Exploring Modes of Thought as Described in Gerald Abrahams "The Chess Mind"

Gerald Abrahams' The Chess Mind is a fascinating and thorough examination of the general workings of the mind and also of the specific workings of a chess player's mind. Abrahams was a barrister by profession who never became a Grandmaster, but he was a very strong player who twice finished third in the British Championship. Three-time British Champion Harry Golombek said that during the 1930s Abrahams "was the most dangerous attacking player in England."

In the Introduction to The Chess Mind, Abrahams makes a lengthy, lucid and persuasive case for the importance of the Chess Mind. Here is an excerpt (pp. 9-10):

The Chess Mind is an important Mind, and important to more than chess players. In Chess, human intelligence achieves a creativity which cannot be explained away in terms of conditioned reflexes or the formation of habits. One of the Author's contentions in this essay is that mental habits and memory are elements in the Chess mind as a knowledge of language is part of the equipment of an orator, or as a technique is essential to the musician. Beyond that equipment training ends, and the mind creates from its own resources and material. What a good Chess player does is comparable, as a mental act, to what the inventor does, be he scientist or poet; an act of free imagination, which changes its own surroundings by the revelation of latent possibilities...

That mind achieves this freedom, and this creativity, is then a datum, and perhaps the only datum, which gives scientific substance to the philosophical traditions of a liberal society. A belief in this--the reality of the mind--is the principle which distinguishes a liberal society, even in its decadence, from the considerable--and successful--forms of slavery to which deterministic thinkers can reconcile themselves. Indeed, freedom of mind, that slight degree of independence and control, which so easily loses scope and reality under the pressure of economic difficulties or political powers, is the only luxury that is lacking in a regimented society, where all predictable behaviour is harnessed to economic effort or military struggle. If those theorists are right who say that this mental freedom is an illusion, in a reality that offers no leisure for dreaming, then there was no ultimate value to justify the world conflict of Democracy against a regimented and brutal Fascism. It is the Author's belief, however, that those mental activities (whatever their limitations of scope) in which the mind experiences freedom, are more than a trivial skill at games and more than the luxuries of the effete. Free society--nay, any society--relies on free unmalicious thought, as masses of human beings rely on the skill of the builders, engineers and aviators to whom they trust their lives. Not all Chess players will deduce from this their own social importance, because not all intellectuals are conscious of responsibility, or even intelligent. But those who do think about themselves and the world objectively may realize that the refinements of thought, the delicate tentacles of mentality, are the slender threads from which depend the hanging gardens of modern civilization.

The book is divided into two parts. Part One is titled "Varieties of Mental Activity in Chess," and it consists of eight chapters describing different types of chess thinking. Part Two is titled "The Chess Mind in Action," and it includes 48 lightly annotated chess games, most of which were played by World Champions or contenders for the World Championship.

Early in Part One, Abrahams provides a great explanation of the similarities between the general thought process of an intellectual and the specific thought process of an exceptional chess player (pp. 19-20):

Just as the minds of intellectuals are so developed, in particular fields or generally, that even a succinct reference--a phrase like inflation or entropy, for example--is sufficient to enable them to apprehend the reality of a complex process, so the good Chess player, glancing at significant points, can assess the tactical and strategical possibilities of a difficult position with relative ease. Among, and rising above, these educated minds are those who, while reading, are not only understanding, but criticizing, agreeing or disagreeing, or, better than that, reconstructing, and improving upon, the thoughts that they are absorbing with ideas of their own--ideas that perhaps the writers of what they are reading have not grasped. These are the men of constructive imagination--by which is meant more than wit, and more than fancy, more than cunning or any narrow cleverness; and they correspond to the Chess players of imagination, who see the position whole, and see into possibilities that the ordinary experience of even an able player would not be sufficient to suggest. These are creative in a degree above the average of intellectuals. They discover and invent ideas: which is more than to understand argument, or translate from recondite languages.

Abrahams is perceptively outlining differences not just in levels of thinking ability--levels of minds--but categorical differences in kinds of thinking--kinds of minds. Bobby Fischer was not just better at chess than other Grandmasters--his mind functioned differently in the way it perceived, combined, and organized ideas. The same is true of geniuses in other realms of thought. A genius is not just a more capable or faster thinker than a regular person--a genius thinks differently in a qualitative sense. You can train to improve proficiency; you cannot train to achieve genius level.

