Finishing the stategy module

Today I finished the third and last strategy module of PCT, before the end of the year as I intended. They had a little "surprise" for me in store since their latest units all existed of 30-60 problems while the last unit contained 240 problems!
Since it were all familiar problems, I had a chance to take a good look at the retrieval of the answers. This is my experience:

• Scanning. The eyes scan around the board and testmoves are executed before the minds eye. The eyes always follow the same route at every repetition of a problem. The same moves are tried, the same errors are made. Only from time to time, usual after more repetitions, some flaws in the route are corrected, some unnecessary eye movements are eliminated. Time 0-30 seconds
  
• Pattern recognition. All of a sudden a part of a geometrical pattern is recognized. Time less than 1 second.
  
• Retrieval of associations. Immediately the whole pattern is retrieved, along with all associated thoughts, idea's and patterns. Time under 3 seconds.
  
• Reconstruction. The mind starts to reconstruct a textual narrative and other associations. This seems to be at least partial a conscious process. It is rather slow. Time 3-10 seconds.
  
• Verification. This is a conscious process. Check of the position indeed is what you think it is or only a lookalike with a different clue. Time 10-30 seconds.
• Confirmation. If the verification is positive, an emotion arises indicating "this is the right move". Time to arise less than 1 second, but the feeling can last some time.

There are 3 topics I like to comment on:

Big plan vs little plan.
PCT typically provides little plans, that can be summarized in a narrative of one or two sentences. Big plans are made by backwards thinking or what does this piece want for Christmass? I don't think that the creation of big plans is very viable in OTB situations. There simply isn't enough time for such time consuming conscious process. Big plans are necessary for analysis during study. But the derived conclusions must be converted into little plans for OTB usage. So big plans for the study room, little plans for OTB.

Conscious vs unconscious.
Both reconstruction and verification are at least partly conscious processes. I'm not convinced that the conscious part is necessary during the training process. But I'm addicted to control.

Necessity of narratives.
These textual associations play an important role in both storage and retrieval. It helped me tremendous. It distincts the different positions and ideas from each other. Little positional plans are easy to catch in narratives. But I'm convinced they play a crucial role in tactical problems too.

Pawnstructure and piece activity

This is going to be a weird post. Because I want to find out some chess fundamentals I take matters to the extreme. I don't care that some positions aren't even possible in a game. I take Rybka as the final judge of every position. Which is questionable but as close to objectivity as I can get.

Diagram A






















White to move

The pawnstructure is symmetrical. If there were no bishops Rybka would score it 0.00 in the end. No advantage from the pawnstructure alone exists. I experiment with extreme piece placement in order to get some insight in the influence of pawnstructure on piece activity. In the position above Rybka scores +0.12 for white. Indicating that the pawnstructure has about equal influence on both bishops, no matter their initial placement. If I use bishops of different color makes no difference too, no matter where I place them. If it was black to move in the position above it would score -0.10 for black, suggesting some hindrance of black's bishop. The figures are very marginal and posibly near to zero if you let Rybka calculate long enough.

Diagram B






















White to move

Rybka scores this as +1.09 for white. If it was black to move Rybka scores it -0.40 for black.
This indicates that two items play a role:

• The existance of weaknesses (targets)
• The tempos needed to conquer them

In the position above the weaknesses are b2 and b7, but white has immediate access while black must play his bishop to f4-c1 first, spoiling two tempos. This leads to the following conclusion:

Piece activity is only relevant in relation to targets. Without targets pieces are going nowhere, no matter how mobile they are.

The fact that this obvious law dwelled in obscurity so long is that when you improve the mobility of your pieces the chance improves that an accidental coming into existence of a target will be beneficial for you. That obscures matters and gives the impression that mobility in itself is an asset. But it is of course better to know what you are doing instead of waiting for targets to appear accidentally. Again a plea for target consciousness.

The level of activity of a piece can maybe be expressed in tempo's to target.

My posts often come as a surprise to me, Dear Reader.

The weakest link

If you don't know what to do in a game you can simply improve your worst piece. The same is true with chess study as a whole. Improve where you are the weakest. In executing tactical combinations I'm at least at 1800 level, maybe more. But when I can't crush my opponent I tend to panick and to go for the nearest draw, no matter the level of my opponent. If there is no direct tactical shot, I more act as a 1500 player. It feels a bit as if I'm a kickboxer with only one trick, a deadly overhand right. But when I can't make it, it shows how limited I am.

