Chess for Beginners

Black to move (Stefanova - Shirov 2005)
r3rq1k/8/p2p3p/P1pPnp1P/1p3Q2/5PNR/1PP2K2/R7 b - - 0 29
Download game

Evaluation
The first thing I did was to evaluate this position, and I gave it the following evaluation: Material =, King Safety +/=, Activity =/+, Pawn Structure =. So the game in my opinon is even. (When I gave it to Fritz 10 he sees it as -+ (- 1.61 with Black winning) and Rybka sees it as -1.19).

Threats and Opportunities
I then looked for threats and opportunities in this position, and I found that White was threatening to win Black’s f5 pawn with Qxf5.

Candidate Move Selection
After performing the threat analysis I looked for candidate moves, and this is the order in which I found my 4 candidates: 1…Re7, 1…Kh7, 1…b3, 1…Ng4+. The first two candidates are defensive, trying to deal with the potential threat of Qxf5, and the last two are aggressive candidates.

Analysis
I then began analyzing the most aggressive candidate based on CCT (checks, captures and threats), in this case …Ng4 would be the most aggressive since it starts with check, below is my analysis:

Candidate 1 …Ng4+

29…Ng4+ 30.fxg4 30…fxg4 31.Qxf8+ Rxf8+ 32.Kg2 gxh3+ 33.Kxh3 This line is good for black since he wins the exchange, so taking with 2.cxb3 is not good for White so I analyzed another line in which White does not take to see if …Ng4+ stands up. [30.Kg2 Not taking keeps White in the game. 30...Ne5 coming back to the same position is not good for Black, since White's King is now safer on g2. At this point I figured that if White didn't take I would wind up in this position, and I stoped analyzing this line, and I jumped to the ...b3 line which was the 2nd most aggressive candidate I had selected. The problem is that 30...Ne3+ should have been considered as a mainline, and I did not see this knight check, with the rook defending it. (30...Ne3+ I did not analyze this subvariation, but it was much better than 30...Ne5 which I did analyze and caused me to jump to another line. 31.Kh1 Nxc2 32.Rc1 Nd4 Black wins a pawn, and defends g5.) ; Rybka 2.3.1 32-bit : 30.Kg1 Ne3 31.Re1 Nxd5 32.Rxe8 Nxf4 33.Rxf8+ Rxf8 34.Rh2 d5 35.Kf2 Kg7 -0.91/12 ]

Candidate # 2 …b3

[29...b3 This is the second line I analyzed. 30.Qxf5 So, I analyzed another line other than 30. cxb3, the problem is that this line is not the best line for White. (30.cxb3 Nd3+ Taking my b3 pawn is bad because of this fork.) 30...Qxf5 31.Nxf5 bxc2 32.Rc1 (32.Ne3 Nd3+ At this point I decided to chose this line.) 32...Nd3+ ; Rybka 2.3.1 32-bit : 29...b3 30.Qd2 bxc2 31.Qxc2 Ng4+ 32.Kg1 Ne3 33.Qd2 f4 34.Ne4 Re5 -1.27/11 ]

Lessons Learned
My evaluation was off by a pawn, Rybka and Fritz think that Black is at least ahead one pawn, while I thought the position was even, so I need to work on my evaluation skills. I was happy with my candidate move selection, and the order in which I began analyzing (the most aggressive moves first). Out of the 4 candidates I only had to analyze 2 and both were the best moves. In the analysis department, I am missing the best response when I calculate variations or I am not analyzing all possible oppnent candidate moves. I need to use the same candidate move criteria fwhen looking for or my opponent responses, but I have a feeling it also has to do with board visualization. Even though I picked an appropriate candidate, the logic for selecting it was flawed and incomplete. The analysis for …b3 did not take into account White’s best responses and much was left to chance by selecting it. I need to be more thorough when analyzing and I also have to attempt to evaluate the position at the end of the my analysis (which I did not do). The line played in the game was …Ng4+!, while Fritz 10 and Rybka prefer …b3.

