THE BOOGIEMAN ON THE CHESS BOARD

It will be entirely impossible to divorce psychology from chess as long as the game lingers. Oftentimes, in tense positions, when playing against an evenly matched opponent, the pressure from one’s opponent is palpable over the board, almost in a curious spiritual way. This is usually more pronounced against a player with whom you share a history (positive or negative); the confidence or fear generated, as the case may be, will definitely sway the game. This also holds true for players whom you have never played but have heard a lot about or observed. It is difficult, probably impossible, to get this completely off one’s mind. All tournament chess players will agree with me that when pairings are put up for the next round during a tournament, there is uncontrollable excitement, which will only be heightened when you see your opponent’s name and/or rating.   

Psychology is the most important factor in chess.

---Alexander Alekhine

The 13^th World Chess Champion, who most believed to be the best ever player of the game before the annoying interference of Magnus Carlsen (there was Fischer on the side too, but I doubt that’ll hold much water), Garry Kasparov, once said, “You cannot overestimate the importance of psychology in chess, and as much as some players try to downplay it, I believe that winning requires a constant and strong psychology not just at the board, but in every aspect of your life”. Judit Polgar, the undisputed best female ever to play the game, for now at least (till Hou Yifan proves this fact wrong), said, “Chess is 30% 0r 40% psychology. You don’t have this when you play a computer. I can’t confuse it.”

Your reputation is bound to win or lose some games for you. You are also bound to underrate or overate opponents, at least occasionally. As if the above stated fact isn’t enough to worry about, there is the added distraction of having to contend with scary positions and overestimated ones. I even have a position where I was overconfident and scared at the same time. Yeah, some of you will doubt that that is a possibility, so I will give the game here so you can judge.

[Event "Lagos Classics"][Site "Lagos"][Date "2014.10.21"]

[Round "1"]

[White "Degondo Simplice Armel"]

[Black "Eluekezi Phoenix Chukwuikeh"]

[Result "1/2-1/2"]

[ECO "C18"]

[WhiteElo "2191"]

[EventDate "2014.10.21"][SourceDate "2014.10.21"]

[PlyCount "82"]

[EventType "swiss"]

[EventRounds "7"]

[EventCountry "NGR"]

(I was Black in the game and played my usual French Defence) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 O-O 8. Bd3 c4 9. Bg5 (9.Bg5, effectively sacrificing his d3 Bishop, is probably dubious. I was genuinely spooked because I saw the intended threat: he was going for a mating attack. However, I had played this position numerous times and even gone through some literature without ever seeing this move. So I applied my ‘guilty until proven innocent’ slogan and captured it. Though I did so only after spending close to 25minutes analysing the possibilities and convincing myself I had enough resources to hold the position.) The game continued 9…cxd3 10. Bf6 g6 11. Qg5 (I spent about 20minutes at this point too [the time control was 90mins for the first 40moves + 30mins for the rest of the game +30secs after each move from move 1] I had used up almost 60minutes of my 90 and was still at move 12!)

 

 Black to play

 

11…Qc7 12. g4 (to prepare Qh6 by eliminating the option of…Nf5) Qxc3+ 13. Kf1 Qxa1+ 14. Kg2 Qxd4 (at this point, I was confident I would coast to victory. I was a full Rook and Bishop to the good. I would appeal to the reader to subject this game to computer engine analysis and see how inconsistently it evaluates this game. The mix of material imbalance coupled with White’s mate threat makes it very challenging to evaluate, so you can only imagine what I was going through)

 White to play

15. h3??(the idea behind 15.h3 makes perfect sense, but Nf3!! would do so and more. 15.h3 is aimed at preventing Qxg4+ which would free up the f5 square for my knight. At this point, I was only a couple of minutes to the time control with 25moves to go!) …Nd7 16. Nf3 Qc3 (with the intention of 17…Nxf6 18.exf6 Qxf6 in the event of my opponent playing 17.Qh6) 17. cxd3? (My nerves were wracked, but with the benefit of hindsight my opponent wasn’t faring any better. 17.cxd3 completely let me off the hook, but I couldn’t seize the moment to play 17…Nxf6 18.exf6 followed by 18…Nc6 or 18…h6!) 17…Nc6 18. Rc1

 

Black to play

 

