May problems with GM Jones

Chris is back with another mating puzzle – enjoy!

The late Tony Lewis, from Cheltenham, who had been a strong Gloucestershire player in his early days, later devoted himself entirely to chess problems. The British Chess Problem Society benefited enormously from his input, especially as Treasurer, in which capacity he was instrumental in getting a lot of the Society’s business, not just the financial business, done. He did still find time for composing chess problems, mostly traditional mate-in-2 problems, and was a leading expert in a particular category of problem, the mutate. You may like to have a go at solving this mate in 2, which was published in British Chess Magazine in 1993:


This is (among other things) an example of a mutate (as will be explained later), but (typically of Tony’s problems) it is first and foremost an engaging problem, one that is enjoyable to solve. The solver’s eye is drawn to the position of the white Queen, lurking behind the white King. At the moment, there is no move of the wK that would give mate – the only legal move, 1.Ke3+, blocks the line f2-c5 and so allows 1…Kxc5. But if Black played 1…Nc2 or 1…Pb3 (or if Black played 1…dxc5, after which 2.Ke3 would indeed work) then there would be a mating move by the wK. Given that moves of the h6N allow mate by Bf7 we see that Black is in zugzwang.

However, White doesn’t have a good waiting move. We might think of 1.Be3?!, especially because there is then a nice new wK mate, 1…f2 2.Ke2, but Black can defend with 1…Bxc5 since 2.Ke3 is no longer available.


The key in fact takes us off in a wholly different direction – 1.Qa4!. (Well done if you spotted this!) Now we have a new zugzwang. If 1…dxc5 2.Qd7; if 1…b3 2.Qc4; if any move of the a1N then 2.Qb3. In a mutate White lacks a waiting move and so has to give up a mate set for at least one defence, for which a new mate is prepared in a new zugzwang. I find this idea inherently attractive. Considerable skill is required to do what Tony did and make such problems work soundly – you may like to have a go at composing one. If you do, don’t hesitate to send your problem to Bristol ChessTimes!


Chris is a GM problem composer and regular player for Horfield C.C.

Problems in February with GM Jones

GM Jones is back with another edition of chess problems – this time the theme is ‘distant self-blocks’ of all things!

Having last time presented a problem that I had managed to solve, this time I’m presenting one that I failed to solve when I recently came across it. Having said that, I then was kicking myself for my laziness (I’d only spent about five minutes looking for the solution) because it shouldn’t have been too difficult to find the key move and thereafter to have the pleasure of unearthing and admiring the continuations after Black’s various defences.

White to play and mate in 3

This problem, by the late Friedrich Chlubna, won first prize in Problem in 1968. It is a 3-mover: White is to play and is to force mate on his third move at the latest.

As usual. the key is not a checking move, nor is it crude in any way. But looking at crude moves may help in arriving at the solution, because some of them will work if we can first induce Black to make a move that will work to his disadvantage.

The key is 1.Rg6!. This threatens 2.Qg4+ Kxe5 3.Qe4. Black has a number of defences – 1…Rg2 is met by 2.Rf6+ Kg3 3.Rf3, 1…Rf2 by 2.Qg5+ Kf3 3.Qg4, 1…Qd4 by 2.Qg4+ Kxe5 3.Qg5, 1…d5 by 2.Qg4+ Kxe5 3.Re6, and 1…e2 by 2.Qg5+ Kf3 3.Qg3.

The remarkable thing is that each of these defences features what a problemist would call a ‘distant self-block’: Black puts his piece on a square to which his King could otherwise move out of check. What’s more, these ‘self-blocks’ are distant: they are on squares to which the King is not yet adjacent, but rather on squares to which he will become adjacent. To show this in five continuations is a remarkable task achievement and (unlike some task achievements) an aesthetically appealing one.

The place where I saw this problem was the website of the British Chess Problem Society, and there are countless other similarly enjoyable problems there. On the homepage you’ll find a weekly problem selected by Michael McDowell. For many years he’s been selecting weekly problems for the website, and he chooses them with a solver’s as much as a composer’s eye. (He’s very good at both those activities!) At the foot of the homepage, beneath the problem, you’ll find a link to the archive of these weekly problems, so you will be able to spend as long as you like solving old weekly problems (or even, like me, rushing all too quickly to read the solution!).

Check out some past problems from Chris here:

November 2018

August 2018

July 2018



Chris is a GM problem composer and long-time member of the Bristol League

The November Problem with GM Jones

I think that chess problem solving tournaments can be quite fun, although it must be admitted that I say this from the perspective of someone who is usually involved in helping to run them, not actually competing!

