Temposchlucker

Yesterday I played my first two games in the regional championship. Although I only won the second game, I'm still pleased with my play. My first game was against the Caro-Kan (1866). I outplayed my opponent in the opening and the middlegame. I gained a healthy pawn and had the initiative (Rybka scored it +2.5) but I adopted the wrong plan by trying to trade off to the endgame in stead of picking up another pawn and to continue the attack. Although Rybka still scored my position +1.1 I managed to find another faulty plan so my advantage dissipated. In time trouble I couldn't hold the draw so I managed to lose. Bill and Marty are quite right in their comments on my post lately . I'm overly focussed on tactics in a position. That's not due to personal preference but to lack of other subjects of focus. Maybe that has something to do with the rigorous tactics training the past few years:) The good news is that it is a problem that is easy to fix since it is due to a lack o

Even after only a few lines of My System (Hattip Blue Devil and Christian) the paradox between piece activity and moving center pawns is solved. As Nimzowitch says, a pawnless development would be preferable. The problem with that is that your pieces can easily be chased away by enemy pawns . With control over the center you create secure homes for your pieces. He compares development with the mobilization of troups during a war. A single pawn at e4 already makes c3, d3, e3 and f3 a secure home. As he states it, during development only pawnmoves in relation to securing the center are appropriate. I like the book very much and I'm going to read it from cover to cover. I have accumulated so much questions in the previous months, that I hope I can get a lot of answers from it. The first pages that I read are literally packed with information already. I don't like the book of James Watson. Basically he says that in occuring positions concrete analysis supersedes general rules. The

Today I finished The Art Of Attack by Vukovic. I decided to analyze my latest games again in order to see if I'm on the right track with my study. One of the questions I wanted to have answered was "Since I did a lot of simple tactics and it didn't help me to get better at complex tactics I dismissed it as not usefull. But if I do the simple tactics with the aid of narratives, will it then help me to get better at complex tactics?" So I did a few simple tactics with the aid of narratives and I started to analyze my latest games to get a feeling if I could solve the problems in my game by means of such study. I clearly got the feeling that that is not sufficient. But I made another discovery. This is a crucial position in one of my games. Black (me) to move and not lose. This is a complex middlegame position, and there are a lot of tactical things going on. But I don't know if there is a win . So I gambled on Nh5. IF I can't calculate this position until quiesc

After playing for years opportunistic moves as a headless chicken in reaction to what happens to be on the board accidentally, finally some structure in the game emerges. The resemblance to war is striking! The structure that I discovered in winning complex middlegame positions is as follows. A primary front is set up against the enemy king ( gamma ). Since the king position can be defended, this is usually not enough. In stead of trying to press thru anyway, it is better to setup a second front at another part of the board ( bhèta ). The idea is to deflect the defenders of the king position by luring them into the defense of the invasion square that forms the second front. The preliminary struggles with the other defenders of the invasion square at the second front is called plan alpha . Any problem I'm studying at the moment obeys this scheme. Sometimes plan alpha isn't necessary, or both alpha and bhèta are missing. But then still gamma remains. It is all very logical. This

The book Art of attack from Vladimir Vukovic almost entirely covers the theory of plan gamma. So in stead of thinking for myself I decided to make a study of the book. Well, some thinking for myself remains, since the book has a tendency to formulate matters a bit too abstract, while the given examples are too concrete. The translation of both to a pragmatic approach is still work the reader has to do for himself. But it's a good start. I'm very happy how a lot of pieces of the puzzle fall together. All positional play in the middlegame is geared around piece activity , which has as its goal invasion , which has as its goal to mate the enemy king . There are two holes in the story, the opening and and the endgame. The endgame. The book Secrets of chess endgame strategy of Lars Bo Hansen covers this stage very well and gives you the clues about the do's and don'ts in the middlegame in order to get an endgame with fighting chances. I haven't studied the book thoroug

