Blunder (chess): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:21, 2 August 2010

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. While a blunder may seem like a stroke of luck for the opposing player, some chess players give their opponent plenty of opportunities to blunder.

What qualifies as a "blunder" rather than a normal mistake is somewhat subjective. A weak move from a novice player might be explained by the player's lack of skill, while the same move from a master might be called a blunder. In chess annotation, blunders are typically marked with a double question mark, "??", after the move.

Especially among amateur and novice players, blunders often occur because of a faulty thought process where they do not consider the opponent's forcing moves. In particular checks, captures, and threats need to be considered at each move. Neglecting these possibilities leaves a player vulnerable to simple tactical errors.^[1]

One technique formerly recommended to avoid blunders was to write down the planned move on the scoresheet, then take one last look before making it.^[2]^[3] This practice was not uncommon even at the grandmaster level.^[4] However, in 2005 the International Chess Federation (FIDE) banned it, instead requiring that the move be made before being written down.^[5]^[6] The US Chess Federation also implemented this rule, effective as of January 1, 2007 (a change to rule 15A),^[7] although it is not universally enforced.

Grandmaster examples

Strong players, even grandmasters, occasionally make elementary blunders.

Esteban Canal vs. N.N.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Esteban Canal v. N.N., Black to make his 10th move

The position to the left occured in the Peruvian Immortal in 1934 in Budapest, Hungary. After Canal, playing White, played 10. a3, N.N., mistakenly thought that White's 11th possible move, axb4, was out of question. Therefore, N.N. played 10...O-O-O??. On White's 11th move, Canal did play axb4!!, followed by 11...Qxa1 12.Kd2! Qxh1 13.Qxc6+! bxc6 14.Ba6#. Canal's win finished with a Boden's Mate. Years after the game, Iakov Neishtadt wrote that on Black's 10th move, N.N. should've played Ngf6, not O-O-O. Yasser Seirawan and Nikolay Minev advised, "Motto: Think twice before castling on the Queenside!" ^[8]

Tigran Petrosian vs. David Bronstein

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Tigran Petrosian v. David Bronstein, White to make his 36th move

The position in the diagram here arose in the 1956 Candidates Tournament in Amsterdam. Petrosian, playing White, enjoys a clear advantage with strong knights, active rooks and plenty of mobility while Black's position is congested and hardly able to move. In fact Bronstein, playing Black, has for the last seven moves been making only apparently aimless knight moves, Nc6-d4-c6-d4, and now has played ...Nd4-f5, threatening White's queen, while White has been slowly strengthening his position. White can now easily preserve the positional advantage by a move like 36.Qb4, but overlooking that the queen was en prise, he played 36.Ng5?? and resigned after 36...Nxd6.

Viktor Korchnoi vs. Anatoly Karpov

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Viktor Korchnoi v. Anatoly Karpov, White to make his 39th move

This position is from game 17 of the 1978 World Championship between Viktor Korchnoi, the challenger and defector from the Soviet Union, and the World Champion, Anatoly Karpov. Karpov, playing Black, is hoping for a back rank mate with his rook with the move 39. Rc1#. However, White can prevent this by moving his g or h-pawn, providing an escape square for his king. Korchnoi didn't notice Karpov's mate plan with his knights however, and played 39. Ra1??. It allowed a nice finish for Karpov, 39...Nf3!+, and Korchnoi resigned the game. Otherwise, the game would end as a result of the blunder as 40. gxf3 Rg6+ 41. Kh1 Nf2#. Karpov went on to win the match retaining the chess crown until he was defeated by Garry Kasparov in 1985. ^[9]

Murray Chandler vs. Susan Polgar

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Murray Chandler v. Susan Polgar, White to make his 54th move

In this example, from a tournament in Biel in 1987, the blunder did not lose, but led to an embarrassing draw for the British GM Chandler. Susan Polgar has just played the wily trap 53...Ng8-h6!?, looking for the forced draw. Chandler though, realizes that after 54.gxh6+ Kxh6 he will be left with the considerable material advantage of a rook pawn and bishop against a bare king. However, since the bishop is unable to control the promotion square h8, Black will draw if she is able to get her king to control h8 due to the wrong rook pawn fortress. But Chandler calculates further, and realizes that it is he who will win control over the h8 square after 55.Kf6, and thereby win the game.^[10]

Therefore Chandler played 54.gxh6+??, but instead of the expected 54...Kxh6 came 54...Kh8! This is in fact almost the same king, bishop, and rook pawn versus bare king situation as Chandler had calculated that he would avoid, and the small difference that White has two rook pawns rather than one has no effect on the result. Black controls the h8 square and cannot be chased or squeezed away from it, and so White cannot promote his pawn. After 55.Bd5 Kh7 56.Kf7 Kh8 the players agreed to a draw.

