromised position.  Drifting
often takes the form of playing several moves that individually make a lot of
sense, but don’t add up to anything significant.   For example, I used to
practice my French over blitz sessions with a friend called Emmanuel Urien,
who seemed to be around 1700 strength, but yoyoed in that he could perform
well above and well below this (he would sometimes demonstrate a game he lost
to a 1500 and then could proceed to outplay me in blitz!) .   I mention this
because we had many blitz games (5 minutes to 1) which began in the same way:} 
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O Nbd7 8.
Be3 b5 9. a3 Bb7 10. f3 Be7 11. Qd2 O-O 12. Rad1 Rc8 {and Black has an
excellent position. From moves 8 to 12 all of White’s moves look quite
reasonable, but at the end of the sequence White has very few prospects to
take the initiative.   This was a type of drifting on Emmanuel’s part. He
used to think quite hard over each of these moves, and couldn’t find
anything wrong with them as he considered them one by one.  8.Be3 is a
perfectly sensible-looking developing move, then he keeps his knight centrally
posted, then protects his centre pawn, then connects his rooks, then brings a
rook to the half-open file - how can we blame him?   Perhaps all we can say is
that he played move by move with no real sense of direction.   He would have
been better off pausing at one of these moments to look beyond the immediate
move and make some sort of plan for the middlegame.  Drifting is also caused
by what Krogius calls ‘dispersal of attention’ whereby you look a little
at everything but focus on nothing in particular.  A consequence of this is
that when faced with a variety of plans we don’t choose at all, but rather
mix plans that may be incompatible and thus implement neither of them
effectively.  This is also caused by the mistake of getting your questions in
the wrong order.  It’s important to ask ‘what should I do?’ before
asking ‘how should I do it?’ - otherwise your moves will resemble the
ramblings of a headless chicken.  The basic antidote to drifting is, of course,
planning. Yet so many trees have fallen to explain the importance of having a
plan that I am reluctant to dwell upon it here.   Suffice it to say that long
gone are the days when a plan lasted for several moves on end, and was
implemented without hitches.  These days plans refer to little strategic
operations over the course of one, two or three moves at a time, rarely more,
and they usually contain one or two strategic ideas rather than a grand
strategy for the game as a whole.  Thus to avoid misunderstanding over the
word ‘plan’ it may be better to say that the antidote to drifting is,
rather, to think schematically.  Thinking schematically basically means to
think of 'schemes' or ideas, rather than just moves.  If you find yourself
playing one move at a time with no real sense of what might happen next, you
will almost certainly feel a state of 'slippage', by which I mean a subjective
feeling that the game is falling out of your grasp.  I think the only way to
avoid this slippage is to make sure you have some idea of what you are trying
to achieve on the board at all times.  We look at this more closely below, but
for now I offer the following game to show how drifting and slippage can come
about, and to give an example of 'Nunn's hangover theory' in action.   White
is a Scottish grandmaster and Black is a strong English IM, needing to win for
a GM norm in the last round of a closed tournament.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "McNab vs. Gormally - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n1qrbk1/1p3ppp/5n2/1P1p4/p2B1P2/P4NPP/2Q2P2/3R1BK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Key moment. Although White is much better, he must make strong moves to get
the whole point. How should White continue?} 1. Bxf6 {A good decision, playing
for a direct attack.  If Black could play ...Nbd7 it would take a long time to
break his defenses, even with the extra queenside pawn.} Qxf6 2. Rxd5 {The
knight on b8 cannot move yet. White is clearly better.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "McNab vs. Gormally - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n1r1bk1/1p3ppp/5q2/1P1R4/p4P2/P4NPP/2Q2P2/5BK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black's last move ...Rd8 was a mistake. How can White take advantage of this
move?} 1. Ng5 {Black resigns, because after 1...g6 2.Rxd8 Qxd8 3.Bc4 Black is
hopeless.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "McNab vs. Gormally - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1p3ppp/1q1b1n2/p2pn3/3p4/PP1Q1PPP/1B1N1PB1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 18"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{Black's a pawn up and White queen must decide where to go. Do you think it's
a good idea to capture the d4 pawn to release some tension?} 18. Qf5 {Avoiding
18.Qxd4? Bc5! 19.Qxe5 Bxf2+ 20.Kf1 Rae8 21.Qg5 h6! is simple, pretty and
effective.  Black's queen will enter the white position decisively, e.g. 22.
Qh4 Bxe1 23.Rxe1 Qb5+! 24.Kf2 Rxe1 25.Kxe1 Re8+ . No wonder it felt as though
things were going Black's way!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "McNab vs. Gormally"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "61"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. g3 d5 4. b3 Bg4 5. Bg2 Nbd7 6. Bb2 e6 7. d3 Bd6 8. Nbd2
O-O 9. O-O Qe7 10. a3 e5 11. h3 Bxf3 12. exf3 {Danny was pleased to see this
odd-looking move at the time because there is no obvious continuation after 
12.Nxf3 , when White is probably just a little better due to the bishops. 
However, Colin McNab is extremely experienced in this type of line, and this
idea of doubling the pawns followed by playing d4 has been seen before. From a
psychological perspective Danny was 'relieved' in that it is difficult to win
such quiet positions when you are so tense, but after 12.exf3 the game becomes
more dynamic.} a5 13. Re1 Qd8 14. Qc2 Qb6 15. d4 exd4 16. cxd5 cxd5 17. Qd3 {
Thi@ is a difficult position to assess. White's 12th move looked peculiar and
now his position seems a bit clumsy. Black is well centralized, is temporarily
a îîStartBracketîîpassedîîEndBracketîî pawn up, and seems to have good scope
for his piece.  Here we see that the last few moves haven't been unkind to
White and that's White position has a great deal of potential. b5 is a
significant light-square weakness; White will soon play f4 and has good
chances of regaining the d4-pawn.  Black may be better, but the position has
too much dynamism to make that assessment in the absence of variations.  Danny
already felt that he had a large advantage, perhaps partly because 12.exf3
makes a dubious impression and he has played sensible moves since then, but
also because it is his move and he thought he would make good use of it. 
Indeed he now saw a combination that was consistent with his assessment and
assumed it would lead to favourable transformations.  This is quite a good
example of Nunn's account of why we lose the plot.  After making an evaluation
based on no lines in particular in a fairly complex position with many
imbalances, it is very difficult even to see lines that contradict the
assessment, never mind look for them.  So here the favourable tactic is
assumed to be 'the main line' even though it would actually be extremely
cooperative of White.  White's alternatives are not treated 'equally' in terms
of right to be heard and are not considered improvements, but they are rather
just 'other moves' which are not significant enough to change the assessment. 
When one of these 'others' is actually played, we carry the same assessment
over to the new position, not questioning whether we had it right before, or
looking closely at whether the new position warrants a new assessment. 
However, assuming I am being fair to Danny's thought-processes, I should say
in his defense that it is very difficult îîStartBracketîîvirtually
impossibleîîEndBracketîî to be anything other than highly subjective in a game
where there wards for one subject are potentially so much higher than for the
other.  This is the beginning of the neat tactic that Danny saw. In so far as
Black had a 'plot' for this game, it was to play well, win, and get the GM
norm.  This move certainly seems to be part of playing well, and if White
follows 'the main line', or rather the line most consistent with Black's plot,
then the second and third aspects are not far away.  That said, Danny tells me
that he didn't expect 18.Qxd4? at all, and why should he when it's so
obviously bad îîStartBracketîîsee below for detailsîîEndBracketîî?  However,
there is a certain emotional attraction to this line, and the fact that it was
favourable was one of the factors in Danny thinking he was better.  This is
important because after White's reply it turns out to be almost irrelevant to
the position and yet Danny's evaluation stays the same.   Gormally suggested
17.f4!?} Ne5 {Since Black's knight sortie doesn't seem to improve his
coordination, there is something to be said for a quieter approach  17...
Rfe8!? 18.f4 Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1 Qa6!? This line looks strange when you start with
the assumption that Black is much better, but then it's also a bit strange to
start with that assumption! Then White has the following options: 20.Qxd4  20.