All that is changing lately. I have thrown my whole gambit repertoire out of the window and I play solely the Polar Bear with both black and white. In the cases that isn't possible (with black against 1.e4 1.f4 or 1.g4) I play the Lion. Both openings are rather slow and positionally. Since I come from so far (low) positionally I can't say how much my game is improving. The strategy module of PCT is a very good way to improve this weak side of mine. My rating at CC hoovers around 1800, but 80% I play with black, to get experience with the Polar Bear with a tempo down. I even have quite a few games running where I experiment with the French defense (which I don't want to adopt in my repertoire, btw). So the CC-rating isn't a clear indicator yet.

When I do the strategy exercises of PCT for the first time I score only about 20% correct. But very soon, from the first repetition on, I start to score 90% correct and better after more repetitions. There are 3 reasons why this percentage-correct improves so fast:

• The regimen of repetition in PCT is very astute
• The problems are not very complex, typically 1 to 3 moves deep. Although the effect of the moves usually last much longer, of course.
• Most problems are based on a single idea which can be expressed well in plain text. This description is most helpful for retrieving the moves from memory. I consider this to be the main reason.

About the effects of this training and the new repertoire.
3 years ago my average gamelength during the Corus tournament was just 24 moves. That is extremely short. Now my games become longer. That seems to be a disadvantage, but it isn't. Due to a higher level of my opponents, the short crush tends to become more rare anyway. These openings are less forcefull in the beginning, but usually they catch up in the early middlegame. Another effect of the positional training is that I start to play much faster. I used to come into time trouble at move 16 or so, in search for the ultimate tactical combination when there isn't one. Now my play is much more relaxed, since I know better what to do when there seems nothing to do. I'm losing my fear for the trade of pieces, especially the queens, which is always a big concern when playing a gambit. My new openings tend to build advantages that last into the ending. And that is another effect, I get more endings. Actually I'm very happy with that. Finally my games become more mature. That I'm terrible at endgames is a minor glitch that just offers new opportunities for improvement:)
I used to spill the most points against weaker players due to timetrouble. Without timetrouble and with a better positional insight I expect to improve especially against the lower rated players.

Adapting the mind

When I do the exercises of PCT for the first time, I score about a measly 20% correct. The bright side of course is that there is a lot room for improvement. . .
Often I tend to deny the solution of GM Milos from PCT. Usually after a few repetitions my resistence starts to break down and I begin to appreciate the idea which is shown in the exercise. I think this is a normal reaction of the mind when it is confronted with a very alien way of thinking. The mind just needs some time to adapt. To give you an idea which problems I face while adapting (and to help me in the process) I show you a few problems that feel very counter intuitive to what I'm used to think.

Diagram A























White to move

While I'm thinking about queenside expansion and creating a passer PCT comes up with move g4 and adds the following comment:
















g4 seems to me to embody all that is ugly in a move:

• played at the wrong side of the board
• weakening the king position without reason
• creating ugly holes like h4 where I imagine a black knight or a bishop
• inviting moves like f5 to counterattack

How many of you would have played g4 in this position?
Rybka awards it with +0.28 while the best move is +0.34 (Bg4) so it isn't an ugly move in any case. I must conclude that I have prejudices against the move. In certain positions this kind of move would be wrong, but here black presumably can't make use of the downsides of the move so the advantages outweight the disadvantages. Very good from an educational point of view, but will I be able to play it in a game? Probably more adaptation is needed:)

Diagram B























Black to move

I would have played here b5 without much thought anytime, opening a file against the white king. PCT comes with the surprising pawn sac f3
To me again a move that embodies all that is ugly:

• opening a file against my king which would work very well with a bishop on c3
  
• playing at the wrong side of the board
• saccing a pawn for no apparent reason
  

PCT's comment:















Initially Rybka sees f3 as the best move too. But at ply 14 it all of a sudden appreciates Nh5
Scores:
f3 = -0.48
Nh5 = -0.02
b5 = -0.45

What to make of that?

Diagram C























White to move

PCT suggests a5 with the following comment:
















PCT often refers to b6 as a weakness, but initially I had difficulty to see what he meant. b6 is weak since there are no pawns on a7 and c7. But can it come under attack? The only piece I can think of is the king. If a few pieces are traded, the white king will appear on d4. From there the invasion of the King via c5 - b6 is a serious threat. That means that there are two weaknesses in blacks position, d5 and b6, which often proves to be decisive according to the "principle of two weaknesses". That's the only explanation I can think of.

