Obvious and Bad

There is no proper term to decribe a certain type of faulty analysis with which we are all familiar. The attacking player wins in Morphy fashion provided the defender is allowed to make obvious moves only. However, if the defender finds good moves which are not so obvious, then he draws or even wins. So I have coined an expression. I say that such analysis falls into the fallacy of the "obvious move imperative". A few examples will illustrate this mistaken logic.


The above diagram comes from Jim West - Steve Pozarek, North Jersey Chess League 1982. White has misplayed the Sozin Attack so that it now resembles a Sozin Defense. But his position is just barely tenable. My opponent's analysis (as given in The Castled King, March-April 1983) now runs: 1...Rd4 2.Nf6+ Kxg7 3.Qxb7 cxb2+ 4.Kxb2 Rc2+ 5.Ka1 Rxa2+! 6.Kxa2 Qc2+ and mate next. Brilliant tactics! But why do I want to act like a suicidal maniac? Instead of 3.Qxb7??, White has the sane 3.Qf5. And, although play is still complex, he can survive Black's attack.


The second diagram is Rich Napoli - Jim West, Four County Open 1984. Black has just played ...Na4+ (from b6) which looks promising but is actually a blunder. He should have held this move in abeyance and played ...Qc5, leaving open the possibility of ...Nc4+ which if played immediately would lose to Qxc4! My opponent now failed to punish this inaccuracy, blundering in return with Ka1. However, Kc1 would have won, despite Herb Hickman's analysis in the Sunday Star-Ledger. Herb gives 1.Kc1 Qc5 2.Nxd6+ Ke7 3.Nxb7 Qa3+ 4.Kd2 Rhd8+ 5.Nxd8 Rxd8+ 6.Qd3 Rxd3+ 7.cxd3 Qxa2+ 8.Ke3 Qxg2 9.Ra1 Qh3+ 10.Kd4 Qxh2. This otherwise brilliant analysis crumbles if White varies with the not-so-obvious 3.Qe3 instead of 3.Nxb7. Now Black is busted since 3...Qb4 is met by 4.Qb3, and Black can resign.


The third position is already familiar to readers of The Castled King, September-October 1984. It comes from Porreca's analysis to Geller-Fischer, Curacao 1962. Porreca gives only the obvious and bad 1...Rxe7 2.Rc1 and wins. However, as I pointed out in that earlier article, the seemingly unthinkable rejoinder 1...Kf8 wins for Black. The main line continuation is 1...Kf8 2.Rc1 Rxb2 3.Qg5 Qxc1+ 4.Qxc1 Rb1 5.Ra1 Rxc1+ 6.Rxc1 Kxe7 with a won endgame for Black.

{This article originally appeared in the January-February 1986 issue of Atlantic Chess News}