Metaphysics of Chess (revised and extended)

I.The game of chess is a draw. From the draw of the starting position, for every move by White, there is at least one equivalent move by Black that maintains the draw.

II.The only possible way a player can win is if the other player commits an error, usually many errors. Taking advantage of errors is not always easy, and so, even in the presence of errors, wins are not always obtained.

III.Chess is a game of incremental improvement or degradation of a position. From a player’s perspective, the increment may be small or large, positive or negative, depending on the quality of the move, and which side makes the move.

IV.In a perfectly played game of chess, the incremental change for each and every move is zero.

V.The incremental change away from the draw of the starting position is the result of the move of the players. In the case of blunders, the increment may be large. In the case of excellent moves, the increment is zero.

VI.There are two possible results of a player’s move: 1) the position for the player making the move is of the same quality as before the move, 2) the position for the player making the move is worse than before the move. A player by his move cannot make his position better. Thus, degradation of one’s position comes as the result of one’s own moves, while improvement of one’s position comes as the result of errors of one’s opponent.

VII.Fears that the opponent's previous move has degraded one's position are unfounded.

VIII.Chess is a game of virtually an infinite number of positions. Thus, for the human mind, calculation in non-forcing positions is filled with error. However, in any given game, most of the positions can be played very well without deep calculation.

IX.No matter the rating difference between player 'A' and 'B', the level of understanding of some positions and the skill in playing them may be 1) exactly the same, 2) greater for player 'A', 3) greater for player 'B'. Understanding and skill in some position does not guarantee understanding and skill in all, or even other, positions.

X.Most players have an average ability to visualize and calculate future chess positions and moves. A more skillful player is the result of having learned how to play more positions than the weaker player, not in having greater calculation ability.

Implications:
You can only win if your opponent loses. By "loses," is meant "makes bad moves."
You cannot wrest the win from your opponent by force. Your opponent must, essentially, give it to you.

Minimizing the errors in your own play is the first step towards chess mastery, for, when you remove your errors, your opponent cannot win.

Identifying the errors in your opponent’s play is the second step towards chess mastery, for you cannot win without taking advantage of your opponent’s errors.

FAQ:
Question: Is it possible to make your opponent commit an error? Answer: No, however, by your move you can attempt to present him with problems that are difficult to answer. This is the general idea of gambits.

Question: I’m a beginner; must I play in such a way as to present problems to my opponents? Answer: yes and no. First the no: chess is of sufficient complexity that at the beginner level, your opponent will make errors of his own accord. Whether or not you can identify them and take advantage of them is another question. Now to the yes: in a sense every good move presents a problem. For example, 1. e4 occupies the center, and this is a problem for Black. There are a number of ways to suitably address this problem: e5, d5, c5, Nf6, etc. However, h5, as far as we can determine, is not one of them and probably degrades Blacks position (although it probably does not degrade it enough to guarantee a win for White).

Question: I’m rated 1500 and I am playing a guy rated 1900. Should I be worried? Answer: Not overly so. 1) His calculation ability is similar to yours. 2) He cannot win unless you make errors. 3) He probably knows how to play more positions, but there are plenty of positions that he doesn’t know how to play any better than you. Therefore, don’t worry; minimize your errors and take advantage of the opportunities that he will undoubtedly present to you, and above all, have fun.

Question: My opponent just played a great move. Am I lost? Answer: If you were not lost before your opponent played the move, then you cannot be lost after he played the move. If the position was balanced before his move, then there must be resources in the position to meet his challenge. Whether you can find them or not is a measure of your skill as a chess player.

Question: I cannot calculate 10 moves ahead in this position. Should I be worried? Answer: No. In many non-forcing positions, Grandmasters cannot calculate future moves with any certainty. First in non-forcing positions, you have no idea what move your opponent will play, and second from non-forcing positions there are too many positions to keep straight. In such, situations it is futile to calculate deep and lofty plans. However, from forcing positions it is relatively easy to calculate deeply. In most cases, reliable calculation is the result of 1) familiarity with the position, or similar positions, and 2) chunking. As applied to chess, in this instance, chunking is the grouping together of individual moves into one unit or chunk. Known positions, patterns and tactics allow the player to chunk many moves into one unit and achieve greater tactical acumen. Finally, many positions can be played sufficiently well without deep calculation.

