Chess: Self-help guide for blunderers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE ART of blundering is something most players prefer not to think about, yet as a new book makes clear, it is wise to acquire a deep understanding of blunder techniques in order to steer clear of the beasts.
Danger in Chess by Amatazia Avni (Cadogan Chess, pounds 9.99) is a thoughtful and intelligent account of the causes of horrendous mistakes by strong players. On a superficial level, it is a collection of blunders that should leave any player shaking with fear, but its deeper aim is more ambitious.
By attempting to categorise and diagnose blunders, Avni hopes to provide the components that add up to a proper sense of danger. And that is where his book doesn't quite work. The following position (from Karpov-M Gurevich, Reggio Emilia 1991) is, in many ways, typical:
Karpov played 1. Bc4, offering his e-pawn, which Black grabbed with 1 . . . Qxe4, and that was the decisive mistake. The game ended 2. Bxd4 exd4 3. Qf7+ Kh6 4. Qf8+ Kh5 (4 . . . Kh7 loses to 5. Bg8+) 5. Qh8+ Bh6 6. Qe5+]] and Black resigned since 6 . . . Qxe5 7. g4 is mate.
Avni criticises Gurevich for taking the pawn: 'He should have asked himself: 'Why does White give up his e4 pawn?' The correct move was 1 . . . Qd7+ with a tenable game.' Yet Gurevich is a strong grandmaster who would certainly have asked himself just that question. The idea of Bxd4 and Qf7+ is the obvious continuation, and he must have analysed as far as 5 . . . Bh6, without finding the elegant mating conclusion.
Gurevich's diagnosis must have concluded that 1. Bc4 was bluff, an acceptance that White's only chance to extract something from the position involves manoeuvring his bishop to d5, which he cannot do without losing the e-pawn.
A very weak player as Black might take on e4, missing Bxd4 and Qf7+ entirely. A slightly stronger player, particularly after reading Avni's book, might suspect danger and decline the pawn on instinct. A strong player, like Gurevich, would certainly take the pawn unless he found a concrete reason for not doing so. Only a very strong player indeed would see through the whole thing and decline the pawn for the right reasons.
(Graphic omitted)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments