Improve Your Chess!

One could argue long tactical variations should be considered on every move. Afterall, Deep Blue won its match against Kasparov via its immense tactical prowess. True, it has a knowledge base rooted in chess via opening books, endgame databases, etc. However, it was the machines ability to calculate that allowed it to beat the world champion.

Shouldn't we emulate this thinking process? The answer is definitely not!! First, it is impossible as computers calculate at staggering rates while us 'lesser' humans are limited to a few variations per second. Compare Deep Blue's ability to analyze 200,000,000 chess positions/second verses our 3 positions/second.

We must rely on something very different. We rely on knowledge verse dynamic evaluation. In short, we use basic rules of thumb in our assessment verses long tactical lines. However, tactical lines must be considered in depth from time to time.

Unfortunately, there exist no rules relating to when one should take the time to analyze through long tactical lines in a given position. Without such guidelines, we loose our way quite easily. So I developed an algorithm to ensure I would at least consider obvious tactical possibilities.

After my opponents move, I would go through the following process. After I made my move, I would go through the same process to select a move for my opponent.

1. Trace enhanced piece mobility: When a piece is moved, it frees squares allowing other pieces greater mobility. I look here first to ensure I see the discovered threats. In fact, I trace the available squares of surrounding pieces which have benefited from the actual piece moved.

2. Identify piece immobility: When a piece is moved, it also reduces the mobility of other pieces and pawns. Noting those pieces/pawns restricted by piece movement exposes emerging vulnerabilities and/or changes in underlying tactical opportunities.

3. Assess direct attacks: Only after the first two steps, do I allow the natural response of identifying what squares the piece attacks directly. I trace its mobility with my eyes to each available square. From there I branch to see where it can attack next, also scanning those squares. For most pieces, I would look two moves deep. With the knight, I would look three moves deep. Not by this process, rather I would simply note the color of the square upon which the knight stands and look for vulnerabilities on opposite colored squares.

4. Defensive Requirements: Do I need to defend against my opponents plan? If so, I would select a reasonable defensive move and continue my analysis.

5. Attacking Possibilities: Before making any defensive move, I would look for a forcing line that would resolve any such defensive requirements. This is essential; otherwise, you will soon become defensive in nature and loose the initiative.

6. Positional Improvements: Lacking any defensive requirements and attacking possibilities, I would simply look for moves that did not weaken my position. NOTE: I did not say improve my position. There is a critical distinction! More on this in future articles.

7. Select a move and visualize before playing: Based on this process, I would select a move and visualize. I often look up from the board and visualize all 64-squares with the pieces. This produces an image similar to that of a demonstration board or computer screen. This was important for blunder-proofing my game. If nothing alarming stood out in the position, I would play the move.

As you can see, this is exhausting. In fact, it soon became distracting. I spent so much time at the board evaluating, that I did no planning!

However, the use of this algorithm did contribute positively to my play. Now I use this algorithm, but not in the same way. I still go through steps 1, 2, and 3. However, I let my intuition tell me whether or not a detailed search of the position is necessary. I now limit such a detailed assessment of tactical possibilities to the following situations:

With this approach, I am able to follow a structured analysis to evaluate the position while avoiding deep analysis over benign positions. However, the process still remains flawed. So if you have any suggestions, please forward them to me!

So what is a weakness? This assessment remains a stumbling block for me. You can read about this in my next article.

Written by: Kevin Monte de Ramos