Principles of Analytical Efficiency Visit Shop.ChessCafe.

com for
the largest selection of chess
books, sets, and clocks in
Quote of the Month: Always check, it might be mate.
North America:
Every chess player understands that the aphorism “always check, it might
be mate” is untrue; however, a closer examination as to why the quote of
the month is not true provides helpful insights about how to play better
chess. Similarly, the principle never play a bad move fast yielded the
fascinating The Two Move Triggers.

I find that many players confuse principles about analytical efficiency –

Novice Nook those that help you think better – with principles that tell you what you
should probably do on your move. This confusion leads them to make the
wrong decisions for the wrong reasons. Of the following principles,
Dan Heisman choose which are about analytical efficiency and which are about what
you should do on your move: The Seven Deadly
Chess Sins
● Always check, it might be mate. by Jonathan Rowson
● When ahead pieces, trade pieces but not necessarily pawns.
● Move all your pieces once before you move any piece twice, unless
there is a tactic.
● Develop your rook on the same file where your opponent develops
his queen.
● Look at all your checks, captures, and threats.
● When conducting a mating attack, bring a new piece into the attack
or try to get your queen as close as possible to the opponent’s king.
● During the opening, allow for a place where your king might be
safe in the middlegame.
● When you are ahead material in the endgame, make sure to retain
sufficient material to checkmate.
Play through and download
● Play non-analytical moves quickly and save your time for Looking for Trouble
the games from
analytical moves. by Dan Heisman
ChessCafe.com in the
● If you only have one legal move, play it right away – don’t waste
DGT Game Viewer.
time looking to see what will happen next.
● Whenever you have multiple recaptures it means it is probably a
The Complete critical move so don’t recapture quickly.
DGT Product Line ● Don’t develop your pieces onto squares where they can be attacked
or driven back by lesser valued pieces.

Let’s begin with why always check, it might be mate is not true. Is it
supposed to be a joke, like castle early and often. Not really, although
you could interpret it in that manner. Just as the bishop-pair does not
mean you have two bishops – it is short for the advantage of the two
bishops, where you have both bishops, but your opponent does not.
Always check, it might be mate can be considered a shortened version of A Parent's Guide to Chess
“always consider all your checks, one of them might be very good by Dan Heisman
(mate).” Only .99!!

What’s the difference? By phrasing the suggestion always check, it might

be mate, it seemingly tells you what to do, but it’s clearly not correct
since checks are not always the best moves. However, the interpretation
about considering all your checks is good advice. For example, a
checkmate in one would always be the best move, so to not consider all
checks and possibly miss a mate in one (or any beneficial forced sequence
starting with the check) could be disastrous. Sure, there are plenty of
positions where you shouldn’t spend much time analyzing your checks:

White to play

Here 1.Qh7+ is met by either 1…Kxh7 or 1…Nxh7 and White has no

compensation for his lost queen. Since the risk is clearly greater than any
perceived reward, any time spent on these continuations is wasteful. But
in a similar position…
White to play

1.Bxf7+ isn’t much but 1.Qxg6+ certainly is since 1…fxg6 is illegal. This
type of pin is often overlooked – on offense as well as defense – much
more so than the “rook pins queen to king on the e-file” pattern.

So always check, it might be mate is not really about what you should do
– it’s giving you guidance (in a roundabout way) about how you should
think. In other words, it is actually a pretty good tip about analytical
efficiency.

This example provides a key for interpreting principles: those that tell you
which moves to consider first, to include for consideration, how much
time to take, and so on are all principles about analytical efficiency. It
doesn’t necessarily mean that applying this type of principle will always
translate into making a better move, but they are geared toward improving
your thinking process and thus should help you find the best moves more
efficiently.

Remember that The Goal Each Move is to find the best move you can,
given the circumstances (time control, time limit, move number, and
position). When you follow the advice if you see a good move, look for a
better one, then the more efficient you are towards the goal of finding the
best move. Many chess principles are designed to help you focus on how
to find better moves or raise the probability that you won’t overlook a
really good one.