Question: You say that a player cannot improve his position by his move, but what about the so called, "accumulation of small advantages," that some of the greatest players have practiced? Answer: This expression simply means taking advantage of the errors introduced by one’s opponent. But the move itself doesn’t create something in the position that was not there before; that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

Question: Aren’t you advocating very passive chess? Answer: Not at all. Players have different styles. Some like to play cutting edge, aggressive moves that seek to force one’s opponent to find a difficult best continuation and thereby increase the likelihood of error. Others like slower, more positional, games, just letting the fruit ripen on the vine, as it were. Subjectively, one approach may be better for you than the other, and subjectively, one approach may be more difficult for your opponent than the other. But this does not change the objective evaluation of the position. This presentation has tried to emphasize two things: 1) You should not unduly pressurize yourself to play great, incredible, moves that will win, for you cannot win, unless your opponent makes an error, usually more than one. 2) While you should respect your opponent’s move, you should not fear his move, for he cannot create something in the position that is not already there. If the position was good before his move, then it must be good after his move, and there must be resources available to meet his move.

Metaphysics of Chess

I. The game of chess is a draw. The only way a player can possibly win is if the other player commits an error, usually many errors. Taking advantage of errors is not always easy, and so, even in the presence of errors, wins are not always obtained.

II. Chess is a game of incremental improvement or degradation of one's position. Attempts to radically improve one's current position in one move are bound to fail. Fears that the opponent's previous move has radically degraded one's position are unfounded.

III. Chess is a game of virtually an infinite number of positions. Thus, calculation in non-forcing positions is filled with error. In any given game, most of the positions can be played very well without deep calculation.

IV. No matter the rating difference between player 'A' and 'B', the level of understanding of some positions and the skill in playing them may be 1) exactly the same, 2) greater for player 'A', 3) greater for player 'B'. Understanding and skill in some position does not guarantee understanding and skill in all, or even other, positions.

V. Most players have an average ability to visualize and calculate future chess positions and moves. A more skillful player is the result of having learned how to play more positions than the weaker player, not in having greater calculation ability.

.... more later ....

Tactical Study Continues

There's the latest training history.

The problems have gotten more difficult, and there are more of them.

Of late I have most enjoyed learning combinations that use double checks. Absolutely stunning.

HardDaysKnight Crumbles LIke a House o' Cards

Black to move. Here Be Dragons?

White has just played 17. f5.

Before White plays this move, Fritz will tell you that White is up with an evaluation of something like 1.00. But during the game, I didn't mind the position. Sure, it's not a great position (I had no idea what to play against White's Bird opening), but it's playable, perhaps winnable, certainly drawable.

Up until this point my attitude had been a relaxed "show me, prove it" approach. When White played 17. f5, my whole disposition changed. For some reason, I was tense, scared; suddenly, I was falling off a ciff. I went into the marshy bog. I began calculating, deeper and deeper into the abyss. Frightful monsters appeared everywhere. Sigh. Now, as I look back pieces simply were not where, or could not go to where, I was imagining them, where I was visualizing them, where I was projecting them in my calculations.

You know what Fritz says about 17. f5? He says -1.00

If you're counting, that's a 2.00 swing. Two!

Could any club level player, with any certainty, during a tournament game see this? I looked at the position, and incredibly saw demons that were not there, and played the horrible move 17... d4 in an attempt to block the center. Had I done normal, simple moves, exf, followed by Bg7, all have been well. But even so, I would not have known that Black's position is -1.00. Of course, I didn't play simple. No! I had to get complicated.