Part of the skill in running such a competition is in selecting problems of the right level of difficulty. On August 26th I ran the problem solving event at the MindSports Olympiad in London. Only five competitors turned up, but they all took the event seriously, and as lively discussions broke out at the end of each round about problems they’d solved correctly and problems they hadn’t I think they found it a stimulating experience. All five were more familiar with chess-playing events, though some had at least a passing interest in problems. The event took the form of two one-hour ‘papers’, each comprising six problems, nearly all of them orthodox, and as the scores, out of 60, ranged from 47.5 to 14.5 I was pleased that no competitor found the problems either too easy or hopelessly difficult.

Of the problems, my own favourite, which was solved I think by two of the five competitors, was one that I managed to solve when looking for problems to set:

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 14.59.58

It’s mate in 4. Composed by one Walter I. Kennard, it was published in American Chess Bulletin in 1915.

Solution Below

In this case, Black has only two legal moves, so the obvious approach to solving is to see what happens if White ‘passes’ and Black plays either of these moves. Well, White isn’t worried about 1…c5. This move, losing control over d5, allows 2.Rd1 b5 3.Rd5 and 4.Rxc5#. But as matters stand White doesn’t have a mate after 1…b5; the only way then in which you might hope to mate within the 4-move time-frame is 2.c5, but then after 2…b4 what happens? If 3.cxb4+ Kb5 and there is no mate.

But of course it is White to play in the initial position, and can we finagle it so that in that line there is a mate after 3…Kb5? If so, the mate would have to be 4.c4. So the Rook must guard c4. The natural way to do this is to play 1.Rf4 – but the drawback then is that 1…c5 now defends successfully! (If 2.Rd4 then of course 2…cxd4.) So the ‘lightbulb moment’ is when one sees that the key has to be 1.Rc1! It is very attractive that this move, which of all the moves on the board seems to give the Rook the least influence, does have the well-concealed potential to guard the c2P when it administers mate on move 4. And of course the Rook at c1 can still play the mating line, beginning 2.Rd1, if Black plays 1…c5.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 15.04.02

Mate in four after: 1.Rc1 b5 2.c5 b4 3. cxb4 + kb5 4. c4# (editors note – Lovely stuff!)

Although you may feel under pressure in a solving event if you’re competitively minded it’s still possible to enjoy ‘lightbulb moments’ when you spot a nice paradoxical key move like this. And even if, competitive-minded, you find a solving tourney as stressful as a game in the Bristol League, it’s like a League game in which you’re guaranteed that you’re going to have the opportunity to play a brilliant winning move!

If you’re interested in solving events don’t hesitate to contact me.


Christopher Jones

Christopher holds the Grandmaster title for Chess Problem Composition and uses his skills to write a regular column for the Bristol Chess Times. He is also a longterm Horfield Chess Club player (where he is acting secretary).

Checkmate with two knights in the endgame (YouTube)

In this short episode we look at a lovely checkmate involving two knights in a time pressured endgame.  With only five minutes left the black player bravely ignores an advancing white pawn to deliver an impressive mate.  

An excellent example of subtleties in the endgame massively turning the outcome of a game.

Checkmate with two knights in the endgame (8 minutes)

As always if you enjoy this episode, please subscribe to YouTube and share with all your chess friends.  We are always happy to take submissions of suggested amateur league or tournament games to look at.

Until next time.


Jon Fisher

Jon is the Editor of The Bristol Chess Times and Publicity and Recruitment Officer for The Bristol & District Chess League. He plays for Horfield Chess Club and has been known to play 1. b3 on occasion.

Problems in August 2018 with GM Jones

I’ve previously referred to the late Norman Macleod, the second British problem composer to receive (in 1991) the title of Grandmaster of Chess Composition, who was a strong player (scoring 7 / 16 on Board 3 for Scotland in the 1958 Olympiad) and who latterly played for Gloucestershire. His chess composing talent spread over many styles of chess problem, and is seen to good advantage in this fairly traditional one:


Screen Shot 2018-08-23 at 20.42.07

1st Prize, Variantim 1988
Mate in 3

Solution Below

An experienced solver looking at this position might note that White is lined up against e5 (Bxe5# is thwarted only by the bRe1) and d5 (Rxd5# is thwarted only by the bBg2). This might lead the experienced solver to consider what happens if White places a piece on the intersection of Black’s two lines of guard, e1-e5 and g2-d5, i.e., on e4. If we ignore for the moment Black’s other two main defenders, the Rd1 and the Bh2, then moving either wN to e4 would do the trick, threatening both Bxe5 and Rxd5, and if …Bg2xNe4 then Bxe5# and if …Re1xNe4 then Rxd5#. (These moves to e4 are termed by problemists Nowotny interferences. They do occasionally crop up in actual games!)