Qxa6 Rxa6 21.Bf1 Rc6  21...Ra8 22.Rc1! 22.Nf3 Rc2 23.Re2 d3  23...Rxb2 24.Rxb2
Bxa3 25.Rc2 Bc5 26.Bb5 looks better for White, the most significant value of
the extra exchange here is the variety of pieces that White has - Black has
little to do with his two knights in such a position while each of White's
pieces has a unique role to play. 24.Rxc2 dxc2 25.Bd3 Ne4 26.Bxc2 Bc5 27.Nd4
Nb8!? with a drawish, but not drawn position. 20...Bc5 21.Qc3 Qd6 I guess,
about equal, but I quite like Black since there is no convenient way to defend
a3.} 18. Qf5 {Avo@ding 18.Qxd4? Bc5! 19.Qxe5 Bxf2+ 20.Kf1 Rae8 21.Qg5 h6! is
simple, pretty and effective. Black's queen will enter the white position
decisively, e.g 22.Qh4 Bxe1 23.Rxe1 Qb5+! 24.Kf2 Rxe1 25.Kxe1 Re8+  No wonder
it felt as though things were going Black's way!  After Colin McNab's actual
choice, Danny, still thinking he ought to be doing well, was attracted to 18...
Nc4, but seeing that this led to some murky positions he assumed there must be
a simpler way to preserve his 'advantage'.  Danny said that if he'd known he
was in any danger of being worse, he wouldn't have played 18...Rfe8 and would
have preferred the complications of 18...Nc4.  He also said that during the
game, because he though this position was better in general, he had the
feeling that he could do almost anything he wanted.  The interesting thing
from my point of view is that even over a week after the game, which is when
we first spoke about it, Danny was under the impression that 18...Nc4 gave him
an 'unclear advantage' îîStartBracketîî! - see BlinkingîîEndBracketîî, and yet
although it is quite unclear, if anyone is better at the end of the
complications it seems to be White, mainly because Black's light squares are
so weak.} Rfe8 {The drifting starts here and from now on Black's position goes
rapidly downhill, even though it's not actually bad at this stage. 18...Nc4 is
the critical line:  18...Nc4 19.bxc4!  19.Bc1?! Ne3! looks good for black! 20.
fxe3 Bxg3 21.Re2 dxe3 22.Nf1 Bf2+ 23.Kh1 d4! he has more than compensation for
the piece. 19...Qxb2 20.Red1! was apparently point out by Colin after the game.
Given the material equality and White's damaged structure, Black would be
forgiven for thinking that he's not worse.  However, White's pieces are much
better coordinated and whereas Black's d4-pawn and White's pawns on f2 and f4
shield White from dark-square problems, the opposite-coloured bishops leave
Black with some problems on the light squares. 20...Bxa3!  20...Rfe8 21.cxd5
Re5 22.Qd3! b5  22...Rxd5 23.Nc4 Qb5 24.f4± 23.Ne4! Nxe4 24.fxe4 Ree8 25.Rab1
Qxa3 26.Rb3 Qa2 27.Rxb5 Reb8 28.Rxb8+ Rxb8 29.Qxd4 Rb1 30.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 31.Kh2
Qb4! looks drawish. 21.cxd5  21.Rab1 Qa2 22.Ra1 Qb2 23.Rab1 Qc3!? 24.Rb3 Bb2
25.Rxc3 dxc3 26.Nf1 d4! 21...Rfc8  21...Qb4!? 22.Rab1 Qa4 23.Bf1 Bb4 24.Ne4!
Nxe4 25.fxe4 22.Bf1 Qc3  22...d3!? 23.Bxd3 Bc5 24.Rab1 Qd4 25.Ne4 Nxe4 26.fxe4
g6 27.Qf4 23.Nc4 Rxc4 24.Bxc4 Qxc4 25.Rxa3 Black is remaining pawns are
vulnerable and so White is better.} 19. Bf1 {Covering d3, eyeing up b5, and
threatening to take control with f4. White's intentions are fairly clear - to
play f4, Qd3-b5 and although Black shouldn't be significantly worse yet, he
needs to find 'a scheme', and fast.} a4 {But this is the wrong scheme! This
pawn is now very weak in the long term and since Black cannot use the
c4-square this is just a mistake. I suspect this move is some sort of
'activity hangover' from the emotions caused when considering 17...Ne5 and all
the associated complications.  19...Nc6 looks like a reasonable move. White
can probably improve with 20.Qd3 After  20.f4 h5! White can't play 21 Nf3 due
to the weakness on b3 so one way or the other White's kingside will be
weakened. At the moment ... h4 is a threat because the reply g4 runs into ...
Ne7! followed by ...Ng6 and various dark-square nasties. This seems to leave
only 21.Qd3 but then after  21.h4 is not a move White wants to play since it
weakens g4 and removes the option of chasing the f6-knight with the g-pawn 21..
.h4 22.Qb5 Qa7!? Black threatens to bring a rook to the e3-square with
considerable effect 20...h5! is still strong because White needs to play h4 to
hold the kingside together and f4 to develop his own position 21.h4 Qc7!? 22.
f4 Qd7!? 23.Nf3 Re4 looks equal, though I think I'd prefer to play Black
because White is tactical little vulnerable. e.g 24.Nxd4 Bxa3∓ also is
possible  24...Rae8 25.Rxe4? dxe4 26.Qd1 e3!} 20. f4 Nc6 {20...Ne4 was given
as a 'missed win' by some commentators, but this seems to be far from true. 21.
Rxe4!  21.Nxe4 Nf3+ 22.Kh1 dxe4  22...Nxe1 23.Ng5 23.Rxe4 Qxb3 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8
25.Qb5 White is indeed struggling to hold on but 21...dxe4 22.fxe5 Rxe5 looks
more difficult for White than actually is. Once again Black has problems on
the light squares. 23.Qd7!  23.Nc4 Rxf5 24.Nxb6 Rd8 25.Bxd4 axb3 26.Be3 Bc5
looks good for Black. 23...Re6 how else to defend against Nc4 ? 24.Bc4 Re7 25.
Qg4 White is definitely not worse here and should soon assume the upper hand.
25...Rae8 26.Re1 and now it's not clear if Black has a good move, as 26...h5
can be met by 27.Qg6!? Bc7 28.Qxh5 e3 29.Nf3 g6 30.Qh4! It's all a bit of a
mess, but White is much better since Black cannot really do anything due to
the various pins.} 21. b4 {White is now in control of the game and the two
bishops are potentially very strong. Black needs to have a good think now and
try to stop the unfavourable trend.  Danny admits that he had 'lost the plot'
and seems to drift for the rest of the game, but actually I'm not sure how
Black's play can be significantly improved.  This looks like another of those
cases where it seems the position is fairly balanced when seen by itself, but
if you look at how things might develop it seems to be heading inexorably in
White's favour.  Black's d-pawns are now more of a weakness than an asset. The
b5- and a4- squares are chronically weak and White's extra pawn is useful for
defensive and attacking purposes.  Danny now felt some 'slippage', or as he
put it, an awareness that he had no active plan.} Bf8 22. Qd3 Rad8 23. Rad1 Nd7
{this move, with the vague idea of ...Nc5, makes things worse  23...g6! The
bishop is the piece most in need improvement. 24.Qb5 After  24.Nf3 Rxe1 25.
Rxe1 Ne4 Black is not worse.  24.b5 Na5! 25.Bxd4 Bc5 and again Black seems to
solve his problems. 24...Qa7! 25.Rxe8 Nxe8!? after  25...Rxe8 26.Nf3 White
takes control. 26.Nf3 Bg7 leaves White with some pressure but Black is holding
firm.} 24. Qc2 Ra8 25. Rxe8 Rxe8 26. Nf3 Nf6 27. b5 Nb8 28. Bxd4 Qd8 29. Bxf6 {
A good decision, playing for a direct attack.  If Black could play ...Nbd7 it
would take a long time to break his defences, even with the extra queenside
pawn.} Qxf6 30. Rxd5 Rd8 {Or 30...Bxa3 31.Re5 Rf8 32.Ng5 g6 33.Qc3! Qd6 34.