Abrahams disagrees with the notion that chess is inherently mathematical in nature. He compares the work of a mathematician to "carrying out operations with the aid of formulae. He is, as it were, putting something into a machine and turning a handle" (p. 28). In contrast, Abrahams asserts that a chess player is "comparable to the user of a language with a grammar rather than to those who explicitly use rules and formulae deductively" (p. 27). Chess rules provide a framework within which moves must be chosen, but the chess rules do not determine what that move must be; a mathematical equation has but one answer, while the possibilities of language and chess are much more flexible and expansive.

Writing in 1951, Abrahams was understandably skeptical that a machine could ever be programmed to play chess at anything beyond a most rudimentary level--but, at that time, Abrahams had no way to know not only how much computing power would increase in the subsequent decades but also that we would develop computers using neural networks (such as Alpha Zero) that can outplay even the World Champion. The creation of computers that play chess at such a tremendous level expands the possibilities of what machines can do beyond what Abrahams anticipated, but it does not disprove Abrahams' concept of how human chess players think. He was right that humans think about chess in a way that does not consist of rote applications of formulae, but he was wrong to assume that processes could not be developed to enable machines to produce superior results by alternative means.

When deciding upon a course of action, a good chess player must not rely only on "common sense"--moves that superficially look good or appear to achieve a specific strategic or tactical goal--but must also be prepared to deeply examine each position for paradoxical ideas lurking beneath the surface; a move may be logical in a general sense but be incorrect because of a specific idea that refutes that move. Such paradoxical ideas can elude the awareness of even a strong player in a given position if that player is not focused on what makes that position unique, as opposed to the general pattern of typical play that superficially seems to apply to the situation at hand.

Thus, playing chess well requires not just familiarity with what could be called the language and grammar of chess, and not just the ability to unearth and understand paradoxical yet correct ideas, but also a special kind of imagination. Abrahams writes that imagination "is the capacity of the mind for construction and clarity" and states that "this is of the essence in chess" (p. 52), but he notes that when many people speak of imagination they mean "a capacity for the apprehension of the not-obvious, of the particularly not-obvious, of the 'clever'" (p. 52). Abrahams observes that imagination of this sort can be of the "greatest importance" to a chess player but "can also be dangerous to its possessor" (p. 52) because an idea "may be interesting yet is not to be entertained as a possibility" (p. 52). In other words, the best kind of chess imagination is able to conceive of novel solutions to difficult problems while also being tethered to the realistic limitations of the situation on the board; imagination backfires in chess when it produces an unusual solution that turns out to permit a subtle but effective retort by the opponent.

The ability to precisely analyze tactics is essential for a chess player. Often, this involves sacrificing material. Even beginning chess players are familiar with the chart showing the relative point values of each chess unit, but the operative word here--the word misunderstood, if not ignored, by weak chess players--is "relative." Yes, a Queen's relative value is nine points while a Rook's relative value is five points, but if you can give up your Queen for a Rook to force checkmate then the relative values of those pieces are not as important as the absolute value of winning the game. Of course, many sacrifices do not lead to such a clear outcome--at least not in the short run--so the ability to not only calculate but also evaluate is critically important. Abrahams writes, "All that sacrifice signifies is that the player sees through the superficial values of the pieces to their functions. But these functions must be exactly and precisely followed. The player who bombards and tears his opponent's position open, regardless of the cannon fodder expended, is playing an inexact type of positional Chess, and not really combining. On the other hand, failing to combine when necessary is one instance of failure to analyze clearly" (p. 76).

Abrahams declares that chess is fundamentally "the clash of mind against mind. The creativity of the mind, actualized in the Chess struggle, is the factor ignored by those who are tempted to think that there is an objective strategy that enables players to avoid combinative disaster. Strategy, we shall see, exists, and is important; but the hard core of the game is tactical threat. Moreover, good Chess has to be played even in good positions" (p. 81). As Siegbert Tarrasch said, "It is not enough to be a good player; you must also play well."

Most chess players have often had the unpleasant experience of losing from a winning position. Abrahams writes (pp. 83-85):

Chess, it must be remembered, is combat. When the position appears static and solid, ideas, being appreciated, may reveal a breach.