Why is it that beginners fail to choose simple plans that are right before their eyes? One answer may be that beginners do not evaluate the position before choosing a candidate move. Beginners briefly scan the board, choose a move they like and quickly analyze and play this move. The problem with this thought process is that 9 out of 10 times the move they have selected is not the best move, since it is not a move that follows a plan based on the needs of the position. This thought process error occurs during candidate move selection and is a very common mistake that beginner’s must overcome in order to reach the next level. The difference between a weak player and a strong player is that the strong player evaluates the position and they then choose a plan based on this evaluation.

Dan Heisman in a Novice Nook titled ‘Evaulation Criteria’, uses the following criteria to evaluate a position (in order of importance):

1. Material
2. King Safety
3. Activity
4. Pawn Structure

Based on these evaulation criteria, not only will we know which side stands better, but why they stand better and what our plan should be. The candidate moves will show itself based on the plan we have selected.

In order to improve we need to evaluate the position during critical junctures of the game (after the opening is over, after a series of exchanges, whenever the position changes substantially). We should get in the habit of re-evaluating the position every couple of moves to ensure that the needs of the position have not changed. We then need to choose a plan based on the evaluation and select candidate moves that help us meet the goals of our plan. We should then take a close and honest look at our candidate moves and keep looking for the best move that will improve our position on the board.

Hope this helps, and I would love to hear your thought process for evaluating the position and selecting candidate moves.

A frequent issue confronted by amateurs is wishful thinking when calculating combinations. This propensity to fabricate beneficial scenarios in our analysis is very typical throughout an amateur’s game, but it is most dangerous when calculating combinations.

You see a pretty combination worthy of Tal, and you analyze it over and over, after you have finished your analysis you are sure that the move is a winner. You make the move and you lose a piece, or it initiates a series of exchanges that cause you to lose your initiative and perhaps the game. Unfortunately, you have failed to see the refutation or you simply missed a defending piece that you have conveniently kept out of your analysis. This very common oversight causes you to lose material and / or the game.

If only you had realized that there was a defending piece all you usually need to do is to combine that information along with the combinational theme to make the winning move. In most cases by adding the bothersome piece to your analysis you can easily spot a sacrifice or deflection that will get the piece out of the way and lead to a winning combination.

Getting rid of this faulty thought process will lead to more accurate analysis and an improved ability to calculate. Here are a few ways you can improve by eliminating this error in your thinking process:

• Play long games with a standard time control greater than 30 minutes
• Pick interesting middlegame positions and spend > 15 minutes analyzing
• Try to visualize the position before making your move
• Double and triple check your analysis

Improving your Thought Process

This is the first in a series of posts about faulty thought process tendencies by beginners. Unfortunately, I am the source of inspiration, but hopefully by writing about these errors my thought process will improve.

The most important thing that a beginning to intermediate player can do to improve their chess is to improve their thought process. There is no point in reading positional books and learning new openings when you do not keep your pieces safe, or you fail to see that your opponents piece is not safe, this is the main reason preventing you from winning your games.

Dealing with Aggressive Moves

When a beginner is faced with an aggressive move by an opponent they tend to think defense first (sometimes exclusively), and as a result they fail to see that the aggressively posted piece is not safe. Both beginners tend to make this same mistake, the offensive player blindly plays the aggressive move thinking it is winning without further analysis and the defender assumes that the move is good and fails to see that it is a blunder which hangs the aggressively posted piece.

Take your time when you are faced with an aggressive move or a difficult situation and always ask yourself Is your opponent’s move safe? as part of your thought process and you will win many more games as a result.

I have come to the realization that there comes a time in every improving players game where we try to apply all we have learned yet we end up losing more games than we win. The improving player needs to realize that reading more chess books, learning a new opening or practicing obscure endgames is not going to improve their game.

The improving player’s game will be better served by simplifying their chess and going back to basics. Here are five things we can do that should lead to improved results:

1. Improve your thought process. Make sure you look for checks, captures and threats on every move, and always consider what your opponent is trying to accomplish and what move they would make if it would be their turn instead of yours.