Nxf7!} 31. Ng5 {Oakham 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Finding the Plot"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîFinding the PlotîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîFall seven
times, stand up eight. îîEndBlockQuoteîîJAPANESE PROVERB  In so far as losing
the plot is related to premature (and mistaken) evaluation, as it was in the
above game, the solution may lie in some of my suggestions in Thinking and
Blinking.  There I emphasize that our conscious minds need to be supported by
our unconscious, and that all our thinking is ultimately evaluative.  I also
suggest that we don’t really know what it means to have an advantage.  I
think there is no simple solution to the type of problem Danny had above, but
it probably helps if the evaluation is fairly unconscious (so that we are not
blinded to certain moves because of the dominance of a blanket assessment) and
flexible (may be better here, but trend unclear) . We somehow need to evaluate
so that we know which type of moves/ positions to look for but also think of
our assessments with an open mind.  One way to do this is to think of your
assessments as if they were part of a legal system; in other words ‘innocent
until proven guilty’.  The knowledge that your assessment could be wrong,
together with the working assumption that it’s correct, should go some way
towards helping you avoid losing the plot.  Of course it’s not so easy to
keep your judgements open-ended, but, just as in life, we do ourselves less
damage that way. On a related point, if you find that you are in danger of
drifting, or wake up to the fact that you’ve lost the plot, all is not lost.
There is always a way to find some sort of ‘plan’ and it is much better
that you should play with a mini-plan, or silly plan, or over-zealous plan
than with no plan at all.  That said, sometimes the best plan is to do nothing
at all so what I really mean by having a plan is this: if someone were to ask
you ‘what are you trying to do?’ that you should have an answer.  The
above game suggested that we often begin to drift just after a sequence of
moves that don’t go quite as we intended.  However, even when the position
is unclear or favourable for you, there are moments where it is extremely hard
to know what to do next.  The following two examples show the type of thinking
required to avoid drifting, and show that even if you never really had a plot,
it is possible to find, or create one.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Van Delft vs. Vink - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1b1k2r/2q1bpp1/pn1p1n1p/1p2p3/4P1PP/1NN1BP2/PPPQ4/2KR1B1R w kq - 0 13"]
[PlyCount "7"]

{Black's last move allows White to gain an advantage with a precise sequence. 
Can you find it?} 13. g5 {13.Qf2?! Rb8?! 14.Kb1?! Be6 15.Bd3?! Na4 16.Ne2 d5
Merijn has not played the first part of the game well, and his passive moves
have given Black the initiative.  However, White began to wake up here,
sniffed out the unfavourable trend and looked for ways to counter it.} hxg5 14.
hxg5 Rxh1 15. gxf6 Bxf6 16. Bxb5+ {The point playing 13.g5. This is very
strong for White, as pointed out to me by Merijn van Delft.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Van Delft vs. Vink - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/2q1kp2/p3n1p1/1p4P1/1N2P1r1/2P1Q3/PP6/1K2R3 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{After the last move Nb4 White has some threats, and if Black doesn't find a
way to defend can lose soon.  What's the best way to defend this position?} 
1... Qg3 {The best move!  1...Qc5?? What was actually played. 2.Nd5+ Kf8  2...
Kd6 3.e5++-  2...Kd8 3.Qd2 Kc8 4.Qh2 Rf1 and b4 are strong threats, White is
winning. 3.Qh3! Black resigns.} 2. Qa7+ {2.Qxg3 Rxg3 3.Nxa6 Rxg5=  2.Nd5+?!
Kf8 3.Qxg3 Rxg3= Black is a bit better but the position still equal.} Kf8 3.
Rf1 {3.Rh1 Kg7 4.Qa8 Rh4⩱} Nxg5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Van Delft vs. Vink - Exercise"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r1k2r/2q1bpp1/p3b2p/1p2p1P1/n3N2P/1N1BQP2/PPP5/1K1R3R w k - 0 21"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White here has many options. A prophylactic move, based on an awareness of
the opponent’s likely resistance to the idea he wants to implement, is the
start of the ‘comeback’.  Can you suspect this withdrawal strategic move?} 
21. Qc1 {White has been rather plotless up to this point, but with this move
he is thinking schematically for the first time and intends a particular
strategic operation rather than just drifting move to move. Alternatives
include:  21.g6 f5! 22.Nf2 Nxb2=  21.gxh6 Rxh6 22.Rhg1 Kf8∓  21.Ng3 Nxb2! 22.
Kxb2 Qc3+ 23.Kb1 Ba3 24.Bxb5+ axb5 25.Qxc3 Rxc3⩱  21.c3!? Nb6! 22.Qg1 Kf8
gives Black some advantage but the position is still tense. After 21.Qg1! Kf8
22.Rh2 I think I still prefer Black, but White has an annoying threat of Rg2,
and it’s not clear how Black will respond.} Nb6 22. Ng3 Nd5 {22...g6 23.gxh6
Bf8 24.h7! Rxh7 25.h5 Bh6 26.hxg6 Bxc1 27.gxh7+- and White wins.} 23. Bf5 {
Now White is back in the game.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Van Delft vs. Vink"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "73"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. f3
Nbd7 9. Qd2 Qc7 10. g4 h6 11. h4 b5 12. O-O-O Nb6 {Black’s opening set-up is
a little unusual, but not obviously bad.  12...b4!? could be tried here.} 13.
Qf2 {13.g5! hxg5 14.hxg5 Rxh1 15.gxf6 Bxf6 16.Bxb5+ is very strong for White,
as pointed out to me by Merijn van Delft.  This idea is also possible on the
next move} Rb8 14. Kb1 Be6 15. Bd3 Na4 16. Ne2 d5 {Merijn has not played the
first part of the game well, and his passive moves have given Black the
initiative. However, White began to wake up here, sniffed out the unfavourable
trend and looked for ways to counter it} 17. Ng3 dxe4 {17...d4 18.Bc1 g6!? was
the sober suggestion of IM Jan Gustafsson after downing his third beer. Black
seems to have good control of the game, but 19.g5 is awkward} 18. Nxe4 Nd5 19.
g5 {19.Bc1 Nb4 20.Bf1} Nxe3 20. Qxe3 Rc8 {This move implies ideas of ...Nxb2
if the e4-knight ever moves, but beyond this, it’s not clear that Black has
any particular plan.  Although he has certain positional advantages, there is
a question mark over his king. White sensed that this was a turning-point and
now had a deep think.  There are many ‘normal’ moves like 21.Rhg1, 21.g6,
21.Rhe1 and 21.gxh6, but in all cases Black has sufficient resources and
retains certain positional advantages.  Merijn decided that exchanging
light-squared bishops was a good idea and so wanted to enact the manoeuvre Ng3
and Bf5.  This is a reasonable aim because Black cannot easily play ...g6, and
Black won’t be able to move the bishop from e6 because of the c8-rook. 
However, there are problems with tactics on the pawns on c2 and b2 that
prevent this idea at present, so White needs to deal with this issue first. 
Merijn’s next move, although not especially strong from a positional point
of view, can almost be considered the winning move because it was here that
Merijn effectively said “This is what I’m up to; what are you going to do
about it?”, and Black didn’t find an adequate answer.} 21. Qc1 {Prior to
this move, Merijn had a keen awareness that he had been playing badly and said
to himself: “If I carry on like this, I’m just going to lose.”  This
prophylactic move, based on an awareness of the opponent’s likely resistance
to the idea he wants to implement, is the start of the ‘comeback’.  White
has been rather plotless up to this point, but with this move he is thinking
schematically for the first time and intends a particular strategic operation
rather than just drifting move to move.  A further thought at this point went
something like: “I’ve played badly, but I won’t buckle, and I will win
this game.” I have to say that 21.Qc1 is not such a ‘good move’ in the
conventional sense that it improves White’s position, but rather in the
inter-subjective sense that White took responsibility for the game.  The
unfavourable trend was acknowledged and with this retreat it began to be
reversed because White became more ‘conscious’ of the direction of the
game, and his responsibility for it.  His opponent, who had played the better
chess up to this point, was left to think for himself.  In some ways it’s
more of an achievement to play a move like 21.Qc1 at a crucial moment in a
game of uncertain quality than to play a generally good game.  Alternatives
include:  21.Rhg1  21.g6 f5! 22.Nf2 Nxb2  21.Rhe1  21.gxh6 Rxh6  21...gxh6!?
22.Rhg1 f5 23.Nf2 Nxb2 22.Rhg1 Kf8∓ with a clear advantage to Black.  21.Ng3
Nxb2! 22.Kxb2 Qc3+ 23.Kb1 Ba3 24.Bxb5+ axb5 25.Qxc3 Rxc3 and Black is much
better.  21.c3!? Nb6! 22.Qg1 Kf8 gives Black some advantage but the position
is still tense. After  21.Qg1! Kf8 22.Rh2 I think I still prefer Black, but
White has an annoying threat of Rg2, and it’s not clear how Black will
respond.} Nb6 {In the absence of tactical tricks, this knight is a little
redundant on a4, so it’s understandable that Black wants to re-route it. 