When the battle is at its height, cleverness rather than logic is essential to avoid dangers as well as to exploit weaknesses.

And when the battle appears to be won, then mental effort is as necessary as ever. That the winning of won games can be harder than the gaining of the winning position is a truth only too well known to the majority of good players.

In the chapter titled "General Thinking,"Abrahams clarifies that it is true that there is a distinction between strategy and tactics but false--or, at the very least, inadequate--to assume that strategy and tactics can be considered entirely separate; a chess player who cannot think well strategically is lost at sea, while a chess player who cannot think well tactically may have a general concept of where he is trying to go, but he (or, at least, his King) is likely to be ambushed and killed before he gets there. He writes, "An appreciation of general factors gives confidence, gives a certain guidance to thoughts of attack and defense, but is never a substitute for the detailed treatment of the empirical problems of the game" (p. 105).

Chess is played by millions of people, but it is truly understood by only a select few. Abrahams notes that even those who are paid to cover the game often do not understand it very well (p. 135).

Chess reporters are usually wrong in their selection of diagrams. They choose the position in which the spectacular move was made. The spectacular move usually possesses only an aesthetic merit which is irrelevant to Chess, because it is for the spectator only--but the real merit and the real beauty usually lies in the moves that depend for their validity upon the eventual spectacular move. These, if an aesthetic attitude be adopted, are the moves that matter. Conversely, moves can be beautiful which depend on clever variations that are never actualized. If search be made in the scores of master Chess it will be found that many of the best melodies are unheard.

Great chess players combine tactical awareness with strategic judgment, but they also tend to display a preference for a particular style and/or certain kinds of positions. At lower levels, though, tactics assume a greater degree of importance; a devastating tactical shot can end a game immediately, like a boxer's knockout punch, and lower players are more apt to stumble into an opponent's haymaker than higher level players who both play more soundly from a positional sense and who are also more keenly aware of tactical possibilities. Precisely because great players have more tactical awareness the tactics in their games often are relegated to being unheard melodies.

Although it may not be obvious while watching amateurs play, the draw margin in chess is high: you have to make a serious mistake (or several smaller mistakes) to lose a chess game, which is why so many top level games are drawn. Abrahams declares, "When we find games that are won by the exploitation of infinitesimal advantages, then we are witnessing a manifestation of genius" (p. 172).

Abrahams correctly observes (p. 175) that at the highest levels "courage and caution," "energy and inertia," and "very great will-power" are essential for success. The ability to see many moves ahead and the ability to calculate accurately are important but not sufficient, because no one can see everything or calculate everything. Thus, the player's character, conditioning--mental, emotional, and physical--and temperament often determine the outcome of a game, a match, a tournament--and a career, for that matter. In this way, chess is a microcosm of life--it is not possible to see all futures or calculate all possible outcomes, so each of us chooses a path based on our character, our conditioning, and our temperament. Abrahams singles out will-power as the most important of these factors, asserting that lack of will-power can hold back a talented player while players who have great will-power often achieve more than might be expected when considering their apparent talent.

Abrahams notes that in chess luck only plays a role in terms of whether you receive the white or black pieces against a given player, or whether you face a particular player early in the tournament or late in the tournament (which can have implications not only in terms of fatigue, but also in terms of how peacefully inclined one or both players may be in light of the overall tournament standings). Within the confines of the 64 squares, luck does not exist: you control your forces, and you decide your fate.

Eugene Znosko-Borovsky famously asserted "Chess is a game of understanding and not of memory." Abrahams concurs, and he goes to some lengths to explain why a good memory may be helpful to a strong chess player but is far from essential. Abrahams defines three different kinds of memory (pp. 191-192):

The student should appreciate here that there is ambiguity in the word memory. The word is used to cover that full awareness of the present and immediate past which is essential to any complete vision. 'Memory' is also used to describe the recollection of the more distant past, after the mind has invoked its machinery of forgetting and recalling.

And there is a third meaning--very difficult to state exactly at the present stage of our knowledge of the physical constitution of the mind. That is the memory which is our knowledge of the meaning of words--the Chess player's knowledge of the moves of the pieces and of methods of play. These are remembered in the sense that they become habits of the mind.

Abrahams suggests that a chess player who has memorized a lot but understood little is similar to a person who has memorized works of literature without comprehending what those works mean; the latter may be able to recite such works, but he will not be able to write well, and similarly a chess player who has memorized move sequences or even entire games will not play well if that player lacks the ability to calculate tactics and understand strategic considerations.

