Accidental and Purposeful Errors

Quote of the Month: One key to getting better is not making the same
mistakes over and over.

Novice Nook
Dan Heisman

Check out these

bestselling titles from
USCFSales.com:

Several years ago IM Jeremy Silman made an interesting and important

point in a Chess Life article. He noted that from an instructors point of
view it is far worse for a student to trade material unnecessarily when
losing than it is to put his queen en prise. There is a lot of wisdom in this
observation, and I would like to expound on it because the concept
contains a key element in anyones quest for improvement.
First, we need to differentiate between an accidental mistake and a
purposeful one. Of course, no one makes an error on purpose, so from
that standpoint all errors are accidental. That is not a helpful
differentiation. Therefore, lets define an accidental mistake as one where
you dont see something that you should have and it results in a safety
mishap.

A Parents Guide
to Chess
by Dan Heisman

All other errors are purposeful not on purpose, but where you know
you shouldnt do something and still do it, or fail to do something you
know you should, or make the same mistakes over and over, even though
you know they are errors. In most of these cases the perpetrator assesses
the superficial safety issues correctly and thinks the move is clever or
even OK when in fact it is bad. This may be due to misanalysis,
misevaluation, a misconception, or incorrectly believing there is an
exception to a principle, or anything similar.
Examples will make this clear; lets begin with an accidental mistake:
Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.

Example 1: White to play

Looking for Trouble

by Dan Heisman

The Complete
DGT Product Line

After 1.Qg2+??, Black picks up the queen free with 1Bxg2 and wins.
It can quickly be deduced that White almost undoubtedly did not see the
bishop on a8, or he would not have made this move. The overwhelming
likelihood is that when someone makes a move like 1.Qg2+??, White
either lacks board vision or plays too quickly, and fails to see that he is
making a big mistake. Although White made the move on purpose, he did
not mean to leave the queen en prise, so the mistake is accidental.
Now lets consider a mistake that cant be an accident, one we recently
witnessed in The Fun of Pros and Cons.

Back to Basics:
Fundamentals
by Branislav Francuski

Example 2: White to play

White is behind a pawn and faces an arduous defense. However, instead

of putting up maximum resistance, he caved in by offering the trade of
rooks with 1.Rd1?. This flies in the face of the very strong principle,
dont trade into a king and pawn endgame when down material, unless
you are sure you are not going to lose; a corollary of the principle, when
losing dont trade pieces. White admitted after the game that he did not
analyze the resulting lost king and pawn endgame, thinking that he could
cause problems for Black by possibly infiltrating his king on the
weakened white squares on the queenside.
There are two ways to categorize such a mistake:
1. White was unaware of the principle and thus it was an innocent
mistake.
2. White was aware of the principle, but made the move anyway
without proper analysis to prove it was an exception.
The first case, where the player is unaware he is doing something wrong,
is quite common among weaker players and the player improves by
experience or, more likely, someone making him aware that much better
resistance is possible by keeping the rooks on the board. Live and learn.
However, the second case, where the player is aware of the principle (as
he was) and makes the move anyway without proper analysis, is a very
serious (and purposeful) mistake the kind of avoidable error Silman
had in mind.
When someone is trying to improve their game, learning new
information, such as in the first case, will allow a tiny step forward.
However, once that information is learned, avoiding the second case is
usually the more important step toward improvement.
For example, almost all my students are aware of the important principle,
in the opening move every piece once before you move any piece twice,
unless there is a tactic but nevertheless most consistently flout this
advice to their disadvantage until they get to be a stronger player. We will
return to this principle later. The same can be said for the principle, avoid
making fair trades of pieces when behind: weaker players often ignore
this principle, while strong players never do one usually has to force
stronger players to make even trades when they are losing because they
wont do it voluntarily. Again, the moral is clear: there are great benefits
to avoiding purposeful mistakes.
Example 3: White to play

