The Three "Times" for Checks, Captures, and Threats

Quote of the Month: The forcing moves are checks, captures, and threats. I often get quoted as follows: "You have to consider the forcing moves: checks, captures, and threats." But just as "knights before bishops" is ambiguous it could mean "both knights before both bishops" or "the knight on one side before the bishop on that side" it is not clear when in the thought process for each move you should look for checks, captures, and threats Note: A threat is a move, which if ignored, allows the player making the threat to do something positive next move. You can determine threats by using the null-move technique, that is,"If I pass and don't make a move, which moves can my opponent make next move that are good for him?" The answer is that there are three "time periods" during the thought process for analytical moves (those that occur in positions with meaningful forcing moves) that require this attention: 1. Early in the thought process, soon after the opponent's move, to see if that move was a check or capture, and what are all the things that move does (especially in terms of threats), 2. When generating your own candidate moves, consider all your reasonable (and desirable) checks, captures, and threats, and, most importantly, 3. When investigating whether your candidate move is safe, look for your opponent's replies to that move that are checks, captures, and threats to see if they can all be safely met. So those three time periods are in addressing the move previously made, your candidate moves, and your opponent's possible reply to those candidate moves. We could call this ply minus one, ply zero, and ply one. As an example, if it is White's twenty-fourth move (the forty-seventh ply of the game), then we are concerned with what Black did on move twenty-three, what White can do on move twenty-four, and whether White's twenty-fourth move might allow a Black reply on move twenty-four that White cannot meet on move twenty-five. Got it? For more on how these three time periods might fit into an entire move's thought process, see Making Chess Simple and A Generic Thought Process. Let's consider our first example. In the following position White has just played 1.Qc1. Is it safe for Black to play 1Qxb5? If not, what are the alternatives?

Purchases from our chess shop help keep ChessCafe.com freely accessible:

Novice Nook
Dan Heisman
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page

Chess Openings for Kids by Watson & Burgess

What Grandmasters Don't See, Vol. 2 by Maurice Ashley

Chess Expertise: Mastering Strategy by Efstratios Grivas

[FEN "r5k1/pp3p1p/1q3Pp1/1P2P3/ 8/6P1/P5PK/2Q5 b - - 0 1"]

Unless you are a complete beginner, White's possibility of 2.Qh6 on the next move, threatening mate, probably "jumped out" at you. The previous move, 1. Qc1, was a threat the queen threatens to go to h6 next move with an unstoppable mate. This mating net around Black's king is common and easyto-spot. The "jumping out" happens when you are very familiar with a safety pattern, and is a good example of why becoming familiar with as many patterns as possible to have them "jump out" at you is a fantastic idea (see A Different Approach to Studying Tactics and Tactical Sets and Goals). Therefore, although Black should consider his captures when generating his candidate moves and White's b-pawn is en prise, if 1Qxb5?? 2.Qh6 and Black has no defense against mate. To play 1Qxb5 without considering 2.Qh6 would be "Hope Chess": you make a move without seeing if you can meet all your opponent's checks, captures, and threats in reply, wait for your opponent to move, and then if he does make a check, capture, or threat, you think, "OK, now that I know what he has done, I hope I can meet that safely." In this case, 2.Qh6 becomes what chess psychologists call a "killer move" a move that your opponent has available on the next move that's so strong that it probably can't be allowed. When a killer move exists, limiting your candidates to moves that don't allow the killer move in reply (or nullifies its effect) will eliminate all but a few possibilities. All you have to do is ask, "What are all the moves I can make which don't lose to the killer move?" Here Black has three moves which can meet 2.Qh6 on the next move. They are 1Qd8 (2.Qh6 Qf8 defends), 1Kh8 (2.Qh6 Rg8 defends), and 1Kf8 (2.Qh6+ Ke8 defends). However, after 1Kf8, White can play 2.Qa3+ and Black has to return to the corner with 2Kg8 since 2Ke8?? allows 3.Qe7#. Therefore, unless Black wishes to test White in some way not really necessary since Black is ahead a rook - the only two moves which defeat the killer move and make progress are 1Qd8 and 1Kh8. So these become your two final candidate moves see Initial and Final Candidate Moves and Making Chess Simple. If Black were not ahead a rook, then Black's work would not be finished he would have to spend some time determining which move is better. However, when you are way ahead, this is not nearly as important, so here Black can safely play either 1Kh8 or 1Qd8 (my choice since it is a little more flexible) within a fairly reasonable amount of time. The key to this position was that the mating pattern with 2.Qh6 was so familiar. It is entirely likely that weaker readers who mostly play Hope Chess would not allow 2.Qh6 not because they asked, "Is there any check, capture, or threat I cannot meet after my candidate?" but rather because they "saw" that 1Qxb5 allowed an easily spotted and well-known pattern. In other words, it was not their thought process which saved them, but their pattern recognition. I know this is often true because I give this type of exercise to my students quite frequently to help determine the cause of their errors. Nevertheless, to rely only on pattern recognition is dangerous it is very helpful and necessary, but hardly sufficient for becoming a good player! Contrast the previous example with the following second example. Black has just played 1Be7.