However, it seems that most of the greatest players of all-time are gifted with fantastic, if not photographic, memories--including, but not limited to, World Champions Fischer, Kasparov, and Carlsen--so I suspect that there is a limit to how far one can go in chess without possessing at least a very good memory. Abrahams asserts that the best players are able to figure things out during a game using their imagination and understanding, but perhaps Abrahams is oversimplifying to prove his point, or perhaps this is a matter of semantics in terms of how to define memory: no great player is figuring out everything during a game as events happen, and every strong player I have ever met or learned about is equipped with basic knowledge/memory/recall of certain positions/structures (which, to be fair to Abrahams' evaluation of the role memory plays in chess, seems to fall into the third category of memory that Abrahams describes as "habits of the mind").

In an overly broad sense, it could be argued that anything that a person understands is to some extent a function of memory; taken to the extreme, if you cannot remember anything then how could you understand anything? It is not realistic to believe that someone who has poor recall can repeatedly figure out complicated things from scratch. No, a photographic memory is not required to be World Champion or even to be an Expert or a Master, but a strong memory is an asset for a chess player.

Abrahams presents some examples of memory without understanding leading players astray, including some Masters who trusted published analysis without verifying it and then lost in ignominious fashion--but here the fault lies not with memory but rather with judgment (or laziness): if the Master had checked the analysis before playing the moves and found that the analysis is flawed then he could have used his memory to good effect and remembered during the game to play something that works!

Abrahams' larger point about the importance of understanding compared to rote memorization is valid, though, and he perceptively describes the higher order memory that all strong chess players utilize. He writes (pp. 200-201):

But more important than the consciously recollected is that set of mental habits which smooths the action of the mind. This is the third kind of memory mentioned above--the memory which is a scholar's knowledge of a language; the equipment which enables him to use it without conscious effort.

In Chess, and in many sciences, one aspect of this kind of memory is Technique.

Technique is something difficult to define, existing as it does between objective vision and recollection of method. It is the more difficult to define because method itself is hard to describe in a game of Chess, where one sees, or does not see, a process by an intuitive act.

But just as the musician has methods of play which are consistent with objective reading of the score, so the Chess player has methods of carrying out particular tactical operations, like forcing a Pawn to the back row, which he does not require to think about when contemplating an approaching ending.

I would argue that it takes a good memory to cultivate the myriad "mental habits" necessary to play elite level chess. I watched a young Hikaru Nakamura almost instantly figure out an intricate endgame during an analysis session after a pair of quite strong players had spent a lot time without reaching a conclusion about the best play for both sides. Was this a feat of memory by Nakamura--specifically recalling something he had seen before--or was it a demonstration of his superior understanding? Even if one suggests that it was the latter and not the former, without a superb memory how would Nakamura call to mind so quickly the understanding of chess that he had cultivated? Semantics aside, some form of memory is at work here, and the majority of people who do not possess such memory will find it difficult, if not impossible, to attain Nakamura's level of chess understanding. The saying "game recognizes game" comes to mind, and I can speak from personal experience here in at least two realms: when you step on a basketball court, it does not take long to figure out if some of the players are just more gifted--physically and/or from a skill set standpoint--than others, and when you play chess against someone or analyze chess with someone it does not take long to figure out if that person is remembering more and/or understanding more than you are. I have experienced both sides of that situation in both realms. To deny the existence of inherent talent or to deny the importance of superior memory does not change the reality of talent or the importance of memory.

Throughout the book, Abrahams illustrates and illuminates his points with examples selected both from his games and from the games of elite Grandmasters, including World Champions Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Botvinnik. The Chess Mind was first published in 1951, with a subsequent edition appearing in 1960. The games section in the 1975 paperback edition (the version under review here) includes several post-1951 games, but--oddly--only one game by Bobby Fischer: his sparkling 1956 victory at the age of 13 over Donald Byrne, a prodigious work of art later dubbed "The Game of the Century."

Reading The Chess Mind will not only stimulate your thinking about the process of thinking while helping you become a better chess player, but it will enhance your appreciation of the beauty of chess, and remind you about--or, as the case may be, introduce you to--some of the most wonderful games played by some of the greatest chess players of all-time.