Qxc1 (Sacrificing my queen for some respite. I just couldn’t take anymore. I was still winning, but the will wasn’t there as much as it was just a few moves earlier. The siege laid on my king was unbearable) 19. Qxc1 Ncxe5 20. Bxe5 Nxe5 21. Nxe5 f6 22. Nf3 Bd7 23. Qc7 Bc6. 24. d4 g5 25. h4 h6 26. hxg5 hxg5 27. Nh2 Rf7 28. Qd6 Re8 29. Nf1 Rd7 30. Qc5 e5 31. Ng3 exd4 32. Qxd4 Kf7 33. Nh5 Rd6 34.f3 a6 35. Ng3 Rde6 36. Nf5 Rh8 37. Qb6 Rc8 38. Kg3 Kg8 39. Qc5 Rd8 40. Qb6 Rd7 41. Qa7 Rd8 (the game eventually fizzled out into a tame draw) 1/2-1/2

Aron Nimzowitsch aptly said, “The threat is greater than it’s execution.” Despite doing my best to live by and teach the principle of ‘play the position, not the man’, I have to admit that understanding and applying chess psychology will win you many games. There are many instances where one side keeps attacking and the other defending, going on and on, till the attacker makes a heinous blunder that loses the game due to the defender’s stubborn defence. A lot of players also make horrible concessions that lose offhand because of a perceived threat. 

Subject every move to objective analysis. Try not to get spooked by the opponent’s reputation or that of the position. Be objective!

VEER OFF THE SANE PATH

The human brain is highly selective, and this comes at great cost especially for chessplayers. When making decisions over the chess board, only 'rational' moves will be considered. Most other options won't be looked at. But what is rational to one player might not be exactly rational to another. Alexey Shirov, known for his love for razor sharp positions, admitted he grew up playing chess at a local chess club which the former World Champion, and tactician, Mikhail Tal frequented. Watching the “Magician from Riga” do his thing, in the mostly smoke-filled room, no doubt molded Shirov into the violent chess player he has become. The human brain judges what is rational or not based on previous experiences. A chess player can stretch his 'rational radius' as much as he wants. Peter Leko, during a post mortem interview just after his first loss in his World Championship match against Kramnik back in 2004, said he decided against playing a particular move because he felt it would be too "ugly" for a World Championship game. For one to spot extraordinary moves over the board, one has to think in an extraordinary way.

After the following moves – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 Nbd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Nf3 h6 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Bf4 Re8 12.Nb5 a6, the position below arose from the L'Hermet Variation of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence.

 White had just played 12.Nb5 to which Black responded 12... a6, effectively 'kicking' the knight. As most ‘mere mortals’, the first thing we would ask ourselves is "Where do I retreat my knight to?"

Here White played 13. e6! (notice how 13.e6 exposes the c7 square to a double attack from White's knight and bishop, effectively threatening to fork Black's rooks with the looming Nxc7). The game continued... 13…axb5 14.exf7+ Kxf7 15.Qd5+ Re6 16.axb5!? Rxa1 17.Rxa1 Bb6 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Qc4 d5 20.Qc3 c5 (=) with an equal position. Nothing out of the ordinary, of course, but most players would first consider retreating the knight at first glance before any other considerations are permitted to creep in.

Chess engines look at everything. Before making their move, they consider every legal sequence of moves. This is why Komodo 9, for instance, won't make any shallow oversights. While it would be time consuming and counterproductive to consider every legal sequence of moves during a chess game, it is worth a million bucks to always keep an open mind. Take a cursory look at the position, sweep for intermezzos, useful checks and other hidden tactical continuations before getting back to your 3 or 4 sane candidate moves. Always keep the option of veering off the sane path in hand.

Alexander Grischuk, when asked how he managed to keep a poker face when Fabiano Caruana had the option of playing 46.Qg6 during their game in the just concluded London Chess Classics 2015, replied, “I didn’t see it.” This will probably offer some consolation to less successful chessplayers. You are only human and will miss a lot of things over the chess board.

Keep an open mind. Train your mind to veer off the sane path, for therein lies the ‘secret’ of masterpieces!

The Timeline Challenge

"I think I would beat Tal pretty easily. Fischer would be more difficult, but I think I could beat him too."


The reigning World Classical Chess Champion and World No.1 chess player by a decent distance, Magnus Carlsen, made the above 'quote' while granting an interview to THE TELEGRAPH, a few weeks ago. It is annoyingly reminiscent of the argument I found myself entangled in with a group of friends (all chess players) after we watched clips from the Tyson Fury vs Vladimir Klitschko boxing match. Someone noted that Tyson Fury's parents named him after former Heavyweight Boxing Champion, Mike Tyson (true or not, I can't say); then another declared that Tyson Fury would "beat 20 year-old Mike Tyson like a child!" Yeah, he said that. Two debating teams were magically formed. Sadly, like all such 'silly' timeline arguments are notorious for, hardly anything was learned or agreed upon.

