Novice Nook by Dan Heisman

Classify Your Biggest Mistakes

Quote of the Month: I need to study more tactical positions ...
If you review an annotated master game, it is usually won because one player outplays the other
positionally, leaving him a superior position where he can cash in by playing a nice combination.
Steinitz's Rules state that combinations flow from superior positions, and you cannot play a
winning tactic unless you have a good position that supports it.
I believe the common perception of players after they lose to a tactic (or via analysis error) is that
the losing move was caused either by not "seeing" something that the opponent did (or that they
could have played but missed) or by not being familiar with a pattern.
However, in reviewing thousands of games with students, I find that this is not usually the case.
The main reasons for big analytical errors which almost always involve missing a tactic either
for the player or the opponent are usually because of one of the following factors:

A visualization error where, in looking ahead, the board is not visualized correctly or
clearly enough to analyze properly.
A thought process error caused by either not asking the right question, not giving enough
attention to the move actually played, or, especially, not checking for the safety of the
move.
Playing too fast.
* A quiescence error where the student stopped analyzing too soon.

As a sample, let's take a position shown to several students, provide a selection of their analysis,
and identify the causes for mistakes. The primary question these students were asked to decide,
and you can tackle before proceeding, was "Is 1...Bxb5 safe?" or alternatively, for the stronger
students, "What would you do here for Black?" Of course, in a real game you should ask these
questions before making any capture; you should not need someone to remind you!
Black to play after 1.Ne5

[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1bnppp/1q2p3/1Pp1N3/4P3/
2N5/1PP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 0 11"]

A majority of intermediate players but not an overwhelming majority said their final answer
was that 1...Bxb5 was safe. The explanation usually ran along the lines of "After 1...Bxb5 2.Nxb5
Qxb5, the black queen is still guarding the checkmate threat 3.Qd7."
The problem with that answer and a common problem for many intermediates is that while
the final statement is true so far as it goes, it is not nearly sufficient. It does not answer the
question "After 1...Bxb5 2.Nxb5 Qxb5, does White have any more checks, captures, or threats of
possibly sufficient relevance so that further analysis is necessary to make a clear decision?" In
other words, "Is the position after 1...Bxb5 2.Nxb5 Qxb5 quiescent?"
It turns out the answer is a resounding "No!" White has moves such as 3.Qf3 and 3.Qh5 that
attack the not-easily defended f7-square and must be resolved before 1...Bxb5 can be played.
That is the kind of work that is necessary to play well in a slow game that is why the final
players finished in Open tournaments are the strongest players even though they analyze the
fastest and most accurately.
But an even "easier" question is whether the black queen, after ending on b5 in that line, can
continue to guard d7 if it gets attacked. White has moves such as 3.c4 or even 3.Ra5 threatening
the black queen. These must be investigated to determine if the line is safe for Black. It turns out
that the queen has no squares where it can safely move and continue to guard d7. This is not
difficult to find if you ask the right question (See "Ask the Right Questions" in my book A Guide
to Chess Improvement).
Therefore, after 1...Bxb5 2.Nxb5 Qxb5 3.c4, Black would have to try a desperate counter-attack
such as 3...Rd8. That creates a common situation where simple Counting ability is sufficient. At

the very least White can play 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8 5.cxb5 or 4.cxb5 Rxd1 5.Rxd1 and, although the
queens are traded, White gets an extra rook in the deal in both lines. The same fate would befall
Black after 3.Ra5, but, once you find one line winning for White, the other is unnecessary since
either would prove that 1...Bxb5 is not safe. If you cannot or do not "see" that Counting
sequence without moving the pieces, then either your visualization needs some work or your
basic Counting skills miss easy wins of material during exchanges (see Counting Material).
One of my intermediate students, when questioned, admitted that he visualized the position
perfectly, but simply stopped with no sense of the danger. That observation is very helpful to me
as his instructor, because, in trying to minimize similar problems for him in the future, it is
necessary to root out the exact causes. If my student instead had replied that the position was
blurry after 2...Qxb5 and he had looked but not been able to see a removal of the guard, that
would be a completely different cause and the work he would need to do to improve would be
quite different!
Indeed, several of my other students did have trouble visualizing the lines, which brings us back
to my common admonition you cannot play what you do not see. If you cannot visualize what is
happening properly, then asking the right questions and avoiding quiescence errors is all the more
difficult. In this case addressing the problem is not a matter of the chicken or the egg clearly the
visualization capability must come first.
Here is another position, this time from a recent game in our Main Line Chess Club. What would
you play here for White and why?
White to play after 1...cxd5

