Samuraipawn asked the following question:
I don't know if you've mentioned this before, but I often find that two positional ideas clash in the same position and you're then left to make a choice. Let me give you an example: According to Silman you're supposed to play on the side of the board where you have the most space. Let's say it's the kingside. The problem arises when you realise that it's the opponents queenside that is weak. So where do you choose to play?
That is a very good question. Since there is no concrete position given, the answer will be somewhat abstract. What I tried to formulate in my previous post is the cohesion of moves. My goal is to become rule independent.
When two rules collide, you have to think for yourself. In the example above it is of course madness to attack where your opponent is strong (rule 1), albeit your space advantage. On the other hand, it is madness to attack on the queenside where you haven't enough space (rule 2). So logically you shouldn't attack. But in fact this tells you what you must do. If you can do a feigned attack on the queenside, without committing yourself, you might be able to deflect some pieces from the kingside to the queenside, after which you might be able to attack the kingside.
(Rule 3, principle of attacking 2 weaknesses. Rule 4, According Nimzowitsch the amateur must learn to do nothing. That is to say, to do just moves that aren't attacking nor defensive, but that make your position more viable. Oh no! Not more rules!!)
So the answer is, use your common sense. You can only supersede rules by common sense if you comprehend the idea behind the rule. What the rule intends to accomplish and why. How the rules are intertwined.
I find the analogy with warfare usually very clarifying, with mobilisation, frontlines, bridge heads, supply lines, feigned attacks, defenders, Alekhines guns etc..
That's why I try to paint the big picture. (Too lazy to learn the rules:)
What It Takes
18 hours ago