Irrational Circuit-Breaking (or “Carlsen wins Nanjing”)

So I managed to survive my first commentary experience, which probably contained far more koala references than the chessFM listeners are used to.  It was a bit of a test of endurance, coming home from work to commentate for seven hours straight, but quite frankly it felt more like a party than a job.  And fortunately the Nanjing players decided to turn it up for the seventh round, particularly the clash between the world champ and the world number one.

Eventually, Carlsen showed just why he deserves the number one spot on the rating list, winning the tournament by a full point.  Anand second, Bacrot third, and some sparkling chess throughout the event – including two fantastically exciting last-round victories – this is the sort of chess that the spectators come to see.

In fact, most of the ‘soft’ (or at least short) draws in the event weren’t so much due to a lack of willpower or ambition, as to an attempt to recover and recouperate from a loss.  Many grandmasters, including our own Ian Rogers, have noted the usefulness of the ‘safe draw’ after a loss (or, even more importantly, after two losses). 

I like to think of this a ‘circuit-breaker’.  After a bad loss, many players feel like they need a win to’recover’ the previous loss, but as any poker player will tell you, this is akin to going on ’tilt’.  There’s no room for anger in rational play, and instead a player should try to rid themselves of that losing mentality, shake off the woes of yesterday, and prepare to start afresh – after a solid draw.

Behavioural economics, not surprisingly, agrees.  Technically, each game is an independent event, and homo economicus, economics’ cold, calculating, robotic hypothetical man, would be able to play the subsequent round without a single thought of the loss the previous day.  But humans don’t work that way. 

Is it really rational for a chess player, including a super grandmaster, to decide to make a short draw, instead of just shaking off the loss?  Naturally – humans have been demonstrating that they can predict their own behavioural flaws since the dawn of time.  Buying a packet instead of a cheaper bulk carton of cigarettes is a perfect example of humans imposing their own circuit-breaker on future moments of weakness.

So when Bacrot made a short draw with white in round two and again in round eight, both times after demoralising losses the rounds before, and when Anand quickly drew with the white pieces in round 5 against Gashimov after a rare loss in round four (and just before the rest day), we can hardly blame these chess giants for trying to prevent a slide of zeroes.  Remember nobody wants to see kingside or – shock! – queenside castling on their score sheet.  And after all, humans may be irrational, but at least we’re predictably so.