[FEN "2kr3r/1pp1bpp1/p1p3p1/3nP3/3P2P1/ 7P/PPP2PK1/RNB2R2 w - - 0 2"]

White is ahead a pawn but behind in development. Analyzing Black's previous move reveals it was not a check, no capture was made, and apparently no immediate threats were generated. Given the lack of his own tactics, White needs to develop his queenside pieces and both principles "knights before bishops" and "try to get your knights toward the center" indicate 2.Nc3 as a strong candidate move. What do you think? No matter how positionally desirably a move is, if it is not safe you have to reject it as a candidate move unless you are willing to sacrifice. So the safety check has to be performed first. Examining the safety of 2.Nc3 is made easier if you mentally circle all of White's loose (unguarded) pieces after visualizing the move. Those loose pieces would be the rook on a1, the pawn on c2, and the pawn on d4. Now look for replies by Black which can attack as many as possible. It turns out Black can attack two of those loose pieces with 2Nb4, so 2Nb4 becomes a move that must be considered by White before he plays 2.Nc3. As noted in last month's column, two things likely have to occur before you can notice that 2Nb4 is a dangerous move to consider: 1. You have to ask if 2.Nc3 is safe, "Can 2.Nc3 be met with any second move by Black which White cannot safely meet on the third move?" This usually requires searching through all of Black's checks, captures, and threats; 2Nb4 is a threat. 2. You have to find 2Nb4 by either recognition (as a dangerous pattern, as in the first example), or be able to analyze that 2Nb4 is a dangerous candidate, and then further analyze that it is not only dangerous, but indeed cannot be safely met at all. In other words, you have to know this pattern so it "jumps out at you" (unlikely) or be able to find it. But although similar in function, this second example is quite different than the first, where a well-known pattern was purposely chosen. I don't know many tactical sets which include a pattern like 2.Nc3? Nb4. Therefore, without consciously searching for 2Nb4, it is unlikely that players with a bad thought process will reject a move like 2.Nc3 for correct reasons. Ironically, these players might reject 2.Nc3 because it leads to doubled pawns or an isolated a-pawn after 2Nxc3?, but not because it loses material to 2 Nb4. Players who spot the doubled pawns and reject the candidate for that reason are getting their priorities backward if the move is safe, then tiebreak criteria like the doubled pawns come into play, but determining whether a candidate move is safe or not should come first. Let's see how much you have learned from the first two examples. In this third example, Black has played 1Rxc1+ How would you reply?

[FEN "4rn2/5pk1/p2pbp1p/4p2P/1q2PP2/ N2BQ1P1/PP6/1Kr4R w - - 0 2"]

Black's previous move is a check (and also a capture), so that limits White's responses. Nevertheless, if you decided your reply before you determined that White has three legal moves: 2.Kxc1, 2.Rxc1, and 2.Qxc1, that is not a good sign. To be a better player you have to analyze and produce better moves in the same positions, and the first step is to at least first see what is possible (see the key article The Fun of Pros and Cons). At first glance all the "positional" cards seem to indicate 2.Rxc1 as the "normal" move: it activates the rook, controls the open file, and does not leave the pawn on h5 hanging. What more could you wish for? 2.Qxc1 places the queen on the open file where it can be attacked with 2Rc8, and 2.Kxc1 seems to expose the king. But these are only the superficial aspects of what is happening. I suggest that one always look for "checks, captures, and threats" because those are the forcing moves. This statement is short and catchy, but not fully accurate with regard to the level of forcing. That's because some threats are clearly more forcing than captures and even some checks these are the threats to checkmate. Therefore, when analyzing the three candidates, in addition to replies like 2Qxb2+ and 2Bxa2+, one of the most forcing is 2Rb8, threatening 3Qxb2#. Not considering the consequences of 2Rb8 would be very similar to not considering 2.Qh6 in the first example it may be easier to spot 2.Qh6 and it may be easier to stop 2Rb8, but the potential threat is the same. The real strength of 2Rb8 is not that Black threatens mate, but that he "happens" to simultaneously threaten 3Qxa3, simply winning a knight. Either threat is easy enough to stop, but together they form a deadly combination. The only defense to both, 3.Nc4, is simply met by 3Bxc4 removing the guard, when White does not have time to recapture on c4 due to the mate threat on b2. In this light we can now see that 2.Rxc1?, the most obvious positional move, is also clearly the worst tactical move. After 2.Rb8 White is simply helpless. So White has to settle for 2.Kxc1 or 2.Qxc1, when at least the threats can be met. 2.Kxc1 abandons a2, and turns out to be the second best move, so although Black is much better after 2.Qxc1, that is the only move that gives White any chance to continue the struggle. In the game White "automatically" and fairly quickly played 2.Rxc1? and lost after the not-unexpected 2Rb8. Only then did he realize that Black had two threats and he could not meet both. Too late! Making moves too quickly where you have decisions will have a tendency to keep your rating low. Our final example occurs after some instructive opening misadventures: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Bc5 (better is the well-known 4Nxe4!) 5. Ng5? Making a threat easily met, leaving the knight looking silly 5O-O 6. Nd5?? Na5?? Missing the tactic 6Nxd5 7.exd5 (else 7Qxg5) 7Qxg5 anyway! 8.dxc6 Qxg2 9.Rf1 dxc6 and White's game is in shambles. 7.d3 d6 8. Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Qh5? Aggressive, but allows the simple 9Qxf2+ 10.Kd1 h6 and White is lost. But instead of capturing on f2 with check, Black played too defensively with 9h6? 10.O-O What should Black do now?