Diagram D























White to move

I was considering h4, but I doubt if a kingside attack will be forcefull enough due to lack of space. PCT suggests a4, with the following comment:
















Again a weaknes on b6! GM Milos doesn't seem to care about ruining a safe king position.
On the other hand, after some thinking the words from GM Danielsen came up: attack where you are strong and your opponent is weak. It's evident that white is stronger at the queenside than the kingside. But pushing pawns in front of my king while there is no opponent king which can be chased is not something my mind already is adapted to. But then again, maybe that's why they are grandmasters and I'm not.

Target consciousness

Working on pawn skeletons.


Christmas is a good time to catch up with exercises. I'm about halfway the third and last strategy module of PCT. If I compare the amount of themed exercises of PCT with the positional ideas I use in my own games then I can get an idea which positional ideas are underrated and which are overrated by me.

Spot on.
My ideas of increasing the relative piece activity are right on the mark. It comes in several kinds of flavours:

• Opening lines
• Occupation of open lines
• Challenging of occupated open lines
• Creating outposts
• Maintaining outposts
• Improve your worst piece
• Pawn sacs to open lines and to clear squares
• Restrict the pieces of the opponent
  
• Claim space
  

Overrated.
The following positional ideas have only a few or no exercises devoted to them by PCT so I probably overrate them in my play:

• Bishoppair
• Inflicting a bad pawnstructure on behalf of the endgame (double pawns, pawn islands etc.)
  

Underrated.
The following positional ideas I use hardly at all in my play yet PCT has a lot exercises devoted to them so I probably underrate them:

• Create targets in the form of weak pawns
• Fixate weak pawns
• Attack weak pawns systematically
• Trade off to a good knight against a bad bishop ending
• Use the pawnstructure to base your plan on
• Sac innocent pawns to create a passer
• Working on color complexes
  

Citation of Seirawan in Winning chess strategies:

"One of the most important chess-playing traits you can develop is a mind-set that I call target consciousness. When you have this mind-set, you are always looking for ways to exploit the weaknesses of your opponent. You should become so enamored with this idea that when you play, you become obsessed with creating targets (weak points) in the enemy position. Once the target materializes, you should systematically search for ways to hit it, and you should not rest until every weakness of your opponent has been turned into an advantage of your own! Here is the strategy:
Emulate the the great chess masters. They are all mini-Terminators. They scope out targets and hunt them down mercilessly untill they can use them to their own advantage!"

Merry Christmass!

Valuation of positional idea's

This is a position from PCT strategy module 3.























White to move

According to Rybka there are at least 4 moves that lead to a win. That this often happens in the more difficult modules doesn't make training easier, but I can live with that. That is not what I want to talk about. The move that PCT happens to advocate as the best is 1.g4
And that is interesting. That pawnmove does two opposite things. It restricts black's knight and white's bishop.

And that is the bane of the positional player. The choice between two or more ideas. Often there is a difference in time between the ideas. As it is here. The restriction of the white bishop has no direct consequences, while the restriction of the black knight has. So the valuation is based on the question if the advantage now is decisive or will the disadvantage backfire later.

There seems to be a tendency that the effect now is very often (but not always) more important than the effect later. That clarifies why most amateurs including me are so bad in positional play. It is very enticing to treat long term advantages as the best fit. Neglecting the needs of the position now. Especially with pawn play that is the case. There are a whole set of rules that defines how to keep your pawnstructure good for the endgame and how to mutilate the pawnstructure of the opponent. But the role of the pawns in the middlegame is quite different and much less known. Good pawnplay in the middlegame precedes over a good pawnplay with the ending in mind. I must learn to adapt to this new way of thinking. I have the feeling that that is very important.

So far so good

It becomes obvious that with the battle of the pawns I touched the core of positional play. I tried to get the hang of pawnmoves in openings like the French and the Caro Kan. Soon it became clear that this is very complicated matter. This lead me to the conclusion that you can't study a pawn formation without studying the opening. And that is what I intend to do. I decided to take up the Polar Bear with both black and white, since they lead to similar pawn formations. That leaves me with finding a new answer to 1.g4 1.f4 and 1.e4. For that I give The Lion a try. That is a dutch invention with often a somewhat similar pawn formation as the Polar Bear (except for f5)

This means a renewal of my complete opening repertoire! From 90% fast gambits to 100% slow positional openings. I like extremes, that makes it easier to learn from it and to reach definite conclusions. The Polar Bear so far suits me well. Early assaults to my king usually grind to a hold soon. My fear for the initial holes in the position proved to be obsolete. If I'm alert they can't position a piece there. Not for long, in any case. A lot of the Polar Bears I played lead to a (beneficial) ending. Since I want to learn that part of the game too that is an extra motiviation to play the PB. Allthough the opening starts out slow it soon catches up in the middlegame since the pawn formation rules out counterplay usually very well.