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/p3bppp/5n2/3pp1B1/8/
2N5/PPPQ1PPP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 11"]

If you only count on one square at a time and ignore the capturing sequence's effect on the other
squares a common and understandable, but sometimes disastrous habit of inexperienced players
then it seems that 1.Nxd5 is safe. White has a total of three attackers on d5 (knight, queen, and
indirectly the rook), while Black has only two defenders, the knight and queen. Moreover, the
value of the capturing piece is in each case equal to the defender. If 1.Nxd5 Nxd5 2.Qxd5, then
each side has captured a knight, and on the further 2...Qxd5 3.Rxd5 each side has captured a
queen. So White, at that point, still remains ahead the captured pawn (if the black piece on d8
was a rook instead of a queen, White could not even get this far safely, since 3.Rxd5 would only
be recapturing a rook, not a queen). However, other squares are involved, and in the above
sequence after 3.Rxd5 White may be ahead a pawn, but there are further checks, captures, or
threats of consequence, and 3...Bxg5+ wins a piece.
However, this analysis is insufficient, since White is not forced to recapture on d5 first, but
instead can and should respond to 1.Nxd5 Nxd5 with 2.Bxe7. Then 2...Qxe7 allows 3.Qxd5
safely, and 2...Nxe7 is even worse as after 3.Qxd8 Black cannot recapture because of 3...Rxd8 4.
Rxd8#. That means that after 1.Nxd5 White is winning a pawn if Black plays 1...Nxd5.
I have noticed many players automatically assume Black has to play 1...Nxd5 because of the
nonexistent, but popular, "have to capture with the piece worth the least first" principle (more
correct would be "When analyzing, consider capturing with the piece worth less first, but
capturing with other pieces is often superior and also have to be considered" see Principles of
Analytical Efficiency). And that would be true in cases where the second attacker was worth less
than the first defender. But here after 1.Nxd5 the reply 1...Qxd5 instead of 1...Nxd5 is entirely
possible, since the next white piece to capture on d5 is also a queen. So 1...Qxd5 must be
examined: If White tries 2.Qxd5, then after 2...Nxd5 a key position is reached. White has two
choices but neither fail to regain the lost piece:

3.Rxd5 Bxg5+.
3.Bxe7 Nxe7 when the recapturing piece is the one that was hanging, so White cannot
recapture his material.

White's only other try after 1.Nxd5 Qxd5 is 2.Bxf6. But then Black has the simple zwischenzug
2...Qxd2+ (2...Bxf6? 3.Qxd5 wins the queen) and after White recaptures on d2, say 3.Rxd2, then
3...Bxf6 and Black remains ahead a piece.
Does the above analysis, mostly the tactic I call Counting, mean that White cannot win material?
No, it only means that 1.Nxd5 loses a piece. But if you got that far, a little deductive logic should
indicate that possibly a removal of the guard tactic, 1.Bxf6, should be investigated. Then clearly
after 1...Bxf6 White can safely capture on d5 with either piece; e.g., 2.Qxd5 or 2.Nxd5, since in