However, Black’s other two defenders come to his rescue. Whichever white Knight goes to e4, a new line of guard is opened – so if 1.Nde4+? then 1…Rxe4! and if 1…Nge4+? then 1…Bxe4!.

So we need to hold these possibilities in mind while seeing if we can make a different threat, which may induce Black to weaken his defences. And the move we’re looking for is 1.Bf6!, threatening 2.Bd8 and 3.Bc7 (and if 2…Ne6 3.Be7). This threat is difficult to meet. In fact, the only way that Black can defend is by threatening a check, which, if allowed, would prolong proceedings beyond 3 moves. One way Black does this is by 1…d4, enabling him to meet 2.Bd8 by 2…Bb7+. But this move blocks the d1-d5 line, so we can now move the d2N to e4 (which is check!), and we do now have 2…Rxe4/Bxe4 3.Rd5/Bxe5#.

Screen Shot 2018-08-23 at 20.49.39

One potential solution starting with 1…d4

Similarly, 1…f4 meets 2.Bd8 with 2…Bh3+ but blocks the h2-e5 line, allowing 2.Nge4+! Rxe4/Bxe4 3.Rxd5/Bxe5#.

Screen Shot 2018-08-23 at 20.54.30

A second try beginning with 1…f4 also falls to checkmate.

Excellently matched play on diagonal and orthogonal lines – I’m not surprised it won a First Prize!


Christopher Jones

Christopher holds the Grandmaster title for Chess Problem Composition and uses his skills to write a regular column for the Bristol Chess Times. He is also a longterm Horfield Chess Club player (where he is acting secretary).

Problems in July with GM Jones

This problem of mine recently won 1st Prize in a 2017 tourney of the American magazine ‘StrateGems’. (Yes, the founder of the magazine misspelt ‘stratagems’, and his mistake has been immortalized! The capital “G” is intentional, but not that vowel in front of it.) You may want to avert your gaze and read the next article in BCT straight away, because when it comes to what you can do with a set of chess men this problem is at the opposite end of the spectrum from playing a game of chess. However, I’m hoping that a few readers may read on from curiosity or morbid fascination or whatever.

The problem is ‘helpmate in 3.5 moves’. As you may know, in a helpmate we have a sequence of black and white legal moves in which Black and White conspire together to produce a position in which Black is mated. Just in order to be sound it has to be the case that it looks very unlikely that White could mate Black and that is certainly the case here! In a helpmate in 3 we’d have Black kicking off a sequence of moves leading to mate but as this is in 3.5 move we actually start with White – so we have WBWBWBW sequences. “Sequences” plural, because there is a second part: (b)Pc4>e4 – when that pawn is shifted the (a) solution no longer works but a new solution now does.

You may like to consider how on earth White could mate Black here. Or you may prefer just to read on. (Or that other option – switching to another BCT article – remains open, of course.)

Screen Shot 2018-07-19 at 20.46.08
“White was pleased to get Black out of book early in the game”…A help mate in 3.5 moves


The white rook is so immobilized that it looks as though it will have to be the white bishop that does the legwork. It seems that there’s a real risk that when the white bishop moves Black will have no option but to capture the white rook or even administer mate himself. The only alternative after a move by the white bishop is to interpose one of the black Knights, but these give check. There may be a possibility then, though, of playing PxN, and it might be a good thing to get White’s one other combatant, the c2P, involved in the action in this way…

Even so, the only way in which the white rook is going to be able to participate in giving mate is if the mate is by double check…

Putting this all together, you might (or may already have; if so, well done!) come to the first solution (confusingly, because in most helpmates Black begins problemists always write helpmate solutions as though Black had started the game): 1…Bxg6+ 2.Ncd3+ cxd3 3.Ne4 Bf5 4.Rhc6 dxe4. And similar ideas work in (b) 1…Bxb5+ 2.Nfd3+ Bxd3 3.Nb3 cxb3 4.Qc6 Bc4. Move by move the solutions show the same strategy (or should I say “strategems”?!), but the details are all different, which really is a prerequisite for a problem like this, and one reason why the tourney judge gratifyingly had such a favourable impression of it.

