One Move, Seven Mistakes
I bought a package of training sessions with GM Liem Quang Le. It feels a little insane that I’m even allowed to do this, like booking a hitting session with Rafa Nadal or something, but we’re in an era of chess where ordinary enthusiasts have incredible access to the top players.
Playing rapid games against someone stronger than yourself is an amazing and underrated way to practice. If you have a strong friend who’s willing to play with you that’s perfect. If you’re lucky enough to have some disposable income, paying a strong player to play with you is also a very good solution. A little money goes a long way in chess.
According to the usual advice, the ideal opponent is just a little stronger than you. By that standard, the gap between Liem and me is way too big. But the problem with playing against a much stronger player isn’t losing, it’s getting discouraged. I might be more tolerant of losing than the average player. So far I’ve found the sessions to be motivating, although of course I don’t score many points.
I recall Matthew Sadler saying he trains by playing Stockfish on the hardest setting. This would be hopelessly demoralizing for most, but it seems to work for him. (Sadler manages to stay a top 50 player in the world while having a day job.) It seems that improving your tolerance for losing can unlock some very effective training methods.
Enough chit-chat, here’s a position:
It was my move with Black here with a little over four minutes on my clock. If you want to get the most out of what follows, it would be a good idea to first think about what you would do in this position. You could set a time limit, or not. It’s always a good idea to write down your thoughts so you can’t fudge them later.
In my case, I went completely off the rails. I spent almost all my remaining time and ended up making one of the worst possible moves. Reviewing my thought process on this move, what comes to mind is a description from The Iron King about the conflict between Philip IV and the Knights Templar:
It lasted seven years, and during its course every possible infamy was committed.
Let’s get into it!
Naturally I wanted to take on c2, so my first thought was Nxd5, hitting the rook and distracting White’s queen. I quickly calculated the line
24…Nxd5 25. Qxd5 Qxc2+ 26. Ka2 Qxf2
This looked promising, because I’ve encroached on White’s king, grabbed two pawns, and I’m hitting the rook on g1. But, I saw that White would have 27. Rxb7, threatening mate on f7, and even though I could defend it by playing Rh7 or moving my bishop, I didn’t like how much influence White’s queen and rook had around my king. Still, maybe I can defend, and I’m sort of attacking White’s king too?
At this point I made Mistake #1: Not arriving at a clear conclusion. I had the feeling the line wasn’t working, but still held out hope for it, so the ghost of this line continued to haunt my thoughts, and I would periodically recalculate it as I considered other options. Mistake # 2: Recalculating the same line.
For me, “I don’t like it” is an acceptably clear conclusion on this line. Another defensible process, although a difficult one with so little time on the clock, would be to try to calculate the line deeper. However, letting the line live in limbo is the worst of all worlds.
Next I thought about pushing the e-pawn. This seems sensible enough, in line with the dictum “Passed pawns must be pushed,” especially since the pawn pushes come with tempo, and who doesn’t like attacking the opponent’s pieces?
24…e4 25. Qd1 (the Queen has to keep an eye on c2) e3 26. Be1
Here I didn’t see what to do. I was worried about the weaknesses this pawn advance left in its wake, especially on d4. I didn’t consider the strongest move, 27…Be5! In retrospect this move seems quite natural: the bishop takes up an ideal post in the middle of the board, both attacking and defending.
It can be difficult to see moves that involve moving a piece to a square that was occupied by a pawn at the beginning of the line. That I didn’t consider Be5 suggests to me that e5 was still “partly” occupied in my mind. If I had slowed down and concentrated on seeing the position clearly, I might have spotted it. Mistake #3: Not visualizing clearly.
I then moved on to 24…gxh4, creating a passed pawn on the h-file, but after 25. g5 my knight is somewhat embarrassed. I could continue with 25…Nxd5 but this seems like a worse version for me because after 26. Qxd5 Qxc2+ 27. Ka2 Qxf2 28. Rxb7 the h-pawn is hardly relevant, but White’s g-pawn is effectively another attacker. After my intended defense 28…Rh7, 29. g6 looks like a huge problem.