I agree that the level of chess has improved astronomically over the years. However, making categorical sweeping statements, like "Kasparov would beat Fischer in a match", doesn't hold much water if any. Notably, Tal beat Kasparov in a blitz game (which he went to from hospital) in 1992, a month before the former's eventual demise. Kasparov did have a go at the ageing and ailing Mikhail Tal at Tblisi in 1978 and in 1979 at the USSR Championship, without coming away with a victory! Though Kasparov has a +1 score over Tal if you include 'every' recorded game they played (the simul exhibition by Tal, when Kasparov was just aboy + the 15games from 1978 to 1992), it doesn't help the argument on either side.

In 1988, at the age of 51 and in deplorable health, Mikhail Tal won the second official World Blitz Championship at Saint John, ahead of such players as Kasparov, the then reigning world champion, and ex-champion Anatoly Karpov. He defeated Rafael Vaganian by 3½–½ in the final.

At the risk of having totally gone off the point, I would also like to mention the isolated case of 79year old Victor Kortchnoi beating 18year old, then rising star, Fabiano Caruana in 2011 at the Gibraltar Opens.

I don't have to state the obvious, by saying the level of chess play is what it is today because we are "standing on the shoulders of giants". That's not the point I am making here. I just feel the timeline arguments are outright silly since they can't be proven credibly.

WINNING IS A HABIT

Having tutored close to a thousand chess players of various ages and in varied capacities, I have been afforded a rare opportunity to comprehend the prevailing psyche amongst chessplayers. Most chessplayers find it difficult to beat a chessplayer who has a very dominant history over them even after becoming clearly better. The combination of the opponents confidence (based on previous results) and the attendant doubts, and sometimes 'pain' inflicted by the results prevents a player from getting a positive result over his previously superior foe. I have seen this over and over again. I even have a personal story. Though the Hikaru Nakamura vs Magnus Carlsen's example doesn't quite fall into this category (since it will be wrong to say Nakamura is better than Carlsen), it gives us some valuable insight. It is shocking the number of superior positions Nakamura has failed to convert against Carlsen.

The same observation applies to tournaments. Some players don't just win tournaments, no matter the field or the level of their preparation. If it ain't one thing, it's another. They somehow find a way to falter at some point. I am sure the reader has an example of this. Most such chessplayers suddenly start winning tournaments after 'accidentally' winning one.
/>
After Mariya Myzychuk won the FIDE Women's World Chess Championship 2015 (knock out), earning the International Grandmaster title alongside, she suddenly became a much better player and has overtaken her elder sister, Anna Muzychuk (also a GM) in the live ratings. She was highly instrumental in helping the Ukrainian female team finish second place in the European Team Chess Championship 2015. Prior to that, at the Women's Grand Prix in Monte Carlo (2015), she placed second (tied with Humpy Koneru) just behind the highest rated female player, Hou Yifan. Those who might have followed her games for a while would agree with me that she has consistently demonstrated competence for a pretty long while. However, becoming World Champ has infused her with some belief. She suddenly seems more potent! This is all basic psychology though.

/> It is difficult, and most will say impossible, to divorce chess from psychology. But as long as you allow your history with your opponent to pose a palpable distraction during a game, your opponent's pieces will differ in value from yours. Don't bring that extra baggage to the board, or tournament. Chess is hard enough the way it is.

Try to always play the game (position) and not the player. It might seem impossible at first, but the more you try, the easier it becomes, with each subsequent attempt, to forget the player sitting in front of you during a game. I understand the value of studying an opponent, and an opponent's games before a game. I am not saying you should stop doing that. I am of the opinion that one becomes a better player if one always strives to play what the position demands, as opposed to what one feels might pose the most problems or discomfort to one's opponent.

RIDING ON THE WINGS OF YOUR GAMES

I admit, that as a chess coach, I am overly preoccupied with improving the chess skills of my students in the shortest possible time. Consequently, I have spent a lot of time studying chess prodigies like the Polgars, Robert Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, Sergey Karjakin, Parimarjan Negi, Hou Yifan, and most recently, my favourite by a mile, Wei Yi.