Finally a narrative. It took me 14 days to formulate a narrative of the position of my last post that meets my standards, but finally I succeeded. I now have a consistent story and I trust that I can reproduce it over a few years within 15 minutes or so when I look at the same position again. It really simplifies the position. Pfewww. Tournament. Even the study of only one position gives me an abundance of insight. Will it bear fruit? That remains to be seen. I signed up for the regional championship, which consists of 9 games over 5 saturdays over 5 months. Starting next saturday. Effect of study. My latest club game showed me again that there is always a moment in my games that the complexity grows over my head. I never noticed that before, but that is the function of study, it raises questions, and questions trigger observations during the game. When the game becomes too complex, I just gamble. One effect of my study is that when I have to choose between an active continuation or a

The same position as before but now solved with backwards thinking. View from defender You start with identifying the invasion squares. That are the targets you intend to attack. a2 is already under atack by the queen, e4 is under attack by the B, R and N. Look at the defenders of those targets too. If you think backwards, you imagine the previous targets c3 and c5: View from attacker. On c3 stands as target an overloaded knight with such important function (protecting a2) that is has a high value, on c5 the queen with a high value too. So that are natural targets for a black knight on e4. A black knight would be taken off the board immediately by the white knight on g3, which has its target square on e4. View from defender. This shows that the knight on g3 is the piece that spoils the party. So you have to look for ways to deflect that knight first. View from attacker. If you take with the rook on e4 first you deflect the knight on g3 since you have some serious threats. The targets o

After thinking long and hard and after trying different options there is only one thing I can think of as an attempt to solve the problem I formulated in my previous post . And that is to develop the art of backwards thinking to the max. The method of backwards thinking starts with the recognition of characteristics . In the case of plan bhèta I'm talking of how you can recognize the characteristics of the crucial invasion squares . Once you know the characteristics of plan bhèta you have to find a plan alpha. This plan alpha can be composed of every tactical motif or combination of motifs around. These tactical motifs have their own characteristics. When it concerns a duplo-attack there are two targets around which you want to attack with one manoeuvre. A target can be a piece or a square. It shouldn't come as a surpise to you that we are talking about invasion squares. You can have one or to attackers. The targets can be on the same line or not etc.. When you have to learn t

In the previous post s you could see my initial struggles with the matter. High time to formulate what the real problem is. If we find an answer to this problem, we have found what seperates the masters from the amateurs, the men from the boys. The idea's about invasion squares are already pretty familiar to me since I've been thinking about them for months. The idea's are already crystallized to a certain degree. I realize that this subject is new to the readers of my blog. What I now want to talk about is new to me too. This means that my thoughts haven't crystallized yet. That will it make it even harder to you to follow me. I hope you will bear with me. You will find much overlap with previous posts too. I encountered the problem for the first time to the full extent in a position you are already familiar with: Black to move and win. For 12 days in a row I'm struggling with this position. I have written down the total tree of variations with moves that weren'

From time to time during my blog "career" readers gave comments like "we have to agree we disagree", "success with your approach", "good for you!" or "it obviously works fine for you". Now I see that at such moments my rantings have gone too far and that it's time to elaborate on the topics at hand. Today is such moment. My plan is to reformulate my idea's in the hope it becomes more clear. At the end I will go thru some specific questions of Blue Devil to see if they are covered by my essay. What I try to accomplish. Usually the positions in my games arise by accident, as far as I'm concerned. In order to give my games some direction, I try to formulate a general scheme of a game. If I will be able to play according that scheme is a different matter. From time to time I'm filling in a piece of the total chesspuzzle. Today I will try to formulate how a specific found piece fits in the total framework. It is meant to help

Blue Devil gave us his abridged version of his chess thinking process : 1. Find candidate moves that generate threats and piece activity. 2. Play the candidate with the best consequences. I commented the following: This is what I used to do. But it is too meagre for complex positions. Actually I hated myself for stressing the obvious again. Reply from Blue Devil: Tempo: what aspects of a complex (middlegame) position doesn't it cover? At first I thought he was joking. But after a few hours I asked myself "what if he's not?". Is there a chance, after talking for months about exactly this very same subject, that there is someone out there who doesn't see the obvious? As Sherlock Holmes put it, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable , must be the truth?". After all, this is not the kind of joke Blue usually makes. Since I never want to miss a chance to repeat myself I assume that, h

