The types of positions I have trouble solving

[FEN "r4rk1/1p2q1pp/p1nbpn2/3pN1Nb/1P1P4/P2BR3/1B3PPP/R2Q2K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxh5 Bxe5 2. Bxh7+ Kh8 3. Qh4 Bxh2+ 4. Kxh2 g6 5. Rh3 Nxh7 6. Qxh7+
Qxh7 7. Rxh7+ Kg8 8. Rxb7 Rxf2 9. Rb1 Nd8 10. Rc7 1-0

These are the types of positions I have trouble "solving". This is from a Yusupov book and it looks like there has to be a mate somewhere, and I generally get the first few moves of the combination correct but fail to understand the mate that is NOT there, not just accepting the results of the position and take my advantage into the endgame as I should.

In this example, I got 1. Qh5 Bxe5 2. Bxh7+ Kh8, and I'll be damned if there is no mate. Here I missed 3. Qh4 (or h3) and to be satisfied with taking advantage into the endgame.

Am I alone in this?

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to cure this blindspot/mental block in my game?

Are there any course creators/teachers that visit from time to time that can make a suggestion outside of "try harder"?

I'll be damned that a 1900-2000 player cannot derive this correctly and it's annoying the bejeezus out of me in it's frequency.

You are not alone.

I share the same fault. I don't get to play over the board but rarely. When I do, I lose mainly in time trouble because I tend to analyze beyond what is necessary. A bad habit I acquired playing correspondence chess.

When I saw  your post I just happened to have Isaac Lipnitsky's book "Questions of Modern Chess Theory" on my desk and was reviewing chapter 8 in the book; "From Critical to Settled Positions".

From the book:

1.  "The goal of analysis is to arrive at a position that is not "critical" but settled in character."
2.  "Settled positions are those which can be assessed according to a number of positional factors without any additional calculation of variations."

Looking at your notation you are attempting to continue your analysis after you have achieved a winning advantage.

In the preface to his book "Advanced Chess Tactics" Lev Psakhis offers the practical hint "Don't go out of your way to calculate long variations. A capacity for precise calculation to a depth of 2-4 moves is usually quite enough".

The material in the Grandmaster Course addresses the issue well, especially in the final months puzzles.

That particular puzzle is an exception really. Each move became a new puzzle when I try to solve it.

First I thought, pfft, this is easy. Qxh5, Nxg5, Bxh7+, Kh8, Ng6 is mate.

I play Qxh5 and then comes Bxe5. Oh yeah, of course. So then I solve again and find Bxh7+ since black cannot take.

After Kh8 once again, I am looking for mate. After a while, I fail to find it so there's not much choice... Qh4 defends the d pawn and also keeps a defense on the knight. So I'd play that.

Then 3...Bxh2+ comes. Now it's REALLY hard to predict this move, which is what makes this puzzle so hard to see. The point is that if black just retreats the bishop, white has Bg6+, Kg8 and Rh3 is killing.

After Bxh2+ all white needs to do is survive without losing material because black just went a piece down. From here, there are a great many moves that win: Bxg6+ and Rxe6 for example. Black is in all sorts of trouble. Down material, exposed king, backward pawn, isolated pawn etc... so analysis of this position is probably irrelevant.... white wins.

PawnCustodian wrote:You are not alone.

I share the same fault. I don't get to play over the board but rarely. When I do, I lose mainly in time trouble because I tend to analyze beyond what is necessary. A bad habit I acquired playing correspondence chess.

When I saw  your post I just happened to have Isaac Lipnitsky's book "Questions of Modern Chess Theory" on my desk and was reviewing chapter 8 in the book; "From Critical to Settled Positions".

From the book:

1.  "The goal of analysis is to arrive at a position that is not "critical" but settled in character."
2.  "Settled positions are those which can be assessed according to a number of positional factors without any additional calculation of variations."

Looking at your notation you are attempting to continue your analysis after you have achieved a winning advantage.

In the preface to his book "Advanced Chess Tactics" Lev Psakhis offers the practical hint "Don't go out of your way to calculate long variations. A capacity for precise calculation to a depth of 2-4 moves is usually quite enough".

The material in the Grandmaster Course addresses the issue well, especially in the final months puzzles.

