Capablanca: Alekhine's game is 20% bluff

[mikem07]

I remember not so long ago there was a thread about whether or not there was bluffing in chess. Well, here's a long-forgotten video with Capablanca's view on Dr. Alekine's game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuyMzb5_tlU

[Do it Right]

That looks more like a movie than an interview or documentary type piece. That anecdote of a couple of amateurs arguing to no end about a position and Capablanca coming by and instantly and casually revealing the position's essence is one very commonly shared but to my knowledge was not caught on film though I'm sure it happened more than once or twice.

Alekhine in particular is a strange one to talk about bluffing since his reputation was largely for very legitimate attacks coming out of nowhere. I know two quotes referencing exactly that. Kasparov stated that Alekhine's attacks came like a violent thunderstorm on a calm sea. Euwe said something along the lines of Alekhine creating art out of that which would not inspire another part to send home even a picture post card.

Interesting bit all the same. Though I agree there's definitely bluffs in chess, but they tend have the unique characteristic of winning when called a bit more often than in poker.

[TexAg06]

Interesting question, how would you define a bluff in chess? I'm having trouble differentiating it from an unsound sacrifice.

[Vempele]

A trap you set up with an objectively bad move. Say, a sacrifice your opponent could reasonably either accept or decline (but only one of these responses is correct).

Or mind games in the opening. Your moves need not be unsound, they (in the context of your previous games that your opponent will have studied) just have to give the false impression that you have something special prepared.

[YouKnowWho]

Originally Posted by TexAg06

Interesting question, how would you define a bluff in chess? I'm having trouble differentiating it from an unsound sacrifice.

well, an unsound sacrifice does not fit the definition of a bluff per se. For it to fit the definition, you have to know that it is unsound and still go for it. If you think that the sac is sound, and your opponent thinks it's sound, but in reality its not sound, it's not really a bluff anyway

To add to what Vempele has already listed, bluffing is (from my experience at least) a very successful strategy to get out of rough waters versus weaker players. To put it simply, you use bluffs to abuse the fear they have of you.

Imagine, Tex, that you are playing versus some 1600 opponent and so it happens that he has played the early stages of the game great, while you didn't, and you end up in a position that is: 1) objectively worse for you 2) not complicated at all. By that point in the game you should realize that if you keep playing simple (maybe objectively best, according to houdini etc.) moves, your opponent won't have trouble at least drawing, maybe even winning. So, what do you do?

Dat's right, you bluff the **** out of them. Probably 99% of players that are rated like 300pts lower than their opponents are really, really scared. That game you guys are playing is the universe, and you, in his eyes, are the master of it. You don't make mistakes. You don't sacrifice if you don't have it all calculated to a winning position. Or so they think.. all you need to do is use and abuse this

So, when you end up in some tough position versus a heavily lower rated opponent, look for complications. It can be, for example, a pawn sac, which will lead to one out of two scenarios: 1) if he accepts it, you created some complications and can start outplaying him, even though objectively you are probably lost if he plays perfectly 2) he does not accept it, but then it has improved your position greatly. Of course don't just give up pawns for free where if he takes it you don't get anything for it, but if it fits both criteria, it IS 100% the best practical move and screw what Houdini says.

It does not have to be a sacrifice. You can also just create an illusion of some sort of a threat (even though its not a real threat) and lead your opponent to believe that it actually is real (again, abusing the fear they have, even if they calculate and can't see it till the end they will be like "damn I bet Tex saw more than me and I am lost there, gotta defend). Of course only do it in a case where when they defend from that illusion of a threat, their position becomes worse, your position becomes better.

TL;DR

cliffs: I LOVE BLUFFING IN CHESS.

[TexAg06]

Thanks for the post YKW, that's really, really good stuff. I love the part about what to do when you get into a worse, but simple position against a lower rated player. I've been there many times and have tried to play the "best" moves but like you said, the position isn't complicated enough for them to lose their way. You're absolutely right, practically speaking it makes the most sense to unbalance the game in some way, even if it's slightly worse for you, because there is much great of a chance for them to go wrong.

Man, I'm going to have to start employing this more in my own games. This is great, over-the-board type advice.

Have you had good results trying this yourself?

[YouKnowWho]

Yes, very much so. From my personal experience, most often they don't accept your sac or go ahead and defend against a fake threat, after which you suddenly have improved your position, which is the ultimate goal of these bluffs. Whether it's weakening some squares for him, improving your pieces, improving your structure, it all counts as success If one is not enough still, rinse repeat again till they make another concession without understanding it, till your position has improved to win with the regular means

[networth]

When I play g4 it's usually a bluff.

[Baylife]

Chessnetwork bluffs with h5..

[mightytiny]

Hmm I wonder if you look at the middlegame sacs....I wonder whose opponents missed more Alekhine or Tal's?

[Do it Right]

I'm almost certain it was Tal's. Tal relied on his intuition and skill to be able outplay his opponents in mutually unclear positions. Alekhine on the other hand played very 'clean' chess for the most part. When his attacks came the mistake had often already been made and it was too late.

[TexAg06]

Agree with what DiR said. If Alekhine started an attack, the opponent might as well resign. He didn't start a lot of speculative attacks. If he was pressing, he had an advantage. I really enjoy playing through his games because if his opponent didn't have a weakness, Alekhine could play very positionally, slowly building and probing for weaknesses. But once he smelled blood in the water, he was ruthless and extremely accurate. Many think of him as the first prototype for the modern GM in terms of approach to the game and style of play.

[Do it Right]

A fun article on luck/bluff in chess that made me think of this thread: http://www.chess.com/article/view/a-game-of-skill

[TexAg06]

Great article. Have you read some of Bryan Smith's other stuff on there? He's a great writer and touches on interesting issues. The way he words sentences and says things is different too, in a good way.

[NajdorfDefense]

He's a great writer and I met him casually in Philly last week, super nice guy, talked to him after one of his draws with a GM. Told him I liked his columns and he got super-embarrassed.