I picked up an interesting book at SuperNationals: “The Chessmaster Checklist” by Andy Soltis. Rather than suggesting that the reader go through a step by step list during tournament games, the author proposes a set of questions to internalize. The first one, and title of the first chapter, is “What Does He Threaten?” One idea is that simply asking “What’s the threat” may miss the point: There might be more than one threat! You may notice one idea and then let your guard down, only to be caught by something else. Or you may notice a long term problem and miss something instant and decisive. And so on. In general, any tool that can be used to help students (and I certainly include myself here) pay attention to the opponent’s resources is useful and welcome.
What Does He Threaten?
Soltis opens the chapter with the following position, from an online tournament game between Karjakin (White) and Anton Guijarro (Black). It’s White to move. Try to think about what Black threatens before you scroll down!
In the author’s words:
White understood that Black’s best chance for survival lay in perpetual check (46.g4 Qe2+ 47.Kg3 Qe1+). MP: I would add that if it was Black’s turn in the original position, …Qe2+ would win right away. After the king moves …Bh3 leads to checkmate.
He met that threat with 46.Be3(?) so that 46…Qe2+ (could be met by) 47.Bf2.
Before continuing to quote Soltis, I will present the new position after White’s blunder. Try to find the forced win for Black!
White’s move “defeats all of Black’s possible moves – except for the winning 46…Bh3+!. It was Black’s second and stronger threat” MP: Well, it wasn’t the stronger threat in the original position, but it certainly is now!
Now everything loses.
a) 47.Kh2 Qf1 followed by checkmate on g2.
b) 47.Kf2 Qf1#
c) 47.Kxh3 Qh1+ 48.Kg4 Qh5+ 49.Kf4 g5+ and …Qxf7.
This looks like a good example of the phenomenon Soltis is describing. White clearly played Be3 in the original position against …Qe2+, missing another idea: …Bh3+, winning by force.
The next example is a standard example of totally missing a threat. After repeating the position once, Wei Yi (White) and Karjakin (Black) reached the following position in an online event, with White to move. Think about what Black is threatening before you scroll down!
There are several moves that defend against Black’s threat, which you may have seen by now. For example, 41.Rf7+ would push Black’s king away from its role in the mating net. 41.Rh7? Was not one of those moves! Do you see the surprising response?
41…Ne1# must have been a rude awakening. Soltis contextualizes this blunder by including and annotating the preceding moves, but to me it just looks like a typical example of a strong player missing something basic in extreme time trouble.
Let’s look at one more position. The following example, from an online tournament game between Ding (White) and Nakamura (Black), is presented under the heading “Wrong Question”.
Wrong Question
It’s White to move in the following position. Ask yourself: “What does my opponent threaten?” Try to come up with an answer and a move.
Soltis uses this position as an example of noticing one threat and then losing your sense of danger that would alert you to others. He suggests you are particularly vulnerable to this if you see multiple ways to defend against a threat: The focus becomes choosing between those moves, rather than searching for other enemy threats.
You may have noticed that Black threatens …Qe4+. This would force the trade of queens, after which White loses the rook on d5. Again, there are numerous ways to handle the threat, including simply trading rooks on d5. It definitely looks like all Ding’s attention went to choosing a move that would handle this threat. He chose 28.Kg2?, bringing up the following position. Can you find the forced win for Black? If you already saw it, and rejected White’s move, you did better than a future World Champion!
Nakamura found 28…b5!, taking advantage of the badly defended rook on d5 being lined up with the king on g2. His move clears b7 for the queen, winning a rook after 29.Qb3 Qb7!. 30.Rcc5 would only save the rook for one move, since 30…Re5 attacks it a third time. I would say this is the best example we have looked at, in terms of the mistake in the game reflecting the phenomenon Soltis describes in the notes.
Of course, it’s difficult to say with any degree of certainty what was happening in a player’s mind during a tournament game. The author’s attempts to do so seem precise in some cases, maybe a touch speculative in others. However, I think the examples are great! Everything I have looked at so far would work really well in lessons with a wide range of students. This looks like a promising book both for chess coaches seeking instructive material and mid-level tournament players interested in improving their thinking.
And remember, look for all their threats, not just the first one you see!