I never realized how nerve-racking those gambits that I played for 7 years really are! Life is much easier when you don't start with a pawn behind in a wrecked position. Where every move counts and you always have to flee from the trade of queens.

When you google around with "pawn structure" you will find that most people associate that with structures related to the endgame like doubled pawns, isolated pawns, backward pawns etc.. The battle of the pawns I'm talking about has nothing to do with this, but is purely about the battle for relative piece activity in the opening and the middlegame. About this battle very little is written. Soltis book about pawn structures is a good exception. Pawn formation or pawn skeleton works better when you want to google.

Blogaddiction?

72%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

Looking for x ray tech schools?

Battle of the pawns

The "artist" is obviously no chessplayer:)


To come any further I feel always very gratefull for usefull comments. Thanks guys! On my previous post drunknknite suggested to study the difference between 1.e4 and 1.d4
In terms of piece activity it is evident that 1.e4 is the move that improves whites piece activity the most. It open diagonals for the Queen and the bishop, giving indirect access to f7, the weakest spot in blacks camp at the moment. With 1. ... e5 blacks improvement in piece activity is no less though.

With 1.d4 white abstains from the move that improves his piece activity the most. At the same time he prevents that black plays the optimal move 1. ... e5 (again in the sense of piece activity)
So it is not about improving your piece activity the most but about improving your piece activity relative to the opponent. If 1.d4 d5 then white has more chance to play e4 later on than black to play e5. So 1.d4 is a tricky attempt to get an advantage later on.

I think it is good to make a distinction between pawnmoves which directly aim at more piece activity and pawnmoves that participate in what I like to call the battle of pawns. Bottomline for both pawnmoves is the relative improvement in piece activity, but the methods differ. One method is direct, the other is indirect, working on the enemy pawns. I think that understanding the battle of pawns is essential for getting better in chess.

Glenn had a few ramblings which I like to adress here:

There are direct tactical considerations, pawn forks and the like. But I suppose that if you interpret "piece activity" broadly enough then winning a piece falls into "piece activity." As does checkmate by moving a pawn.

Chopping off a piece has a direct consequence and an indirect consequence. If the piece was active, you can measure an immediate drop in activity of your opponents pieces. If the piece wasn't active, a potential for future activity dissappears from the board. I can accept a pawnmove based on pure tactical considerations as a separate kind of pawnmove. What I'm after are the pawnmoves that are purely based on positional considerations. Changing the balance in piece activity. So far I distinguish 4 kind of pawnmoves:

• increasing relative piece activity
• battle of the pawns
• road to promotion
• executing a tactical combination
  

Conversely King safety is a reason to move a pawn, or not. Again, with a broad enough definition "piece activity" is covered by that.

True.

But I would prefer to say that piece activity is an important consideration.

Also, if piece activity is the reason to gambit a pawn then material is the reason to accept the pawn and *less activity* and those all likely involve pawn moves.

True. Gambiting a pawn has as goal to improve the relative piece activity. Accepting the pawn is done with the endgame in mind, which I excluded in my post.

Conclusion.
The battle of the pawns must be investigated. This has nothing to do with preserving your own pawnstructure for the endgame while mutilating your enemies pawn structure. There is very little known about this battle of the pawns, to my knowledge.

Pawns, initiative and tempos

Disclaimer: my thoughts haven't cristallized yet. Changes of view can happen during the writing. To simplify matters I'm talking only over the opening and the middlegame.

My previous post lead me to the conclusion that there can be only one reason for a pawnmove: it's effect on the relative piece activity. So far as I can tell there can't be no other justification for a pawnmove. To simplify matters I'm not talking about pawn promotion. A pawn is the trickiest piece since a move has such complex effect on the activity of all pieces on the board. There is a simple method to assess the effect of a pawnmove though. By looking to all pairs of pieces from you and your opponent. Compare the dark squared bishop of yourself and of your opponent before and after the pawn move. Is the activity of your bishop improved relatively or not?

If the above is true, then automatically another question is raised. "what exactly is the effect of the initiative?" In the begin position all pieces except the knights are restricted by the pawns. If white makes reasonable moves and black mirrors them exactly, there can't be a difference in piece activity on both sides. Yet the game can be decided quickly if black continues to copy white's moves. Take for instance the following nonsensical sequence:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 Qxe5 (see diagram)























White to move.