Screen Shot 2018-07-19 at 20.47.33
The final position is a pleasing double check


Christopher Jones

Christopher holds the Grandmaster title for Chess Problem Composition and uses his skills to write a regular column for the Bristol Chess Times. He is also a longterm Horfield Chess Club player (where he is acting secretary).

Beyond the fundamentals

The Soviet school of chess espoused a diligent focus on the fundamentals. Here’s Kramnik describing the tenets of his training:


“Botvinnik’s example and teaching established the modern approach to preparing for competitive chess: regular but moderate physical exercise; analysing very thoroughly a relatively narrow repertoire of openings; annotating one’s own games, those of past great players and those of competitors; publishing one’s annotations so that others can point out any errors; studying strong opponents to discover their strengths and weaknesses; ruthless objectivity about one’s own strengths and weaknesses.”
– Vladimir Kramnik

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.26.21

Find the time, cultivate the habits and you too will develop a robust foundation of skills. For the majority of players, this program alone will be sufficient to eventually reach their chess goals. It’s reliable, safe and proven by test but it’s not all-encompassing.

There are unexpected factors which influence performance. You are doing chess a disservice to bundle them together as luck. I view breaking down ‘luck’ into learnable skills as a pivotal facet of whether coaching will be successful. Let’s look at how this works, drawing upon best practice from mental game training in poker.

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.26.33

  • Diagnosis (unconscious incompetence)
    I have a student whose raw calculation ability wouldn’t be obvious from reviewing his games. Curious oversights litter his play and are holding back progress.
  • Awareness (conscious incompetence)
    Before this leak can be plugged, the student needs to know precisely what’s wrong. Having a mentor diagnose and explain a weakness will speed up this process.
  • Harness (conscious competence)
    Concrete strategies are presented to the student. We implemented a blunder check routine, discussed critical positions and measured the number of times he left the board during a game. The specifics here are less interesting than the model.
  • Mastery (unconscious competence)
    Once the routines have been successfully embedded by the student, they no longer require his conscious focus. It’s time to find another weakness and the cycle starts over.

Presented in this way, the journey looks almost trivial but I can assure you it isn’t. Combatting psychological biases is complex and fascinating work. Progress is non-linear and difficult to predict. To help, I’m developing new coaching techniques in tandem with my dissertation research on practice in mathematics. Not yet ready to go public though!

Chess pretends to be a game of perfect information. Disguised within its simple structure are sources of variance. Recognising, harnessing and finally mastering these hidden variables will elevate your game beyond the fundamentals.

(editors note – This article originally published on 14th April 2018 on Makepeace with Chess. Republished with kind permission from the author)

Chris Russell

Chris Russell

Chris is a part-time member of Downend and Fishponds and formerly played for Bristol University. He is now based in London where he co-founded Makepeace With Chess.


Problems in June with GM Jones

The late great American composer Milan Vukcevich specialized in problems showing interesting things happening on on the lines on which a threat (often a threat of mate) is being defended. As such his problems are often more closely related to the game of chess than many I have quoted in Bristol Chess Times! Consider this mate in 4, which won 1st Prize in ‘Chess Life’ in 1988:

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.08.20

Clearly we need to find a move that threatens mate. It turns out that this move is by the rather out-of-play Nc1, but it’s not immediately obvious that 1.Na2! does carry any threat. White is angling after possible mates by Nb4 and Nc3, but these threats are at present defended respectively by the bQ and the bR. Aha! But there is a threat, 2.c4+! This move, to the intersection of the lines h4-b4 and c7-c3, would present Black with an impossible dilemma. If he replied 2…Rxc4 then the R can be decoyed away: 3.Nb4+! Rxb4 (the point is that …Qxb4 is longer possible) and now another square the Rook had been guarding is available to White: 4.Qc6#. Something very similar would happen after 2…Qxc4: 3.Nc3+ Qxc3 4.Be4#.

But of course it is Black to play and he has two first moves that defeat the threat. One is 1…Qa4, pinning the cP. But something similar (but more spectacular) happens now: 2.Qc4+!. Now we have 2…Rxc4 3.Be4+! Rxe4 4.Nc3# (this wouldn’t have worked as a threat because after 2.c4+ Rxc4 3.Be4+ there’s 3…Qxe4)

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.08.40
4.nc3 is the first of several pretty mates

and 2…Qxc4 3.Nc3+ Qxc3 4.Be4#.