Chandler had numerous moves which would have maintained his winning position, the fastest according to the Shredder tablebase [1] are 54.h4 and 54.Bf5.

Alexander Beliavsky vs. Leif Erlend Johannessen

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Alexander Beliavsky v. Leif Erlend Johannessen, White to make his 69th move

This example, from a game played in Linares in 2002, is one of the very rare circumstances where a grandmaster makes the literally worst move on the board, the only one allowing checkmate on the next move. This is a balanced queen endgame, but Beliavsky playing White is careless. After 69.Kf4?? he had overlooked the response 69...Qb8#.

Deep Fritz vs. Vladimir Kramnik

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Deep Fritz v. Vladimir Kramnik, Black to make his 34th move

In November 2006, reigning World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik competed in the World Chess Challenge: Man vs. Machine, a six-game match against the chess computer Deep Fritz in Bonn, Germany. After the first game had ended in a draw, Kramnik, playing Black, was generally considered in a comfortable position in Game 2, and he thought so himself apparently, as he refused a draw by avoiding a potential threefold repetition on 29...Qa7. Kramnik's troubles began when he decided to play for a win and pushed his a-pawn, 31...a4. Commentators, including American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan, voiced concerns about Kramnik's intentions and the situation became more uncertain as the game went on with 32.Nxe6 Bxe3+ 33.Kh1 Bxc1 34.Nxf8, turning it into a likely draw.^[11] The game could have ended with 34...Kg8 35.Ng6 Bxb2 36.Qd5+ Kh7 37.Nf8+ Kh8 38.Ng6+.

However Kramnik's next move, 34...Qe3?? (a move which was awarded "???" originally, by ChessBase on a story covering Kramnik's blunder), came as a big surprise and was described as the possible "blunder of the century" by Susan Polgar, as Kramnik—incredibly—overlooked a mate in one.^[12] Deep Fritz immediately ended the game with 35.Qh7#, checkmate. Seirawan later called Kramnik's move "a tragedy."

ChessBase described the events as follows, "Kramnik played the move 34...Qe3 calmly, stood up, picked up his cup and was about to leave the stage to go to his rest room. At least one audio commentator also noticed nothing, while Fritz operator Mathias Feist kept glancing from the board to the screen and back, hardly able to believe that he had input the correct move. Fritz was displaying mate in one, and when Mathias executed it on the board Kramnik briefly grasped his forehead, took a seat to sign the score sheet and left for the press conference,"^[13] during which he stated that he had planned the supposedly winning move 34...Qe3 already when playing 29...Qa7, and had rechecked the line after each subsequent move. After an exchange of queens Black would win easily with his distant pawn; after 35.Qxb4 Qe2 or 35.Ng6+ Kh7 36.Nf8+ Kg8 black also wins eventually.

Chess journalist Alexander Roshal attempted to explain the blunder by saying that the mating pattern of a queen on h7 protected by a knight on f8 is extremely rare and not contained in a grandmaster's automatic repertoire.^[14]

Complete game scores of the examples

References

^ The principle of looking for checks, captures, and threats are repeated often by Dan Heisman, see e.g. Heisman, Dan (March 2002). "A Generic Thought Process" (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Retrieved 2 August 2010. and Heisman, Dan (June 2006). "Is It Safe?" (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Retrieved 2 August 2010.
^ "When you have finished analyzing all the variations and gone along all the branches of the tree of analysis you must first of all write the move down on your score sheet, before you play it." Alexander Kotov, Think Like a Grandmaster, Chess Digest, 1971, pp. 73-74.
^ Simon Webb, Chess for Tigers (3rd ed. 2005), pp. 121-22.
^ Webb wrote of the practice, "You've seen other players doing it". Webb 2005, p. 121.
^ FIDE Laws of Chess, see article 8.1 on recording of the moves
^ The editors of Chess for Tigers noted that after author Webb had submitted his manuscript, "FIDE ... passed new laws forbidding a player to write moves down in advance and also insisting that a player's scoresheet be visible to the arbiter throughout the game". Webb 2005, p. 6.
^ The United States Chess Federation
^ Peruvian Immortal
^ Daniel King's Chess: From first move to checkmate
^ Andrew Soltis, Chess to Enjoy in September 1997 Chess Life
^ Late game blunder costs Kramnik in loss to Deep Fritz chess software
^ Blunder of the century, blog by Susan Polgar, 27 November 2006
^ Man vs machine shocker: Kramnik allows mate in one
^ How could Kramnik overlook the mate?, ChessBase News, 29 November 2006

[1] The principle of looking for checks, captures, and threats are repeated often by Dan Heisman, see e.g. Heisman, Dan (March 2002). "A Generic Thought Process" (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Retrieved 2 August 2010. and Heisman, Dan (June 2006). "Is It Safe?" (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Retrieved 2 August 2010.