However, it is now difficult to prevent White’s main plan, so Black may have
been able to improve here, and keep some advantage, for instance by  21...
Rd8!? after Qc1 the rook does little on the c-file and this move also
anticipates Ng3 by giving the king a relatively safe haven on c8 22.Ng3 hxg5
23.hxg5 Rxh1 24.Rxh1 g6 25.Rh8+  25.Ne4 Kd7!? Kd7 26.Rxd8+ Kxd8 27.Qd2 Kc8
when the two bishops and weak pawn on g5 give Black a little advantage.} 22.
Ng3 Nd5 {22...g6 doesn’t quite hold here, or elsewhere it seems 23.gxh6 Bf8
24.h7! Rxh7 25.h5 Bh6 26.hxg6 Bxc1 27.gxh7+- and White wins.} 23. Bf5 Nf4 24.
Bxe6 Nxe6 25. Nf5 {Now although there’s not much wrong with Black’s
position, White has clearly enjoyed a favourable trend and was feeling very
confident at this stage} hxg5 26. hxg5 Rxh1 27. Rxh1 g6 28. Nxe7 Qxe7 29. Qe3 {
White’s activity is partly balanced out by the weakness of g5 but, as I’ve
said, it’s easier to attack than defend when you’re approaching the
time-control, and Black’s position goes downhill quite fast.  29.Rh8+ is a
good alternative.} Qc7 {Now White takes the initiative by sophisticated means.
The critical line is  29...Qxg5! 30.Qb6! White has other queen moves, but
Black has counterplay based on ...Qg2, ... Rxc2 and the weakness of the back
rank  30.Rh8+? Kd7 31.Qd3+ Nd4 32.Nxd4?? Qg1+ 30...Qg2 after  30...Qf5 31.Qd6
Nf8 32.Nc5 Qxf3 33.Qxe5+ Ne6 34.Re1 Qf2 35.b4! White is not worse 31.Rh8+ Nf8
32.c3 Qxf3 33.Qd6 Qf1+ 34.Kc2 Qf5+ 35.Kc1 Qf1+ 36.Kc2 Qf5+ etc.} 30. c3 Ke7 31.
Re1 Rh8 32. Nc1 {This is a good move, which shows the value of centralization.
Black’s king will feel the presence of this knight, which was doing little
on b3} Rh4 {32...Rh5! 33.Nd3 Rxg5 34.Nxe5 Kf6! and Black seems to hold on.} 33.
Nd3 e4 34. fxe4 Rg4 35. Nb4 Qc5 36. Nd5+ Kf8 37. Qh3 {White’s play after 21.
Qc1 was admirably direct. Dutch Under-20 Ch, Leiden 1999} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Portisch vs. Christiansen - E"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2rq1rk1/pb3p1p/1pn1pbp1/8/3PP3/P2B1N2/1B2QPPP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 16"]
[PlyCount "11"]

{White's position is very healthy. How is the best way to improve?} 16. h4 {
The pawn can't be captured because of the following continuation:} Bxh4 {
A serious mistake.} 17. d5 {The point!} exd5 18. exd5 Re8 19. Qd2 Na5 20. Qf4
Be7 21. Bb5 {White is winning.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Portisch vs. Christiansen - E"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2rr2k1/pb2qp1p/1pn1pbp1/7P/3PP3/P2B1N2/1B2QPP1/3R1RK1 w - - 0 18"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{White is not yet ready to advance in the centre. White can play h6 at some
point, which would tend to signify threats to the g7-square, but we are still
faced with the problem of exchanging the bishop in this regard.  How should
White increase the pressure here?} 18. Qe3 {Strong move! The first step in the
plan. This defends d4 but weakens c4.  Sometimes in these positions White
plays e5 to gain even more space and try to exploit the weakened dark squares
on the kingside, but Portisch’s strategy looks much more convincing.  Black
is quite cooperative in this game but even if your plan is not especially
threatening for the opponent, having some sense of where you are going enables
you to play quickly and confidently.} Na5 19. Rc1 {Black pieces are not well
coordinated.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Portisch vs. Christiansen - E"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3q2k1/1b3p1p/pp2pbp1/n6P/3PP3/P2B1N2/1B3PP1/2Q3K1 w - - 0 23"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{White has some advantage. How they should continue here?} 23. h6 {This
‘alien’ pawn has made a rather big appearance in this course!  Once again
it causes a lot of problems. Black already has difficulty meeting threats of
Qf4 and d5} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Portisch vs. Christiansen - E"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3q2k1/1b3p1p/p3pbpP/1p2N3/2nPPQ2/P1BB4/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 27"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{The last move 26...Nc4 allows a tactical winning by force. Can you find it?} 
27. Bxc4 bxc4 {Now White has a winning combination, but the seeds for this
were sown on move 18 when White decided to exchange rooks.} 28. Ba5 {The point!
} Qe7 29. Nd7 {There's no way to prevent decisive entry to the back rank with
Qb8.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Portisch vs. Christiansen"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Qc2 Be7 8. e4
Nxc3 9. bxc3 O-O 10. Bd3 c5 11. O-O cxd4 12. cxd4 Nc6 13. Bb2 Rc8 14. Qe2 Bf6
15. Rad1 g6 16. h4 Qe7 17. h5 Rfd8 {Por@isch’s games are often very
instructive and here he shows us how it is possible to formulate plans when
there seems to be no obvious continuation.  When I first saw this game I was
still courting the Grünfeld and since this position is a lot like a Grünfeld,
from my biased perspective I assumed that Black may have some advantage here. 
I was therefore all the more impressed when White played a sequence of strong
moves that highlighted all that was bad about Black’s position.  If you were
playing White, what would you be trying to do here?  This is not an easy
question to answer because the pressure on the centre makes it difficult to
start anything serious on the kingside îîStartBracketîîe.g. with
Nh2-g4îîEndBracketîî and Black seems to be very well coordinated in general. 
In such situations it can be a good idea to focus on one particular positional
aspect and see if you can build a plan around that.  It’s important not to
become blinkered by this single feature, but focusing your attention on
something specific can lead to new insights that you may not see if you look
at the position too generally.  Let’s look at Black’s king, our ultimate
target. There are a few weak squares around it and it’s only really
protected by the f6-bishop.  However, this prelate is difficult to exchange
because White is not yet ready to advance in the centre. White can play h6 at
some point, which would tend to signify threats to the g7-square, but we are
still faced with the problem of exchanging the bishop in this regard.  However,
another feature of playing h6 is that Black’s king is suddenly short of air
and if White were ever to get ‘round the back’ then he’d be most
uncomfortable.  But how can we ever do that when Black’s rooks are such good
guardians of the back rank and pressurize the centre? Exchange them!  In fact,
this thought reveals that Black’s rooks are currently out-performing their
counterparts in any case.  So what we’re saying is something like this:
Black is too well coordinated to allow for a frontal attack on the king or an
advance in the centre at this stage but since we have no play on the queenside
we need another approach.  h6 is a useful move in the long term but it’s not
going to trouble Black seriously unless we can somehow create mating threats. 
His f6-bishop cannot be readily exchanged and his rooks currently prevent us
from invading the seventh or eighth ranks.  It seems that exchanging rooks
would at least give us something to hope for, so let’s try to do this.
What’s he going to do in the meantime?  He’ll probably play ...Na5
intending ...Nc4 or ...Nb3 but this just helps us to exchange on the c-file.
Anything else? Well he might just double his rooks but then he will have to
weaken himself on either the c- or d-file.} 18. Qe3 {The first step in the
plan. This defends d4 but weakens c4.  Sometimes in these positions White
plays e5 to gain even more space and try to exploit the weakened dark squares
on the kingside, but Portisch’s strategy looks much more convincing.  Black
is quite cooperative in this game but even if your plan is not especially
threatening for the opponent, having some sense of where you are going enables
you to play quickly and confidently.} Na5 {This turns out badly even though
it’s hard to believe that it’s a mistake.  Black probably didn’t
appreciate that White wants to exchange rooks, and if he had realized that
this worsens his position, he may have preferred something like  18...Rc7! 19.