So far I had only considered forcing moves. I started casting around for quiet improving moves. A good moment, actually. Starting with forcing moves and when those don’t work looking for quiet moves is exactly the right process. It’s important to give yourself credit for good moments as well as criticizing mistakes.
However, it was hard to find any move that improved my position. After 24…Kg7, the likeliest looking candidate, I really wasn’t sure my king was better on g7 than f8, for instance if White takes on g5.
At this point, with my clock ticking down, I played the move I had spent the most time on, 24…Nxd5. Mistake #4: Playing the move you spent the most time on, not the move your analysis indicates is best.
This is a strange one when you say it out loud, but it happens all the time, even to very strong players. I was hoping, perhaps, that Nd5 would surprise me in the way Homer Simpson surprised Mr. Burns:
You’re not as stupid as you look… or sound… or our best testing indicates.
Unfortunately, in this case, the move was exactly as stupid as my best testing indicated. After the sequence I had calculated, I was in trouble for exactly the reasons I anticipated.
Mistake #5: Playing a forcing move even when you have determined that the forcing line doesn’t work.
Additionally, having gone under one minute on the clock, I would struggle to navigate the rest of the game, even if my position were tenable. Mistake #6: Spending so much time on one move that your chances for a good result are low, even if the move is good.
As it turned out, the game went through several more twists and turns, and I ended up in an objectively equal but very tricky endgame where more time would have been incredibly valuable.
Having rehashed my in-game thought process, I looked at the position with the engine. I didn’t consider the engine’s top two moves, the queenside pawn pushes a5 or b5. The engine suggestion is only valuable if you have a way of discovering it yourself over the board. Could I have found either of those moves?
In the case of b5, I think I could, although of course it’s a difficult move. The point is that after
24…b5 25. axb5 Nxd5 26. Qxd5 Qxc2+ 27. Ka2 Qxf2
A) White’s rook can’t go to b7.
B) Black has ideas of axb5, setting up a mate on the a-file.
The pathway to finding this move is trying to improve on the Nxd5 line. If you know that Nxd5 is the critical line and it’s almost working, that’s a trigger to try to find a way to improve it slightly. Chess is full of, in Tim Gunn’s words, “Make it work moments.”
Mistake #7: Not trying hard enough to make the critical line work
Often in a critical moment you need to use tactics and creativity to make the move you want to play work. Ironically, in this exact position, b5 does not actually work. While the computer likes it at first, if you force it to go down the line, it sees that White can sacrifice a rook for an unstoppable passed pawn.
24…b5 25. axb5 Nxd5 26. Qxd5 Qxc2+ 27. Ka2 Qxf2 28. bxa6 Qxg1 29. Rb7 Rh7 30. a7
So the idea of improving on the mainline is a good one, but b5 doesn’t actually work. What about a5?
For me this move is even harder to consider than b5. Forcing the rook on b4 to go to b5 seems to improve its position in every way: it goes from being undefended and vulnerable to defended by a pawn and guarding the d5 pawn. The point seems to be that in the line
24…a5 25. Rb5 e4 26. Qe2 e3 27. Be1 Qc4
Black gains access to the c4 square and emerges with a good position. Also, pushing the rook off the fourth rank prevents White from answering e4 with the exchange sacrifice Rxe4. Having said that, I think it would be very difficult to consider a5 in even the top five candidate moves, so I’m not sure there is a realistic pathway to finding this line.
If I had to construct a logical explanation for a5, it would go something like this:
The key factor in the game is not the weak pawn on c2, which Black cannot really take advantage of at the moment, but the passed pawn on e5. For that reason, a5 is the best move, because it forces the white rook away from the fight to restrain the e-pawn.
However, this runs the risk of retrofitting the logic to fit the move. I’m not sure I believe it as a way to find a good move in the future.
Here’s what I would take away from this game:
Play quickly enough to give yourself a chance in the rest of the game.
Use creativity and tactics to make the critical line work.
Whatever you do, don’t go down a forcing line that you know leads to a loss.
If you’d like to explore this position on the board, here’s a link to a lichess study. If you like this content, hit the button below to subscribe.