Let's Take A Look

Lets Take A
Look...
Nigel Davies


by Bruce Alberston
We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For
all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of
both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was
played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information
you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN
or CBV format if possible) to: nigeldavies@chesscafe.com. Who knows,
perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you,
Lets take a look...
Confirmation Bias
People are capable of falsifying their hypotheses. Our experimental
results show that chess masters falsified their hypotheses: they thought
about how their opponent might refute their plan in their move
sequences. Chess masters tended to evaluate their moves as good or
bad for themmore realistically than experienced novices: their
judgments matched the objective evaluations of one of the most highly
advanced chess computer programs, Fritz 5. Experienced novices
exhibited something of a confirmation bias: they tended to think about
how their opponent would play moves that fit in with their plan,
somewhat more than chess masters did. Novices, somewhat more than
masters, tended to evaluate their moves as better for themthan they
were objectively. The evidence that chess masters can falsify suggests
that it may be premature to conclude that the normative prescription of
falsification is flawed. In this case falsification can be considered a
useful and rational strategy. Hypothesis testing may be influenced by
domain expertise. How does domain knowledge affect the ability to
falsify by chess experts? We plan to explore this question by examining
how masters test their hypotheses for randomboard positions
compared to novices. If falsification relies on domain knowledge, then
masters should tend not to falsify their hypotheses about move
sequences in the randomboard positions as often as they do in the
normal board positions. Nonetheless, they may attempt to falsify more
than experienced novices, if their expertise has helped themto develop
a strategy of falsification in this domain.
This is the conclusion of an academic paper by Ruth Byrne and Michelle
Cowley published in 2004 which indicates the value of chess both as a
medium for experimentation and for developing good thinking habits.
Stronger players have always known that the analysis of their weaker brethren
is full of hope and assumptions, and that this is the reason they dont improve.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]
Let's Take A Look
The hard truth is that it has very little to do with the usual litany of reasons
such as a too busy, bad openings, etc. Grandmasters inwardly smile
whenever they hear this kind of thing.
How does someone develop the ability to think critically? The best way is
through play itself, having your moves and ideas tested by a strong
opponent. When someone is trying to find flaws in your ideas its a whole
different ball game to the hoped for cooperation people dream about from the
comfort of their arm chairs. This is one of the reasons why home analysis
tends to get exposed in live combat; ideas worked out without an opponent
can allow elements of confirmation bias to slip through more easily.
For this reason its good to play in strong tournaments. Events in which your
opponent cannot find the flaw in your ideas will allow bad thinking habits to
persist. The usual rule I give to students is that they should move up to the
next level of competition once they consistently score more than 50%. I have
some reservations about moving up too fast, the main one being the loss of
confidence that can follow repeated batterings.
Another good way to improve analytical skills is to sit down and analyse
positions with a strong player who will act as critic. He may be less motivated
to destroy your ideas than during a game, but its still much better than
working things out for yourself. This is why its good to analyse with a
stronger player after you lose to him; be gracious, offer to get him a beer and
with luck hell agree. One can learn much more from this experience than the
specifics of why you lost, do it enough and you might start to imbibe the
ability to think critically yourself. I am deeply grateful to the stronger players
who have taken the trouble to analyse with me over the years; on every
occasion I have learned something.
This months game was sent to me by a player who beat a higher rated player
with a neat tactic at the end, but Whites notes betrayed evidence of
confirmation bias, overestimating the attack and underestimating Blacks
defensive resources. Of course this is nothing unusual, but the road to mastery
involves refuting your own hypotheses.
Edwards,S - OGorman,B
Rhyl Major, 2005
Sicilian Defence [B42]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Bd3
An unusual alternative to 5 Nc3. It shouldnt trouble Black too seriously, but
there are a few pitfalls for the unwary.
5a6
Transposing into the Kan Variation.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Black must be careful to avoid 5...d5?! 6 e5 Nfd7? because of 7 Nxe6! fxe6 8
Qh5+Ke7 (8...g6 9 Bxg6+is even worse) 9 Bg5+Nf6 10 Nc3 when Blacks
king is caught in the centre. The simplest antidote to this line is 5...Nc6 which
is better than after 5 Nc3 because 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 e5? just loses a pawn after
7...Qa5+.
6 0-0 Qc7 7 Qe2 d6 8 a4 Nc6
Black has also delayed the development of
this knight, for example Andrei Sokolov -
Rotstein, Geneve 1996 went 8...g6 9 Be3
Bg7 10 Nd2 0-0 11 h3 d5 12 c4 dxe4 13
Bxe4 Nxe4 14 Nxe4 e5 15 Nb3 Nc6 with
a satisfactory game for Black and 8...Be7
9 a5 0-0 10 Nd2 e5 11 N4b3 Be6 was fine
in Ciolac - Chuchelov, Schwaebisch
Gmund 1996.