Rc1  However, things are not so clear after 19...Rcd7!  19...Rdc8 20.Rc2!?
because the pressure has been taken off d4 and it will be difficult for Black
to avoid the exchange of rooks 20.e5 this seems necessary now  20.Bb5 is met
by 20...Nxd4! 21.Bxd7 Nxf3+ 22.Qxf3 Bxb2 23.Rc2 Bxa3 20...Bg7 21.Bb5 Rc7 22.a4
with a tense position} 19. Rc1 a6 {Understandably, Black wants to play ...b5,
but he underestimates the long-term danger to his king.} 20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. Rc1
Rxc1+ 22. Qxc1 Qd8 {probably designed to stop Ne5} 23. h6 {This ‘alien’
pawn has made a rather big appearance in this book!  Once again it causes a
lot of problems. Black already has difficulty meeting threats of Qf4 and d5}
Qc8 {There seems to be no way back after this, but maybe it’s lost already,
e.g.  23...b5 24.d5! exd5 25.Bxf6 Qxf6 26.Qc7 or  23...Nc6 24.Bxa6 Nxd4 25.
Bxd4 Bxa6 26.Bxf6 Qxf6 27.Qc7} 24. Qf4 Qd8 25. Ne5 b5 {Such drastic measures
as  25...g5!? may be necessary. I don’t then see an obvious way through,
although White is still much better.} 26. Bc3 Nc4 {This loses by force but the
alternatives don’t look much better:  26...Nb3 27.d5 exd5 28.Nc6 Bxc6 29.
Bxf6 Qe8 30.Bc3 d4 31.Qf6 Qf8 32.Bb4  26...Nc6!? 27.Nxf7!  27.d5 Nxe5 28.Bxe5
Bg5 27...Kxf7 28.e5 looks devastating} 27. Bxc4 bxc4 {Now White has a winning
combination, but the seeds for this were sown on move 18 when White decided to
exchange rooks.} 28. Ba5 Qe7 29. Nd7 {There's no way to prevent decisive entry
to the back rank with Qb8. London 1982.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Echoes"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîEchoesîîHeaderEndîî îîStartBlockQuoteîîTanzan and Ekido
were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still
falling. Coming around a bend they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash,
unable to cross the intersection. “Come on girl”, said Tanzan at once.
Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud. Ekido did not speak
again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he could no
longer restrain himself. “We monks don’t go near females”, he told
Tanzan, “especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you
do that?” “I left the girl there;”, said Tanzan, “are you still
carrying her?”   EndBlockQuote  Zen Flesh, Zen Bones  What is the difference
between a lion in the zoo and a lion in your backyard? For most people, only
one of them is perceived to be a threat.  Now let’s suppose the lion were to
do something horrific in your backyard, like mauling you within an inch of
your life; would you then be in a hurry to see a lion at the zoo?  No, in fact
thereafter you would associate lions with this defining experience and you
would probably be terrified of them, even if you were just to see them on
television, or at the zoo.  Similarly, if you have lost more than one
important game by falling for a back-rank trick, you are likely to feel a
certain ‘pang’ whenever your back rank is even remotely vulnerable. 
Moreover, you are liable to be more inclined than most to prevent back-rankers
in future, and will play moves like h3, g3 or whatever, possibly not even
being conscious of why you are doing it.  What we call judgement is often
based on unconscious preferences such as these, and these unconscious
preferences are formed by emotional memories.  This much is implied by what we
know about patterns, as we saw in Thinking, but only recently did I realize
that emotional memories not only shape our judgement in general, but that
within a single game, we often make decisions based on emotional memories of
earlier parts of the same game.  Indeed, a chess game cannot be understood
unless it is considered as a totality where one phase of the game leaves an
emotional imprint on the next.  The players can rarely see the position in
front of them without visions of positions from the recent past and, more
importantly, these past visions are often full of emotional content. 
Consequently, we are prone to overlook certain moves and prefer others because
we want to rekindle or avoid former feelings that we had earlier in the game. 
After a major transition, for instance from the middlegame to the endgame, you
can mentally adapt to the new circumstances without emotionally adapting, so
if you’ve been defending your king for several moves, it will be difficult
to bring yourself to activate it in the endgame.  Although your thinking brain
will tell you it’s called for, your feeling brain will pull you away from
anything that resembles the unpleasant memories, such as those where your king
was under threat.  The problem is that emotional memories are often faulty
guides to the present. In so far as there is a solution, we have to make an
extra-special effort to move from one phase of the game to another mentally
and emotionally.  This can be done by going for a walk after a major
transition or just consciously trying to process the emotion you've felt up to
that point.  Here some 'selbstgesprach' (self-talk) can be very useful; for
example, 'OK, it's the endgame now, things have changed; I don't need to worry
about being mated any more. It's important to look at this position with fresh
eyes...'  You'll know best how to do it for yourself, but since transitions
are such a big part of chess, it is hugely important that you are emotionally
ready to play the position at hand, rather than playing the new position with
old, inappropriate emotions.  I think of this type of problem as a
manifestation of Looseness because it tends to take you away from the here and
now, and undermines your ability to think clearly about the position in front
of you. It is partly because of this phenomenon that I think a game of chess
is invariably better understood by the participant themselves than any
onlookers, even if the onlookers have a better understanding of chess.  I
learned a huge amount from the following game (notes partly based on those I
wrote for Chess Monthly) , where almost all my mistakes stemmed from being
trapped by emotional memories from previous stages in the game. I like to call
memories from a prior part of the game echoes because it gives the sense of
something that happened in the past being tangibly felt in the present.  When
I realized that these echoes were the principal cause of my errors in this
game, I discovered, from looking at my other games, that I'd been making
mistakes because of echoes for years!} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Benjamin - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3k2r/1bp2ppp/p1n2n2/1pP1p3/8/2P2B2/PP3PPP/RNB2RK1 w kq - 0 12"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{White keeps the bishop pair and an annoying pawn on the fifth rank. How can
they fight for the advantage?} 12. b4 {Strong move! This is a significant
novelty suggested by Wedberg in ChessBase Magazine. White will crack open the
queenside only after fixing it.  12.a4?! b4! 13.Re1 O-O-O 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.cxb4
Nd5 16.Bd2 f6 17.b3 Ne7! was about equal in de Firmian-Benjamin, USA Ch, Salt
Lake City 1999.} e4 {12...a5 13.Na3 axb4 14.Nxb5 O-O 15.cxb4 e4 16.Be2 Nxb4 17.
Nxc7 is clearly better for White due to the bishop pair and passed c-pawn.} 13.
Be2 O-O 14. a4 {Another strong move. Black has to take a decision. White is
better!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Benjamin - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1bp2ppp/p1n2n2/2P5/pP2p3/2P5/4BPPP/RNB2RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{Another interesting moment. How should White continue here?} 1. Rd1 {A nice
move! I wanted to prevent ...Nd5 and discourage Black from challenging the
d-file.  After 15.Rxa4 Nd5! my coordination is bad and I have no especially
natural way to complete my development.  Focusing on this line before looking
at any others didn't do my confidence any favours. Although my moves were good,
my thoughts were already a bit 'loose' and overtly defensive in nature.} Ne5 2.
Bf4 {An interesting example of the benefits of developing your pieces in the
right order.  This bishop may have gone to g5, f4 or e3 depending on Black’s
move and my knight may yet go to a3, d2 or maybe even c3 so 15.Rd1 had the
extra benefit of forcing Black to give me something to react to.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Benjamin - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r3r1k1/1bp2ppp/p4n2/2P1n3/pP2pB2/2P5/4BPPP/RN1R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "3"]

{So far White has controlled Black's counterplay well. Following this plan,
what is the best play here?} 1. c4 {Another accurate move. Dominating the
center.} Re7 {1...Nd3 an active try. 2.Bxd3 exd3 3.f3! White is better.  3.
Bxc7! Objectively I suppose White is better, but, as I suggested in Chapter 5,
objectivity in chess can cause more problems than it solves.} 2. Nc3 {White is
much better.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Benjamin - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n2r1k1/1b1n1ppp/p1p5/1PP5/2P1p3/2N1B3/4BPPP/R5K1 w - - 0 24"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{I was guilty of drifting for a few moves here. I played 24.Rd1? in the game. 