Despite identical piece activity black is lost. Since white had the initiative. But maybe that is not the reason. If white on move 4 would had put his knight en prise with 4.Nc6, black would have won the game. Sorry for the nonsense moves but extreme examples help to clear the picture.

None of the given examples can be forced though. Usually the flow of a won game goes something like: opponent A manages to improve his relative piece activity. At a certain moment opponent B cannot keep up with all posed threats and must give up material. So the act of forcing has a relation with the act of improving your piece activity. Hence with the moves of your pawns. Yet anytime the outcome of the game can go in any direction if one of the opponents makes a gross mistake.

There seem to be 3 stages.
First stage, the opening.
Initially there is no contact between the forces. The first task is to bring your pieces to the frontline. This is the mobilization of your army and is called development. During development every move counts. If you trade a piece with 4 invested tempos against a piece that hasn't moved yet, you will be behind in development.

Second stage, the middlegame.
After the opening tempos seem to play a different rol. If you trade off a knight in which you have invested 21 moves against a piece that has only moved once, you can't say beforehand that you are worse. It depends solely on the position on the board. Yet tempos do play a role.
Take for instance the following position from the Polar Bear (see diagram):






















Black to move.

The development of both sides is about equal. But if you look at the pawnstructure, then you see that the black pieces are very restricted by the white pawns. The knight on c6 is developed. But it doesn't do anything useful. It only can go to a5, from where it is quite restricted by white pawns too. You can be sure that it will take several tempos before that knight does something usefull. This means that tempos are related to something usefull. If white can do something usefull with all his pieces (which is not the case in this position) and black needs 5 tempos before all his pieces swing into action, than white is better. This raises the question "what is something usefull?" The answer is probably something like "inducing or threatening a weakness"
Here you find an argument to stop treating the opening as a different phase as the middlegame. What use is it to develop a piece to a square where it still does nothing? A piece is only usefull when it does something usefull. No matter how actively placed it is. Tempos indicate how much moves you need before a piece does something usefull. And now follows what I was after: pawnmoves have an influence on how many tempos pieces are away from usefullness.

Third stage, a forced end.
All of a sudden it is over. The scale has tipped and you can force a win. When you are a queen up you can win from Kasparov in most positions. The end is not really forced in the way that there is no choice of moves by your opponent, but no matter how he plays you can force the win. To enter this sudden death you need a bad move. If this bad move isn't forced, it is called a blunder. If it is forced, we have outplayed our opponent in the middlegame.

I have the idea that there is something very important in all this, especially in this tempo stuff in relation to pawnmoves, but it appears not quite clear to me yet.

What does a pawnmove do?

While investigating pawnmoves I'm impressed of the effects of a single pawnmove. It is much easier to calculate the effects of the move of a piece than of the humble pawn. What does a pawnmove do?

The effect of a single pawn move is felt in 3 area's:

• Opening and closing of diagonals
• Opening and closing of files
• Giving up the control of squares while getting the control of new squares

Take for instance the following simple move forward:






















The move e4-e5 opens two diagonals. If this is beneficial or not depends on who's bishop is on those diagonals.






















At the same time another set of diagonals is closed. Assuming that the pawn is well defended on the new square. If the closing of the diagonals is beneficial or not depends on who's bishop is on those diagonals. In general can be said that the white squared bishops have become more active while the black squared bishops have become less active.






















Moving the pawn loses the control of d5 and f5 while it acquires control over d6 and f6. This control must be deemed by the possibility to maintain an outpost on those squares. If this is beneficial or not depends on who can maintain an outpost on those squares.

If white takes on d5 there isn't only the usual effect on the diagonals and the squares, but it effects the files too.





















For white the e-file is opened while for black the d-file has become open. Again, if this is beneficial or not depends on the one who can make use of the open file.

Summarizing.
A pawn move effects the activity of the knight (squares), bishop (diagonals) and rook (files). The criterium for a pawnmove is if it improves the activity of your pieces relatively to the activity of your opponents pieces.

What do you want for Christmas?

I read the book of Jacob Aagaard "Excelling at positional chess". It is a good read. This is what I distilled out of his idea's for my own use. When looking at a position three questions suffice to know what to do.

Is there a weakness?
If it is not evident what to do in a position, you have to ask yourself first "is there a weakness?"
A weakness can theoretically be everything, but in practice it most of the time boils down to "are there weak pawns?" A pawn is weak when it cannot be protected practically by a buddy pawn AND it can be attacked. If there is a weakness you must fix it, and then attack it. The usual scenario isn't that you conquer a weak pawn before the endgame. But the weakness ties down the defending pieces. In general it is possible to defend one weakness. But two weaknesses often proof to be to much. The art is to alternate your attack between both weaknesses, so that the defending pieces can't follow you.