Authentic Home Run King Hank Aaron Passes Away

Hank Aaron, who is baseball's authentic all-time home run king despite what MLB's fraudulent record book says, has passed away at the age of 86. Aaron blasted 756 home runs during his 23 season career, breaking the record of 714 that had long been held by Babe Ruth. Aaron received a lot of racist hate mail as he approached Ruth's record, but Aaron's quiet, firm dignity never wavered. He began his MLB career shortly after Jackie Robinson integrated the sport, and he joined Robinson in not only overcoming racist obstacles placed in his path but also establishing himself as one of the greatest players of all-time. 

In addition to being the authentic home run champion, Aaron holds the official MLB career records for RBIs (2297), total bases (6856), and extra-base hits (1477). He ranks third in career hits (3771), third in career games played (3298), and fourth in career runs scored (2174).

Aaron won the National League MVP in 1957, the same year he led the Milwaukee Braves to a World Series title. He holds the MLB record for most seasons on an All-Star roster (21) and most All-Star Game selections (25); MLB played two All-Star Games during some years, so Aaron actually has more All-Star Game selections than career seasons played, and the only seasons during which he was not selected as an All-Star were his first (1954) and his last (1976). Aaron, a career .305 hitter, won two NL batting titles (1956, 1959), and he ranked in the top five in batting average 11 times.

Although Aaron never had a 50 home run season, he belted at least 40 home runs in eight different campaigns, tied for the second most such seasons all-time behind only Babe Ruth (11). Aaron led the NL in home runs four times (1957, 1963, 1966-67). Remarkably, in addition to his prodigious power hitting he also ranked in the NL's top ten in stolen bases eight times, including second in 1963 with a career high 31. Although he is not primarily known for defense, he earned three Gold Gloves (1958-60).

Aaron was not only consistently productive, but he was remarkably durable, playing in at least 150 games in 14 different seasons. He spent most of his career with the Braves franchise, first in Milwaukee (1954-1965) and then with Atlanta (1966-74), before returning to Milwaukee to spend two years in the American League as a designated hitter for the Brewers.

The biggest sports stars of the 1970s--including Julius Erving, Pete Maravich, Bjorn Borg, Mario Andretti, and Muhammad Ali--will always hold a special place in my heart, and Aaron is inextricably linked to the 1970s, even though his prime years were behind him by that time. I am not quite old enough to remember that fateful night in 1974 when Aaron broke Ruth's home run record, but when I watched Greatest Sports Legends or other vintage sports telecasts as a child I heard Milo Hamilton's famous call: "Here's the pitch by Downing. Swinging. There's a drive into left-center field. That ball is going to be out of here! IT'S GONE! IT'S 715! There's a new home run champion of all-time! And it's Henry Aaron!" That great moment was an early part of my introduction to sports, and an indelible memory.

It is also worth remembering what Vin Scully said at that time to place Aaron's accomplishment in historical perspective: "What a marvelous moment for baseball; what a marvelous moment for Atlanta and the state of Georgia; what a marvelous moment for the country and the world. A black man is getting a standing ovation in the Deep South for breaking a record of an all-time baseball idol. And it is a great moment for all of us, and particularly for Henry Aaron."

Hank Aaron lived the right way, played the right way, and he remains baseball's authentic home run king.

Lubomir Kavalek: Chess Champion, Author, Trainer, and Organizer

Grandmaster Lubomir Kavalek, one of the top 10 chess players in the world during the 1970s, has passed away at the age of 77. During his long and distinguished career he not only played at an elite level, but he also served as Bobby Fischer's unofficial second during the 1972 World Chess Championship, he trained many champions, he wrote hundreds of chess columns, and he organized tournaments.

Kavalek's chess career lasted for several decades. If you came of age as a chess player in the 1970s, then you remember Lubomir Kavalek as one of America's top players. If you came of age as a chess player in the 1980s, then you remember Lubomir Kavalek as a top trainer and organizer. If you came of age as a chess player in the 1990s or 2000s, then you remember Lubomir Kavalek as a chess writer who called a young Magnus Carlsen the "Mozart of Chess":

Kavalek left a deep imprint on chess history. Grandmaster Andy Soltis has said that if Kavalek had done nothing other than win his spectacular 1962 Student Olympiad game against Eduard Gufeld then Kavalek would still always be remembered. That game is remarkable--Kavalek's three passed pawns prevailed against Gufeld's Rook--but Kavalek was just 18 when he played that game, with a tremendous future in front of him.

