The last link (thanks) when Nakamura mentioned his miscalculation v Karjakin I recalled writing about it somewhere.

It was here! Karjakin vs Nakamura, 2016 (kibitz #26)

Not quite in the same class as Ding's, Nakamura's was a sting in the tail and he played it out. But he was was asked for an example from one of his own games and sportingly came up with this this one. It appears it still smarts after 7 years.

It will still will smart after 50 years, trust me on this Hikaru, in bed just before you nod off a position will float into your mind. You will groan as you jack knife your knees up to your chest. You are now wide awake!

And it's always the same three or four losses. Never a win.

Here is a visitor. (maybe once or twice a year - not every night, that would drive me insane.)

? Nicholson - Me, Germany 1973. A win or a draw and I'm a tournament winner either outright or shared.

click for larger view

Experienced players know, either consciously or instinctively, that the chances for such a retreat are fairly low. Unless the whole idea for the advance was some sort of instigation to weaken the opponents position.

When worse and attempting counter play, a retreat like that kind of defeats the purpose of counter play. When better, it generally just wastes a tempo and may change a good position to one just slightly better or even equal. Then there's the emotional/psychological factor in admitting to your opponent and accepting yourself that you failed miserably in your calculation. And be willing to start again from scratch to find a new plan. So a natural continuation is to look for a way to somehow justify the original plan. Of course, computers don't have such issues and they will readily retreat.

But doesn't mean human retreat is impossible, so still likely has to be considered in calculations.

I have trouble dealing with it even in infinitely less important games, e.g. my league match the other night.>

I would categorize it as chess blindness, and, as you said, not time trouble.

Naka's as a horizon event, a kind of blindness. He may have some time pressure, but he just fell in love with the tactic, and let his guard down.

Ding's was definitely a time trouble problem.

People keep talking about not having the increment killed Ding. But did it?

I know it's a hypothetical, but suppose the 30-sec increment kicked in at move 30 (keeping the tc at 40).

Would having those extra few minutes have saved him?

Both players were asked about their styles yesterday, and neither said they had one. But I noticed Ding had several opportunities to exchange either colored bishop during the game, and decided not to do so.

Isn't keeping the pieces on the board to complicate play a style of some kind?

<You're right, maybe Ding is not used not to have increments before move 61.>

They had the same time controls in the candidates - Ding did OK there. And Ding was cool enough to go for that 'Genius finish' - Giri, in game 6.

'Time trouble is not an excuse for losing a game' Alekhine. The clock is your 17th piece. Ding mishandled it and got himself all wound up.

Hi Stone.

That blunder was me I can figure out my thought process from even back then in 1973 because I still play like now.

click for larger view

I saw the big threat (Rd8 so Qxg3 is not on) and having spotted it relaxed then I saw my trick. Rxh2+ and Qc2+ and Qxd1.

So I do what I do. I knock the ball back to my opponent (1...a5) hoping he will move his Queen (which he did!!) so as to leave my cheapo trick on.

It's all based on the fact I cannot punish a blunder unless my opponent blunders and to that he must have the move. So I knock the ball back over the net and hope he scuffs it.

Bronstein said the most powerful thing in chess is having the move. I agree but sometimes it's the worse thing you can have, because without having the move you cannot blunder.

Right about the Candidates, forgot. Here there is extra pressure and an opponent who tends to play fast, leaving less time for Ding to think.

That used to be true, but the increment is like a set of training wheels for the time control, which relieve a player of much of the need to manage his time efficiently. If you want to make the games more exciting, and maybe reduce draws a little, I'd get rid of the increments, and go back to an older style time control, like 40 moves in 2 hours, and no increment.

Sudden Death is a different animal than old style time controls. You have to manage your time. For example, if you're playing 30/30, you have an average of 1 minute per move. So, if it's move 15 and you've used 20 minutes, you have to pick it up a little. Good time managers do that. Bad ones think "I'll spend more time now and reach a position where it's easy to find moves, and then make the last few to reach the time control in a hurry." It doesn't always work out that way. If you're a Reshevsky or a Benko and find yourself constantly scrambling to make those last couple of moves, then you're not a good time manager.

I don't think that is good sportsmanship, at least not in the sense that it's bad sportsmanship not to to it. It's Charity, pure and simple. That's not bad necessarily, but let's label it correctly.

It's silly to play Blitz Sudden Death and then complain that time is a factor in the outcome of the game. But I've actually had people get upset at me in 1 minute Bullet games (!) for using the clock. We'd reach a position where the ending was probably drawn, but he had 10 seconds to my 20, and he thought he deserved a draw. I never ask for draws when the shoe is on the other foot precisely because I would be asking for charity, and don't want to put the other guy on the spot, where he'll feel bad if he says no.

Mind you, I've won games like that too. I remember once I had 0.1 seconds left to the other guy's 8 seconds. But I made 12 consecutive pre-moves, and the other guy lost on time.

What's not amazing is that both players got in time trouble. If you're playing for the World Championship and you get *this* position on the board, that's only natural. Nepo was better off, being a natural fast player. If Ding would have been more experienced, he wouldn't have tried to force a win, but play solid little moves. But chess players aren't engines, and the blunders also are a part of what makes this game so great to me.

What *is* amazing is that Ding managed to recover from this game. But it was during the following draws that I realized that this boy has nerves of steel -- much better nerves than Nepo actually, and with each game I realized that he had real chances to win this thing.

<The most famous retrograde manoeuvre of 'em all...>

And don't we know it! Bill Hartston started it in a BCM in 1974 giving 24.Nb1 an ! Since then it has cropped up everywhere. Everyone uses that position and 24.Nb1! (or !!) to get across a point.