Rocking the boat

by Jonathan Speelman
3/19/2023 – When choosing a move during a game of chess, there will be a compromise between instinct and calculation. In reasonably clear positions, you may be able to rely on the former with just a few checks for blunders, but there are situations which require you to go deeper into the position. At times, if nothing is satisfactory after exploring the alternatives, it may be advisable to bluff and go for a line which you believe to be worse if they find a difficult resource but better if they fail to find this (near) refutation.
YOUR PERSONAL CHESS COACH - Whether you’re taking your first steps into the world of club chess, or already playing at a tournament level: with FRITZ, you can train more efficiently, intelligently and with a more personalised approach than ever before.
FRITZ is more than just a chess engine – it’s a training revolution! Whether you’re taking your first steps into the world of club chess, or already playing at a tournament level: with FRITZ, you can train more efficiently, intelligently and with a more personalised approach than ever before.

If and when it capsizes...

[Note that Jon Speelman also looks at the content of the article in video format, here embedded at the end of the article.]

When choosing a move during a game of chess, there will be a compromise between instinct and calculation. In reasonably clear positions, you may be able to rely on the former with just a few checks for blunders, but there are times when you need to go deeper into the position.

Calculation involves at least three different processes. In each position you examine, you must find the “candidate moves” for yourself or your opponent, i.e. move generation; and then stitch them together to make reasonably plausible “variations”, with luck without making too many glaring errors. A variation ends when you believe that nothing too dramatic is going to happen (the position is fairly quiescent) and you must then try to assess it.

After working through these variations — and it’s perfectly sensible to stop without looking at everything if you find something sufficiently appealing — you must finally make your choice. Normally this will be the line that leads to the best possible outcome if they play what you believe to be their best moves (computer engines do this by finding the maximin — the line which leads to the maximum minimum value against the supposed best play). However, sometimes, if nothing is satisfactory, it may be better to bluff and go for a line which you believe to be worse if they find a difficult resource — but will be better if they fail to find this (near) refutation.

Jacob Aagaard, Ramesh RB

Two well-known books on chess calculation, by Jacob Aagaard and Ramesh RB

Today I’m concentrating on the first part of the process: move generation. And in particular high-value moves which may or may not change the assessment dramatically. These will rock the boat — if and when it capsizes, either you or your opponent is likely to be underneath: though a priori you don’t know which.

To calculate well, you have to be able to see these moves or at least a decent proportion of them (of course, engines uncover ludicrous ideas which people would hardly ever see, all the time). And if you can develop an instinct as to when they might occur and what they actually are, then this will undoubtedly be very helpful.

We start with a vicious opening trap which was sprung in the first round of the recent European Championship. It turns out it had already occurred at least 20 times previously. It is followed by a lovely game from the recent Swedish League, in which a small thunderbolt did considerable damage. It’s counterpointed by a couple of analogous examples with the same blow, and I’m finishing briefly with two positions from my own games.

 
 

Select an entry from the list to switch between games

In this Videocourse we deal with different aspects of the middlegame which are important to study and improve your general understanding of chess structures.

Links

Topics: Jon Speelman's Agony Column
Jonathan Speelman, born in 1956, studied mathematics but became a professional chess player in 1977. He was a member of the English Olympic team from 1980–2006 and three times British Champion. He played twice in Candidates Tournaments, reaching the semi-final in 1989. He twice seconded a World Championship challenger: Nigel Short and then Viswanathan Anand against Garry Kasparov in London 1993 and New York 1995.