This situation is quite different than Example 1. Now White can

purposely put his queen in jeopardy with 1.Qe7, knowing that if 1
Rxe7? 2.Rd8+ leads to mate. Furthermore, if Black moves his rook, then
2.Rd8 is a real threat; e.g., 1Rf8 2.Rd8 threatening mate. Therefore, 1.
Qe7 is not a mistake at all.
Now lets consider something a little in-between Examples 1 and 3:
Example 4: White to play

Suppose White tries 1.Qe4. Here he is purposely putting his queen en

prise, with the idea that he will checkmate after 1Rxe4 2.Rd8+ Rxd8 3.
Rxd8+ Re8 4.Rxe8#. However, as shown in A Tactics Quiz, this is a
fantasy, as after 1.Qe4?? Rxe4 2.Rd8+, Black is not obligated to play 2
Rxd8??, but instead 2...Re8 just wins.
So in this case White undoubtedly put the queen en prise on purpose. But
it was a blunder, as White did not understand that capturing the queen
was safe for Black.
The important point is that although playing 1.Qe4?? in this position
results in the same material loss as playing 1.Qg2+ in the first example,
they are completely different types of errors. In the first example, White
lacked the board vision to see that his queen was en prise and accidentally
put it where it could be taken. In the fourth example, White knew that 1
Rxe4 was possible, but he mistakenly thought that it was a blunder, when
in fact his purposeful 1.Qe4?? was the real mistake.
Understanding the difference between these two types of mistakes is key
to understanding Silmans statement, as well as helpful in understanding
and minimizing your own mistakes.
If a non-beginner plays 1.Qg2+, as in the first example, it would not be
very helpful to tell them afterward that this was not a good idea!
However, there are several things an instructor can tell a player who
makes mistakes such as this to help minimize their reoccurrence: do board
vision exercises (to more easily see pieces that are far away), do a sanity
check, or always consider your opponents checks, captures, and threats.
However, telling them not to put their queen en prise is something they
already know. Moreover, the frequency of such errors is important. If the
student is an 1800 player who only does this once every few years, no
comment is necessary. But if the student is a 900 player who does this
frequently from playing too fast, all of the above and more may apply.

But even the 900 player did not do it on purpose, so it was an accident
(which occurs too frequently).
Now suppose you tell a student that to put up maximum resistance one of
the most important principles to follow is when losing (behind in
material) dont trade pieces and the student acknowledges this fact. Then
you might expect that the student would, indeed, conscientiously avoid
trading pieces when losing, unless absolutely forced. Unlike leaving your
queen en prise, picking up a piece and capturing another piece thus
affecting the unwanted trade cannot be an accident. It can be a giant
mistake and done without enough thought, but it cant be the kind of
accident that playing 1.Qg2+?? in Example 1 was. Take the following
example:
Example 5: Black to play

Most players would not be sure

If Black trades rooks, whether White is winning or it is a draw.

If Black avoids the trade, whether White is winning or it is a draw.

However, one thing is clear: White is better and Black is the one that
might be losing. Therefore, unless Black is completely certain he can
draw the king and pawn endgame, he should follow the strong principle
and not trade rooks.
There is another applicable principle that would bolster Blacks decision:
the easiest endgames to lose when behind by a pawn are king and pawn
endgames and one of the hardest endgames to lose when behind by a
pawn are rook and pawn endgames (only bishop of opposite color are
more drawish than rook endgames). Therefore, when in doubt, the player
behind by a pawn should not trade rooks.
Lets assume Black has been informed by stronger players that trading
pieces when behind is inadvisable and understood what that meant. Then,
hopefully, he would apply that information to this situation and not trade
rooks. If Black does trade rooks with 1Rxf2?, he could hardly claim
that instigating the trade was an accident. If so, it might sound humorous:

I did not see the rook on f2 I was intending to play 1.Rf2 and it
just so happened his rook was there so it got captured.
I was trying to win the rook on f2 I captured it on purpose but
did not see the white king could recapture my rook.