Kavalek won the Czech national championship twice in the 1960s before defecting to the United States. After Fischer abandoned the tournament scene, Kavalek and Walter Browne emerged as America's top two players. Kavalek won two U.S. titles during the 1970s (and lost a playoff for a third title), while Browne won three U.S. titles during the 1970s (and three more during the 1980s). During that period, Kavalek and Browne battled--along with Robert Byrne and Larry Evans--to be the top ranked U.S. player on the FIDE (International Chess Federation) list, and on at least one occasion (January 1975) Browne and Kavalek were listed right next to each other, separated by just five rating points, behind Fischer (who was still listed even though he had not played since winning the World Championship in 1972) and Byrne. In January 1979, Kavalek ranked first and Browne second among U.S. players on the FIDE list. 

Kavalek organized the 1979 Montreal Tournament of the Stars, one of the strongest chess tournaments ever held. He also played in the event, starting off poorly with 1.5/9 but rallying to score 6.5/9 in the second half. Kavalek later said this was his best tournament performance. World Champion Anatoly Karpov and former World Champion Mikhail Tal shared first place.

Kavalek transitioned from being an active player to being a chess author, trainer, and organizer/promoter. He wrote a chess column for The Washington Post from 1995-2010, and then he wrote a chess column for The Huffington Post. Kavalek's chess writing sparkled with interesting analogies--in one column, he discussed similarities between the "baseline" styles of Bjorn Borg and Magnus Carlsen--in depth game analysis, and thoughtful musings about ways in which chess is both an art and a violent sport 

Kavalek understood that chess is much more than a game or a pastime. He declared, "Just to think about it as a game is degrading. It has certain elements of science and art and some competitive elements that have even to do with sport. It tests your imagination; it tests a lot of things. Sometimes it is not all pleasure. Sometimes you suffer."

Kavalek participated in nine Chess Olympiads--two while representing Czechoslovakia and seven while representing the United States--and he was a member of Team USA's gold medal winning 1976 squad. He was inducted in the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame in 2001.

Chiefs and Browns Demonstrate That Football Really is a Game of Inches

"The inches we need are everywhere around us."-- Coach Tony D'Amato in "Any Given Sunday"

It is often said that football is a game of inches, and the truth inherent in that cliche was vividly illustrated during a few key plays as the Super Bowl Champion Kansas City Chiefs defeated the Cleveland Browns 22-17 to advance to the AFC Championship Game for the third straight season.

The Browns were trying to maintain the momentum from last week's dominating road win in Pittsburgh, the franchise's first road playoff win since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970, but most analysts did not expect this matchup to be competitive. The Chiefs stormed to a 19-3 halftime lead, but the Browns were just inches away from trailing only 16-10 prior to intermission. 

Rashard Higgins led the Browns with 88 receiving yards on five catches (Jarvis Landry led the Browns with seven receptions, but he gained only 20 yards on those plays), and he had two catches for 48 yards on back to back plays near the end of the first half. After the second of those catches, Higgins dove for the right endzone pylon but he lost control of the ball, resulting in a touchback for the Chiefs. Kansas City's Daniel Sorensen delivered an illegal--but uncalled--helmet to helmet hit on Higgins that should have nullified the fumble and placed the Browns just inches away from tying the game with a touchdown and successful extra point. Instead, the Chiefs quickly drove for a field goal to extend their lead to 19-3. After the game, Cleveland Coach Kevin Stefanski praised Higgins' determination to score but also pointedly noted that he coaches his players to not extend the ball at the goal line precisely because of the high risk nature of such a play. CBS' Bill Cowher suggested that the NFL rule regarding an offensive player fumbling the ball into the endzone is overly punitive to the offensive team, and he suggested that the offense should receive the ball at the 20 yard line instead of the defense being granted a touchback. Cowher's colleague Boomer Esiason noted that it is a flaw in the NFL replay rules that Sorenson's dangerous and illegal helmet to helmet hit is not reviewable (replay review is only available for calls that are made, not missed calls).

