Hand-Waving is Worse than Hope Chess Purchases from our shop help

keep ChessCafe.com freely

accessible:
Quote of the Month: On general principles I think I should move my king
back…

I once had a student who generally played quite slowly. He would take
several minutes for each move, carefully deciding where to place each piece,
afraid that he would make a critical mistake. That is, until he reached a
complicated position that called for some careful calculation.

Then he would move very quickly.

Novice Nook
In one game, he played very slowly until there was a choice of capturing
sequences. He could begin by either capturing a rook with a knight or a
Dan Heisman bishop with a pawn. At a glance it wasn't at all clear which was better.
Play Chess Like the Pros
Despite taking several minutes for each prior move (analytical or not), he by Danny Gormally
made this highly analytical and critical move in only seventeen seconds!

After the game, I asked him why he played all the other moves so slowly and
then made such a critical and complicated move so quickly.

He replied, "Dan, to be honest I am not very good at calculation. So when I

saw that this position was complicated, I just used the general principle
'Capture the piece that is worth the most' and did that."

There are several things wrong with his approach:

1. He has micro chess time management backward (see The Room Full of
Grandmasters): when you have non-analytical (and non-critical) Boost Your Chess 1:
Play through and download positions, you should play them relatively quickly, and rely on The Fundamentals
the games from principles to aid your judgment. When you have analytical positions, by Artur Yusupov
ChessCafe.com in the there is no other way to get the right answer than to roll up your
DGT Game Viewer. sleeves, take your time, and do the work. He did just the opposite.
2. "Capture the piece that is worth the most" is not a principle. Though we
could say "first analyze the sequences that capture pieces worth the
most," but this would refer to the order of analysis for efficiency, not
the actual moves you should play! (See Principles of Analytical
Efficiency.)
3. If you are not good at calculation and wish to become a better
player, then avoiding careful analysis is also avoiding practice to
improve your skills. I assume all my students wish to be a better
player, or else they would not hire an instructor, and this likely applies
to almost all Novice Nook readers. Practice may not make perfect, but it
Elements of Positional
does make for better skills. Your ability to calculate (analyze forcing
Evaluation
sequences) may be limited by your natural abilities and you may never
by Dan Heisman
be a Fischer or a Kasparov, but that doesn't mean it cannot be
improved by steady and careful practice. No instructor can make you
better if you don't analyze analytical positions carefully whenever they
arise. Instructors have no "magic wand" that will help you find
analytical moves on general principles, nor can they do the work for
you.

You would think that someone who is so careful about non-critical moves
would be even more careful about moves that might cost the game. In this
case my student's chosen move of capturing the rook with the knight was the
losing mistake; if he had taken the bishop with the pawn, he would have won
material instead of lost. It would not be a big mistake to calculate incorrectly
– we are all human (see Accidental and Purposeful Errors) – but it is a big
mistake to not even try when you know a move requires great care.
I created a name for the thought process error of making analytical moves on
general principles – I call it Hand-waving. This is such an important idea that
it deserves repeating.

Hand-waving is the error of using general principles to make moves in

analytical positions.

In other words, when you hand-wave, you don't try to carefully calculate
analytical sequences, you just move as if you are making a non-critical move
(sometimes fairly quickly). The following is an example from a recent over-
the-board game:

White to play after 1…Kf5

[FEN "8/5p2/pp4p1/2p2k1p/5P2/
3K3P/PPP3P1/8 w - - 0 35"]

My student was white and had to do something about the threat of 2…Kxf4.
He fairly quickly played 2.g3? to guard his pawn. When I gave this position
as a problem to another student, he too, fairly quickly decided on 2.g3 using
reasoning that could easily be called Hand-waving. Yet I rejected 2.g3 almost
instantly, because White has no good answer to 2…h4; make sure your
candidate cannot be defeated by any check, capture, or threat. Here it can, so
you have to reject it if better alternatives exist. I quickly deduced that 2.Ke3
was White's only chance. In the game, White never considered 2…h4 and,
after Black played it, White resigned!