I sulked for a few days, but then I realized, that while I played a really bad move (i.e., 17... d4), my opponent played as bad a move before me. Despite a rating difference of 250 points he did not understand the position any better than I. But I'm the one that calculated, rather than playing simple chess and making him prove his position.

Lessons learned: don't enter the abyss; play simple chess.

Game:
Rich (1800) - HDK (1530) [A03]
June Quad, 20.06.2007

1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Bd7 5.b3 e6 6.Bb2 a6 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.Ne5
Bd6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qf3 c5 12.d3 c6 13.Nd2 Re8 14.Qg3 Bf8 15.Nf3
g6 16.Ne5 Rc8 17.f5 d4 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Qf3 Bg7 20.exd4 Qd5 21.Nc4 cxd4 22.
Qxd5 cxd5 23.Nd6 Rxc2 24.Nxe8 Nxe8 25.Rf2 Rc8 26.Rc1
Rb8 27.Rc6 a5 28.Rfc2 Kh7 29.Rc8 Rxc8 30.Rxc8 Nd6 31.Ra8 Nb7 32.Ba3 e5 1-0

Update (06-26-2007): I just realized that I had the results wrong. Updated to the correct result (1-0) in favor of White.

I am de la Maza!

Karl (aka HardDaysKnight) (1533) - Sean (1671) [A00]
June Quad, 12.06.2007
Time Control: 40/90 SD 30

1.e4 d5

Over the last three months, Sean's rating has increased by 150 points. He has won the last 14 of 15 games that he has played in OTB tournaments. So, it was with some fear and trepidation that I approached our game. Sean and I have played three games. He has won two of them, I have won one. The last time we played, Sean trotted out the Scandinavian against my e4. Before the game, I grabbed a sandwich and Americano at Starbucks, and booked up on this opening. But I kept telling myself, that the game would not be decided by opening theory, but tactics and blunders.

2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.Nxf6+ gxf6



White to move. Out of book, oh no!

At this point I'm out of book. I seemed to remember some lines where White lets Black take on c2, but nothing seemed to make sense (and indeed, nothing does). So, I defended the pawn with Bb3. It turns out that's the book move.

10.Bb3 Rg8

White to move. What to do?

This Rook on the half-open g-file bothered me. I figured that Nh4 was my only option, and I didn't like it. There are other options. This is a great position to set up and practice on. If you want to do that stop reading now.

11.Nh4

Fritz informs me that Black's threat of Rxg2 can be ignored: 11.Qe2 Rxg2 12.Nh4 Rg5 Rg5? Ohhh, the e6 pawn supporting the Bishop is pinned. ( 12...Bg4 13.Qe3 Rxh2 14.Rxh2 Bd6 15.Rg2) 13.Bxg5 fxg5 14.Nxf5 Qa5+ 15.c3 Qxf5. The variation isn't impossible to see, but this is a case where you don't really pursue the line in the first place; you see that Black snatches the pawn, and don't calculate further. This results in a blind spot.

11...Bg4 12.f3 Bh5 13.Bc3 f5 14.g3 Bd6

White to move. Am I in trouble here?

At this point I figured I Black would attempt to gain a Knight and two pawns, and a king stranded in the center, for a Rook. (Rxg3, hxg3, Bxg3+ followed by Bxh4.) But then I realized that I wasn't forced to take the rook, and could queen-side castle my king to safety. I figured, I'd be a pawn down, but with a playable position. Note: I burned about 25 minutes trying to decide what to do in this position. This is a very serious defect in my play.

15.Qe2 Qe7

Analysis: I feared 15... Rxg3. Should I have?

I was surprised when Black didn't take on g3. It turns out my opponent had better sense (in this instance), than I. If Black plays Rxg3, then White has tremendous resources in this position. What? Worry about your king stranded in the center? Pshaw! says Fritz. 15...Rxg3 16.hxg3 Bxg3+ 17.Kd1 Bxh4 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Qxe6+ Qe7 20.Qc8+ Qd8 21.Qxd8+ Kxd8 22.Ke2 Nd7 23.Rxh4. With a big advantage to White.