Can there a weakness be induced?
If there are no weaknesses your pieces can be 100% active, but they are going nowhere. They need weaknesses to work on. If there aren't any weaknesses, you must try to induce them. If you put your pieces in places where your opponent don't want them, you can force him to move his pawns, thus creating weaknesses.

What is your worst piece?
If there are no weaknesses to work on and they cannot be induced, you have to improve the activity of your pieces. First you have to identify your worst piece. That is the one you have to improve. In order to find a plan to improve a piece you ask yourself "What do you want to have for Christmass?" according to the formulation of Aagaard. In other words: "what would be the ideal square for this piece if there were no restrictions?" In practice this is not so easy.

The following diagram is one of 108 positional exercises from Aagaards book. The position stemms from Ehlvest - Anand.





















Black to move

There are no weaknesses, and it is at the moment not clear how to induce one. Of course black can play Ng4 and wait till white plays h3, but it is hard to see how such weakness can be attacked. The positions suggests that white will seek his expansion on the kingside, while black looks at the queenside. For white it is clearer, if he posts a knight on f5, than g6 would be a seriousness weakening of blacks kingside.

So the question is, what is blacks worst piece? There is some exercise needed to see that, I guess, but the knight on c6 isn't doing very well. It stands in the way of the bishop and it is going nowhere at the moment. What does it want for Christmass? Where should it go?
This question isn't so simple either. Enfin, that's why I'm doing the 108 exercises of Aagaards book. Of course you can say, the black knight would be ideally placed on f3. From there it gives check, it is well centralized and it controls a significant part of enemy territory. Well, if you ask something excessive to Santa, you won't get it either. Aagaard (and Anand!) comes up with c5 as the best place for the knight. Play went on as follows:

13. ... Nb8 14.Ne3 dxe4 15.dxe4 Nbd7 16.Nd5 Nc5 (see diagram)






















White to move

In order to know if the ideal square is feasible you have to know how to play your pawns. I have never thought about that before. dxe4 creates a weak pawn on e4, while the d-pawn can no longer attack the knight on c5. Nf3, Nc5 and indirectly Bb7 all attack the weakness on e4.

I want to learn how to use your pawns. So that is my focus when doing the exercises in the book. Of course 13. ...Nb8 isn't necessarily the best move in this position. There are other moves that are equally playable. But having a plan makes live easier.



























I will try to not scare the kids:)

One eyed king

I don't know if there is any scientific base or any truth in this post or the previous. Luckily enough that doesn't matter. Since every conclusion based on a reasoning process will be tested anyway, whether the reasoning process is faulthy or not.

From my previous hodgepodge I distilled the following idea's:
The left hemisphere of the brain handles concepts, the right hemisphere handles chess intuition. Education is almost entirely aiming at the development of the left part of the brain. Once dominant, the left part supresses the right part.

That's why adults have problems with chess improvement. The left eye is connected to the right hemisphere. Right now I'm experimenting with problemsolving while looking only through the left eye. I prevent thinking and conceptual reasoning as much as possible. Allthough it is way too early to draw any conclusions, my rating at CTS soon boosted to 1550, while 1530 was the average I had when I quit exercising after a very long streak. It is a very weird way of exercising for me and it is quite unclear of that weirdness is benificial in any way. But then again, asking for usefulness is typical for a lefty:)

Cognitive hodgepodge

An idiot savant has an enormous memory for details while he has trouble to understand concepts. Typical tasks where savants are good at:
Recognizing the #amount of dots on a screen. Say that there are 103 green dots on a white screen. A normal adult makes an estimation. A savant often knows directly the correct amount.
Take the sentence:

Beware of the
the birds.

Normal people tend to overlook the double "the" in the sentence since they look at the conceptual meaning of the sentence and not at the details of the actual words. A savant sees the details in stead of the concept.

Dealing with concepts is a typical task for the left part of the brain. In scientific research where the left part of the brain of a normal adult is made numb by a magnetic field, the experimental subjects showed savant-like capacities.

In another test young chimps outperformed students in a memory task showing a photographic memory for numbers.

In yet another test adult dogs showed conceptual thinking.