To some extent, one could argue that all of the remaining principles in our
list are about what you should play. However, if we give each a closer
look, some are more about how you should think efficiently:

● When ahead pieces, trade pieces but not necessarily pawns. – This
may tell you to first consider trades when winning, but it’s really
more about what you should be doing.
● Move all your pieces once before you move any piece twice, unless
there is a tactic. – This may tell you to first consider moving pieces
that have not yet moved (an efficiency issue), but it’s really more
about making sure all your pieces are fully active.
● Develop your rook on the same file where your opponent develops
his queen. – Once again this is about the efficiency of your rooks,
but not the efficiency of your thinking process, so it’s more about
what you should play.
● Look at all your checks, captures, and threats. – This suggestion is
purely about analytical efficiency. You are not striving to play your
checks, captures, and threats or just consider your opponent’s, but
it is more efficient to see if there is a forcing move before you
consider non-forcing moves (especially in analytical positions). In
a sense it is just an extension of “always consider your checks, they
might be good.”
● When conducting a mating attack, look at checks first, bringing a
new piece into the attack or getting your queen as close as possible
to the opponent’s king. – This guideline is for analytical efficiency.
Look at those moves first because they are likely the most forcing
and most likely to succeed. But it’s certainly possible that taking a
bishop that is already in the attack and checking from a different
square is the correct move, even if this principle indicates you
might not consider the bishop move first. There is no substitute for
analysis.
● During the opening, allow for a place where your king might be
safe in the middlegame. – This has little to do with analytical
efficiency. It is telling you to play moves that will ensure that your
opponent will not have an easy middlegame attack (or at least not
easier than yours).
● When you are ahead material in the endgame, make sure to retain
sufficient material to checkmate. – This is clearly telling you what
to do, not how to think efficiently. Moves that allow your opponent
to eliminate your mating material will destroy your winning
chances and candidates that might allow him to do so have to be
considered very carefully before being played.
● Play non-analytical moves quickly and save your time for
analytical moves. – This is definitely an efficiency question. To
paraphrase GM Rowson in The Seven Deadly Chess Sins – as you
take more time considering your move, your analysis may get
better, but your judgment won’t.
 ● If you only have one legal move, play it right away – don’t waste
time looking to see what will happen next. – This is clearly about
efficiency. There is no suggestion as to which move to play; it’s
simply a question of whether you wish to waste time.
● Whenever you have multiple recaptures it means it is probably a
critical move so don’t recapture quickly. –This is another
efficiency suggestion that should help you decide which moves are
more critical, and thus worth more thought.
● Don’t develop your pieces to squares where they can be attacked
or driven back by lesser valued pieces. – This has little to do with
thought process or efficiency. It is meant to help you eliminate
candidate moves that will likely lose time. Could that be a form of
analytical efficiency – yes, but I would place it clearly on the other
side of the line.

Let’s consider the “what to do vs. what is efficient” issue from a practical,
rather than a theoretical standpoint. The following is an offhand game I
played at our club a few years ago. I was black and my opponent had just
captured a bishop on f2:

Black to play after 1.Nxf2

Black is clearly winning, but what should he play? There are some
applicable guidelines, but how to use them?

1. If your opponent makes a capture, then most likely one should just
recapture (to regain material), possibly after a zwischenzug (in-
between move).
2. If there are multiple possible captures, be careful as the move may
be critical.
3. After an opponent’s capture, if you can make multiple (re)captures
of the same material value, don’t automatically recapture on the
same square, as the other captures may be just as good or better.
4. Consider the captures that are checks first because they force the
opponent to get out of check, and that may lead to the possibility of
making further advantageous captures.

Of these, point one argues for 1…exf2 and point four argues for 1…exf3
+. Of the two, point four is more important, but does that have any
bearing on what Black should play?

No! If you thought the answer was “yes,” then you may be the type of
player who practices hand-waving – using principles to make analytical
moves. These principles do have a bearing on the efficient order of
analysis, but not what Black should play. Instead points two and three
both indicate that it may be a very important decision. There is only one
way to identify the correct move:

Roll up your sleeves, analyze each candidate move carefully, and choose
the one that you evaluate as best.

Let’s start with point four, which suggests analyzing 1…exf3+ first, but
not necessarily playing it! After 1…exf3+, Black threatens to play 2…
exf2 winning the knight, too. What would White play? You should
visualize the following situation:

White to play after 1…exf3+ (analysis)

Interestingly, some of the principles that applied to analyzing Black’s

move also apply to White’s reply. White may jump to get out of check by
capturing the f-pawn with 2.Kxf3??, but that just loses the knight to 2.
exf2. So instead Black should assume that White will, of course, save his
knight with 2.Kxe3. White is not trying to help Black – he will do what
Black did to him and not recapture on the same square, but instead play
the move that helps him most. After 2.Kxe3, Black still has a big
advantage, but perhaps he can do better with an alternative. When you see
a good move, look for a better one!