9 Be3 Bd7 10 Nxc6
It isnt usually a good sign in the Sicilian when White makes this exchange.
10Bxc6
Black could also consider recapturing with the pawn.
11 Nc3 Be7 12 a5 Nd7 13 Qg4 Bf6 14 f4 0-0
Black has obtained a very comfortable position and the following attack is
more hopeful than effective.
15 Rf3 Rac8
Natural enough, but I think there was something better. Black could have
played 15...Bxc3! 16 bxc3 f5, exploiting the fact that Whites e4-pawn is
pinned against the rook on f3. Black would win material on the spot.
16 Rh3 g6 17 Rg3?! Bg7 18 Rh3?!
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]
Let's Take A Look
These rook moves make a strange
impression. The fact of the matter is that
Blacks kingside is very solid and White
will struggle to make any kind of breach.
18...Qd8
Another way to defend the kingside was
with 18...Rfe8 19 Qh4 Nf8.
19 Bf2
Once again this gives the impression of being quite a cumbersome
manoeuvre. I sense that White had overestimated his kingside chances.
19...Nc5 20 Bh4 Qc7 21 Bg5 Bd4+
The immediate 21...Bxc3 is better as after 22.bxc3 Nxe4 23.Bxe4 Bxe4
24.Bf6 Black has 24...Qc5+with check. I suspect that Blacks reasoning in
driving Whites king to h1 was that after capturing on e4 with the knight he
would threaten a fork on f2. But White should capture it in any case.
22 Kh1 Bxc3
White annotated this move as ?!, commenting that Black wins a pawn, but
he must now endure a raging kingside attack minus his dark squared bishop.
My view is that it really is a pawn and that Black should be able to defend his
king without too much difficulty.
23 bxc3 Nxe4
And not 23...Bxe4?! because of 24 Rxh7! when 24...Nd7! (24...Kxh7?? 25
Qh4+Kg8 26 Bf6 leads to mate) 25 Rh3 (After 25 Qh4 Qxc3 26 Rd1 d5 27
Be7 Rfe8 28 Bb4 Qf6 it seems that Black defends everything) 25...Qxc3 26
Rg1 Bxd3 27 Qh4 Qg7 28 Bh6 Qh8 29 Bxf8 Qxh4 30 Rxh4 Rxc2 31 Bxd6
Bf5 gives him compensation for the exchange, but nothing very clear.
24 Bxe4 Bxe4 25 Bf6 Qc5 26 Rh6 Qd5 27 Rg1?
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Too passive, but White left the move
unannotated. White should play 27 Qh3
Qf5 28 Qh4 when 28...g5 (Sacrificing a
rook for numerous pawns with 28...Bxg2+
29 Kxg2 Rxc3 30 Bxc3 Qxc2+31 Qf2
Qxc3 looks like a risky way to keep the
game going, but is reminiscent of a
famous game between Lutikov and
Taimanov) 29 Bxg5 (29 fxg5 Rc4 is good
for Black) 29...Rxc3 30 Bf6 Bxg2+31
Kxg2 Rxc2+32 Kg1 Qc5+33 Kf1 Qc4+
34 Kg1 Qc5+is perpetual check, but no
more.
27...Rc4 28 Qh4?
White described this as an oversight as Black can now get perpetual. I agree
that the move is wrong, but Black has a win and not just perpetual. And even
after the superior 28 Qh3 Black has all the chances with 28...Qf5 29 Be7 (29
Rxh7 Qxf6) 29...Qxh3 30 Rxh3 Re8 (Or 30...Bxc2 31 Bxf8 Kxf8, with more
than enough for the exchange) 31 Bxd6 Rd8 32 Be7 Rd5 33 Bb4 Rd2, etc.
28...g5?
Missing not just perpetual check but an immediate win. After 28...Bxg2+29
Rxg2 Qd1+30 Rg1 Qf3+31 Rg2 Black can win on the spot with 31...Rxf4.
29 Qh5?
Another mistake, giving Black a fresh opportunity for victory. White had to
play 29 Rxh7! when 29...Bxg2+(And not 29...Bxh7?? 30 Qh6 etc) 30 Rxg2
Qd1+31 Rg1 Qd5+32 Rg2 Qd1+33 Rg1 Qd5+is a perpetual.
29...Bg6?
As Tartakover was wont to say, its the last mistake that loses the game. Black
can and should continue with 29...Qf5! when 30 fxg5 (And not 30 Bxg5? f6)
30...Rfc8 31 Bd4 Qxa5 leaves White with nowhere to go on the kingside and
his overall position in ruins.
30 Rxh7! Bxh7
Or 30...Bxh5 31.Rh8#
31 Qh6 1-0
Theres no way to stop the mate on g7.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Recommended Reading
Thought and choice in chess by Adriann De Groot (Mouton De Gruyter,
1978)
The Sicilian Kan by J ohn Emms (Everyman, 2002)
Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]