If I combine these facts in a hodgepodge and mix, I can get something like the following:
If you are young and your thinking is not yet quite disturbed by concepts, you display a few savant like skills. Maybe that is the reason that children can be prodigies while some of that dissappears later. Maybe that's why I felt to be so much sharper as a child as I feel now. Maybe that is why there are grandmasters of 13 year old. Maybe that is why it is difficult to get better in chess as adult. Maybe that is why you say after a highly conceptual study "I understand the game much deeper now" while your rating continues to suck.

[Disclaimer]
Fill in whatever you think is appropriate.

Themes in the Polar Bear

This is an attempt to inventory the different themes in the Polar Bear. It is partly based on what I encountered in my cc-games as attempt from white to prevent me from reaching the standard position. I only give the essentials of a position. This is the standard position:






















Standard Polar Bear position.

Theme: preventing black from castling.

Option 1: Bc4
White can make it difficult for black to castle. Preconditions: white plays an early e3, while he omits c4.






















The knight on f3 can coöperate with the bishop perfectly well. A knight on e6 would be killing. Black can intervene the beam from the bishop by playing e6, but Ng5 would force Qe7 which looks rather ugly. The prepatory move h6 leaves g6 vulnerable for Nh4. Probably black must keep the control over e6 by postponing d6 when Bc4 is in the air. That way black can play safely e6, castle, and regain a few tempi and get some space on the Queenside with c6, b5, a5 kicking the bishop. The blue square doesn't mean anything, it is a result of a bug in diagtransfer in combination with my screengrab utility.

Option 2: Qb3
Precondition: pawn c3.





















The ideas are the same as with Bc4. Postpone d6, play e6 and castle. The Queen isn't well placed on b3 since it hampers white's queenside expansion.

Theme: inflict black with a double pawn on a6.
White plays Bxa6. Preconditions: e3 opens the diagonal, no c4 leaves it open, Nc3 forces c6, wich forces black to develop the knight to a6 instead of to c6, if g3 is played, the weak white squares around whites king can outweight blacks double pawn.





















A possibility for black is to play a5 first and then Na6

Theme: pinning d6.
Precondition: white plays b3.






















Black has prepared e5 in the usual way by Qc7, but he can't play it due to the pin of d6. Playing Re8 or d8 doesn't look nice since you want it to support f4 some day. Besides that there can come a moment you want to play Kh8. This leaves f7 weak for the white knight f3-g5-f7.

Theme: kingside attack.
Always be aware of a kingside attack with h4-h5. Especially when white hasn't castled or castles queenside.






















It is remarkable how resilient blacks king position is often. But you must be vigilant! With a timely d5 and defensive assistance from Qc7 the problems are usually managable. A good timing of h6 and g5 can often keep the lines closed and the white knight out.

Theme: inflicting a double pawn on f6
White inflicts black with an awkward double pawn on f6 by playing Bxf6





















Black must prevent that by playing e6 before g6 and Bg7.

Theme: exchanging black's blacksquared bishop.
White plays the bishop to e3, f4 or g5, followed by Queen d2 and Bh6 in order to trade the bishops with Bxg7





















I haven't a conclusive solution for this theme yet. Black has to prevent the trade one way or another.

Theme: preventing e5.
If white plays Bf4 he hampers blacks pawn push to e5.






















It is not clear if black can permit to play Qc7 to prepare e5 in this position. Especially if there is a white pawn on c4. Nh5 adds the bishop as support of e5, but Nxf4 doesn't diminish the amount of white defenders of e5 because of gxf4. Besides that, Bf4 can be a prepatory move for Qd2 and Bh6, intending to trade the bishops.

There are two other themes that play a role but that I haven't investigated thouroughly yet, I include them for the record.

Theme: white prepares an early e4.
White prepares the pawn push with Qe2, f3 and or Re1. It doesn't look very problematic for black.

Theme: black plays a stonewall.
Options: with Be7 or Bg7.
It is not clear to me if and when black is better off to play a stonewall.


This is a first rough inventory of the themes that play a role before you reach the standard position. None of these look very critical if black is vigilant. But a satisfactory solution must be found for every theme, since these typically are the bane of the patzer. Only when this part of the opening is mastered, I will look at the themes after the standard position.

One size fits all. NOT.

If you want to make a bathroom in the tower of pisa, you can't hang the mirror level since that wouldn't look good. You have to chose one wall as a referencepoint and say "this wall is straight". Everything what you build has to be measured from that fixed reference point. Otherwise you cannot work. You have to be creative with the shape of the bathtub, since a straight model will overflow on one side:)

This example illustrates the problem I have with rule indepence in chess. Rule independence is as true as gravity is bolt upright. But you cannot work if you don't chose a fixed reference point from where you can measure everything back. And this fixed reference point isn't necessarily bolt upright. But you need it.