How should I have continue here?} 24. g4 {This move gives some breathing space
to my king and prevents/ discourages ...f5.  24.Rd1? For instance, the d-file
turns out not to be too relevant here, yet because of the 'echoes' from
earlier, when I was worried about the d-file just out of the opening, I still
felt some emotional urgency about controlling this file.  The superior scope
of my bishops suggests that I should be playing on both sides of the board, so
the obvious move is 24.g4! but I think I was somehow worried about weakening
f3, which is another echo of my careful mindset of earlier in the game.  This
move gives some breathing space to my king and prevents/ discourages ...f5. If
shown this position fresh, I would certainly have played this move.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Benjamin - Exercis"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/1bNnrn1p/pPp5/2P2p2/2P1p3/4B2P/4BP2/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]

{In this position I wasted my chance to win the game. Can you find the best
continuation?} 1. Ne8 {A lack of creativity under pressure, patchy confidence
and fragile composure prevented me from seeing this move.  After 35.Ra1? Not
only is this decentralizing, but it messes up the coordination of my whole
army and grants Black counterplay.  This served to multiply the nerve factor
and stole my composure. I sensed that this was a crucial moment and I was
aware that I had some knight jumps, but didn't look carefully enough and fell
prey to Materialism.} Kf8 {35...Nxb6 36.Nf6+ Kg7 37.Nh5+} 2. Nd6 Nxd6 3. cxd6 {
Followed by 3...-- 4.c5!  If 3...Rg7+ Kf1 with the threat 3...-- 4.Bh6 or 3...
-- 4.c5!} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Rowson vs. Benjamin"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "107"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Bc5 6. c3 b5 7. Bc2 d5 8. d4
dxe4 9. dxc5 Qxd1 10. Bxd1 exf3 11. Bxf3 Bb7 12. b4 {This is a significant
novelty suggested by Wedberg in ChessBase Magazine.  White will crack open the
queenside only after fixing it.  12.a4 b4! 13.Re1 O-O-O 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.cxb4
Nd5 16.Bd2 f6 17.b3 Ne7! was about equal in de Firmian-Benjamin, USA Ch, Salt
Lake City 1999.} e4 {12...a5 13.Na3 axb4 14.Nxb5 O-O 15.cxb4 e4 16.Be2 Nxb4 17.
Nxc7 is clearly better for White due to the bishop pair and passed c-pawn.} 13.
Be2 O-O 14. a4 bxa4 {I began to doubt Wedberg's idea at this point, and felt
somewhat nervous about my lack of development.  I have certain long-term
advantages based on pawn-structure and dark-square control but for a while I
couldn't see any way to keep Black's activity at bay.  After a deep think I
discovered, I think, the only way to keep the initiative.  Nonetheless, this
was a defining moment for the rest of the game because to some extent I was
already playing to Black's tune and thoughts of his active threats were
planted in the uppermost reaches of my mind.  By the end of the game they
fizzled out, but they colour much of what is to follow.} 15. Rd1 {I wanted to
prevent ...Nd5 and discourage Black from challenging the d-file.   After 15.
Rxa4 Nd5! my coordination is bad and I have no especially natural way to
complete my development.  Focusing on this line before looking at any others
didn't do my confidence any favours.  Although my moves were good, my thoughts
were already a bit 'loose' and overtly defensive in nature.} Ne5 {15...Rfd8 16.
Rxd8+ Rxd8 17.Bg5 I would have enjoyed inflicting further structural damage
and serious black counterplay will be a long time in coming.} 16. Bf4 {An
interesting example of the benefits of developing your pieces in the right
order.  This bishop may have gone to g5, f4 or e3 depending on Black's move
and my knight may yet go to a3, d2 or maybe even c3 so 15.Rd1 had the extra
benefit of forcing Black to give me something to react to.} Rfe8 17. c4 {
An important, but far from obvious move.  The idea is to control the key
d5-square with the pawn and then to bring my knight to as influential a square
as possible, which in this case is c3, where it controls d5, attacks a4 and
covers e4 and e2.  Although this move looks good, it did take a considerable
amount of nervous energy.  To play another non-developing move when already so
far behind in development against a player with considerable tactical prowess
is not easy on the nerves and, however much my thinking brain applauded this
move, my emotional brain was by no means at ease.} Re7 {This seems to concede
defeat from a conceptual point of view and in a sense Benjamin was guilty of
Blinking here.   However, it's not totally clear if Black's more active option,
17...Nd3 18.Bxd3 exd3 was fully adequate either.  Then 19.Bxc7! may look like
gross Materialism, but in fact by removing the c7-pawn I not only take '1
point' from Black's army, but significantly increase the value of my own
queenside pawns, which threaten to become a connected duo.  19.Nc3!? Ne4 20.
Rxd3 a5! 19...Rac8!? this poses an awkward question to my way- ward bishop and
perhaps is just enough to keep the balance  19...Ng4!? with the possible
threat of ...Nxf2 20.b5! after which I think White takes control. 20.Bb6  20.
Bd6 Ne4 21.Nd2 Nc3 looks dangerous for White. Ng4! After 21.Nc3  21.b5 axb5 22.
cxb5 Bd5 23.Nc3 Bc4! and Black seems to keep the balance. Ne5! 22.Nxa4 Nxc4 23.
Rxd3 White's extra pawn is the most significant factor, but Black has a good
deal of activity and my king is anxiously waiting for my minor pieces to come
back before it's too late.  The opposite-coloured bishops make it difficult to
make something of the passed pawn, but they also make an attack against
White's king fairly plausible.  Objectively I suppose White is better, but
objectivity in chess can cause more problems than it solves.} 18. Nc3 Rae8 19.
Be3 {A sensible move, trying to make the e-file less relevant for the rooks. 
Perhaps I could have played this more quickly, but I certainly had no idea he
was going to play what he did and because of my earlier worries I was still in
an overly cautious mindset, double and triple checking his various knight hops.
} Rd7 {This is needlessly compliant, but my opponent's switch to defensive
mode shocked me so much that my play goes rapidly downhill from here.  I had
expected something more threatening but I suppose my position is now
sufficiently organized to rebuff any irritants.  At this stage, I couldn't
work out if my opponent was going to be passive for a long time or if there
was still some residual initiative that I should be looking out for.   I knew
19...Neg4!? 20.Bxg4 Nxg4 21.Rxa4 Ne5!? 22.b5! was promising for me, but it may
just be winning because Black's queenside will be fatally compromised one way
or another.  After 19...Nd3 20.Rdb1!? keeps Black's counterplay to a minimum
and after winning my pawn back I can take my time about dealing with the
pretentious octopus on d3.} 20. Rxd7 Nexd7 21. b5 {It'@ strange that I didn't
see his reply to this even though its totally forced îîStartBracketîîBlack
certainly can't allow me to fix the c7-pawn with c6îîEndBracketîî.   There was
something to be said for delaying b5 by 21.Rxa4 when Black can reply 21...c6!?
and organize himself in preparation for b5 but then again this will limit his
possibilities in other respects and I can consider improving my position with
Ra1-d1 and maybe g4 and Kg2-g3 before playing b5.  21.Rxa4 c6!? I can consider
improving my position with Ra1-d1 and maybe g4 and Kg2-g3 before playing b5} c6
{This threw me back and made me think that 21.b5 was careless, but why should
I have been in any way worried about my position?  It's still extremely good.
I think the most compelling explanation is that my dominant mindset was the
one I held from moves 8-19, which was primarily cautious and directed against
preventing my opponent's counterplay.  Moreover, in such a mindset you are
determined to avoid any unpleasant surprises and so a surprise of any sort is
inclined to bother you, regardless of its objective strength.  So the
unpleasant feeling I experienced on seeing 21...c6 was much the same as when I
saw the variation with 15.Rxa4 Nd5! even though the positions are totally
different.} 22. Rxa4 {I spent about twenty minutes on this move, which is
every bit as good as 22.b6 but leaves both players with more to think about. 
The crazy thing is that thinking was never likely to help me reach a decision.
I should have quickly realized that both moves were possible, and followed my
intuition, which told me to capture on a4.  I guess I fell prey to
Perfectionism here, mainly in the form of 'jam lust'.  This type of difficult
decision is typical of those which lead to 'echo effects' later in the game.
