In an attempt to place the white pieces as active as possible, I came up with a Colle-Zukertort system-like structure. So I fired up 15 cc-games with 1.d4 to test it. I have never played 1.d4 before so it will be interesting anyway. I feel to be on another planet.
The Colle-Zukertort system is frowned upon by higher rated players since is is unambitious for white. It is interesting of course to see why a theoretical active placement of the pieces is known as a passive setup. That must have something to do with the fact that I have only taken my own pieces into account.
Further I like to introduce the term relative piece activity, which indicates my piece activity in comparison to the activity of the enemy pieces. If I talk in the future about piece activity, I mean this relative piece activity.
Next to piece activity I introduced the term steerability of a game lately.
An open game leads to tactical opportunities for both sides. This makes it difficult to steer it in the direction you want. I want to find out if a closed game increases the steerability of the game. So if black chooses to answer 1.d4 with the Kings Indian Defense, I intend to answer with the Petrosian variant of the classical mainline. That often leads to a closed center.
To be clear: I don't have a preference for the systems I describe here. I just think about these things and try to verify in practice what I have found. I have no opinion beforehand, I will not be disappointed if it proves to be a dead end. If a gambit proves to be the best way to increase the relative activity of my pieces then it is fine with me too.
What I try to accomplish is to escape from the dictatorship of the variants. Which means that I want to steer the viarants in stead of that the variants are steering me. As is the case usually now.
Levers: Instructive Positional Errors
9 hours ago