Chess toEnjoy LossAversion


By GMAndy Soltis It takes an economic theory to explainwhy the fear of losingmakes us crazy


If you drop in on a large open tourna-


ment as the final round is winding up, you’d expect the last remaining games to be on the top boards. That’s where the big bucks are at stake. But often the bitterest battles are fought


in the center of the playing hall. Or, to be exact, in the middle of the round’s pair- ing list. That’s where players are fighting for something almost as valuable as money: An even score. Why? Because when a player is “minus


one” going into the final round he realizes how important the game is. A victory means he can go home with a perfectly respectable 50 percent score. Life is good. But anything that is short of victory


means the humiliation of “another losing tournament.” The fear of a minus-score can push


even great players into taking irrational risks. Here’s one of the worst games Richard Reti ever played:


Ruy Lopez (C74) Richard Reti José Capablanca Berlin 1928


1. e4!? e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. c3 a6 5. Ba4 f5 6. d4 fxe4 7. Ng5? exd4 8. Nxe4 Nf6 9. Bg5 Be7 10. Qxd4?


In the four years since he famously


defeated World Champion Capablanca with 1. Nf3!, Reti had played conserva- tively. But in this game he goes for broke. He rejects, for example, the slight inferi- ority of 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Qh5+ Kf8. Why? One explanation is that this was


played in the last round and a draw would leave Reti with a minus-one score. True, losing this game would mean a


minus-two. But tomany players, aminus is a minus; the number that follows the minus sign doesn’tmatter. A win, on the other hand, would in fact redeem Reti’s tournament.


10. ... b5 11. Nxf6+ gxf6! 12. Qd5 bxa4 13. Bh6 16 Chess Life — January 2012


Or 13. Qxc6+ Bd7 14. Qf3 fxg5 15. Qh5+ Kf8 16. Qh6+ Kg8.


13. ... Qd7 14. 0-0 Bb7 15. Bg7 0-0-0! 16. Bxh8 Ne5 17. Qd1


+kr + L +lpql +p p+ p p + + + n + p+ + + + + P + + PP + PPP RN+Q+RK


After 17. Qd1 Whitemet the threat of 17. ... Qg4 and


can fight on after 17. ... Rxh8 18. Nd2. But:


17. ... Bf3! 18. gxf3 Qh3,White resigned. The desperation to avoid aminus score


appears to be another version of the phe- nomenon called Loss Aversion. Of course, everyone wants to avoid losing. But behavioral economists—the Freakonom- ics-type folks—say Loss Aversion explains why people take illogical, even crazy steps to avoid acknowledging defeat. This turns up in all sorts of non-eco-


nomic situations. Research has found, for example, that PGA golfers take greater risks whenmaking a putt for a par score than they do for a birdie. That seems irrational. A birdie is a


greater reward. Therefore it warrants the greater risk. But the evidence shows that golfers are more motivated by the fear of missing the par putt. The result would be a bogey, a loss. Chess players are unique because we


go into denial when making decisions influenced by Loss Aversion. Take the story Edward Lasker told, in his book Chess for Fun, Chess for Blood, about his last round game against Carlos Torre at


Chicago 1926. He eventually won, as Black, after 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Na3 e5!? 4. Nxe5 Bxa3 5. Qa4+ b5! 6. Qxa3 Bb7. (For some reason the game keeps getting reprinted as 6. ... Nf6 7. b3 Qd6 8. Bb2? c3! 9. Qxd6 cxd6,White resigned, another example of a hoax miniature.) Lasker cited this game as an example


of chess ethics. He explained that even though he had no chance for a top prize he was obligated to play hard because Torre was in first place. A quiet draw would have been unfair to Torre’s rivals. What Lasker didn’tmention was that he


had another incentive beside good sports- manship: The win gave himan even score. Loss Aversion theory says peoplemake


bad money decisions, such as holding onto a stock too long because they don’t want to sell it at a loss. A curious case of a bad money decision in chess was what happened to William Winter, a minor British master, in the last round of Lon- don 1927. Winter, who was always short of cash,


was paired against Milan Vidmar, one of the world’s half dozen top players. A win would giveWinter sixth prize. But thanks to the quirky prize structure that would mean less money than the consolation prize he would earn from a draw. “I was quite aware of this before the


game started,” he said. “But in the throes of combat a chess player forgets about such things.”Winter registered a stunning upset in 44 moves. What he didn’t mention about the


“throes of combat” was—you guessed it— the more profitable draw would have ended his tournament with aminus score. There’s a related phenomenon that


economists call the Endowment Effect: When you feel you’ve earned something, you may make irrational decisions to be certain you get it. In chess this means a player who feels


he’s close to a winning position will avoid makingmoves that allow drawing chances —even if they are the best moves. Nana


uschess.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76