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.08.59
and again…

Finally, Black can defend with 1…Nxc2, and this time (hurrah) it’s 2.Bc4+ that works: 2…Rxc4 3.Nb4+ Rxb4 4.Qc6#

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.09.14
Perhaps the most conventional mate by actually utilising a queen!

and 2…Qxc4 3.Qc6+! Qxc6 4.Nb4#. There are other black first moves which fail uninterestingly.

Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 09.09.30
Perhaps the prettiest of all

When moves such as these are to the intersection of two orthogonal lines of guard the device or motif or theme, call it what you will, is described as a Plachutta interference. The better-known situation in which the move is to the intersection of an orthogonal line of guard and a diagonal line of guard is known as a Nowotny interference. These interferences do sometimes crop up in games, and there are probably other occasions on which a player has failed to spot such an opportunity.


Christopher Jones

Christopher holds the Grandmaster title for Chess Problem Composition and uses his skills to write a regular column for the Bristol Chess Times. He is also a longterm Horfield Chess Club player (where he is acting secretary).

Problems in May with GM Jones

The British problemists’ magazine, The Problemist, recently challenged readers to compose ‘homebase helpmates’. There were some excellent responses to the challenge, none better than this one by the German composer, Norbert Geissler:

Screen Shot 2018-05-27 at 21.03.36

Helpmate in 5.5. Solution Below.

A few words of explanation first. In a helpmate, Black and White make moves whose sole purpose is to reach a position in which Black is mated. In this case, “5.5” means that White plays first and mates on his sixth move. In a homebase helpmate, all the pieces on the board are on their starting squares. It really is a challenge for composers, subject to this limitation, to find positions in which there is a unique sequence of moves leading to mate. In Geissler’s problem, you might think that there is no way that the wN can be limited to one unique route, or that if the bQ has to move its movement(s) can be uniquely determined. But the German composer has skilfully surmounted these difficulties. You may like to have a go at solving it before reading further, though there’s no shame in deciding quickly to read on to get the solution, as it’s not easy to solve!

It turns out that we have to get the bK to the corner and the bR to g8. The way in which this is done is as follows: 1…Nc3 (this is actually a white move: by convention helpmate solutions show the white and black moves ‘the wrong way round’) 2.Kf8 Nd5 3.Kg8 Nxe7+ 4.Kh8 Nxc8 5.Qg5!! Nd6 6.Rg8 Nxf7. I’ve given 5.Qg5 two exclamation marks because it is remarkable that, when all that the move must accomplish is to get the Q out of the way, there is only square that doesn’t stymie the solution.

Screen Shot 2018-05-27 at 21.16.58

Final position after 6…Nxf7 #

If you fancy having a go at composing homebase helpmates let me know. (I have a computer program to test helpmates for soundness.)

This month’s other problem, also gleaned from the most recent issue of The Problemist, is another helpmate, but this time a ‘golden oldie’:

Screen Shot 2018-05-27 at 21.04.08

Laszlo Lindner
2nd Place, Negy oszag csapatversenye 1950
Helpmate in 3 

Solution Below

In this position, it looks too easy: Black plays his P to b1 to unpin the wB, which then goes to a4 and then d7 to give mate. However, White does have to make a move after 1.b2, and, although the d4N (not required for the mate) has plenty of moves available, it turns out to be difficult to find one that doesn’t get in the way. In fact there is only one. And then there is the further difficulty that after the wB has got to a4 it is Black for whom it’s difficult to find a move that doesn’t get in the way. Again, we find that there is only one – which, nicely, captures the white Knight. The solution runs: 1.b2 Ne2! 2.b1N Ba4 3.Bxe2! Bxd7.

Screen Shot 2018-05-27 at 21.17.31

Final position after Bxd7#

If you would be interested to see a sample copy of The Problemist let me know – or, better still, go to the British Chess Problem Society website where there is plenty more readable material.


Christopher Jones

Christopher holds the Grandmaster title for Chess Problem Composition and uses his skills to write a regular column for the Bristol Chess Times. He is also a longterm Horfield Chess Club player (where he is acting secretary).

You can’t calculate what you can’t see

I was playing online blitz early in the morning this week when my opponent fell into a well known mating trap on move 8.  The mating pattern is very pretty and always satisfying but it also occurred to me that it appeared to be one of those positions that everyone seems to fall into.  Bemused at why this would be the case I decided to look at some statistics and noticed that despite being a relatively rare line, every time I had had the position my opponent had walked into the trap.  I’ve talked about the difference between amateur and professional players before and this sequence is another lovely example.

