Bizarre oversight

[Christopher Kreuzer]

A classic (if rather bizarre) example of chess blindness occurred at the County Chess Championships Finals yesterday. It was on one of the boards next to me in the U180 match between Middlesex and Yorkshire (both players will remain nameless here, though as the game scores will be posted somewhere it will be easy to look up if anyone really needs to know). I'm not sure of the exact position or move order, but the position was something like this (after a Scandinavian Defence opening):

2kr1bnr/pppb1ppp/8/1B2n3/8/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBKR3

I had briefly looked at the position before the Middlesex player's (Black's) last move (castling queenside) and thought to myself "that's a clever move, the complications might work out in Black's favour". I then turned back to concentrating on my own game. A few minutes later, I noticed the Yorkshire player (White) playing 1.Nxe5???? "Oops", I thought. "That's a point chalked up for Middlesex", but before I could turn back to concentrating on my own game, Black played 1...Bxb5+???? Somehow missing the much stronger move that was available...

Needless to say, this completely destroyed my own concentration. I struggled through the rest of my game, scraping a draw, and then went to analyse the game with my opponent. In the analysis room, I noticed the two players analysing a later position in the game (it was eventually drawn), and asked if they'd found any earlier improvements. Turned out they'd completely missed the winning move when going through the opening as well! I showed them what should have happened and the Yorkshire player (and some of his team-mates) seemed rather shocked and dumbfounded. The Middlesex player took it very well, and couldn't stop laughing for at least a minute (he doesn't normally miss things like that).

Totally bizarre, and I was seriously wondering if there was some reason the winning move couldn't have been played. The moral of the story, I suppose, is not to watch other people's games, but to concentrate on your own game. I've lost count of the number of times I've mentally 'won' positions on other people's boards next to me or near me while seeing my own position deteriorate, but I've never been as shocked by a series of moves as I was when seeing those moves played. Has anyone ever had that experience where the moves of another game put you off your own game?

[Greg Breed]

It's always easier to play someone else's game I find! Absolutely no fear or repercussions for your thoughts. It's almost always easier than finding the right moves in your own game. I am guilty of letting my mind (and body) wander to other games that are probably more interesting.

[Peter Shaw]

I do recall being put off by a game next to me where one player blundered his queen in the first 10 moves only for the opponent to blunder it back 2 or 3 moves later (this was on board 2 in an Open where both players were on 2/2). I was distracted enough to accept a quick draw offer, even though I had an advantage.

I always find these cases of mutual chess blindness interesting. I'm generally a rigid skeptic about these things, but I sometimes feel during a chess game the players are subconsciously picking up each others thoughts. Clearly in this game Black played 0-0-0 intending to answer Nxe5 with Bxb5, and White assumed exactly the same thing. This quite often happens - both players thinking the same way about a position but in reality they are both completely wrong. On a number occasions I've had an opponent think for 10+ minutes, then I'll suddenly spot a move for them that I haven't previously considered. Five seconds later they play it! Even Fischer mentions this kind of thing 'Trifunovic seemed too quiet all of a sudden, and I suspected he'd tuned into my brain waves'.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Peter,

Does this mean you can double bluff your opponent by thinking about really rubbish moves for them?

[Greg Breed]

When they are in time trouble try opening your eyes wide
as if you missed something obvious. They will start thinking that they too have missed something obvious and waste time trying to find the non-existant (you hope) move.
I doubt this comes under poor sportsmanship as opening your eyes wide can hardly be considered a distraction. It may, however, get noticed...

I remember seeing a YouTube vid of Kasparov being surprised by Anand in a blitz game. The look on his face made me laugh for quite some time so i replayed it a few times to laugh some more!!

[Richard Thursby]

The simple solution to Greg's point is to play the position and not the opponent. Their opening their eyes wide might be stifling a yawn.

Given that even top-level players suffer from such blindness, there's hope for the rest of us...

[JustinHorton]

It was on one of the boards next to me

Also see

[Giulio Simeone]

So I'm not the only player who misses checkmates in one move ... here the Middlesex player forgot the incredibile strength of double discovered checks, upon which the king is always compelled to move, because no other piece can avoid both checks.

As for being distracted by the other games, no, this doesn't happen to me, even when it's my opponent's turn I usually keep looking at my game, and not at the other games. Even when I stand up, I look at the other boards very quickly. I'll tell you more: in my opinion when it's your opponent turn it's one of the moments you learn most, because you are able to look at the position and to evaluate all its aspects without clock pressure and without the obligation to find a move.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Chris

I'll play along 'this time' with no names though I'll be naming names, grades and the place
when I use the missed mate in one game to show to my under 1400 gang on RHP.

Naming them now would appear churlish.

Games like this give them hope and proof the numbers (Black is what 1950+ ?) are meaningless.

I just wanted to mention if your game had lasted longer (more about that in a minute.)
then you would seen another good move missed by Black.

Perhaps he was misguided by the numbers, his opponent is 2000+
and was not looking for or expecting chances like a mate one.
You get the feeling he was holding himself back.

Of course it was a team game. I often found myself not playing 'me' moves
in team games, twice losing trying to win drawn games or even worse not
spec-saccing when the OTB chances were excellent.

Here is the full game.

D.Keddie (172) D. Calvert (167). County Champs 2012.
(I've changed my mind about names. What can I say....I'm churlish.)

