Comparing Candidate Moves
Get Better at Chess for Everyone
#3 June 2016
"When you see a good move, don't play it. Look for a better one."
This is the Number 1 principle in chess. Over the years I have added for my students:
"...You are trying to find the best move you can in a reasonable amount of time."
I once read that psychologists studying chess players have found an interesting difference between strong players and much weaker ones: strong players compare candidate moves, and weaker players, for the most part, do not.
From my experience in listening to students "think out loud" to find a move, I found that this is true. Weaker players jump around, looking at fewer candidate moves, but rarely comparing them. They hone in on one they like and, if they are trying to play slow, attempt to convince themselves that the move they are about to play does what they want. Strong players don't play that way.
Suppose a strong player wants to compare two candidate moves A and X; there may be other candidate moves, but for now let's just assume two. He wants to know which one is likely better.
What does he need to do?
Except in extreme cases, such as one forcing a quick checkmate, he needs to know what will happen after A and X so he can compare the outcomes. Therefore, the strong player will attempt to figure out move sequences that might occur, such as A followed by an opponent's reply B and then his following move C. This he will use to compare to a similar sequence XYZ. The key is to arrive (visualize) and compare the positions after C and Z.
This takes several skills:
- The chess "deductive logic" of knowing that B is a logical reply to A (and similarly, Y to X), either because it meets some demand of the position after A (such as addressing a threat) or because B in itself is a dangerous move that must be met on the players' next move C,
- Visualization - "You can't play what you don't see" applies here. If you can't clearly visualize the positions C* and Z* after ABC and XYZ respectively, you can't easily compare them.
- Patience - In slow chess you have to take your time each move. You can't compare (or even find) ABC and XYZ if you are taking only 17 seconds on each move,
- Ability to assess Quiescence - unless a move is a speculative sacrifice, you need to reach quiescence before you can evaluate. Quiescence means a point in the sequence (say after moves C or Z) where there are no further forcing moves (checks, captures, or threats) for either side that would necessitate looking further (say, to "D" and "E") because further moves would not likely change the evaluation of the position.
- Evaluation - Once quiescence is reached, say after C and Z leading to positions C* and Z*, you need to be able to evaluate C* and Z* to see which is preferable. I suggest the four major evaluation criteria are material, king safety, activity of the relative forces/armies, and pawn structure. If indeed the sequences ABC and XYZ are "best" (and that's no given), then if C* is a better position for you than Z*, that means move A is a better move than X.
Does this take time? Absolutely. But that's why strong players, who can calculate quickly and accurately, take almost all their time, every game. It's not a coincidence that at tournaments the first players finished are the weaker players and the last ones finished are the stronger players. In order to play chess well, you have to do the right things every move, move after move, game after game. It only takes one bad move to lose a game.
Many of my students are held back by their inability to perform one or more of the skills listed above. For example, they might be too impatient (or, similarly, not understanding of the need to consistently take time) and move too quickly. Or they might wish to take their time, but are frustrated by their inability to visualize well enough to perform the above tasks.
In my "Pilot" article, I mentioned that many players who believe that 15 minute games are "slow chess" have trouble developing their visualization skills. This makes sense, as a typical 40-move game would leave 15x60 = 900/40 = 22.5 seconds per move. Hardly time to see if move A is safe, much less find ABC, much less evaluate C*, much less do the same for XYZ too, nor to finally compare positions C* and Z*. In 15 minute games the player does not have time to visualize consistently on every move, nor time to visualize very deeply. And, while practice might not make perfect, in chess practice does make better, and that means players who like to only play these intermediate time controls have a very difficult time practicing and improving their visualization.
Yet many of these same players - who approach me for lessons - yearn to be titled players like experts and masters. However, in the US, the US Chess Federation will not award these titles except for achievement in long time control play, which they define as at least 30 minutes per side per game. And even that time control is considered fast for serious play. The traditional rate for important events like the World Open is close to something like 40 moves in 110 minutes with a 10 second time delay. That's roughly 11-12 times slower than a 15 minute game with no increment.
It's not wonder that with such practice habits, many online players have trouble achieving their goals. And that's just for the skill of visualization, not to mention the other skills needed to find move sequences and compare moves.
Let's take a position from one of my action (G/30) games:
- 15.Nc3
- 15.Na7 threatening the fork on c6, and
- 15.Nxc7
None of these requires very deep analysis, which is good since it's only a 30 minute game. Yet still we need to take at least some time and analyze and evaluate each to see which we like best.
After 15.Nc3 things are relatively quiescent, so we can evaluate with much further analysis. White has the better pawn structure and good squares for all his pieces; Black has the bishop pair (as he will in all these lines). White has a pleasant game, but is it better than the other moves? Only analysis can tell...
After 15.Na7 things are not quiescent. Black has to guard against the threat of 16.Nxc6. This he can do in several ways such as 15...Bb7, 15...Bd7 or maybe 15...Qd5. Then White is threatening Bxa5, but that move leads to two tactical concerns - the knight may get trapped on a7 and possibly, if the bishop captures on a5, there could be a skewer on the a-file. White would at least have to get a feel on how easy it would be to extricate the knight. Not easy, it appears, but the situation will remain tactical for the near future. Might require further investigation if indeed we were to lean toward this move, but for now it's speculative at best.
15.Nxc7 is straightforward. White exchanges his knight and then begins to attack the vulnerable pawns on the queenside. Unlike the 15.Nc3 line, there is no piece blocking the rooks and queen from attacking the c-pawns along the c-file. Black, in turn, lacks targets so might have to sacrifice a pawn to open lines for the bishop pair. A sample line might be 15.Nxc7 Qxc7 16.Qc2 Bf5 (the c5 pawn can be attacked more than it can be guarded) when Black likely does not have enough compensation.
Which is best? Well, Stockfish 7 (a resource I like to access after the game to evaluate my analysis and evaluations - it's about 1000 points stronger than I am!) says it is not even close. The simple 15.Nxc7 is best by a large margin. Not perceiving this large margin, during the game I gave in to my love for complications and plunged ahead with 15.Na7? Matt, as usual, played accurately and I got a bad position, but later I lucked out in the complications and won with a nice attack:
