Numerot's Sessions #2: Blundering less

On blunders

"Chess is a fairy tale of 1001 blunders."
— Savielly Tartakower

At the beginning of The Woodpecker Method — a popular chess puzzle book — a rather startling statistic is presented:

This comes from a randomized sample of games checked by the authors. While analysis from a relatively small sample size can be inaccurate — the 2500+ slot only included 19 games; on the other hand, only game-losing mistakes from a relatively balanced position were considered — this seems to align with the experiences of most chess players. It should be obvious to most people that most games between weak players are won and lost for tactical reasons.

Blunders often arise from one player failing to appreciate one or more effects of a move; so, failing to notice a threat established by a move from the opponent, or disregarding some downside to their own move. I have tried to categorize the effects moves have on a position, so that you might learn to avoid these mistakes in your games.

Focusing solely on the tactical blunders themselves while ignoring the advantages that made them possible would, of course, be a severe mistake. This blog post attempts to explain the concrete details that made the tactical combinations possible, but you should never forget the importance of positional play — i.e. improving your pieces while worsening those of your opponent, avoiding weaknesses in your position while forcing them into that of your opponent,

To quote two legends of the game;

"Tactics flow from a superior position."
— Robert James Fischer

"Help your pieces, so they may help you."
— Paul Charles Morphy

Case study: Wayward Queen

Consider the following, painfully familiar miniature:

While here, the notes on each moves up- and downsides are a bit overbearing, none of these effects should be considered frivolous, and become important in different variations. Upon closer examination, the reason for black's demise was the inability to combine the four following facts

i — 1...e5 gives white a target in the form of an unprotected central pawn.
ii — 1...e5 slightly loosens white's king position in the form of the e-file.
iii — 2.Qh5?!, in addition to applying pressure on the f7, attacks e5.
iv — 2...g6?? opens a diagonal towards black's undefended rook from the unprotected pawn.

It might be simpler to say "the queen forks the king and the rook", but this doesn't tell you why the fork is possible, nor what moves allowed it. From this, we can learn to avoid such mistakes in the future, and become stronger players.

The example is very simplistic, and is only meant to illustrate the concept at a basic level.

It is very important to realize that despite 1..e5 being mentioned twice in the list, you do not take that to mean 1...e5 is a poor move as it is, in fact, one of the best moves available in the position.

Every single chess move has downsides. Every move weakens some squares, limits the mobility of another piece, and/or removes a future option from the piece or pawn moved. The question isn't whether a move has downsides, but rather if the downsides are worth more than the upsides.

When evaluating a move, ask yourself...

I — Which undefended pieces or pawns does it attack?

If you don't notice when your opponent attacks one of your undefended pieces, you aren't likely to win very many games. The first question on your mind when your opponent makes a move should be "Does this move threaten to capture something?". On the other hand, attacking undefended pieces that are impossible or awkward to defend may gain you valuable time, or even material.
Moves should never be made simply because they attack a piece that can move away safely, but attacking something undefended sometimes comes with useful side-effects. Context is everything.

II — Which pieces or pawns does it leave undefended?

Moving a pawn or piece away from defending its friends, e.g. pushing e4-e5 and dropping a knight on d5, is a staggeringly common source of one-move blunders.When something of yours is attacked or when you move it to an attacked square, make a small mental note that that something is reliant on the protection given by the other piece or pawn.

III — Which squares does it undefend or weaken?

Any time a move is made, squares are undefended or at least weakened. A square losing one of its defenders may lead to a tactical opportunity.

IV — What new lines does it open?

Does the move come with a discovered attack? Is there a check available that wasn't there before? Can you now pin or skewer something where it wasn't possible before? Has a new battery been formed?

V — Does it align pieces for a tactical motif?

Putting a king and queen on the same line — diagonal, rank, or file — famously call for trouble. If your opponent does so, ask yourself if new tactical (or positional!) opportunities present themselves, and make sure you aren't walking into a skewer when you do so yourself. Similarly, knight forks are perhaps the most common tactical blunder at low levels.

Note that in the above questions, "it" refers to the move in general, not only the piece being moved.

As you may notice, the above can be condensed into two major questions: how does it affect both player's control over squares, and how does it affect the mobility of pieces. I chose, however, to split them into the above questions to ease your thought process.

These questions and ideas can, and should, be applied to not only finding tactics and avoiding blundering, but also positional play and strategy. If you're aware of which squares you've weakened, you're much more likely to play positionally sound chess.

Of course, asking yourself these questions verbally every single time will take up quite a bit of your clock. Play slower games — 15+10 and up, preferably much slower — to give yourself time to even consider such things. Over time, this process will become part of your subconscious, and you will get a tingling sensation of something being wrong with a move when your opponent blunders by, say, undefending a square you can fork their royals from.

I'll conclude with an example of possibly innocuous-looking moves causing huge issues:

In summary...

• When evaluating your opponent's move, or a candidate move of your own, ask the following questions:
  • Which undefended pieces does it attack?
  • Which pieces or pawns does it undefend?
  • Which squares does it undefend or weaken?
  • Which new lines does it open?
  • Does it align pieces for a tactical motif?
• These questions also apply to positional thinking! Using tactical ideas to achieve positional goals is the hallmark oi a strong player.
• Being aware of your moves' effects on your position is crucial, even if there is nothing immediately wrong with them.
• Playing slow games will allow you to partially automate this process over time.

Thank you for reading! See you around,
— Numerot