The Discipline of Returning
In this piece
I had a winning position against a grandmaster at the Karen Asrian Memorial Tournament.
I knew I was better. That knowledge made the position harder to play. I pushed 24…g5, tried to calculate every consequence, and overlooked my opponent’s reply. The quiet 24…Rf6 increased the pressure and kept the win simple.
The mistake was visible almost immediately. I had tried to force the game because my opponent was a grandmaster, when the position needed patience. Later, I had other winning chances that I could have found on an ordinary day. Over the board, I could not see them. Panic had taken over the calculation.
I should have won that game. Against a different opponent, I might have played the position more freely. The loss hurt, but the game was still going. There were pieces on the board, time on the clock, and decisions left to make.
I kept returning to one thought:
I should have seen it.
Instead of examining the board, I replayed 24…g5. I argued with a position that no longer existed. The first mistake had happened; my attention was now making another.
The question was no longer how I could undo the move. It was this:
How do I remember a mistake without letting it make the next decision?
The Second Arrow
An early Buddhist discourse describes pain through the image of two arrows. In Saṁyutta Nikāya 36.6, an untrained person feels pain and then adds distress to it. The discourse compares this experience to being struck by one arrow and then another.
I am examining one image from a much larger tradition. The first arrow helps me name what happened. The second helps me notice what my mind adds.
A chess blunder or a production bug can carry real consequences. Those consequences are the first arrow. The second arrives through thoughts such as:
I made a mistake, therefore I am not good enough.
I should already be beyond this.
I need to recover immediately.
The event may last a few seconds. The reaction can occupy the next hour. In my game, losing the advantage hurt. Replaying the loss while the clock ran made the remaining position harder to play.
The image does not ask me to deny pain. It asks me to see which part has already happened and which part I am still producing.
Remembering Without Inhabiting
Memory is necessary. A chess player should find why a move failed. An engineer should examine the assumptions behind an incident. Someone who caused harm should acknowledge it and make what repairs are possible.
The trouble starts when memory becomes a verdict about identity. “That decision produced a bad result” contains information. “That result reveals what I am” demands a defense.
Once I begin defending an identity, my questions change. I stop asking what I overlooked and start asking how to prove that I am still competent. I hide the mistake, rush the recovery, or reject help. Attention leaves the position and circles around me.
I have written before about choosing verbs over nouns. The same choice matters after failure. “I made a poor decision” leaves room to examine and act. “I am a failure” turns one result into a permanent category.
The distinction gives responsibility somewhere useful to go.
Return to What Is Available
“Let go of the past” sounds like an instruction to forget. Returning asks for something more concrete: notice where attention has gone, then place it back on what can still be observed and done.
During a chess game, I can look at the board again:
- What is threatened?
- Which pieces remain active?
- What option have I missed?
- What does this position require?
During an incident, I can return to the system:
- Can we reproduce the failure?
- What do the logs show?
- Which assumption has evidence behind it?
- What is the smallest safe action now?
Part 1 describes how a debrief carries the lesson into the next pass. This entry stays with the moment before that analysis, when attention must first return from regret to the available facts.
Returning is an active skill because attention rarely stays put. The blunder and the shame come back, and the mind resumes its argument with the past. Progress means noticing sooner and returning again.
Responsibility Without Self-Punishment
Avoiding the second arrow cannot become an excuse. “I am not my mistake” means little if I refuse to examine the harm.
Responsibility looks outward at what happened, who was affected, and what should change. Self-condemnation turns attention inward, toward what the event proves about me and how long I should feel bad.
Releasing the identity can make honesty easier. I have less to protect when I say:
I was wrong.
I did not understand the risk.
I need help.
I will approach this differently next time.
Shame can feel rigorous because it hurts. Pain, however, is not evidence that I have understood the cause or repaired the damage. Accountability appears in the action that follows.
A Three-Part Return
After a mistake, I separate three things on paper:
- Event: What happened, stated without a judgment about my character?
- Reaction: What thought, fear, or demand am I adding now?
- Present: What action remains available?
Writing the reaction separately matters. A thought can be present without becoming an instruction. “I need to recover immediately” may still appear, but placing it under Reaction lets me examine it before I sacrifice another piece or rush another deployment.
The event may need investigation, and the reaction may need time to settle. The available action may be small: stop, ask for another perspective, apologize, or avoid making the situation worse.
I use the exercise to keep an unexamined reaction from choosing what happens next.
Later in the same game, I had another winning position:
The simple 31…h2 takes the square before White’s bishop can reach it and keeps the pressure on. I had seen the plan with …Ne7, …Nf5, and …Ng3. Under time pressure, I played 31…Ne7 first. White answered Bh2, took the square, and stopped the idea.
I still had …Rxa2 and practical winning chances. I could no longer see the board clearly. The first mistake was still running through my head, so I read threats that were not there and blundered again. I lost this game, then carried it into the next one.
I needed a way to improve that did more than explain the loss. The practice in this article gives me one: name the event, separate the reaction, and return to the decision still available.
The first arrow had landed. My next move did not have to fire the second.
Filed under
Explore this subject