the latter case 2...Bg5 no longer wins the queen after 3.Ne3 you have to check those lines at the
end. When you see a sequence like this, and you do not ask "At the end, are there further checks,
captures, and threats which might affect the evaluation?," then you might miss a move like 2...
Bg5 and, if things were a little different, end up losing your queen instead of winning a pawn.
Happens all the time...
After 1.Bxf6, Black has possible desperate alternatives to the recapture on f6, but counterattacks
fail; e.g., 1...d4? 2.Bxe7 (the computer indicates 2.Bxe5 is even better) 2...dxc3 (2...Qxe7 3.Ne4
remains ahead a piece) 3.Qxd8 wins. So 1.Bxf6 is the correct first move.
In the root game, which featured two talented but inexperienced young players, White
miscalculated and played 1.Nxd5? but Black figured it out correctly and played 1...Qxd5! Only
then did White realize his mistake and settled for avoiding a queen trade down a piece with 2.
Qc3, but after the correct 2...Qxa2 the rout was on and Black won easily. After the game White
admitted that he had not properly analyzed the "less likely" 1...Qxd5, playing a little too quickly.
Unfortunately, this is the type of move for which he should have been saving his time, since these
Counting sequences can get fairly tricky (see The Two Types of Counting Problems). Therefore,
when you see a sequence of multiple possible captures that should be a red flag to slow down,
because, as in this case, one missed sequence can easily cost material.
As in the previous diagram, I presented this problem to a few of my intermediate students. A
couple got it correct, but most experienced some difficulties. As with the player who played
White in the game, a few concentrated on d5 and missed the line 1.Nxd5 Qxd5 2.Qxd5 Nxd5
where they did not realize that the square g5 would be decisive. One student omitted considering
1...Qxd5 entirely, assuming Black had to recapture with the lesser piece (there is that problem
again!) 1...Nxd5?. If your analysis completely omits crucial lines, that is an enormous source of
error. Be very careful whenever making assumptions in analysis, especially if you are going to
assume an entire line is unplayable just because of the first move.
Another student correctly calculated 1.Nxd5 Qxd5 2.Qxd5 Nxd5, but then thought 3.Bxe7
remained a pawn up. Afterward, he admitted he completely overlooked that the knight could
move backward and capture the bishop 3...Nxe7, winning the piece! We can consider this either a
type of visualization error, since he did not foresee this possibility correctly, or, less likely, a type
of quiescence error, since he stopped analyzing too soon.
This brings us back to the main point. If you can pinpoint the main causes of your "big"
problems, you have a much better shot at minimizing them in the future. If you have no interest
in the causes of your big errors, or dismiss their cause superficially, such as "I did not see it" or "I
just need to study more tactics or opening," then you are likely to continue making similar errors.
The first step in improvement is the willingness to search for a correct diagnosis.

So here is what I suggest: Review a few dozen recent games, collecting positions where a chess
engine indicates your evaluation dropped by a pawn or more on your move. This collection can
be augmented if you have kept a personal study book (see of The Case for Time Management or
my personal study book example) which can provide additional positions with your key mistakes.
You can eliminate positions where you start and finish the move more than three pawns ahead or
behind, since those are either mistakes that still leave you winning easily or ones in a dead lost
position.
For each position where you find these large mistakes, try to pinpoint the cause(s) multiple
causes might be applicable. These will likely be among those mentioned at the beginning of the
article, but I have included other possibilities:

Visualization error error in seeing where the pieces are moved "in your head."
Board vision error not seeing something currently situated on the board; alternately,
seeing something important and then forgetting it!
Thought process error in this case, you should break the problem down further; e.g., not
asking the right question, not giving enough attention to the move actually played, not
checking for the safety of the move, not considering a key check, capture, or threat, etc.
Playing too fast.
Quiescence error (stopped analyzing too soon).
Not familiar with a safety pattern/tactic (lack of tactical vision). In this case identifying the
frequency of motifs is very helpful: counting, removal of the guard, pin (especially sneaky
pin see Sneaky Pins and Invisible Moves), double attack, mate pattern, etc.
Allowing unnecessary complications.
Physical error too tired, touched wrong piece, etc.
Being in unnecessary time trouble (too slow).
Misjudgment thinking one side or the other has a better position than they do (and not
just because you missed a tactic).