Black to play.

2k2b1r/ppp3pp/5p2/7b/3r1B2/4KN2/PPP2PPP/R3R3 b - - 0 17

17...Rb4 would have put White in a very dodgy position.
White is shedding material. b2 hangs and the f4 Bishop is King protected.
(which tactically means it is not protected at all.)

Instead Black played 17...Rd7

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. d4 e5 4. dxe5 Qxd1+ 5. Kxd1 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Nf3 Nxe5 8. Re1 O-O-O 9. Nxe5 Bxb5+ 10. Bd2 Be8 11. Nc3 Ne7 12. Ke2 Nc6 13. Nf3 f6 14. Bf4 Bh5 15. Nb5 Nd4+ 16. Nxd4 Rxd4 17. Ke3 Rd7 18. Rad1 Rxd1 19. Rxd1 g5 20. Bg3 Bc5+ 21. Ke2 Re8+ 22. Kf1 Bb6 23. Rd5 Bg6 24. Ne1 Rd8 25. Rxd8+ Kxd8 26. Ke2 Kd7 27. Nd3 {game agreed drawn}

Chris you need a tougher line than this against the Pirc.
Being a Pirc/Modern player I was glad to see Bc4 (I think most Pirc player are.)
You pulled the Bishop back to b3 to avoid the 'pawn fork trick' and then played
d5 giving yourself an extra pawn on b3.

I use to play Bc4 myself then Qe2 but after a
handful of neat wins the remedies were published and I toiled.

Go for the f4 lines then you will have a better idea where f1 Bishop
is going rather than sticking it on c4 and seeing what happens.

In this game if I'd have been Black here....

r2q1rk1/ppp2pbp/3p1np1/3P4/3QP3/1BN2P2/PPP2P1P/R4RK1 b - - 0 12

I would have played 12...Nh5 (instead of 12...Ng4) and with Be5, Qh4 and f5 coming you
would have had a very uncomfortable afternoon.

I'm showing the game so now you will have brighten up your White.

C. Kreuzer (168) - R.Jennings (176) County Champs 2012.

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Bb3 Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. Be3 e5 9. d5 Nd4 10. Bxd4 exd4 11. Qxd4 Bxf3 12. gxf3 Ng4 13. Qd2 Bh6 14. Qe2 Nxh2 15. Kxh2 Qh4+ 16. Kg2 {drawn by perpetual nuisance.}

Finally for the record I've missed two mates in one OTB.
One was mid-combo and the other I thought it was mate!
I did however win both games.

[Geoff Chandler]

Thank you.

A Joke, A Trap, Missed Mates in One

http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread ... postid=108

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Oh dear. Ian (Calvert - it's his middle name, I think) may not be too happy next time I see him... I may have to buy him several drinks (do you think this forum or RHP gets more readers?). I wonder if it is worse to have allowed mate in one (Keddie) and not get mated, or to miss it and not deliver the mate? Still, Kramnik's missed mate in one takes the cake. That was done with the whole world watching! (well, the whole chess world).

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Chris.

It's not your fault, you never made up the game, it happened.

I would have seen it sooner or later, I have an army of guys out there
who send me things.

It's more of a "....there but for the grace of God..." type incident.
This is all the more instructive, baffling, humerous, (take your pick)
because both players missed it.

I've not lampooned them, I offered the same reason as
Bronstein (or Vainstein...take your pick) did in The Chess Struggle and Practice
Reshevsky left a mate in 2 on, Szabo missed it.

"Well, you don't just look for mates in two against a Reshevsky!"

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Reshevsky left a mate in 2 on, Szabo missed it.

I found the Reshevsky game and few others here:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscol ... id=1001473

That should give you enough material for another column...

[Ian Jamieson]

Although it was a bizarre oversight it could also be viewed as a lack of chess knowledge.

I think anyone who was familiar with Reti-Tartakower,Friendly Game, Vienna 1910 would have spotted the bishop check.

(For anyone who isn't familiar with the game it went 1. P-K4 P-QB3 2. P-Q4 P-Q4 3. N-QB3 PxP 4. NxP N-B3 5. Q-Q3 P-K4? 6. PxP Q-R4+ 7. B-Q2 QxKP 8. 0-0-0 NxN?? 9. Q-Q8+!! KxQ 10. B-KN5+! K-B2 11. B-Q8# ( or 10. ... K-K1 11. R-Q8# )

Please excuse the descriptive notation - I am copying the gamescore from Chess Combination as a Fine Art by Golz/Keres although it is really a collection of writings by Richter.)

As Tal (?) said "What is known must be known"

[Roger de Coverly]

(For anyone who isn't familiar with the game it went 1. P-K4 P-QB3 2. P-Q4 P-Q4 3. N-QB3 PxP 4. NxP N-B3 5. Q-Q3 P-K4? 6. PxP Q-R4+ 7. B-Q2 QxKP 8. 0-0-0 NxN?? 9. Q-Q8+!! KxQ 10. B-KN5+! K-B2 11. B-Q8# ( or 10. ... K-K1 11. R-Q8# )

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Qd3 e5 6. dxe5 Qa5 7.Bd2 Qxe5 8. 0-0-0 Nxe4 9. Qd8 Kxd8 10. Bg5 Kc7 11. Bd8