You invest a lot of emotional energy and still can't make up your mind, so
when the issue reemerges, perhaps in a totally different context, you are
instinctively resistant to dealing with the same problem again, even if the
position has changed considerably.  Indeed, from an emotional point of view
the easiest option is to keep the option open, and leave it unresolved for the
whole game!  22.b6} Nb8 23. Ra1 Nfd7 24. Rd1 {I was guilty of drifting for a
few moves here. For instance, the d-file turns out not to be too relevant here,
yet because of the 'echoes' from earlier, when I was worried about the d-file
just out of the opening, I still felt some emotional urgency about controlling
this file.  The superior scope of my bishops suggests that I should be playing
on both sides of the board, so the obvious move is 24.g4! but I think I was
somehow worried about weakening f3, which is another echo of my careful
mindset of earlier in the game.  This move gives some breathing space to my
king and prevents/discourages ...f5. If shown this position fresh, I would
certainly have played this move.  Strangely, my reasons for not playing 24.g4
have little to do with the given position and lots to do with the position ten
or so moves ago!  24.g4! This move gives some breathing space to my king and
prevents/discourages ...f5.} f5 {After the game Benjamin said that this was a
significant achievement for Black, and that he now felt an upward trend in his
favour.  I was a bit vague in general, hoping that this could somehow be shown
to be weakening, while simultaneously wishing that I had prevented it!} 25. Na4
{There is an idea of Nb6 that doesn't happen and I should have decided at this
point whether it was a good idea.  Simply 25.h3 intending Kh2 and g4 as in the
game would keep a substantial advantage.} Ne5 26. Nc3 {I was concerned that
Black's extra control of c6 made capturing on b5 plausible now but almost any
transition favours White.  There is another echo here: I wanted to keep the
option of b6 because my difficult decision on move 21 was never quite resolved
and made me feel that if I wasn't going to play b6, I should at least have the
option of doing so.   Better is 26.Nb6!? axb5 not forced, but White threatens
to improve his position further with h3 and g4 27.cxb5 cxb5 28.Bxb5 Bc6 29.
Be2±} Nbd7 {This was accompanied by a draw offer, which was timely since
things are looking up for Black and I haven't exactly shown myself to be in
control of events over the last few moves.  However, he's still clearly worse
and on this occasion the offer turned out merely to shake me from the lack of
resolve which had haunted me over the last few moves.} 27. h3 {At last I have
a scheme g4 and now I felt my confidence growing. The trend begins to turn
again.} Rc8 28. b6 Re8 29. Rd6 {A strange infiltration, one idea of which is
to have my rook as 'space invader supervisor' after I play the Nd5 sacrifice. 
The other motivation was to have Bd4 after ...f4, again without blocking the
rook, but this is a much less compelling justification.  Both players suffered
from the same illusion here, namely that I should strive to keep my c5-pawn so
that my asset on b6 is protected.  But if Black ever swaps his f-pawn for my
c-pawn, all that happens is that I end up putting my second c-pawn on c5 and
activate my light-squared bishop.  Our mutual blindness in this respect may
also have something to do with 'role play': Black is the trickster, who is
reliant on swindles because his position is bad.  He therefore, somehow,
'deserves' to have a serious claim to activity here, namely with the 'threat'
of ...f4.} Nf8 {Black strives to remove my rook, while trying to get his
knights supporting the ...f4 advance.} 30. g4 Nf7 31. Rd1 {31.gxf5!? Nxd6 32.
cxd6 c5 is not stupid, but just as with the Rxa4 vs b6 decision earlier. It's
often more important to play a good move rather than to waste time trying to
find the best move.  Given the error I make in a few moves because of lack of
time, wasting a minute here is about equivalent to blundering a pawn. 33.Bxc5
Nd7 34.Bd4 Rc8 35.c5 Kf8 36.Bg4 h5 37.Bxh5 Nxc5 38.f6 Ne6 39.fxg7+ Nxg7 40.Bg4
Rd8 is all very interesting to look at now, but with around five minutes to
get to move 40, some pragmatism was called for.  Lack of pragmatism tends to
be linked to insufficient confidence and in this case, I mistakenly lacked
confidence in 31. Rd1.} g6 32. Nd5 {Thi@ looks decisive and I didn't see an
answer, but rather than look at the crowd and think of their reaction
îîStartBracketîîEgoismîîEndBracketîî I should have concentrated better.} Nd7 {
After 32...cxd5 33.cxd5 I will win at least a piece back and retain positional
advantages.} 33. gxf5 gxf5 34. Nc7 {Or 34.Kh2 cxd5 35.cxd5 f4} Re7 35. Ra1 {
Not@only is this decentralizing, but it messes up the coordination of my whole
army and grants Black counterplay. This served to multiply the nerve factor
and stole my composure.  I sensed that this was a crucial moment and I was
aware that I had some knight jumps, but didn't look carefully enough and fell
prey to Materialism.  As I said, when you are short of time you always look
for the old certainties like material and checks, the more obscure ideas tend
not to provide the comfort that a shaky nervous system seeks.  Despite my
sloppy play I could still have won the game here with  35.Ne8+- A lack of
creativity under pressure, patchy confidence and fragile composure prevented
from seeing this move.  After 35...Kf8  35...Nxb6 36.Nf6+ Kg7 37.Nh5+ 36.Nd6
Nxd6 37.cxd6 Rg7+ 38.Kh2 Kf7  38...c5 39.Bh6 39.c5 White has a decisive
positional advantage. I considered  35.Ne6!? îîStartBracketîîstrange that I
see this, but not 35.Ne8!îîEndBracketîî but didn't see a follow-up.  However,
this is better than what I played, I badly needed to 'jump out of the system'
here, for which I should have talked to my pieces.  My worry was that knight
hops in general would lead me to regret not taking the key a-pawn while I had
the chance îîStartBracketîî'fear of regret'îîEndBracketîî.} Nfe5 {Part of the
reason I was attracted to 35.Ra1 was that  35...Nb8? 36.Bf4 Ne5 37.Bxe5 Rxe5
38.Rd1+- seemed consistent with his previous play and was clearly winning for
me.  This is another example of 'the desire to punish' but in a slightly
different context.  I guess my mistake was to assume that Joel would always
prefer to be passive just because he had surprised me with this earlier- yet
another misleading echo!} 36. Nxa6 Nd3 {A good move from the point of view of
confusion. I had been concerned directly with my king and so only considered
36...Nf3+ 37.Bxf3 exf3 38.Nc7 Rg7+ 39.Kh1+- when there is no evidence of a
black counter-attack.} 37. Bxd3 {Maybe a little risky in the circumstances,
but having expected 36... Nf3+, when I would take, I didn't pause to consider
the difference.  Basically I just wanted the horse out of my face a purely
emotional, but understandable reaction.  37.Nc7! was stronger, but we tend to
like exchanging in time-pressure and for some reason I didn't see that Black
could protect his d3- pawn.} exd3 38. Nb4 Ne5 {I somehow missed this, or at
least it took me a fair while to adjust to the tricks it brings.} 39. Kf1 {
It took two heart-burning minutes to find and play this, probably because I'd
decided I was going to h1 in the lines after 36...Nf3+.} Rd7 40. Rd1 Kf7 {
Joel felt this was wrong because it allows me to keep the rooks but it turns
out to be better than the immediate  40...Nxc4?! because somehow my
coordination is much better here than it was in the game.  After 41.Rxd3 Rxd3
42.Nxd3 Ba6 after  42...Kf7? 43.Bd4 Ke6 44.Nf4+ I have no problems with my
knight, as I did in the game, I can slowly infiltrate with my king via g1, h2,
g3 and h4 while Black has nothing to do. 43.Ke1 Black must avoid 43...Nxe3? 44.
fxe3 Bxd3 45.b7} 41. Bf4 Nxc4 42. Rxd3 {Another echo. I am still a victim of
all his previous tricks, which were felt to be even more threatening because
of the pending time-control.  Even though I had now safely reached the
time-control, my emotional brain was insistent that I remove his rook - a
piece that can attack not only my king, but also my nervous system!  However,
there was no longer any tactical problem here so I should just have kept the
rooks by  42.Nxd3 Then 42...Ba6 was enough to scare me, but the strength of my
b-pawn makes the threats to d3 illusory and with the rooks on the board I have
ideas of Ra1-a7 or possibly Bd6 followed by Ne5 at some moment. For example 43.
Kg2 Bb7 44.f3 Kf6 45.Kf2 Rd5 46.h4 Rd7 47.Re1! Rxd3 48.Bg5+ Kg6 49.Re6+ Kf7 50.