This is about the 10th day that I look at the same position. I have trouble to come any further. With the list of 3 items (invasion, overloading counterattack) it is possible to find out the goal towards you have to work. But the problem is how to reach that goal and especially which move order is best? This is where actual calculation comes in. When I try to calculate the moves the problem is that I try to accomplish 3 things at the same time. I calculate my own attack with my opponent's possible responses, I calculate the counterattack of my opponent with my possible responses and I try to do the bookkeeping to see if I'm actually ahead or behind in material. This is too much for my poor short term memory and I simply paralyze. Your comments on my previous post are helpful. Montse pointed out that it is all about threats, and he is right. But how can I simplify these 3 tasks (my attack, his counterattack, bookkeeping) I try to accomplish? Finding an answer would mean a qu

I have taken a closer look at my "chess intuition". In the position below I dismissed the move 1. ... Bxe4 because I had the feeling "that can't be good". Black to move and win. My 3 points analysis: Invasion squares: e4 and a2 Overworked piece: Nc3 defending e4, e2 and a2 Possible counter attacks by: Rg1 and Bd3 I tried to formulate where that feeling that 1. ... Bxe4 was bad stemmed from. This was approximately what I came up with: Since the threat is stronger than the execution, I must not take away the threat of the bishop by trading it. That is pretty vague, but we are talking about feelings here. When I started to analize the move, I could proof that the move 1.Bxe4 was bad indeed, but for a different reason! The point is that after 1. ... Bxe4 2.Nxe4 Nxe4 3.Rxg7+! white has a decisive counter attack. For instance 3. ... Kxg7 4.Qe3 attacking h6 and pinning Ne4 This counterattack never crossed my mind when "intuitively" dismissing 1. ... Bxe4.

Yesterday I lost my game from a 1980 opponent. The way how is for me the proof that I'm on the right track when I say that lack of calculation ability in complex positions is my main weakness. If I was asked, I would guess that from the 800 points my rating differs from that of a grandmaster, 500-600 points are caused by lack of this skill. But nobody asks. This was the position where I did find the losing move: Black to move and lose. Untill now black is slightly better. But with the move Nxg3 (instead of dxe4) I manage to give the game away. I was simply unable to calculate all the intricacies of the the position. So in fact Nxg3 was a gamble. Because the clock was ticking, and I had to make a move anyhow. For me the position was quite unclear. When I talked with my opponent afterwards, he said that he immediately knew that move can't be good . That remembered me at the comment of anonymous on my previous post , who asked me why is 1.Bxe4 not good in the position that I repe

Now the path is clearly defined it is just a matter of walking along. I have been busy installing a homenetwork so Margriet has access to internet again. Though that shouldn't be much of a problem, it took me 5 days to solve all the associated problems like malfunctioning networkcards, incompatible drivers etc.(plug and pray). This is the position that is on my chessboard during that time. Black to move and win. It revolves around the invasion squares e4 and a2 (of course!:) The knight at c3 is overworked, it has to defend both e4 and a2. This is a typical position where the moves are rather obvious, but the move order is the difficult part. Right now I'm trying to formulate a narrative why 1.Rxe4 is better than 1.Nxe4. Since this kind of move order problems is extremely common, it's worthwhile to invest a considerable amount of time in it. Tonight the new clubyear starts, let's see if I made some progress.

Update: I have just replaced the word motive with motif in all my posts. Hattip to Blue Devil. After gathering a lot of new information lately, it is time to attempt to hang everything in the right place. I have investigated 83 complex tactical positions and in 100% of the cases an invasion square was involved. A stepping stone from which you can cause mayhem in the enemy lines once you penetrate. Of course there are tactical positions where the invasion square doesn't play a role. Those positions are called simple tactical positions:) Balance of attackers and defenders. The essence of a complex tactical position is the battle for the invasion square. Each invasion square has attackers and defenders. The attacker tries to disturb the balance between the attackers and the defenders. He can work on the defenders or on the attackers. Sometimes both. The value of the defenders compared to the value of the attackers plays an important role. Working on the defenders. In order to dimi