[2] "When you have finished analyzing all the variations and gone along all the branches of the tree of analysis you must first of all write the move down on your score sheet, before you play it." Alexander Kotov, Think Like a Grandmaster, Chess Digest, 1971, pp. 73-74.

[3] Simon Webb, Chess for Tigers (3rd ed. 2005), pp. 121-22.

[4] Webb wrote of the practice, "You've seen other players doing it". Webb 2005, p. 121.

[5] FIDE Laws of Chess, see article 8.1 on recording of the moves

[6] The editors of Chess for Tigers noted that after author Webb had submitted his manuscript, "FIDE ... passed new laws forbidding a player to write moves down in advance and also insisting that a player's scoresheet be visible to the arbiter throughout the game". Webb 2005, p. 6.

[7] The United States Chess Federation

[8] Peruvian Immortal

[9] Daniel King's Chess: From first move to checkmate

[10] Andrew Soltis, Chess to Enjoy in September 1997 Chess Life

[11] Late game blunder costs Kramnik in loss to Deep Fritz chess software

[12] Blunder of the century, blog by Susan Polgar, 27 November 2006

[13] Man vs machine shocker: Kramnik allows mate in one

[14] How could Kramnik overlook the mate?, ChessBase News, 29 November 2006

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 What qualifies as a "blunder" rather than a normal mistake is somewhat subjective. A weak move from a novice player might be explained by the player's lack of skill, while the same move from a master might be called a blunder. In [[punctuation (chess)|chess annotation]], blunders are typically marked with a double question mark, "'''[[Punctuation_(chess)#.3F.3F:_Blunder|??]]'''", after the move.
+Especially among amateur and novice players, blunders often occur because of a faulty thought process where they do not consider the opponent's forcing moves. In particular [[Check (chess)|checks]], [[capture (chess)|captures]], and [[Glossary_of_chess#Threat|threats]] need to be considered at each move. Neglecting these possibilities leaves a player vulnerable to simple tactical errors.<ref>The principle of looking for checks, captures, and threats are repeated often by [[Dan Heisman]], see e.g. {{cite web|url=http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman14.pdf|title=A Generic Thought Process|last=Heisman|first=Dan|date=March 2002|publisher=The Chess Cafe|accessdate=2 August 2010}} and {{cite web|url=http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman65.pdf|title=Is It Safe?|last=Heisman|first=Dan|date=June 2006|publisher=The Chess Cafe|accessdate=2 August 2010}}</ref>
 One technique formerly recommended to avoid blunders was to write down the planned move on the [[glossary of chess#Score sheet|scoresheet]], then take one last look before making it.<ref>"When you have finished analyzing all the variations and gone along all the branches of the tree of analysis you must first of all write the move down on your score sheet, before you play it." [[Alexander Kotov]], ''Think Like a Grandmaster'', Chess Digest, 1971, pp. 73-74.</ref><ref>[[Simon Webb (chess player) |Simon Webb]], ''Chess for Tigers'' (3rd ed. 2005), pp. 121-22.</ref> This practice was not uncommon even at the [[grandmaster (chess)|grandmaster]] level.<ref>Webb wrote of the practice, "You've seen other players doing it". Webb 2005, p. 121.</ref> However, in 2005 the International Chess Federation ([[FIDE]]) banned it, instead requiring that the move be made before being written down.<ref>[http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 FIDE Laws of Chess], see article 8.1 on recording of the moves</ref><ref>The editors of ''Chess for Tigers'' noted that after author Webb had submitted his manuscript, "FIDE ... passed new laws forbidding a player to write moves down in advance and also insisting that a player's scoresheet be visible to the arbiter throughout the game". Webb 2005, p. 6.</ref> The [[United States Chess Federation|US Chess Federation]] also implemented this [[rules of chess|rule]], effective as of January 1, 2007 (a change to rule 15A),<ref>[http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/magazine_124_157.php The United States Chess Federation<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> although it is not universally enforced.