Here is another recent example from an online 45/45 game (forty-five minutes
with a forty-five second increment):

White to play after 1…Qb7+

[FEN "2r2rk1/pq3ppp/1p2p3/2n1P1B1/
8/6P1/PPQ2PKP/2R2R2 w - - 0 1"]

White has twenty-seven minutes left and has foreseen this position on the
previous move. He has also foreseen that Black will get a discovered attack
next move on his queen, with the possibility of …Ne4 hitting the bishop.
Seeing no defense, he moved quickly on general principles by quickly (five
seconds!) retreating his king to safety with the normal-looking 2.Kg1??. After
that, Black did indeed play 2…Ne4 hitting the queen and the bishop. Seeing
no further defense to losing the bishop, White resigned.

The problem with White's approach is that he played quickly on a critical

move, and assumed that because he had found no defense on the previous
move that it was not worth looking! Depending upon analysis from prior
moves is not only dangerous, but also a very bad habit – this common mistake
is addressed by "Not as Simple as ABC" in the instructive Odds and Ends). In
this case moving 24.Kg1 quickly on general principles or prior analysis is
disastrous, as White could have easily saved the piece with 24.f3, so to meet
24…Ne4?? with 25.Qxe4. Simple as that. However, by taking only five
seconds for his move, White resigned himself to defeat.

I have to admit this is more a case of Acquiescing than it is of Hand-waving,

but there is a strong element of both.

Here is how that same student handled a puzzle:

White to play

[FEN "q7/1kpB4/p1N2K2/P1p5/
2P5/8/3P4/8 w - - 0 0"]

After looking at the position for a while, he told me that White would
probably be better off by moving the king up and cutting off the queen's
movement with 1.Ke7, 1.Kf7, or 1.Kg7. After some additional thought, he
decided he would play 1.Ke7 with the idea of possibly playing 2.Nd8+ next.

This is at least partially Hand-waving because, if he had analyzed each move

and seen what Black could and would do, it would have been obvious which
would have worked best. If he started with 1.Ke7, he could have calculated:
"OK, on 1.Ke7 Black would then have to play 1…Qg8 or 1…Qh8; those are
his only safe moves." Then when he analyzed 1.Kf7, he could deduce "1.Kf7
leaves Black only 1…Qh8, so…" Finally, "That means for 1.Kg7 there must
be no good moves for Black! – therefore, 1.Kg7 must be the move."

On a simplified level, I see Hand-waving all the time in the opening, such as
in the Four Knights game after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nd5?

Black to play

[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/3Np3/4P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]

When a weaker player makes moves like this, the first thing I ask is " Is It
Safe?." Once I bring the all-important safety issue to their attention, I
sometimes receive the answer "Oh, no, then my e-pawn is hanging to 4…
Nxe4." But when I ask why they played 4.Nd5, the answer is inevitably
something like "I wanted to outpost my knight." In other words, they were
putting general principles ahead of safety and analytic issues. Instead, they
should carefully analyze "If I move my knight on c3 where it was guarding
my e-pawn, then I have to make sure I don't lose the pawn to 4…Nxe4" (see
The Safety Table). To top it off, a player who decides on a move such as 4.
Nd5 is purposely ignoring the important principle move every piece once
before you move any piece twice, unless there is a tactic (see Accidental and
Purposeful Errors).

This inevitably leads to a discussion suggesting that, for the most part, safety
far outweighs activity and positional ideas (see The Principle of Tactical
Dominance).

The logic isn't too difficult:

● Why do you make good positional moves? To make your pieces better
and the opponent's pieces weaker.
● Why do you want your pieces better and your opponent's pieces
weaker? So you can eventually win material or checkmate.
● But if you are just giving up material for free, then unless you foresee a
forcing win of even greater material or checkmate, doesn't it make
sense to first make sure a move is safe before making one that just
gives up material "to outpost your knight"? In other words, aren't you
putting the cart before the horse?

This idea of "outposting a knight" without regard to the safety of the e-pawn
is thus an excellent example of Hand-waving.

If a student sees good candidate moves, but makes no attempt to

systematically analyze them, that is a key finding for any instructor. Once you
know a student is Hand-waving, you should find out why. There are several
reasons and associated solutions:

● He might be afraid to calculate (to analyze forcing lines). In that case

you have to convince him that calculation can be greatly improved with
practice.
● He might think that Hand-waving is adequate for good play, when in
fact that method can only find the answer occasionally – mostly by
luck, as per the examples above, or see the third diagram (1.Nxf2) in
Principles of Analytical Efficiency.
● He might find that doing calculation is not fun (see Chess, Learning,
and Fun). In this case you need to see if you can help him make the
process more fun. Usually practice does accomplish this, as it makes it
both easier and more successful, as when things get easier and more
successful they become less like work and more fun.