16.0–0–0

Having survived the worry over g3, and gotten my king castled, I felt good about my position. At this point I'm eying Nxg5 as a possibility in the near future. Also, It's not hard to see that White should activate all his pieces and move the h-rook to the center.

16...Nd7 17.Rhe1 0–0–0

17...Nb6 18.Nxf5 exf5 ( 18...Qg5+ 19.Ne3) 19.Qd3

18.Nxf5

18.Nxf5 Ka-Boom!

Ka-boom! The knight makes a dramatic entrance and wins the pawn. Or does he? Well, I calculated, that if Black took the Knight, and with the exchange of queens, Black would win the f3 pawn, but I would eventually win the one on f7. So, I've drawn first blood.

18...exf5

I think this is very telling. Frequently, when things start to go against us, we make things worse. It's important for Black to stabilize the situation, with Qg5+. Taking the Knight and allowing me to get my rook on the seventh is positional suicide. From a theoretical viewpoint, the game is over; practically, there's still a chance that I'll blunder.

19.Qxe7 Bxe7 20.Rxe7 Bxf3 21.Rde1 Be4 22.Bxf7 Rg5 23.Be6 Rh5 24.Re2

White has everything under control.
I know Re2 is a trivial move. But I like it; it's simple. I'm winning, just let the fruit ripen, no hurry.

24...Kc7 25.g4

This move and the resulting variation (as well as a few others) just popped out at me. I attribute it to the intensive tactical training.

25...Bf3 26.gxh5 Bxe2 27.Bxd7 Bxh5 28.Be8+ Kd6 29.Bb4+ 1–0

Obviously, I feel good about the game. For the most part I handled the problems well. I didn't go crazy and pursue a wild speculative variation, but chose reasonable moves to minimize my problems and activate my pieces (particularly thinking about my 15th move). For the most part I managed my time well, but I still need to work at this. As with most class-level games, this one was decided by a big oversight. Black didn't see nor fix the problem of his queen position, and thus allowed White to play 15. Nxf5. Afterwards, Black did not minimize the damage, but exacerbated the problems significantly with 15. ... exf.

What I don't know is how much of this was luck on my part, or am I really growing in the ability to skillfully apply my chess understanding to specific problems during a tournament game and win?

“Look to thyself, Sir Knight, and for mercy from heaven! For thy adversary will give thee none.”

Pinned Pawns

Recently in ICC blitz games, my opponents have had a rash of pinned pawns that allow me to win a pawn. Perhaps they've always been there and I'm just noticing them now that I'm intensively focusing on tactics.

I'm not claiming that grabbing the pawn was the best move; Fritz tells me it wasn't, but it was definitely there, it was definitely a good move, and in every case, having seen it, I took it.

If this is the result of tactical study, then let me have more tactical study!

Look for pinned pawns. Easy points for the taking.


White to move

HardDaysKnight (1416) - F (1346) [C03]
ICC 7 0 Internet Chess Club, 10.06.2007

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Bb4 4.c3 Ba5 5.b4 Bb6 6.e5 a5 7.Nb3 axb4 8.cxb4 Bd7 9.Nc5 Qc8 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.a4 c6 12.Nf3 Ne7 13.Bd3 h6 14.0-0 0-0 15.Bc2 Na6 Diagram # The important thing in this position is to defend the b4 pawn. This would accomplish two things: (1) it would make the Black knight on a6 look rather foolish, and (2) it would hinder the pawn break c5. Of course, I don't defend it, but move it. 16.b5 Nb4 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.Bd2 Nxc2 19.Qxc2 Nf5 20.Be3 Rfc8 21.Rfb1 Ba5 22.g4 Nxe3 23.fxe3 Diagram # The issue here is Black's pawn break, c5. This may well be THE issue for positions with this pawn structure: support and execute the pawn break. 23...Qa7 A move that indicates a deeper understanding of the position than I had. Specifically, Black realizes that the issue here is supporting and executing the move c5. The draw back of his move is that it neglects White's g5 pawn push. As such, Qe7 was called for, supporting both c5 and defending g5. 24.g5 hxg5 25.Nxg5 g6 26.Qf2 Not horrible, but Rf1 was crushing. [ 26.Rf1 Rf8 27.Rf6 Qe7 28.Raf1 Ra7 29.Nxe6] 26...Kf8 There is the pinned pawn. Hard not to take it, but Fritz says that Rf1 is by far the best move. 27.Nxe6+ Ke7 28.Nc5 Bb6 29.Qf6+ Ke8 30.e6 Bxc5 31.dxc5 Qxc5 32.Qxf7+ Kd8 33.Qd7# Black checkmated 1-0

