How to recover from a blunder or a bad loss

Even strong players blunder and occassionally lose really bad, like in a miniature.

Or they suffer embarrassment like Anna Ushenina did when she failed to checkmate Olga Girya with KNB against K.

(If you haven't seen it look it up on YouTube: Ushenina checkmate fail.)

How do you go on after a bad loss or a great embarrassment like this?

How can you go out there for the next round one day later and still play your best chess, as if nothing had ever happend?

I once played a blitz game against a strong WIM. During the game she blundered a queen for a pawn with no compensation. I had about 40 sec remaining on the clock and she about 20 sec. I went on to lose the game on time, can you believe that?

What really impressed me was how calm and cool she stayed after her blunder.

She didn't flinch, didn't pause for even a fraction of a second, showed no emotional response whatsoever. Just played on as if nothing had happened. Not objectively good moves, even allowing me to trade off the remaining material. But she was quick enough to make me lose on time.

When she had blundered her queen I was probably more shocked than she was.

If I just blundered my queen against a guy rated about 400 elo below me, I would be anything but calm. It would take me a long time to recover. I would likely still be under shock by the start of the next round.

So how could this WIM remain so calm? How could she simply play on as if nothing extraordinary had happened?

In his book "Buch des Opfers" (= Book of sacrifice) Vladimir Vukovic mentions something he calls "Opferschock" (= sacrifice shock) and talks a little about the psychology of sacrifices in chess. I think that this is somewhat similar to what I am talking about here.

I feel that this is a question worth investigating! We are humans and emotions play a large role in whatever we do.

What makes masters stronger than the average club player like me is not only more knowledge (openings, endgames, tactical patterns, strategical ideas, etc) and not only the ability to calculate more deeply, more quickly and more efficiently; not just a better board vision. It is also psychological aspects such as this.

I know how to learn openings and endgames, how to work on my tactical strength and even calculation skills. My coach is helping me get better at strategy.

But how can I improve in the psychological aspects?

Thanks for reading all this! Your input is most welcome!

Less time at the board means more time at the bar.

But seriously. If you blunder, then the game most likely has a forgone conclusion in which no one can do anything about. The worse thing is you have a win in front of you and everyone else sees it but you.

Remember, it's still a game.

When I blunder (which happens distressingly often), I will just sit there without moving until I feel recovered from the shock. I recently posted a game that I played as Black in a KID in which exactly that happened.

In the last and decisive round of an OTB tournament (paired against the leader, and half a point behind him) I overlooked a piece sacrifice right in front of my King, and was so shocked that I wrote down on my score-sheet a move that I could clearly see would lose the game. Fortunately, I came out of deep shock before actually reaching forward to touch the piece, so I could just erase the losing move off my score-sheet and sit on my hands until I felt recovered from the shock... and then I went on to refute the sacrifice and win the game and the tournament.

Here's the game:

26. ... Be2 does look like the proper move (although 26. ... Bf3 is also possible).

Understand that I'm not claiming that the position after 19. ... Nd4 is a win for Black. I'm only claiming to have won the psychological battle, not the over-the-board battle.

In fact, I don't think Black had a forced win until 31. Qa4 (since giving up the White Queen on f2 looked like it might draw by constructing a fortress).

disappointment of losing comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the human mind. 

first, there is no such thing as doing the "wrong" thing. everyone does what they think is the "best" thing at the moment of doing it. it's impossible for humans to not do what we think is best in the moment. it's only hind-sight and the belief that somehow we could have done things differently that makes us have regret. once you understand that you cannot change the past, and that there was no way, at the time of action, to have made any other choice, then you will realize that there is no such thing as a "mistake". if you would have known it was a mistake, you wouldn't have done it. every time you play a chess move, you do it thinking it is the best possible move given your state of mind and evaluation at that moment. 

the other problem is that we tell ourselves that we could have possibly known better or done something better before making that move. technically we could have, but in reality, we didn't. and we didn't, because we didn't think we could. so again, it's a false perception. 

the best thing to do is to realize that there are no mistakes, only inputs for our future actions. therefore "mistakes" are just learning for the future. 

enjoy them. 

blueemu, good job keeping calm! But why is the Queen trapped after 31.... b5? What about 32. Qb3?

32 . ... Rxb2 discovered check. The a4 square is the only spot on the board that is safe from a Rook-move discovered check... safe, until I play 31. ... b5.

Ah, thanks.

blueemu, thanks for posting this! An excellent example of "Opferschock" and you handled it very well.

19...Nd4! is indeed an excellent move.

However I still have trouble evaluating the position after 25.Qxf4 Bxd1 and now 26.Qg5. It seems you have three pieces for a rook and four pawns and your king does not look very safe, eventhough White has only his queen ready for attack which is not enough to cause you immediate trouble.