Ok, that's interesting. I do play correspondence games fairly consistently. I guess the "Search for the Truth" of a position has its drawbacks. I will try to remember that, and forge ahead towards the later months.

Regards.

p.s.: I ordered Lipnitsky's book

BorgQueen wrote:That particular puzzle is an exception really.  Each move became a new puzzle when I try to solve it.

First I thought, pfft, this is easy.  Qxh5, Nxg5, Bxh7+, Kh8, Ng6 is mate.

I play Qxh5 and then comes Bxe5.  Oh yeah, of course.  So then I solve again and find Bxh7+ since black cannot take.  

After Kh8 once again, I am looking for mate.  After a while, I fail to find it so there's not much choice... Qh4 defends the d pawn and also keeps a defense on the knight.  So I'd play that.

My fail point. "There has got to be a mate here!!!"

BorgQueen wrote:Then 3...Bxh2+ comes.  Now it's REALLY hard to predict this move, which is what makes this puzzle so hard to see.  The point is that if black just retreats the bishop, white has Bg6+, Kg8 and Rh3 is killing.

After Bxh2+ all white needs to do is survive without losing material because black just went a piece down.  From here, there are a great many moves that win: Bxg6+ and Rxe6 for example.  Black is in all sorts of trouble.  Down material, exposed king, backward pawn, isolated pawn etc... so analysis of this position is probably irrelevant.... white wins.

My fail point. "There has got to be a mate here!!!"

Well, you have identified the problem! You know that there doesn't actually have to be a mate! Now you just have to train yourself to recognise this.

When playing games, would you sac the queen believing that "there's got to be a mate" even though you can't see one? Or would you just get your queen safe?

I did go through a phase like this with tactics puzzles though... I'd sac stuff assuming that it must be right and the killing sequence will present itself later. Failing so many puzzles because there is no "killer brilliancy" but the answer was simply a "normal" move that emerges a piece up... which I didn't notice.

After a while though I began to trust myself... if I can't find a mate... I now assume there isn't one. It does mean that, occasionally, I miss quite complex mates because I didn't take the chance, but overall, I pass more tactics this way.

BorgQueen wrote:
Well, you have identified the problem!  You know that there doesn't actually have to be a mate!  Now you just have to train yourself to recognise this.
When playing games, would you sac the queen believing that "there's got to be a mate" even though you can't see one?  Or would you just get your queen safe?

This reverts me to the way I solve tactical problems - I look for the obvious first (of course - captures, checks, double attacks), and then if I cannot see a mate but "it looks good" I wing it and just play the move. I would say that 4 of 5 times I'm right, but that 20% is a killer.

Thanks. I really appreciate this and need to redouble my efforts when I cannot see a clear mate to trust my calculation and find the move that maintains the advantage.

Solving puzzles gives you that as a problem. There must be something there because it's a puzzle which has a correct solution. So you "wing it" and have a guess. We all do it.

But how does this help your chess? What does it do to your game? I'm not sure.

I think, for me, it made me lose more games due to 'phantom tactics'. I would play moves that look like they are winning tactically, even passing up the more obvious and siomple move which gains clear strategic advantage... thinking 'wow, cool, this is a great tactic'... only to be busted by a counter-tactic that I didn't notice. Oops, threw the game away for a tactic that wasn't there.

I did this many times before I started only going for tactical shots if I can definitely see an advantage in doing them. Sometimes intuition comes into it as well... where you get the strong feeling that, even though you can't see all the outcomes, you just feel that it 'must be right'. There's a balance between accurate calculation and intuition.

The puzzles I still fail at... often... are those where the solution is the only way to survive.... those where you are to find the draw (or equal position) but you don't know that and it looks like you can win.

I think we have to accept, if we can't calculate a move and all variations  (even we "know it's good") we can't play the move.

But it sucks when afterward when you find you were right but couldn't see/calculate it. And instead played some safer move.

Interesting. As with all things, it's a balance.

When you are at a game where you think there might be something there, you have a choice. Either risk it and go for the sac (or risky move) or play it safe.

Which you choose is a matter of preference. What would annoy you more... moving to safety and missing that chance for a brilliant sac (that you didn't really see)... or going 'all in' and play the sac for the chance to make that brilliant play and lose because it was unsound?