You can add whatever categories you think might apply, but I would guess that if you are honest
and properly introspective about your "big" mistakes, most will come down to the reasons at the
start of this column. Moreover, your most prevalent causes probably will not be "knowledge"
oriented; i.e., "not familiar with a pattern," such as an opening, and endgame, or even a tactic!
Most times when players lose to a tactic, when asked to diagnose later, they say something like
"Oh yes, I have seen that (or similar) patterns many times I just did not look to see if my
opponent had it!" rather than "That was a new one on me I have never seen that method of
winning material before."
Recently, I had a student who was thinking of giving up the French Defense (1.e4 e6) because he

had experienced bad results with that opening. Yet when we reviewed his games, the causes of
his problems were almost never lack of knowledge about the opening or getting into "French"
positions he did not know how to play. Instead the mistakes were mostly simple tactical
oversights. For example, in a recent game he defended with the French, the computer evaluated
his position with Black as better by move four (!) and he missed the win of a pawn with a threemove combination on move six! Then he miscounted and, instead of simply recapturing a pawn
after a capture, captured another pawn he was going to win anyway, a common "chess-logic"
error. Another mistake occurred when he missed that an opponent's knight fork was unsafe
because of a pseudo-exchange sacrifice, when he would win a piece. Finally, his opponent put
him away when he removed his own guard, allowing the opponent to execute a pseudo-sacrifice
of the exchange, with a resultant knight fork that ended up with his losing a piece. All of these
errors were tactical and thought process in nature and could just as easily have been made in a
Sicilian or Queen's Gambit. I discussed this game not because it is atypical of student's lost
games, but because it is very typical!
After you track a few dozen of your errors or even fewer you should get a feel for which areas
need the most work.
For example, visualization is a necessary part of analysis. If you cannot visualize well, then you
cannot analyze well (see Bootstrapping Analysis Skills). So if your personal survey indicates that
your visualization skills are poor (you might not need the survey to tell you that!), then it makes
sense to work on your visualization before you attempt to sharpen other skills that depend upon it.
Here at ChessCafe.com, there are multiple sources that can help you with basic analysis skills,
such as visualization, its cousin, board vision, chess logic, tactical vision, etc:

Bruce Alberston has more than 350 Chess Mazes specifically designed for board vision
and visualization of one specific piece each. That way if you are having problems finding
knight moves, you can start by concentrating on just the knight mazes.
Jeff Coakley's column, The Puzzling Side of Chess, contains a variety of fun puzzles
ranging in difficulty from easy to quite difficult, but all aimed at improving your board
vision, visualization, and deductive chess logic. If you think these nonstandard puzzles
cannot help your chess, you are probably either inexperienced or have not given them
enough opportunity, because they help develop critical skills. I, for one, am somewhat
addicted to Switcheroos (see my review of Winning Chess Puzzles for Kids, Vol. 2).
The column Step By Step is specifically oriented toward improving designated skills such
as calculation and visualization.

Good stuff!

There are also books that try to help readers classify errors and areas of need. One of the most
well known is IM Igor Khmelnitsky's Chess Exam and Training Guide. After you do all the
puzzles (some are very difficult this is not a book for beginners!) and score your results, Igor
uses the data to identify the areas where you need work, and makes some suggestions as to where
and how you can develop those skills.
A word of warning: if playing too fast is your problem, that will tend to mask other problems.
The first step in serious improvement is to try your best every move and every game. If you do
not feel like thinking, play a shorter time limit where you are willing to use almost all your time.
But hopefully you are willing to play long time-control games slowly on a consistent basis. Once
you are consistently trying your best, you should be playing noticeably better, but you will still
make many mistakes. Let's hope when you classify these mistakes they will not be because of
playing too fast, and the insight will help you toward further improvement.
The bottom line remains: everyone makes mistakes, but making the same mistakes repeatedly is
the path to stagnation. The best way to identify errors is to analyze with strong players, especially
ones who are naturally receptive toward helping others to improve. But whether you do or do not
have access to such a stronger player, classifying your mistakes (even if you do it less formally
than this column suggests whatever is fun) in order to be aware of the most frequent causes of
your biggest errors is a good initial step toward doing something about reducing those errors.
Copyright 2013 Dan Heisman and BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.