White to move

(135) HardDaysKnight (1347) - r (1314) [B50]ICC 2 12 Internet Chess Club, 08.06.2007

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nf6 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.Bc2 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.d3 Qb6 9.Na3 e6 10.Nc4 Qc7 11.Bf4 b5 12.e5 bxc4 13.exf6 cxd3 14.Bxd3 gxf6 15.Bxg6 fxg6 16.Nd2 h5 17.Ne4 Rd8 18.Nxf6+ Kf7 19.Ne4 hxg4 20.Qxg4 Bg7 21.Nxc5 Ne5 22.Qxe6+ Black resigns 1-0

Black to move

(136) r (1300) - HardDaysKnight (1361) [B76]ICC 2 12 Internet Chess Club, 08.06.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.0-0-0 d5 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.e5 Ne8 12.Bh6 Rb8 13.Bxg7 Nxg7 14.h4 h5 15.Be2 Qc7 16.Qg5 Qb6 17.Na4 Qb4 18.b3 Qa3+ 19.Nb2 Qxa2 20.g4 Qa1+ 21.Kd2 Qxb2 22.gxh5 Rxb3 23.hxg6 Qc3+ 24.Kc1 Qe3+ 25.Qxe3 Rxe3 26.gxf7+ White resigns 0-1

White to move

(110) HardDaysKnight (1357) - i (1409) [B50]ICC 5 5 Internet Chess Club, 29.05.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nc6 4.Bb5 a6 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.0-0 Bg4 7.d3 Nf6 8.Nbd2 e6 9.Qa4 Qc7 10.Ne1 Be7 11.f3 Bh5 12.Nc4 h6 13.Bf4 0-0 14.Qa3 Rfd8 15.Qxc5 dxc5 16.Bxc7 Rd7 17.Bg3 Bg6 18.Ne5 Rb7 19.Nxg6 fxg6 20.b3 a5 21.Nc2 a4 22.b4 cxb4 23.cxb4 Bxb4 24.Nxb4 Rxb4 25.Rab1 c5 26.Bd6 Rd4 27.Bxc5 Rxd3 28.Be7 Rd2 29.a3 Nd7 30.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 31.Rxd1 Ne5 32.Rd8+ Rxd8 33.Bxd8 Kf7 34.Ba5 Nd3 35.Kf1 e5 36.Ke2 Nc1+ 37.Kd1 Nd3 38.Kd2 Nb2 39.Kc3 Nd1+ 40.Kb4 Nb2 41.Bb6 Ke6 42.g3 h5 43.h3 g5 44.g4 g6 45.Kc3 Nd1+ 46.Kd2 Nb2 47.Kc2 Nc4 48.Bc5 Nxa3+ 49.Bxa3 Kd7 50.Kc3 Kc6 51.Kc4 Kb6 52.Kd5 Kb5 53.Kxe5 Kc4 54.Kf6 Kb3 55.Bd6 a3 56.Bxa3 Kxa3 57.e5 Black resigns 1-0

