Imagination in Chess

A Book Review

Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess: How to Think Creatively and Avoid Foolish Mistakes (2004) has been on my shelf for more than a decade. I have read and reread it, and have often found myself repeating its advice to my students.

Gaprindashvili writes, "If we fail to make an idea work, we need to stop and ascertain the cause of the failure (i.e. answer the question 'why?'), and then attempt to correct our design" (40). This sentence, which I have paraphrased to my students on numerous occasions, forms the heart of what the author calls "reciprocal thinking," the title of the second chapter. Imagination in Chess is devoted to "the evaluation and development of the brain's reflective activity" (5).

The book contains a minimum of prose. The only chess books on my shelves with less text are those published in the language-less format of Chess Informant. Even so, the prose is focused and well integrated with the 756 exercises. Gaprindashvili urges his readers to read the first section of instruction, solve a few problems, read the next section, and so on. After passing through the book in this manner, the reader should go back through the book again, and again. With enough time spent repeatedly passing through Imagination in Chess, the thinking process will become second nature. Hopefully, "regular solving of the exercises will improve the cogitative action of the brain and raise your standard of play" (5).

The book contains seven chapters of decreasing length. The instructive portion is well illustrated with flow charts (see image below).

The thinking process advocated appears to be a refinement of Alexander Kotov's well-known "tree of analysis" in Think Like a Grandmaster (1971). It is refined in both its simplicity and flexibility. Gaprindashvili's first step is to study the position. "[I]dentify all of the tactical and strategic peculiarities" of the position (7). This process will reveal certain ideas from which will flow candidate moves. A student employing Kotov's process will then examine each candidate move in turn, analyze each candidate move for the opponent for each of these candidates, and so on. In Gaprindashvili's system, if calculation of the variations following from the first candidate move leads to a positive verdict, you play it. Kotov would hesitate until all candidates had been examined.

The chess positions comprise the bulk of the book. Although varying considerably in difficulty, these are generally quite challenging even to very strong players. They are also fresh. Most of the positions are not found in other books. Even readers who choose to ignore Gaprindashvili's system of progressive thinking, reciprocal thinking, mental agility, and imagination will benefit from study of the positions.

There have been criticisms of this book by those who take the time to check solutions via computer. For example, Sam Copeland explained in a comment to his "25 Books Guaranteed to Improve Your Chess" on Chess.com (12 January 2015) why he excluded this book. The book had been mentioned in a comment by Matty D. Perrine, who asserted it was the "best tactic book" he had gone through. Copeland said that he wanted to like Imagination in Chess, but found some of the solutions frustrating. He offers two examples from the first ten in the book. The diagram below is the book's sixth position.

White to move

Copeland may be correct that his solution is stronger than the one given in the book (my computer favors his at a depth of 34 ply), but the solution given was the one played in the game. The move played also reinforces the thinking process outlined in the first chapter.

Gaprindashvili's solution is historically accurate, but perhaps not the strongest move. The play after Copeland's move seems a little more straightforward. Some readers might prefer that alternate solutions to those played should be given in the book, especially when they are as strong or stronger.

While Copeland's criticism has some merit, I would recommend this book to my readers except for one small problem. the book is out of print. Consequently, new copies, when they can be found, are quite expensive. Amazon lists several third party sellers with the book for $118 plus shipping. Used copies start at $55. When I bought the book, it sold for $22.95.

Should be Easy

This position is from the Anthology of Chess Combinations in the instructional section. I am using the electronic edition and the Chess Informant Solver's Kit. One encounters it with the knowledge that Black plays to reach a win. There's not much that Black can do, as most of his piece are immobile. Attacking the king--the only vulnerability--is the clear plan. Nonetheless, I struggled to find the correct move.

Black to move

I could see the idea that creates a checkmate threat. It does not work. How do I change the dynamics of the position so that Black's defensive resource is no longer available? Had I asked this question, which Paata Gaprindashvili suggests in Imagination in Chess (2004), the solution would have been immediately evident. Gaprindashvili uses the term "reciprocal thinking" for correcting an idea that does not work via altering the order of moves, or choosing an intermediate move.

Flexibility is another term that seems appropriate here. Despite a limited number of pieces, Black has more than one way to attack the king. Flexible thinking discloses the correct sequence. The term flexibility describes the resources on the chess board, and it describes the necessary mental processes for utilizing those resources.

Partial Credit

I spent ten minutes looking at this position from Geller - Pribyl, Sochi 1984. It is problem 184 in Imagination in Chess (2004) by Paata Gaprindashvili. This book sometimes intimidates me because I rarely solve a problem with full success. Last Wednesday at lunch I looked at eight problems without setting them up on a chess board. I found the key move in two of the eight. Today, I set out to do better and brought a chess set into the cafe.