Re7+} Rxd3 43. Nxd3 Ke6 44. Nb4 {Other things being equal, this ending should
be winning, but my poor coordination and lazy king might give Black just
enough counterplay to draw.  For instance, my knight doesn't want to be on b4,
but it's the only way to prevent Black's king from infiltrating.  Given the
scares I felt just before the time-control, part of me was pleased to be
playing for just 'two results' but I was also aware that the desired result
was further away than it had been for most of the game.} Ne5 45. Bxe5 {Thi@
appears promising, but relieves the tension too soon. I didn't like the look
of Black's knight hopping all over me, but I keep winning chances for longer
with both minor pieces on the board.  That said, the fact that my decision was
mistaken is as much bad luck as bad judgement, given that he only survives due
to a surprising tactical trick that neither of us had yet seen. The correct
line was  45.Ke2 Nd7! 46.Be3 f4! 47.Bd4 Kf5 48.f3 Nf8! 49.Kd3 Ne6 50.h4 Nf8!
51.Nc2 Ng6 52.h5 Nh4 53.Ke2 Ba6+ 54.Kf2 îîStartBracketîîBlack is annoyingly
active in such positions, but perhaps a bit of patience would have enabled me
to see that White's position can still be improved in this sort of
situationîîEndBracketîî 54...Ke6 55.Nb4 Bb7 56.Ke2 Nf5 57.Kd3 Ng3 58.h6 Nf5 59.
Bg7 Ng3 60.Bf8 Ke5 61.Bd6+ Kf5 62.Nc2 Kg5 63.Nd4 hen Black position is
beginning to feel the strain.} Kxe5 46. Ke2 Kd4 47. Nd3 Bc8 {Joel seemed very
unperturbed by this ending, which is strange given how close he is to being
lost.  Clearly I cannot mobilize my knight without losing the b6/c5 wedge but
I had thought that I could win his h-pawn, and queen my own h-pawn before he
could bring his king back to the h-file.  This is a reasonable idea with only
one serious shortcoming.  47...f4!? was also possible, but seemingly
unnecessary.} 48. f4 Ba6 49. Kd2 Bb7 50. h4 Bc8 51. Kc2 Kc4 52. Kd2 Kd4 53. h5
h6 54. Kc2 {54.Ne5 Kxc5 55.Nf7 Kxb6 56.Nxh6 Be6! this is the rub, Black will
only let me capture the h-pawn on h6, after which my knight is trapped and
Black wins with his extra c-pawn.  After the game Joel laconically remarked:
'Yeah, the bishop usually dominates the knight in this type of situation'. 
Maybe Joel had more patterns than me to make sense of this ending, which
brings us full circle back to Thinking. Edmonton 2000} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "The Art of Concentration"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîThe Art of ConcentrationîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîThose who reach greatness on earth reach it through
concentration.îîEndBlockQuoteîîUpanishads  Just as I feel that lack of
confidence is essentially the problem with Perfectionism, so I think that
Looseness stems from poor concentration.  Whether you are drifting, feeling
slippage, making a sloppy evaluation, feeling very emotional, or feeling
trapped by the past, the essential problem is a lack of presence in the here
and now.  I have suggested various ways that you can combat Looseness on a
micro-level, but if you want to build up your immunity, it would be helpful to
have a macro-solution - a technique that would keep your mind from wandering
all over the place.  That said, it is no easier to help a person concentrate
than it is to build their confidence; both are highly subjective experiences,
accessible only from within.  There are, however, a few basic pointers to help
keep your mind fresh and present, which is just what you need to keep
Looseness at bay.  1- Variety: To remain attentive for any significant period
of time we need to break the monotony of thinking or looking at the same thing.
You may not be able to move the position around, but if you are to stay
concentrated you need to look at the position from several different
perspectives and think in several different ways.  This may mean asking
different questions of the same position and moving fluently from tactical to
strategic considerations.  It may also mean looking at the pawn-structure in
abstract and wondering how the king and pawn ending would be, or thinking of
which pieces you’d like to exchange or where you would put your pieces if
you had a choice. Then after such thoughts you might return to calculate a few
lines and so on.  I’d like to think that my recommendation of ‘talking
with the pieces’ and treating them as distinctive characters may also help
to keep your attention levels high.  Above all, just as in life, variety is an
excellent cure for boredom. So before you go ‘walkabout’ because you are
bored and think there’s nothing more to see, consider whether you can look
or think about the position in any other useful way.  2- Switching:
Concentration is also aided by switching from thoughts of your own to trying
to get into your opponent’s mind.  Sometimes it’s even worth literally
switching, and getting up and looking at the position from your opponent’s
side of the board. This has helped me to see otherwise hidden aspects of the
position on more than one occasion, but it’s important not to disturb your
opponent in the process.  3- Balance: It’s not humanly possible to retain
maximum concentration for the whole game.  Just as with any other activity,
there will typically be an adjustment period when you settle into the game
followed by a period of optimal concentration, followed by a weakening of
concentration due to tiredness.  While you will need to apply maximum
concentration at certain key moments, it is perhaps even more important that
you never let your concentration fall below a minimum threshold where you are
vulnerable to Looseness, or even to simple blunders.  What you need is some
sort of balance whereby you hold yourself back from concentrating too hard at
some moments and consciously exert yourself at others. Judith Polgar alluded
to this indirectly when she said that in some positions it’s not worth
wasting energy you’ll need later, especially when the opponent has so much
choice.  So going for a walk is sometimes the best thing for your
concentration, and I often find that ideas come to me concerning the position
even when I’m not thinking about it consciously.  4- Breaks: Talking of
which, breaks are essential for maintaining concentration. The physiological
reason is that your brain needs oxygen and you can increase the oxygen levels
in your brain by a short walk.  It’s also true that we have limited
attention spans and since most of us can only concentrate to optimal capacity
a few minutes at a time it can be good to ‘dip in and out’ of thinking so
that when you do think it’s not too sloppy.  Moreover, even if you are not
so good at visualizing the position without the board and pieces in front of
you, there are times when trying to see the position in your head can bring to
light certain aspects to which you may be blind when looking with your eyes -
so taking your eyes off the board can also aid concentration if done
intelligently.  Tiger Hillarp Persson’s ‘pretime-trouble sprint’,
mentioned in Chapter 3, should also be considered if you feel up to it, and
was ‘designed’ by Tiger, precisely to increase concentration and reduce
nerves just before the time-control.  îîHeaderStartîîConclusion:
îîHeaderEndîîLooseness is more readily experienced than described, but it
refers to a mental/emotional state where you don’t feel yourself to be in
charge of what’s happening in the position.  When it strikes, you are more
vulnerable to all the other sins, and it is especially likely to strike in
time-trouble.  The main manifestations covered here are ‘Nunn’s hangover
theory’, ‘tension transference’, ‘neural hijackings’, ‘drifting’,
‘slip-page’ and ‘echoes’. You can lose the plot as a result of any of
these but when you do there are ways to recover, in particular with
‘schematic thinking’.  To build up immunity to Looseness, it’s important
to learn the (difficult) art of concentration.} 1. Z0 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter 7 - Looseness"]
[Black "Conclusion: The Author's Rede"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "1"]

{î@€@^HeaderStartîîConclusion: The Author’s RedemptionîîHeaderEndîî
îîStartBlockQuoteîîNothing more can be attempted than to establish the
beginning and the direction of an infinitely long road. The pretension of any
systematic and definitive completeness would be, at least, a self-illusion.
Perfection can here be obtained only in the subjective sense that he
communicates everything he has been able to see.îîEndBlockQuoteîîGEORG SIMMEL 
The Seven Deadly Chess Sins reveal that we need to reconsider much that has
become habitual.  The game of chess, as outlined here, rewards those who are
able to feel as well as think, be sensitive to defining moments, love the
contest as well as the result, view the game from a pluralist perspective,
harness their ego and acknowledge their opponent, be confident and willing to
make a mistake, while concentrating intelligently at all times.  Although this
book may seem intense or even evangelical in places, I ask the reader to take
the occasional inconsistency or apparent incoherence lightly.  The endeavor is
not to create a system, nor have I gone out of my way to be an anarchist. 
Rather, I’ve tried to write about chess as I have come to understand it: a
complex and rewarding game that lies, tantalizingly, beyond the full grasp of
the human intellect.  There are problems and solutions in this book, and I
don’t pretend that there are more of the latter than the former. There is no
virtue in giving easy answers to the questions posed by a difficult game.  The
best we can do is to enjoy trying to work things out, and not take ourselves,
or the game, too seriously.  As I said in the Preface, theorizing about chess
is a sticky undertaking.} 1. Z0 *