[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppp2pp1/3p1q1p/n1b1p1NQ/ 2B1P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 10"]

As you might expect, you have to peel the onion a little here, too. White's knight is attacked by a pawn and has not moved. But this failure to retreat should have made Black suspicious and it did! Black properly looked a little further and asked, "What would happen if I just played the obvious move and captured the knight with 10hxg5? What can White do to me then?" Just taking the knight without asking this question would be Hope Chess, and indeed you need to consider what Black would do after the obvious recapture 11.Bxg5. Black visualized this continuation and realized that White had purposely left the knight hanging because after 11.Bxg5 there is no obvious retreat for Black's queen. For example, after 10hxg5 11.Bxg5 Qg6? then 12. Qxg6 wins the queen since the f-pawn is pinned by the bishop at c4 (Did you see this? It occurs often enough that it's a good pattern to recognize!), and 12Nxc4 allows White time to save the queen on g6. So Black, failing to see a way to save the queen, decided to not capture the knight and ended up not winning a piece. Superficially this decision seems reasonable, but a good player would have asked a few more questions, like, "OK, I can't move my queen to a safe square after 10hxg5, 11.Bxg5. But since I can win a piece if I find a way to make this work, then it is worth some extra time to see if there is any other way I can come out of that line safely. What else can I try?" This type of "don't give up" reasoning is very important in these "high risk, high reward" situations where a piece or more is at stake. To not try would be a terrible misuse of your time. And indeed, in this case a counterattack will save the day. After 10hxg5 11. Bxg5 Black can counterattack the queen with 11g6! and escape with the piece. The point is that 12.Qxg6+?? is not possible since 12Qxg6 wins the queen, despite the pin on the f-pawn. If instead 12.Bxf6 gxh5 regains the queen while after 12.Qh4 then the simple 12Qh8 also leaves Black ahead a piece. Not only does this defense work, but Black can also reserve g6 for his queen by initially playing the zwischenzug 10Nxc4! Then 11.dxc4 hxg5 12.Bxg5 Qg6 does work, without the pinning issues on g6. So either 10Nxc4 or 10 hxg5 11.Bxg5 g6 refutes White's piece offer of 10.O-O?, which therefore deserves at least one question mark. In this final example Black did ask if 10hxg5 was safe, so his thought process, at least to that point, was fine. Where he fell down was stopping after seeing his queen was trapped (see Quiesence Errors) instead of looking for counterattacking moves like 10Nxc4 or 11g6. Sometimes you can correctly ask the first question but might either get the wrong answer (see Bootstrapping Analysis Skills) or fail to ask the correct follow-up questions. If the reward (in this case, being ahead a piece) is enough, then it is worth a little extra time to try. These examples show different aspects of searching for forcing moves at each of the three "time periods" of an analytical move's thought process: 1. Was your opponent's previous move a check or capture? What are all the threats the move generated? 2. In searching for candidate moves, consider your checks, captures, and threats, and

3. When determining if each of your candidate moves is safe, determine if your opponent can reply with a check, capture, or threat you cannot meet. If you get the first item wrong, you may miss a threat; overlook the second and you may miss an opportunity to win material or mate, and failure in the third results in the jarring, "Uh-Oh! What do I do now?" next move and the answer may be, "Nothing you should have foreseen this possibility and stopped it on the previous move."

2011 ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

Dan welcomes readers' questions; he is a full-time instructor on the ICC as Phillytutor.

Yes, I have a question for Dan!

Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives] [ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact ChessCafe.com] 2011 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of BrainGamz, Inc.