The line in question stems from the Chigorin Defence of the Queens Gambit Declined.  After 7…Nxe5 it first appears that black is losing a knight.  However, it doesn’t take too much calculation to spot the checkmate threat on d1 should white decide to snaffle the knight on e5.

Indeed after white allows 7…Nxe5, black has equalised and discretion is the better part of valour for white with recommended moves such as Be2 or Nbd2.  However, in the four times I have had this position arise in my games, all four times I have delivered checkmate on d1 on move 8.  Now we can argue that these games are online and amongst amateur players but I do find it fascinating the confidence with which the black knight is snaffled on e5.  Sometimes the white player plays the mistake instantly, sometimes they think for a long while and still play the move. Why is this?

It is a common mantra amongst chess professionals and coaches that good players know when to start burning time in complex calculation.  Knowing when to invest time is a key skill. However, as well as knowing when to spend time calculating you also have to know what to calculate.  If you don’t see a threat or are blind to its existence then you will not calculate and obviously miss the risk resulting in losing to checkmate on move 8. The position in our line we are analysing, I believe, is a very good example of a position that the amateur mind struggles with.  There are a number of factors at play in the position, one or all of which could contribute to this very common mistake.  Lets list them out:

  • A queen less early middle game – Only two pieces are developed by either side and the queens have left the board.  Why would white necessarily be on the look out for mating threats against his own king?  Indeed, he or she has to calculate the knight capture doesn’t lose material (and it doesn’t) but an actual mate threat is not on whites radar;
  • The threat only arises from a vacated square – The checkmate is only possible by white releasing the power of the bishop onto d1 by vacating f3. Threats occurring by vacating squares are intrinsically harder to visualise when calculating;
  • The knight capture wins material – Whats not to like about winning material?! Greed is a powerful bias;
  • Its easy for white to believe black blundered – Until a move earlier the knight on f3 was pinned.  Following the exchange of queens this is no longer the case but it is easy to see how white would think black had miscalculated and blundered by grabbing the e5 pawn by telling themselves that black thought the f3 knight was pinned;
  • The capture on e5 creates nice threats on blacks king – As well as all of the above points, the white pieces start to build a lovely threat on f7 against blacks king.  Its easy to see how white could spend time calculating future threats and attacking options while simultaneously missing threats against his own king.

Having read the above list now lets look at the position side by side with the board flipped. Try looking at each board position and then running through the kind of thought process that white would be walking through.  I don’t know about you, but I actually think the threat is harder to see from the white side of the board because the position for white seems so appealing.

The same position from both white and blacks perspective.  Hard to believe that a mate in 1 threat exists and how the board can appear  so different from either side.

To be fair, I don’t know how many of the above factors contribute to the blunder 8. Nxe5 but it is highly likely some of them play a significant role (NB – Not a lot of people know that I am professionally trained in the analysis and evaluation of human error in complex environments.  A story for another time…).

Here we have a tempting position for white with many positive features such as material gain and kingside attacks combining with a very subtle, hard to see, totally unexpected terminal threat. A nasty combination for the amateur chess player to comprehend which seems to be the chess equivalent of all that glitters is not gold and bring me nicely to the title of this blog post.

You can’t calculate what you can’t see.

In our example, the amateur white player can calculate for as long as he or she likes but if they do not recognise the danger of checkmate then they will simply run analysis on the safety of their developed pieces and the opportunities for future attacks. Many stronger rated players could often laugh and scoff at such a blunder as 8.Nxe5 but I believe this would be unfair.  Human chess players (amateur and professional alike) are not computers. They do not calculate everything.  They only choose to calculate what stories they tell themselves.

“She’s just blundered that knight.  Surely she cannot take my pawn on e5?”

“If I take it then f7 looks weak”

“Queens are off.  There are no real threats at the moment.  I don’t see how he is gaining the piece back it must be a blunder”

“My f3 knight is no longer pinned!”

If your internal dialogue is spinning stories with a different narrative to the reality of the position on the board then the amateur player is in trouble.   In my games 100% of amateur players blundered and walked into checkmate on move 8.  Of the 9 Master Games in the database I looked at 0% of professionals did. Indeed the skill set  to remain completely objective when looking at any position is likely one of the key defining characteristics of weak vs. strong players.

I just loved this example as it seems to fall into that rare category of positions that really seems to befuddle the amateur mind.

Until next time…


Jon Fisher

Jon is the Editor of The Bristol Chess Times and Publicity and Recruitment Officer for The Bristol & District Chess League. He plays for Horfield Chess Club and has been known to play 1. b3 on occasion.