It is interesting to compare the thought process dimensions of Real Chess,

Hope Chess, Flip Coin Chess, and Hand-waving:

Real Chess – You consistently ensure your candidate moves cannot be

defeated by an opponent's reply of a forcing move (check, capture, or threat),
in other words, you can safely meet hid reply.

Hope Chess – You don't consistently see if your candidate moves can be
defeated by a forcing reply before you make your move (and thus when your
opponent makes a forcing move that you did not foresee and cannot meet, you
think "Uh Oh! What do I do now?").

Flip Coin Chess – You don't pay attention to your opponent's previous move
and thus don't attempt to see (or prevent) what he is threatening. This is
mostly practiced by youngsters.

Hand-waving – You don't analyze moves in analytical positions, but instead

pick your move (sometimes too quickly) primarily on principles or
generalizations.

I think it's fairly safe to say that if you Hand-wave on a move, then you are
certainly playing Hope Chess (or worse), but if you play Hope Chess, you are
not necessarily Hand-waving. Hope Chess deals with how you foresee threats.
Hand-waving deals with whether you roll up your sleeves and analyze when
necessary.

For example, suppose you have an analytical move and do lots of analysis, but
the one thing you fail to do is see if the move you are going to play can be
defeated by a check, capture, or threat (see Is It Safe? and Spend Time on the
Move Chosen). In this case you are not Hand-waving, but you are playing
Hope Chess. From this example we can see that Hand-waving is a more
serious offense than Hope Chess, in that Hope Chess players are attempting to
analyze but missing a key component, while Hand-waving players are often
not making a serious attempt at analysis.

In most of the short protocols in my book The Improving Chess Thinker, the
subjects are not only playing Hope Chess, but most are also Hand-waving; a
clear exception is Subject D-5 below, who played very fast, but completely
analytically. The reason is clear: since all the sample positions used in the
book are analytical and there is no time pressure, each should require some
careful analysis to try to find the best move, and that takes time. So anyone
who did not take the time to find a move in these positions had to reach his
conclusion on something other than careful analysis, and to a great extent this
is mostly Hand-waving.

Let's consider some sample protocols from The Improving Chess Thinker:

deGroot "A"

White to play

[FEN "2r2rk1/pp2bp1p/1qb1pnp1/3nN1B1/
3P4/P1NQ4/BP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - 0 1"]

Subject E-11 (the letter in each Subject's identification is his equivalent USCF
Class. "E" is 1000-1199):

"Looking at piece positions, I would play Rfe1 on general principles."

This subject even announced he was using general principles and not
analyzing! No attempt to see if the b2-pawn needed protection. No attempt to
see if he had any forcing sequence of exchanges that won material or were at
least highly beneficial. This is much worse than Hope Chess.

Subject E-8 was slightly more analytical, but still mostly Hand-waving:

1.Bh6 Rfe8 not enough to exploit dark square weaknesses. If 1.Nxd5 to

exchange pieces but not so good so less pieces to attack king. 1.Rfe1 to go to
e3 to h3 attacks h7 to attack or exchange. 1.Bxf6 to remove the defender or 1.
Qf3 to hit both knights and that's what I'll do.

Note the phrases "exploit dark square weaknesses" and "less pieces to attack
king"- it is OK, and often even necessary, to use these types of observations
when analyzing analytical positions, but these should be support information
– for example used for evaluating differences in possible positions that might
arise through careful analysis. They should not be used as primary reasons to
make a move in lieu of careful analysis, as they might be in positions without
any forcing sequences. Subject E-8 did not consider all his checks, captures,
or threats, but at least he very briefly considered 1.Nxd5 and 1.Bxf6, so it was
not all Hand-waving although no attempt was made to find the best recapture
– nor any recapture at all! It was, on the other hand, clear Hope Chess since
after his chosen move, 1.Qf3, he did not determine if he could safely meet the
replies 1…Qxb2 or 1…Qxd4 taking en prise pawns, much less any other
opponent forcing move.