The Browns proved their resiliency by fighting back in the second half and creating opportunities to win the game. The second half started disastrously as Baker Mayfield threw an interception deep in Cleveland territory, but the Browns held the Chiefs to an unsuccessful field goal attempt. The Browns then drove 77 yards in eight plays for a Landry touchdown reception. 

Former MVP and former Super Bowl MVP Patrick Mahomes left the game at the 7:27 mark of the third quarter with a possible concussion. He passed for 255 yards and one touchdown with no interceptions while completing 21 of 30 attempts. The Chiefs' drive stalled after journeyman Chad Henne replaced Mahomes, and they settled for a field goal--their final points of the game.

The Browns responded with an 18 play, 75 yard drive that lasted 8:17, included two fourth down conversions, and culminated in a three yard touchdown run by ex-Chief Kareem Hunt. The Chiefs led 22-17 with 11:07 remaining in the fourth quarter, and they had to navigate the closing moments without Mahomes, who could not return to action due to the NFL's concussion protocols.

On Kansas City's next possession, Henne threw an interception in the endzone, and the Browns started their drive at their 20 yard line with 8:00 left. The Browns converted a fourth and one to retain possession but, facing fourth and nine at their 32 with 4:19 left, they punted the ball, and they never ran another offensive play. Perhaps they were counting on being able to stop the Chiefs' Henne-led offense, but the Browns had already burned two timeouts and the best case realistic scenario after punting would have been along the lines of needing to drive 70 or 80 yards for a touchdown with about two minutes left and no timeouts. It would be interesting to know the odds of accomplishing that feat compared to the odds of converting fourth down and nine yards to go; I am sure that the odds are against both, but I suspect that the statistics would show that going for it on fourth down is a valid choice in that scenario. 

Henne led the Chiefs to a first down, forcing the Browns to use their final timeout. The Browns sacked Henne for a six yard loss on second and eight. On third and 14, Henne rushed for 13 yards, placing the Chiefs just inches away from a game-clinching first down. Now, the Chiefs faced the punt or go for it decision on fourth and one in their own territory. After the game, Chiefs Coach Andy Reid said that there was no doubt--at least on his sideline--that the Chiefs would go for it. Henne's short pass to Tyreek Hill netted five yards, and enabled the Chiefs to run out the clock. Henne finished 6-8 for 66 yards, no touchdowns, and one interception. Officially, he had two rushes for 12 yards, but the second carry was a game-ending kneeldown in victory formation. 

The heavily-favored Chiefs won by just five points, but what if Higgins had not fumbled out of the endzone or what if a targeting penalty had correctly been called against Kansas City on that play? What if the Browns had gone for it on fourth down late in the fourth quarter instead of punting the ball away? What if the Chiefs had not converted on fourth and one, giving the Browns the ball less than 50 yards away from being able to score the potentially winning touchdown? Of course, Chiefs fans may wonder what might have happened had Mahomes not been injured, but the game seemed to be heading toward a close finish either way, as the Browns proved during the second half that they could move the ball and score touchdowns. The teams combined to run 123 plays from scrimmage, and a few inches here or there on a handful of those plays could have changed the outcome. 

Losing close playoff games is nothing new to the Browns, whose fans have labeled many of those painful defeats with memorable names: Red Right 88, The Drive, The Fumble. The Browns' previous playoff loss, to Pittsburgh in 2003, came after Dennis Northcutt dropped a third down pass when a first down would have enabled the Browns to run out the clock on their division rivals. The Browns, after being pro football's dominant team in the 1940s (four AAFC titles in four seasons) and early 1950s (three titles and six straight championship game appearances to open the decade), have created an unfortunate organizational identity of being a team that consistently fails to find the inches that are everywhere around them. Browns fans can only hope that the 2020 season is the start of a new trend that will result in at least one Super Bowl win, as opposed to a continuation of decades of heartbreak.

The Chiefs are just the second NFL team to host three straight conference championship games. The first team to accomplish this was the Philadelphia Eagles, who hosted three consecutive NFC Championship Games from 2002-04 under the direction of Andy Reid. Reid's Eagles lost two of those NFC Championship Games, and they lost in the Super Bowl after winning the 2004 NFC Championship Game. Prior to arriving in Kansas City, Reid had a long history of losing in championship games, posting an 0-1 Super Bowl record and a 1-4 NFC Championship Game record, but he won his first AFC title and first Super Bowl last year, and he is now two victories away from becoming just the seventh coach to win back to back Super Bowls.