I have been obsessed with finding out the single most important factor in developing a chessplayer’s overall tournament/match performance. This is not just because I want to be a better coach, but also because I am worried by my own inability to do well at tournaments whenever I make out time to play. Could it be hardwork, talent (sadly, the understanding of this word varies widely), strength of sparing partner(s), ‘psychological presence’, discipline, literature studied, physical fitness or nutrition? Let me rephrase: if given a 12 year old player with a 2,050 FIDE rating, what will be the best line of action to take if given 18months to get his rating to 2400. While having never achieved this, since my highest rated student is just at 2203 at the moment (his peak rating was just several points higher) and I admit he did most of the work that got him there on his own, I know it is fully achievable. My Peak rating was 2180 and after shedding over 100Elo points this year, it’s down to 2076.

Before we talk about coaching input, I have to state here that the quality of the raw material is important. The student, all other factors like health, etc being equal, must be passionate about the game, must want to achieve the set goal and above all, believe it is attainable. Now, back to the coach. The coach must first identify the student’s strengths and weaknesses and set out with the basic task of improving strengths and shoring up weak points. Then there is the other fundamental task of designing and following an appropriate regimen. 

Luckily, we don’t have to always learn from our own experiences or mistakes; we can learn from those of other’s. We have the benefit of “standing on the shoulders of giants.” Does this mean studying their games, I mean, the games of chess giants? A simple “Yes” or “No” won’t suffice here. Of course, like any other person that has gone through the games of the chess greats, from Morphy to Carlsen, would have realised, one is able to pick a lot of ideas, and gain a lot of insight by this ritual. But doing that exclusively can only get you so far. A chess player gets more relevant insight by studying his/her own games. An epiphany? Sadly, No! I found out after a lot of research. However, with the benefit of hindsight, it makes a lot of sense now. When you study your own games, and work on them, the probability that that study will be relevant is very high, in contrast with studying a game between Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand. Most chessplayers will agree that you can learn a lot about an opponent after playing just a few games with him/her. When you analyse your own games, you get a better understanding of your thought process, thinking pattern and more importantly, the factors you put into consideration before taking a decision on the eventual move. I have started implementing this, both for my students and myself, and the results have been magical thus far. 

Factors such as nutrition, physical fitness, playing loads of game, analysing games of the greats, studying tons of literature on the various stages of the games, tactics training,…etc, are all important to get you to that desired height. But the ‘King Factor’ is to study one’s own games.

Chess development is indeed simple when things are done the right way!

 The list below shows chess players that became Grandmasters before their 15th birthday:

No.	Player	Country	Age
1.	Sergey Karjakin	Ukraine	12 years, 7 months, 0 days
2.	Parimarjan Negi	India	13 years, 4 months, 22 days
3.	Magnus Carlsen	Norway	13 years, 4 months, 27 days
4.	Wei Yi	China	13 years, 8 months, 23 days
5.	Bu Xiangzhi	China	13 years, 10 months, 13 days
6.	Samuel Sevian	United States	13 years, 10 months, 27 days
7.	Richárd Rapport	Hungary	13 years, 11 months, 6 days
8.	Teimour Radjabov	Azerbaijan	14 years, 0 months, 14 days
9.	Ruslan Ponomariov	Ukraine	14 years, 0 months, 17 days
10.	Wesley So	Philippines	14 years, 1 month, 28 days
11.	Étienne Bacrot	France	14 years, 2 months, 0 days
12.	Illya Nyzhnyk	Ukraine	14 years, 3 months, 2 days
13.	Maxime Vachier-Lagrave	France	14 years, 4 months
14.	Péter Lékó	Hungary	14 years, 4 months, 22 days
15.	Jorge Cori	Peru	14 years, 5 months, 15 days
16.	Hou Yifan	China	14 years, 6 months, 16 days
17.	Jeffery Xiong	United States	14 years, 6 months, 25 days
18.	Anish Giri	Russia	14 years, 7 months, 2 days
19.	Yuriy Kuzubov	Ukraine	14 years, 7 months, 12 days
20.	Dariusz Świercz	Poland	14 years, 7 months, 29 days
21.	Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son	Vietnam	14 years, 10 months
22.	Daniil Dubov	Russia	14 years, 11 months, 14 days
23.	Ray Robson	United States	14 years, 11 months, 16 days
24.	Fabiano Caruana	Italy	14 years, 11 months, 20 days

                                                                                    ---Source: www.wikipedia.org

NB: The federations listed against their names are those which they belonged to at the time of attaining the International Grandmaster title.

See you at the top!