In seconds I realized that 1.Rd8 was the idea, but it took very little time to see Black's defense, 1...Kf8. As Gaprindashvili suggests, I found the idea, calculated, found a problem with the idea, then sought to correct the idea.

1.Be7 suggested itself. After several minutes of calculation, I decided I had the solution correct and checked the answer in the back.

I was wrong. In fact, I did not even look at the correct move, although its target was something I considered via another route. During the drive home, I began to comprehend the superiority of the correct move and became satisfied that the book's answer was correct. It is a far more direct route to the central objective preparing Rd8.

When I fed the position into Hiarcs 12, it liked my move for a few seconds. Then, my choice was its second choice for a bit longer. After several minutes of analysis, my choice dropped to third behind 1.Rd8 and the correct answer.

For finding the initial idea, finding the defense, and working to correct the idea with viable moves, it seems that I deserve partial credit.

Reinforcing Error

Unlike Michael de la Maza (Rapid Chess Improvement [2002]), who quit chess, and his minions, my chess improvement stems from a varied approach. My tactics training encompasses periodic commitment to playing from the key position to the computer's resignation (see "Where the Rubber Meets the Road") interspersed with working a website's system, such as Chess Tactics Server or the Tactics Trainer at Chess.com (see "Milestones"). I also use training exercises that Fritz or Hiarcs creates during its automatic analysis of games, or that users can create with the assistance of this software. Claude Kaber's training exercises are exemplary for illustrating the potential of this feature (see "Good Luck").

The exercises created automatically by Fritz, however, should be greeted with skepticism. The engines like drama.


Fritz Training Flaws

When I ran my game from last Thursday through full analysis by Hiarcs 12 (this engine uses the Fritz 11 interface), it created two training problems. The second is from this position awaiting my move 27.

White to move


During the game I looked at this position, found the dramatic 27.Rxe6+, and executed it. In my interior monologue I was telling myself that I was winning a piece through brilliant forcing play. Indeed, I was implementing that sage advice uttered by chess teachers everywhere, such as Peter Kurzdorfer, The Tao of Chess (2004).

The key to checking multimove combinations is to concentrate on the forcing moves: checks, captures, promotions, and the immediate threats to check, capture, and promote. By cutting it down to these forcing moves, you now have some manageable numbers to work with. The moves you look at are the ones that will likely affect the outcome of the game.
Kurtzdorfer, 108

Immediately after executing my "brilliant move," I found the antidote. My opponent had a defense that refutes my idea. Instead of winning a piece as I had thought, I would have a bishop and two pawns for a rook. My internal monologue became hypercritical, telling myself how I will never advance in chess if I keep making hasty moves that I have not fully calculated.

The rook check fails, and had I examined why it failed, I could have quickly found the much superior 27.Bd5. A fundamental element in tactical training and calculation is the process that Paata Gaprindashvili calls "reciprocal thinking" in his challenging Imagination in Chess: How to Think Creatively and Avoid Foolish Mistakes (2004).

After noticing an idea and briefly familiarizing ourselves with it, we proceed to its detailed examination. What do we do if we find that it doesn't work? ... If we fail to make an idea work, we need to stop and ascertain the cause of failure (i.e. answer the question "why?"), and then attempt to correct our design.
Gaprindashvili, 40

Without detailed examination, the failure goes unnoticed.

I was lucky. Under the pressure of my forcing move, my opponent cracked and offered the game losing blunder on move 28. It's no wonder that Hiarcs likes forcing moves. Carbon-based lifeforms capitulate to such deceptions with regularity. But the engine knows better, so why did it create this training exercise?



After executing the same move that I played in the game, I read, "Correct! You entered the strongest move." But this feedback is wrong. My move is not among the half-dozen best choices. Although forcing, and although successful in this case, it might have cost me the game.

According to the quantitative assessment of Hiarcs 12 from the problem position, White's advantage is greater than two pawns. 27.Bd5 is assessed at +2.29 with a depth of 16, and is slightly inferior to +2.39 for Re3. After executing the move from the game, the assessment drops to +0.85. When I annotated this game in the wee hours of Friday morning (see "Last Night"), I gave my move a single ?; I might have given it two, calling it an egregious blunder.

Tactics training with these automatically generated exercises, if they have not been checked for accuracy, will cultivate one's vision for forcing moves. Rather than improving the necessary abilities for calculation, however, such problems may reinforce error.