Browns Shock Steelers, Post First Road Playoff Win Since 1969

Due to COVID-19 protocols, the Cleveland Browns traveled to Pittsburgh without their head coach, their offensive line coach, and several players. Pittsburgh has been a house of horror for the Browns for the better part of the past 50 years, and there was little reason to believe that this would change during Sunday night's Wild Card playoff game--but the Browns' defense recovered a botched snap and scored on the first play from scrimmage en route to the Browns taking a 28-0 first quarter lead as the Browns tied the NFL playoff record for points in a first quarter. The Browns withstood Pittsburgh's second half rally to prevail 48-37. 

That is the third most points the Browns have scored in a playoff game, trailing only their 49-7 win over Buffalo in the 1948 All-America Football Conference (AAFC) Championship Game, and their 56-10 win over Detroit in the 1954 NFL Championship Game. 

Baker Mayfield earned a win in his first playoff start, completing 23 of 34 passes for 263 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions. Ben Roethlisberger set an NFL single-game record (including regular season and playoff games) with 47 completions (in 68 attempts, a playoff single-game record) and he amassed 501 passing yards (second most in playoff history, trailing only a 505 yard performance by Tom Brady in Super Bowl LII) plus four touchdowns but he also had four interceptions. Mayfield's passer rating was a sizzling 115.5, while Roethlisberger's was 85.5. The Steelers ran more offensive plays than the Browns (84-65) and gained more yards (553-390), but the Steelers also had five turnovers while the Browns had no turnovers.

The Browns' last playoff win was a victory over New England in January 1995. Bill Belichick coached in that game--but for the Browns, not for the Patriots! The Browns' last road playoff win came in Dallas in 1969. Since that game, the Browns had lost eight consecutive road playoff games, with the two most recent losses--"recent" being a relative term here, since those "recent" losses happened in 2003 and 1995--both inflicted by the Steelers.  

The last time the Browns posted a plus-.500 regular season record was 2007, when Cleveland briefly became "Believeland" in the wake of strong performances by the Cavaliers, Indians, and Browns, but the "Believeland" joy did not last long: LeBron James soon quit during the playoffs before fleeing Cleveland for Miami (though he later returned to Cleveland and led the Cavaliers to the 2016 NBA title), the Indians did not win another division title for nine years, and the clock struck midnight after the 2007 season as the Cinderella Browns resumed being the sad-sack Browns. 

Just four years ago, the Browns narrowly averted posting an 0-16 season before finishing 1-15--and then they went 0-16 in the next season, forever placing themselves on the short list of worst teams ever. The NFL is built to produce parity, and Bill Walsh explained many years ago that a properly run franchise can go from the basement to the penthouse in three years. Thus, it is inexcusable that the Browns were so terrible for so long, but it is a good sign that the current regime has built a strong playoff squad so soon after the Browns' winless season.

These are not the same old sorry Browns, contrary to JuJu Smith-Schuster's attempt to revive (more or less) what the 49ers once said about the "same old" Rams--of course, the 49ers had the good sense to wait to make that comment until after the outcome was certain to be in their favor, while Smith-Schuster opened his mouth prior to Sunday's playoff game to write a check that his team could not cash. 

The Browns will deservedly be heavy underdogs next week when they travel to Kansas City to battle the defending Super Bowl champions but--regardless of the outcome of that game--these Browns should be a playoff team for the next several years. Mayfield seems to have that hard to define but easy to see "it" factor; he not only has the physical tools to get the job done--including a powerful arm and excellent mobility--but he has emerged as a fiery and determined leader for this young team. In addition, this season the running back duo Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt powered the Browns' most prolific rushing attack since the Leroy Kelly era, Jarvis Landry is the veteran leader of a very good receiving corps, Myles Garrett has emerged as an elite pass rusher, and the offensive line is not only talented but deep (as demonstrated in the Pittsburgh win after a combination of COVID-19 protocols plus in-game injuries decimated the unit to the point that Mayfield was playing behind at least one player who he had not even met until just before the game started!). "Believeland" was a mirage that briefly appeared during a two decade desert exile, but the Browns' victory over the Steelers is real, and there is good reason to believe that it is the start of something big for the team's long-suffering fans.