If you are under 2200, then what I am going to discuss in today is likely a huge gap in your chess ability.
That is — the ability to see chess positions as a function beyond purely material.
But before we delve into the meat of this topic, it is important to understand why this is such a blind spot for so many players.
The Subconscious Mind
The subconscious is an unbelievably powerful tool, which most chess players vastly underestimate.
At least 90% of the decisions we make in a chess game are guided by our subconscious, whether we realize it or not.
This can be a good thing.
Unfortunately, the subconscious values that have been instilled into many players’ minds often do more harm than they do good.
Going Back To Square One
One of the first things that we are all taught when introduced to chess (apart from the objective of checkmate), is the point system (i.e. a pawn is worth 1 point, a bishop 3, a rook 5 etc.).
This is important, as it gives a beginning player a rough proxy for evaluating positions, without having to play 100s or 1000s of experimental games to arrive at this conclusion.
The problem of course is that chess is a lot more complicated than simply counting material, so this will only get you so far.
Value
The evaluation of a chess position hinges upon the many different forms of value that both sides possess in a given position.
Material is merely one form of value that is present on the chess board. One must not forget about other forms of value such as initiative, king-safety, pawn structure, etc.
This might sound obvious, but an objective look at most amatuer-level games would indicate anything but that.
For most players, the only time they ever will make a sacrifice is if they know it is opening theory, or if they can see they will win back the material immediately (in which case, I am hesitant to even call it a sacrifice).
This isn’t necessarily irrational however, and it has a lot to do with human nature.
Loss Aversion
The reason why we are so hesitant to give up material, can be explained by a cognitive bias called ‘loss aversion’.
Loss aversion is the tendency that humans have to be more upset by losing something, than the equivalent gain of something.
For example, losing $100 will cause most people more pain, than gaining $100 will.
Likewise in chess, for the majority of players, the fear of losing by making a “risky” pawn sacrifice tends to outweigh the perceived benefit of doing so.
Most players would rather play it safe and lose slowly, than to take a risk and (potentially) lose quickly.
Reframing Sacrifices
To override this built-in mechanism of loss aversion, I believe it is vital to reframe the way we view sacrifices — which is at the core of any discussion surrounding material.
My radical proposition is to treat sacrifices as exchanges.
In exchange for material value, we are procuring a non-material form of value.
And vice-versa — we should look at trying to hold onto material desperately, as a sacrifice of non-material forms of value, in exchange for that material.
A Common Trap
Take the following position a student of mine had recently:
My student played 8.Bc2?! (which he admitted did not feel right), trying to hold onto the d4 pawn.
However, this was done at the expense of moving the same piece twice, and leaving the bishop vulnerable to …Nb4 ideas (which would threaten to win White’s best minor piece).
A couple moves later White landed himself in this position:
Black is arguably already winning, simply due to White’s lack of LSB, and king which is stuck in the center (0-0 runs into …Bb5!).
This could’ve all been avoided had White simply played 8.0-0! in the starting position (which is still theory), allowing Black to win the d4 pawn — of course in exchange for a strong initiative.
While my student claimed that he forgot the theory here (and hence played Bc2 over 0-0), I believe that this is more so a symptom of the “hold onto material at all costs” mindset that so many players are unconsciously possessed by.
Many players will rush to protect even the most useless pawn (just to be clear, d4 in the example above was not “useless”), without bothering to question what happens if they let the opponent win it.
You should be much more scared of having equal material but confined to total passivity, than you should be of being down a pawn with attacking chances.
Here is a game I played back in 2020 which further illustrates my point.
Kill or Be Killed
My opponent had just played 14.a4!?, trying to kick my knight back with a5 on the next move.
It may seem like the only two things Black can do are to play …a5 stopping this (but creating serious weaknesses on the queenside), or to allow a5 from White.
Not being content with either of these, I sought out a 3rd option: giving up material for activity.
Given that my opponent’s minor pieces weren’t superbly coordinated, and had just spent a tempo playing on the flank, I figured I could lash out in the center with 14…d4!? 15.cxd4 Nd5.
Although extremely uncertain during the game, I practically felt this was just what I “had to do” — and was ultimately rewarded with winning the game (albeit not without complications).
Piece Value is Subjective
Earlier we discussed the ‘point system’, and how it won’t always tell the full story.
Well, on occasion, it will lead you so astray to the extent that you might want to consider throwing out the whole paradigm.
Take the following position (from Aagaard-Hebden), where it is White to move:
The monkey brain inside every chess player will want to pounce on 1.Bxf8 — but not so fast.
Notice the weak dark squares in White’s position, and especially the weak king on h2. With this in mind, White’s dark squared bishop is worth much more than the Black rook on f8.
To really make this clear, let us take stock of what is going on after 1.Bxf8 Rxf8.
White is up an exchange, but has completely lost control of the situation on the dark-squares now.
Black has the sneaky threat of …Bg5-f4 + …Qh4+, or maybe some …Bxg3+/…Qe5 action.
It is also amusing to note how little White’s extra exchange matters here, with the rook on c1 sitting in complete passivity.
Thus, in the game, White played 1.e5!
Not only does White not opt to win “free stuff”, but opts to sacrifice a pawn himself!
However, this sacrifice is actually in service of the same purpose that White chose not to win the exchange — the dark squares. For instance, note how if black plays …dxe5, the queen will no longer be able to conveniently slide to the e5 square.
Matters did sharpen up from here, but White was already much better at this point and had no problems winning.
And to wrap up, here is a very similar example from former WC Anatoly Karpov (playing the Black pieces), who was just faced with 18.Bh6.
Most players would play …Re8 without a second thought, but Karpov played the brilliant 18…Bg5!!
Karpov not only recognized that the dark-squares were much more important than the exchange here, but that the e5 pawn was very weak, and that White’s extra exchange won’t go so far — since the rooks lack open files.
Within five moves this position was reached, and it was very clear that Karpov’s strategy was a success.
Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, just because you have gone through this article does not mean you will be playing genius, Petrosian-like exchange sacrifices in your next few games.
Your old habits will creep in, and your inner voice will talk you out of making such “risky” decisions.
And, if you do manage to venture into the unknown of trying to take on more risk at the board, the first few times will likely go horribly wrong.
But, don’t let that discourage you — as mastering (or heck, even being a bit better than the average club player) this skill will ultimately pay huge dividends to your chess ability.
For those who want a book that goes in-depth on this topic (which was a big inspiration for this post), I highly recommend checking out Beyond Material (disclaimer: this is an affiliate link).