Let’s analyze the other try 1…exf2:

White to play after 1…exf2 (analysis)

Again, by capturing one piece Black is threatening to capture the other.

So 1…exf2 threatens 2…exf3+. White is not in check this time, but still
needs to save the bishop. How can he do this?

He can’t. The bishop is trapped! So that’s the answer. 1…exf2 recaptures

the knight and wins the bishop as well. 1...exf3+? recaptures the bishop,
but fails to snare the knight.

The important point is that while all of the principles applied, none was
supposed to pinpoint the move. They implied that “it is important; take
your time” and “capturing with check first is more forcing, so consider
that first – it may save you some time,” but none said to do this or that.
Only analysis was able to determine the move. Ironically, considering the
more efficient check first failed to initially point in the right direction, so
in this case the more efficient move was not the best. But the principle
was not meant to point to a move, just the order in which the candidates
should likely be considered.

Let’s look at an example we have seen before:

White to play. Is 1.Nxe5 safe?

Basic tactics and The Seeds of Tactical Destruction dictate that White
must consider the dangerous reply 1…Qe7, pinning the knight to the
king. But that belies the question of whether White should consider that
move first. He may waste valuable time if that is not the most efficient
way to analyze the position.

Do we have any other guidelines that may help? Yes, how about “checks,
captures, and threats” – you want to consider them in that order because
checks are more forcing than other moves. So after identifying 1…Qe7 as
a dangerous move, rather than analyzing it, first list all the dangerous
moves, starting with checks.

There are only two checks, 1…Qa5+ and 1…Bb4+, but 1…Qa5+ should
be the one that catches the eye – it also attacks the knight on e5. Black has
no defense and would lose the knight.

Once White sees that 1…Qa5+ wins the knight, 1.Nxe5 can be eliminated
from the candidate list (see Initial and Final Candidate Moves). White
does not care whether Black has multiple ways to win the knight, so any
further investigation as to whether there is a defense to 1…Qe7 is
irrelevant and a waste of time.

On the other hand, if White does blunder with 1.Nxe5, then Black –
assuming it is a slow game and he has lots of time – is interested in the
best way to win the knight. He should go through a similar thought
process and, even if he spots 1…Qe7 first, realize that 1…Qa5+ wins the
knight before analyzing 1…Qe7 in detail. If it turns out that 1…Qe7 does
not win the knight (as it does not), then he would eliminate 1…Qe7.

Suppose both sides blunder into 1.Nxe5? Qe7?. Then how many moves
for White save the knight? Let’s eliminate the marginal 2.Kd2?! (with the
idea of 2.Kd2 Qxe5? 3.Re1). The answer is three: 2.O-O, 2.Qe2, and 2.f4.
Why doesn’t 2.Bf4 work?

Black to play and win after 2.Bf4?

The answer is the common removal of the guard theme of deflection with
2…g5!, If you missed finding 2…g5! because you thought the pawn was
unprotected, then it would be helpful to follow the advice in Quiescence
Errors and The Underrated Removal of the Guard). If you saw 2…g5!
won a piece, but refused to play it anyway because it weakened your
kingside, then When Is A King Safe? and The Principle of Tactical
Dominance should be instructive.

In summary, don’t confuse guidelines that help you analyze better with
those that indicate what you should play. Unless you are playing
extremely short blitz games, don’t hand-wave and use efficiency
principles as the reason for making a move. Just because a move should
be analyzed first because it is most likely to be correct does not detract
from the necessity to closely analyze the position to see if indeed that
move is best.

Tip of the month

1. If you see a move that seems to win, then stop! Don’t play it right
away. If careful reexamination verifies that the move wins, then
you should not need most of your time remaining. If it’s not true,
then you want to know exactly why because your contemplated
move may not even be a good one. Turn your excitement into extra
care; never play a seemingly winning move quickly. First make
sure that the win is there and there is no possibility of error, via a
deep breath and a triple-check.
2. Develop a chess conscience. By this you are not intending to
differentiate moral right from wrong, but rather “chess right from
wrong.” If you have only studied with one person or only read a
few instructive books, then your conscience is usually biased or
lacking key insights. Better to read instructive text from many
chess authors so that when you are looking at a position you can
ask yourself “What do the experts have to say about playing a
position like this?” and your chess conscience will develop a
feeling for how to apply and weigh many of the principles you
have learned. It worked for me.

Dan welcomes readers’ questions; he is a full-time instructor on the ICC

as Phillytutor.

Yes, I have a question for Dan!

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]

© 2009 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

"ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.