So playing 1.Rxf2 is not an accident at some level it represents a

conscious effort for Black to trade rooks when it is inadvisable.
Unfortunately, trading rooks into a lost king and pawn endgame occurs in
the games of stronger players too. Here is an example from a students
recent Internet 45/45 game. My student, playing black, is certainly not a
weak player.
Example 6: Black to play after 27.Rd1

Black has 18:41 left with an additional 45 second increment each move.
Despite this adequate time, he very quickly reasoned that moving his rook
allows the undesirable 28.Rd7, while trading gives him chances because
of the proximity of his king to the center. Therefore, after only six
seconds of thought (with the increment his clock thus gained 39 seconds!)
he played 27Rxd1+??.
I have to admit that when I see such moves from my students it is hard on
my heart. Primal scream time. When the one I am rooting for makes a
mistake like this, I feel worse than the player does! Between these two
types of mistakes, I think Blacks horrible move was more forgivable than
the fact that he played it in six seconds!
As was stated in The Two Move Triggers, Never play a bad move fast.
If you are going to break basic principles Dont trade pieces when
behind and Never trade down into a king and pawn endgame when you
are behind in material, unless you calculate that you are not losing then
you should break them very carefully and slowly (see The Most Important
Strategic Decisions and Strong Principles vs. Important Principles.
When I saw this move, I thought of Silman! I would rather have my
student put his queen en prise than play 27Rxd1+ (much less quickly)
since leaving the queen en prise is clearly an accident we all do this
occasionally, but hopefully not often but you cant accidentally trade
rooks here. My students erroneous logic was I cant allow 28.Rd7 I
am probably losing, so I have to trade rooks. The correct logic would
have been Both allowing 28.Rd7 and avoiding this by trading rooks are
bad, so I am between a rock and a hard place (or perhaps between a rook
and a hard place!). Therefore, I have to choose the lesser of evils That
may have led to some intense analysis of the dangers of 27Rxd1+, and
then to the realization that the lesser evil was to keep the rooks on the
board. In the game, White, although lower rated than my student, won the
king and pawn endgame rather easily.
Tip: When two principles conflict (Dont trade when behind or you will
likely lose and Dont allow an opponents rook onto the seventh rank)
it is almost always correct to heed the one that is more about winning the
game than the one that addresses another issue, such as piece activity. In
descending order, the priority would usually be winning, material/safety,
activity, and pawn structure.
From a standpoint of a player trying to improve, the problem is that if you
repeatedly do the things that you know are wrong, it is much harder to
advance, than if you try your best to heed good advice. In other words,
there are many things one can do incorrectly on a chess board, so the
fewer times you can make a specific mistake, the faster your
improvement. Since everyone makes all the mistakes at least once and it
takes years to get better, think about how your improvement stalls if you
make the same mistakes over and over! Thus, those who seek to improve
and consistently heed advice are better off in the long run, than those who
look for exceptions and purposely make mistakes when they should
know better.
Learn to walk before you try to run. Dont look for exceptions to
principles before you can consistently follow those principles. Once you

learn something, try to apply it correctly dont have a better idea.