In the following protocol, Subject E-1 did attempt analysis:

"The material is even. There is pressure on the black king. There is an idea of
playing for Nd7. If I play 1.Nxc6 I win the bishop pair. Suppose I play 1.
Nxd5 with the idea of getting in Nd7. Then after 1.Nxd5 exd5 I am not getting
anywhere. Suppose I develop the king's rook. Then I can wait and see what
Black wants to do. My move is 1.Rfe1."

However, E-1 makes absolutely no attempt to see if his move could be

defeated by a check, capture, or threat. For example, he does not analyze
whether Black can respond to 1.Rfe1 with 1…Qxb2 or 1…Nxc3 and possibly
win material. You don't make a move without taking into considerations your
opponents possible threats such as 1…Qxb2 (whether they are good or not –
that has to be determined), nor considering possibly dangerous captures (after
1…Nxc3, each way of recapturing on c3 has an element of danger which has
to be analyzed if you are to play a move like 1.Rfe1). Subject E-1 was thus
not completely Hand-waving, but he did play Hope Chess.

At the other extreme from E-11 is Subject D-5. He is an excellent example of

someone playing much too fast (by making big, unreasonable assumptions in
his analysis), but not Hand-waving at all:

"1.Nxd5 Nxd5 2.Bxd5 Bxd5 3.Nd7; 1.Nxd5 Nxd5 2.Bxd5 Bxd5 3.Nd7 Qa6 4.
Qxa6 bxa6 5.Nxf8 wins the exchange."

This protocol is all analysis and no general principles. It is also very poor and
quick analysis: there is no attempt to see if winning the exchange is forced (it
is not, as Black should play 2…Bxg5; 2…Bxd5?? is a blunder because 3.
Bxe7 wins a piece, not 3.Nd7). There is no attempt to see if 1…exd5 or 1…
Bxd5 would be better than 1…Nxd5 (they are not, but the former does not
immediately lose any material).

There is no attempt to find a better move than 1.Nxd5, though if Subject D-5
thought 1.Nxd5 won, then trying to find a better move is not always a serious
mistake. However, I am reminded of a student who played in the World Open
and told me after his game "I was about halfway through the game when I
saw a knight fork that won the exchange. I jumped on it and won the material,
but later I blundered and lost. After the game my opponent asked me why I
took the exchange when, if I had played another knight move, it would have
forced checkmate!" This is a great example of the principle if you see a good
move, look for a better one and his plight also reminds me of another
important principle: If you see a move that seems to win, stop and don't play
it! If it wins then the extra time won't hurt you; if it does not, then you want to
know why and the extra time may save the game.

These should be sufficient examples of what constitutes Hand-waving. The

key point for the reader is not that I can give a name to a type of deficient
thought process: "Luckily you don't Hand-wave, you only play Hope Chess!"
Instead, it is to help you recognize when and how your thought process is
deficient and can help you take proper steps to remedy your problems and
achieve your improvement goals. The first step is to be able to recognize
analytical positions – those with non-trivial checks, captures, and threats for
either side that need to be carefully analyzed (see Criticality Quiz) – and take
your time to analyze these positions the best you can, each and every time.

Question Remembering all the candidate moves is hard, let alone

remembering the results of the analysis for them. Do you have any specific
tips on how to retain this information in memory?
Answer There are a couple of issues. Obviously some people have better
memories than others and there are books written on memory tips.

However, it's not like strong players generate a list and then try to remember
that list. They look at what both sides are trying to do and find moves that
might do something positive. Then they get a feel which one(s) they want to
investigate first (assuming the position is analytical). If those moves succeed,
they put them in their pocket and look for moves with even better potential. If
the first candidate moves fail, they see why and pick out a move that might
not fail for the same or similar reasons.

So good players are not checking moves off a memorized list - instead they
are finding moves that fit needs and seeing which moves fit the needs best.
That "list" is always ascertainable by the needs of the position.

It is similar to remembering which street you take a turn on when you drive.
There may be several ways to get somewhere, but you always keep in mind
where you are going and the best ways to get there.

© 2010 ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

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

Phillytutor.

Yes, I have a question for Dan!

Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.

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

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

© 2010 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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