2. Improve your ability to analyze. Consider at least three half moves before making a move. If the position leads to a forced tactical continuation, and you are unable to calculate until the position is quiet, then choose a ‘safer’ strategically based move that will require less analysis and calculation.

3. Do not force the situation and instead play for small advantages. Ensure that there are no weaknesses in your camp, while at the same time scanning for weaknesses in your opponents side.

4. Calculate several candidates before making each move, and always expect that your opponent will play the best move. Remember that once you found your move, try to look for a better one (unless you are in time trouble).

5. Play less blitz games. Blitz is the number one reason we develop bad habits which hurt our thought process. Blitz causes us to not analyze and think the position through. Play longer games (at least G15/5) instead of blitz, these longer games will allow you to work on your thought process and analysis skills. Once those bad habits have been eliminated, you can then return to blitz play as a much stronger player.

In Search for Chess Perfection CJS Purdy details his ‘System’ for for evaluating a position and picking a candidate move.

I. My turn to move

1. What are all the moves I have to consider?

If there is a commonsense move you may be able to choose it without following the rest of the system. For each move ask, “What could he do if I did this?” looking for combination motifs from the other side.

2. How has his last move changed the position? What are his threats? What are his objectives?

Part one of this questions allows you to bring your reconnaissance up to date. Part two asks you to look for checks, captures and threats. If you see a threat, your first reaction should not be to search for a defense to it, but rather for a way of ignoring it

3. Complete your reconnaissance if not already done:

a. material (two bishops, bishops of opposite colors, pawn majorities);

b. king positions (exposed, lack of flight squares);

c. weaknesses (weak pawns [double, isolated, backward], weak squares, confined pieces, cramped game, overworked pieces);

d. strengths (greater space, greater mobility, well posted pieces, command of central squares, domination of open lines and diagonals);

e. development (count the # of moves needed by each army to complete its development. Credit 1 tempo to the player whose turn it is to move.) ;

f. Where could either side breakthrough?

You should be able to tell which side is better using the following descriptors: ∞ unclear, = even (0.0-0.29) , +/- white is slightly better (.30-.60), += white has a moderate advantage (.61-1.40), +/- white has a decisive advantage +- (1.41 or >).

4. Have I a good combination?

look for possible combination motifs if 3 of the following exist in the position:

1. Loose pieces, 2. Pieces that can be easily attacked by an enemy piece of less value, 3. Discovered attack, 4. Weak back rank, 5. Pinned or “skewerable” pieces along the same rank, file or diagonal, 6. overworked pieces, 7. lack of development (overwhelming force), 8. Unsafe King, 9. Open enemy lines, 10. Pawns nearing promotion. (Heisman)

Combinational Motifs:

a. geometrical;
b. nets;
c. jump moves;
d. zugzwang (endgame motif);
e. stalemate (endgame motif).

5. If not satisfied that the answer to (4) is yes, what is my best plan?

Use the reconnaissance to answer this question. How can I best exploit his weaknesses and establish my strengths, etc.

Now return to 1

II. I am considering a certain move

1. Visualize the move as though made, firmly.
2. does it leave my vulnerable to any combination.

III. It is his move

1. Reconnaissance
2. Visualize

Sometimes the definitions for evaluation and calculation are used interchangeably, but they are quite different things, and understanding what they mean is the first step to improving your thinking process during a game.

Evaluation: You evaluate a position to determine the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Based on your evaluation you develop a short term plan to either attack your opponents weaknesses or fix your own. Dan Heisman defines evaluation as determining which side stands better.

Analysis: The generation of candidate moves and the response to each. For example, “If I move here, and he moves there what would be my response?”

It is important to put these to together and perform an evaluation of the position at the end of the line of analysis you have performed to see if one candidate move is better than another. I have yet to master this integration of the two, but doing this is the hallmark of strong players.