May I ask what you would have played in this variation after 25.Qxf4 Bxd1 26.Qg5? Probably Be2 and the rook has difficulty to avoid all sorts of knight forks. But is this enough to give Black advantage really?

erik, Thanks for the input! I think I understand what you are saying, but for me it just doesn't always feel like it.

When I lost a close game against a strong opponent due to some minor technical imperfection, then okay, that's alright.

But in the case of blunders I often just feel shock, embarrassment and lack of understanding how I could make such a bad move.

Sometimes I can look into a position for a long time, decide on a move and convince myself it's the best. Then I make the move and the instant my hand leaves the piece I see the obvious that I had missed when I calculated more complicated lines. Things like that hurt.

Also, in the case of this WIM blundering her queen... there was absolutely no visible reaction. No slowing down or thinking. She just continued to blitz. To me that just is incredible!

Can you blunder your queen without showing the slightest reaction? Can you not lose a second on the clock and just go on as if all was well? How?

The forum ate my reply.

26. ... Be2 does look best, although 26. ... Bf3 is also possible. After 26. ... Be2, White is going to have a terrible time advancing those Pawns without exposing his King, so I'm virtually three pieces for a Rook up.

Understand that I'm not claiming that Black wins after 19. ... Nd4. In fact, I don't think I had a FORCED win until he played 31. Qa4... nearly the end of the game.

The claim that I'm making is that I won the psychological battle. My opponent sacrificed a piece right in front of my King, and HE was the first one to crack under pressure, not me.

achja, Thanks a lot!

I think I have not yet seen this Seirawan video, but I will take a look. Sounds very interesting.

And I remember seeing the topic of your blog post, but for some reason I had not yet studied it. Looking forward to studying it later!

This bullet game you mention sound somewhat familiar. Was it one of the Nakamura games or perhaps from a death match? I think I have seen something very much like this and found it highly entertaining.

To be honest it is things like this that fascinate me more than anything else in chess!

Thanks again! To me your game already felt like a moral victory of sorts after 19...Nd4. Anyways, a cool game!

So basically chess players need a good poker face too!

Now I am curious if they have no emotional response, feel no shock, or just don't show it.

Anyways, I think you need a good portion of confidence in yourself for that.

Krogius is on my reading list, but I have not got to it yet.

I really enjoyed the Chessbase DVD "Chess for Scoundrels" by Nigel Davies. It is about various aspects of applied chess psychology, like how to deal with time trouble, both your own and your opponents, about how to handle a must win situation or what to do when you really need a draw.

I also read "Schachpsychologie" by Munzert, but found that terribly boring and of little practical value.

Rowson (Seven Deadly Sins) also had some interesting things to say about chess psychology. Probably I should re-read this one too.

Speaking of funny anecdotes; here is one of my own that fits the topic...

I was playing this game in a tournament years ago, against a player whom I had beaten in a Sicilian game some time ago so I wanted to do something different this time.

I decided to play the Blackburne Schilling Gambit because I had just won a blitz game against a stronger opponent with it (he fell for the classical trap line that every beginner knows from YouTube videos these days).

Unfortunately not knowing what I was doing really, I managed to blunder a rook on move 5. Yes! Blunder a rook on move 5.

I was devastated inside but decided to play on because I didn't want to be the first player in the playing hall to lose a game that day.

Here is how the game went...

I did feel sort of sorry for my opponent, who had to endure quite some friendly teasing from his friends in the analysis room later that day. Still, the incredulous look on his face after move 9 was priceless.

A clubmate of mine commented on the game, that it didn't look like a tournament game but rather like a five year old beating a three and a half year old on the children's board at the lowest league...

Still it was one of my more memorable games! 

If I blunder a queen here on chess.com, oh well, I resign and play another game. I just lost a game where I didn't even realize I blundered my queen until the opponent captured it in one move (no fork or check)

Though I was busted anyways because I couldn't defend my c2 pawn...

Anna Ushenina's bishop+knight non-checkmate circumstance, I'd say that has an effect in that tournament, that is quite significant. Also won't help in convincing lower rated people to study endgames more, by becoming a GM rated 2500 without exactly knowing all the basic endgames.

Speaking of funny stories... I once caught a 1900+ player in a Lolli trap. The really funny part was the remark made by the tournament director (himself an 1800+ player) JUST AFTER I MOVED THE PIECE... in other words: while the game was still going on!

I think you can play 12. Nd4 followed by a 13. c3 to defend c2.

I disagree about it being unclear, I believe white has the edge with an opened c-file where the black king is with rather easy access for his rooks.

Edit: just saw after ur c5 there's Bxa8 winning the Queen