Zebras Endorse Michael de la Maza

I like to read footnotes and endnotes; they can really contain golden nuggets. I had been reading Rowson's book, Chess for Zebras (Gambit, 2005) for a few weeks (mainly during my lunch break) when I decided to look at the endnotes. I was surprised to find there his outright endorsement of Michael de la Maza. For Rowson, there's no question regarding the validity of de la Maza's approach. Rowson writes: “For players rated below 1800 who desperately want to improve (and are willing to suffer for it!) I recommend Michael de la Maza's thoughtful and honest book, Rapid Chess Improvement (Everyman, 2002).” (p. 253, endnote 1)

Of course, de la Maza is not the only one to recommend the study of tactics. The first person I discovered that promoted tactics was Ken Smith, whom Rowson also mentions. Smith's advice to those under 1800 was “your first name is tactics, your middle name is tactics and your last name is tactics.” (This quote is from a larger article by Smith that was available from the now defunct Chess Digest website. If anybody has a link to that article, please send it to me.)

At first glance, Rowson's endorsement of de la Maza might not seem to fit into the overall thesis of Zebras. This can be found in footnote 3, which tells us that players work on their chess in the same way students work on academics. But improvement does not come in this way. Instead it comes as we practice finding good moves, and is similar to gaining skill in playing an instrument or driving a car: we learn by doing. Now, I am in whole hearted agreement with this. How hard is it to understand the academics of chess (i.e., the positional elements): open files, outposts, weak squares, and the like? The fact is (and I think we need to admit this): it's not difficult at all.

What is difficult, as Rowson is saying, and as my own tournament play has taught me, is applying what I know. And so, we need to set up a position on the board and practice figuring out the best moves and their consequents. But this seems more like the approach of Rashid Ziyatdinov's in GM-Ram (Thinker's Press, 2000), than de la Maza. So which is it Rowson, Ziyatdinov's or de la Maza?

Well, I don't think there's a contradiction. Solving tactics is setting up positions and finding the best move. However, when we focus on tactics we are taking a very small subset of possible board positions. The study (i.e., the practice of finding tactical combinations) of these relatively few positions will take us at least to 1800, and even higher. Much beyond that however, the player needs to study a broader range of positions and gain skill at applying the chess academics.

Knight Errant HardDaysKnight Begins Quest

I started playing tournament chess about three or four years ago. I'm currently rated around USCF 1550, with my highest rating just over 1600. My goal is 2000.

I used to study tactics with CT-Art (an excellent program). Within the last month or so I've switched to PCT. You can see my most recent history.

What I like about PCT is that it includes an endgame component. By studying the endgames with PCT, I feel more knowledgeable and confident with that phase of the game. I feel it's also changing my game. I no longer feel that I have to blast my way through the middlegame with some amazing tactical shot, but can move into the endgame (or at least some endgames) with a good chance of holding my own.

Regarding middlegame tactics, since using PCT, I feel like I'm seeing more in blitz games on ICC, but the real test is OTB tournament.

I just started a quad yesterday at the club (drew a 1780). I'm the lowest rated in the group, with the highest rated having an 1800 floor. So, I've got a great opportunity this month.

One of the things I've concluded about chess is that it's less about winning, or may be I should say, less about forcing a win by brute chess strength, and more about not losing, more about waiting for your opponent to blunder. "Waiting" sounds passive, and that's not what I mean. You can't just wait, you must test your opponent, and you wait for a wrong answer.

If you can get the initiative, and set problems for your opponent, even if they're not difficult, then you have a far greater chance of winning.

It's like there's a conversation going on between the two of you:

White: One plus one equals... ?

Black: Two!

White: Tweleve squared equals?

Black: Uhh, 143?

White: Close, but no, I'm sorry. Now, Estne Roma in Italia?

Black: Huh?

White: Checkmate!

So, you definitely want to be the one setting the agenda, by having the initiative and asking the questions. If you're the one being asked, then you'll have to come up with the correct answer and that's always tougher.

I guess beginners play chess like babies:

White: Agie mee ta gee doh?

Black: Og me oh beee bboo

By studying tactics and patterns, you are learning the questions and the answers that will be the conversation of your game.

Anyway, I like the language analogy.