Just a heads up to all of you who follow the comments on this blog: Andres Hortillosa’s second column is now up on Chessville.com. You can click here to go straight to it.
Andres writes in detail about the Purdy system for avoiding blunders, which he has mentioned in his comments here but not in quite so much detail. You should read his column to get the full discussion and see some examples, but to me the salient point is that the Kotov method of looking at candidate moves (see Think Like a Grandmaster) is the wrong place to start. In fact, it’s step 5 in his eight-step program.
Step 1 is what Jonathan Rowson would call “talking to one’s pieces,” or what Andres calls “general reconnaissance.” (He is a member of the military, after all!) Steps 2-4 involve consciously identifying all the threats in the position, ranking them in severity, and then focusing on the most dangerous one. These are the steps that will help you avoid gross blunders, the kind that immediately lose the game or significant amounts of material. If you start at step 5, as in Kotov’s system, without first consciously identifying the threats, you will keep making blunders.
It’s hard for me to give an objective appraisal of this system without trying it first. I will bring up one question, which perhaps Andres can address in a later article. I have concerns about any system that involves going through multiple steps on every single move. If I do that, I’m afraid that I will get into time trouble. And if I’m already in time trouble, then I’m not going to have time to execute all eight steps. How then do I control the damage?
Incidentally, this criticism applies equally to Kotov’s method. I find that a full evaluation of a tree of candidate moves is possible at most a few times a game. Most of the time I need to do an abbreviated search, and part of the trick is identifying the positions where it is really worth taking the time for a deep search.
However, Andres’ basic point makes a lot of sense and bears repeating: If you verbalize the principal threats against you, the chances are much better that you will not fall into an egregious error. So many blunders, both in my own games and in those of other people, have the same root: “I didn’t see it!”
Andres promises to write later about identifying your own threats as well. This will help you avoid the errors of omission, when you have a chance to inflict serious damage on your opponent and overlook it. One thing I have noticed is that masters are terrific opportunists. When their opponent hands them a gift, they seize it with both hands.
It’s impossible to overestimate the importance of simply avoiding blunders. We all study the latest wrinkles in the openings, and spend lots of time trying to come up with deep plans or brilliant sacrifices, but the sad truth is that in amateur chess, a high percentage of games are decided by blunders. I felt that the main thing that got me to class A (1800-2000) was simply not blundering away material any more. The principal step that got me to expert (2000-2200) was taking advantage of my opponent’s blunders.
The next step, from expert to master, is one that I have not fully negotiated yet, because although I’ve gotten above 2200 I haven’t been able to stay there. According to Jesse Kraai, the next step is to recognize and appreciate dynamic imbalances. However, a second problem that dogs me is backsliding into old thought patterns. Last year I had a huge rash of games where I made outright tactical blunders, which was very frustrating; it felt as if I was playing like a B-player again. So a quick refresher course in the Purdy method should be very helpful to me.
Thanks, Andy! I’m looking forward to more installments!