Once you can consistently apply what you know and become a much
stronger player, then the time spent looking for better ideas or
exceptions to principles becomes more cost effective.
A good example of walk before you can run can be applied to the
strong opening principle move every piece once before you move any
piece twice, unless there is a tactic. Most of my students who know this
advice and dont follow it often have a better idea such as to get an
outpost knight, isolate an opponents pawn, or start an attack. To them I
say Yes, sometimes grandmasters do all these things, but they activate
their army and never play extended periods with just some of their pieces
active. Dont play the opening like the middlegame. A football coach
would not formulate plays without utilizing the maximum number of
allowable players, and neither should the coach of your chess pieces.
Learning to walk before you can run is a start toward minimizing
purposeful errors. I would estimate that seventy-five percent of games lost
by weaker players are because they did not apply information they knew,
rather than by information they lacked. For example, they may know the
principles take your time and do the best you can; when you see a good
move look for a better one; and that any move can be the one that loses
the game, but still make a move unnecessarily quickly and throw the
entire game away. Players that consistently display this hasty move
syndrome will, in accordance with the above, improve at a slower rate
than those who dont move so fast.
Certain types of analysis mistakes contain aspects of both accidental and
purposeful errors. Suppose a player attempts all the required aspects of
good analysis, but, for whatever reasons, misses key issues. So long as
that player is trying to do the best they can, the remainder of the errors
can be categorized as accidental and this type of error can be minimized
by practice, tactical exercises, and analytical exercises, etc.
Summary: No one wants to make mistakes; however, positions arise
where you know better, but for whatever reason (playing too fast, trying
to do too much, and not weighing the circumstances) play something you
know you should not and then later regret it. If you can drastically
reduce this type of error, you will be amazed at how much this improves
your game.
How can you do reduce purposeful errors? It might be Slowing Down,
better recognition of The Most Important Strategic Decisions, Breaking
Down Barriers, applying Chess Principles and Common Sense, or a
combination. Whatever your situation, learning to proceed cautiously
when something you know warns against doing what you are planning to
do will yield better results.
Endgame Enigma Solved!
Many students complain I lose too many games in the endgame I need
to study it more. But what I have found over the years is that these
players often cannot solve their problem with more endgame knowledge
and strategy. Their problem is that the endgame is where quick or faulty
analysis can result in errors that cost wins and draws much more easily
than in other parts of the game. Therefore, if they are deficient in analysis,
play too quickly, or get into time trouble, then the mistakes they make in
the endgame are much more costly. The result is the misperception that
they need to study the endgame more. So the remedy is often not to
accumulate more endgame knowledge, but to be aware of the magnified
danger of the endgame and thus become a better analyst, while allowing
time to analyze carefully. Of course, more endgame knowledge, if applied
correctly, never hurts.
Question Im volunteering as a chess coach for a K-3 team in San
Antonio. My top five students are USCF 350 to 600 and Im wondering

how to help them break the 800 barrier. Theyre making a lot of counting
mistakes (including en prise), playing hope chess, and not using all their
time.
Do you have any exercises or recommendations that could help us? Right
now theyre playing lots of G/30 games on Chessmaster, going to
tournaments (rated and not), and using the Fritz & Chesster CD series.
Do you think that more of the same will be sufficient, or is there
something else we should be doing at this level?
Answer It sounds like your students are on the right track. Of course, if
young players do not want to take time to look to see what their
opponents last move threatens or whether they have a better move, then
there is a certain limit on how good they will become until they do.
When youngsters play in tournaments where they have more than thirty
minutes and they play opponents that take all their time, the peer pressure
to not play fast helps them learn what is possible if they stop and think
about each move. Otherwise youngsters are prone to playing fast when
their opponent does, no matter how detrimental it may be to their play.
Certainly having them do basic puzzles like the ones in Jeff Coakleys
Winning Chess Puzzles for Kids or Lev Alburts Comprehensive Chess
Course Vol. 1 and 2 are great. So is recording their games and going over
it with coaches, who can ask Did you look at what else was possible? or
Did you see all the things your opponents last move does? are very
helpful. There are many exercises they can do outside of play to increase
board vision and analysis skills. See the most basic exercises on my
websites Exercise page, or a subset in Chess Exercises.
Finally, be as encouraging as you can. While serious adult students might
prefer knowing what they did wrong, emphasizing and rewarding things
the student did right (like taking their time) works better with most
youngsters.

Dan welcomes readers questions; he is a full-time instructor on the ICC

as Phillytutor.

Yes, I have a question for Dan!

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]
2009 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.