![](\"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/04\/chicken2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBlack’s move was probably a mistake, because it allows White to play 16. c5<\/font>, piling up pressure on the pinned d-pawn. However, after long consideration I decided not to play this move, and I played 16. Nd5<\/font> instead. Rich looked at me, grinned, and said, “Chicken!”<\/p>\n After twenty years, I can say that Rich was at least partially right. I did chicken out, at least a little bit. I was pretty sure that he had something planned against 16. c5<\/font>, but I also didn’t really see what his answer was going to be. During the game, I thought he was going to respond with 16. … Nc4?,<\/font> but White can parry this move effortlessly with 17. Bf2<\/font>, and now Black has two<\/em> problems instead of one — a loose knight on c4 and the pinned pawn on d6. I suspect that Rich’s idea was actually to play 16. … Qc8<\/font>, setting the trap 17. cd cd 18. Rxd6? Nc4!,<\/font> when Black is fine. But White doesn’t have to fall into this. Instead of 18. Rxd6?<\/font> I can just play 18. Rc1<\/font> with a great position — Black has so many weaknesses (b5, d5, and the dark squares on the queenside) that it is hard to count them all.<\/p>\n By the way, this shows the importance of considering quiet moves (like 17. Bf2<\/font> and 18. Rc1<\/font>) even in what appears to be a tactical position. This relates to Aziridine’s comment on my recent post, “From the Mailbag”<\/a> — the fact that a capture is possible<\/em> does not mean it is obligatory<\/em>. Even good players fall into this mental trap.<\/p>\n But even acknowledging that I got bluffed here, was 16. Nd5<\/font> such a bad move? In fact, it’s a very good move, centralizing the knight, taking it off the vulnerable square c3,\u00c2\u00a0and controlling squares deep in Black’s camp! According to Fritz, White’s advantage after 16. c5 is 0.9 pawns, while after 16. Nd5 his advantage is 0.6 pawns. This isn’t a big enough difference, in my opinion, to qualify 16. Nd5 as a mistake. It’s simply the second-best move. When you have a Plan B that’s as good as 16. Nd5, perhaps there is nothing wrong with giving up on Plan A.<\/p>\n This reminds me of a well-known anecdote. In the game Winter–Lasker, Nottingham 1936, Winter thought for about half an hour and then played a piece sacrifice. Lasker declined the sacrifice almost immediately. When asked why after the game,\u00c2\u00a0the former world champion\u00c2\u00a0said, “If a strong master thinks for half an hour and leaves a piece en prise<\/em>, I think I had better not take it.” So there you have it: Even a world champion says it’s okay to chicken out now and then! Two important considerations here were the facts that declining the sac gained Lasker half an hour on the clock, and that Lasker had a strong Plan B, as I did in the above position.<\/p>\n And indeed, I think that Rich’s “Chicken!” comment may have boomeranged against him, because it’s possible that he relaxed a bit\u00c2\u00a0after I played 16. Nd5. In short order he found himself in a lot of trouble again:<\/p>\n 16. Nd5 Nc6 17. Qf2 Qb8<\/font> (I’m not sure what the point of this move is, but it’s also hard to find constructive alternatives.) 18. f4!<\/font> (Threatening f5 and f6.) 18. … f5 19. ef gf 20. Bh3 Rf8<\/font>.<\/p>\n