For rule indepence you need to know the rules thoroughly. That is your fixed reference point. The mind needs that. Without a reference everything is volatile and the mind cannot get grip.

If you look at the Kings gambit, it is very difficult to find a reference point. One different move of black at move 2-5 and you get a game that is quite different. When everything is volatile, it is easy to drown in the variations.

In the Polar Bear there can be defined an "ideal position". For me it would look something like the following diagram:






















You can reach this position with black remarkebly often, allmost no matter what white plays. And in a way that it keeps Rybka satisfied. Black can play 1. ... f5 as an answer to almost all opening moves of white except 1.e4, 1.f4 and 1.g4. The goal in this position above is to force e5 which is "usually" possible and gives "usually" black a good game.

There are a few openings that invite to strive for such static position, almost no matter what the opponent does. I mention the Colle system, the Smith Morra and The Lion. Allthough it cuts down the efforts of openingstudy drastically, to accept the invitation for lazyness and to ignore the moves of the opponent and missing subtleties of the position usually leads to disaster in long games.

I intend to use the "ideal" position above as my fixed reference point and I will try to formulate when moves of white makes the position "less ideal". If you look for instance at c6 in the position above, than you will see that it is only of use if there is a white knight on c3 which mobility it can restrict. If the white knight is developed to d2, c6 is rendered useless, only preventing Nc6 for black. The same kind of thing can be said for the knight on a6. If there is a bishop on that diagonal f1-a6, white can inflict you with an awkward double pawn by Bxa6. This way I hope to improve my positional insight.

I intend to use a static position as a fixed reference point to define the dynamics. Since without a static reference point "everything is dynamic" in chess. When everything is volatile, the mind cannot get grip. The result of no grip will be that you cannot learn something because of the volatility. It's like playing blitz without analysing the games afterwards: fun, but useless in the sense of making progress.

Taking up the Polar Bear

Polar Bird?


The past seven years I have played almost solely gambits.

With white:
King's gambit.
Alapin Diemer gambit against the French.
Caro kan with 3.Qf3 gambitline.
Myers gambit against the Alekhine defense.
Smith Morra gambit.
Wing gambit against the sicilian.

With black:
Marshall gambit in the Scandinavian.
Portuguese gambit in the Scandinavian.
Icelandic gambit in the Scandinavian.
Fajarowitsch variation of the Budapest gambit.
Hartlaub-Bloodgood gambit against the QP.
Albin counter gambit (a 20 or so cc-games)
Benko gambit.
Fromm gambit against the Bird.
Bellon gambit against the English.

Further I created a few gambits of my own on the fly.

I always liked the description of Tim Harding how an opponent experiences a gambit:

• Move 5: I can refute this gambit in half a dozen ways!
• Move 10: Maybe my opponent has slight compensation, but I'll soon neutralize it.
• Move 15: Maybe one of the other refutations was clearer.
• Move 20: X is the best move, but if I play it my opponent can force perpetual check/a level endgame.
• Move 25: I definitely underestimated his attack!
• Move 30: I resign.

It shows exactly what a good gambit is all about: long term compensation. There is no need to hurry, but you can't afford to lose time. Make every move count but don't attack prematurely.
From the 3 main benefits of a gambit, lead in development, wrecked enemy structure and open lines, I consider the opening of lines as the most important. Which is typically a long lasting advantage. Since it is long lasting, you can afford to build up the attack well. A gambit can only be good if the opponent is worse off if he declines it.

I started with gambits in order to become better in tactics. Without false modesty, I can say the gambits served their goal. I gained about 250 ratingpoints, which can solely be attributed to my improvement in tactical play. I haven't played a single dull game when it was a gambit. My enjoyment in the game has grown immense by playing gambits.

All the gambits above are perfectly playable at my level and beyond. Yet I found that something is itching lately. Maybe you have noticed. Now my opponents become stronger, the edge I used to have because of playing a gambit fades away more often than not. That doesn't mean that they refute the gambits, but that the game is often about level at the end of the middlegame.

I want more. It is evident that the level of my positional play is way below my tactical skills. I want to improve my positional skills too. In spite all the benefits I had from gambit play I never had the feeling that it suited my style. That's why it was so beneficial for me, it was very alien to me. That why it's so enriching. Lately I have played the Polar Bear a few (<25) times in my cc-games and in one serious yet unrated OTB game. The positions I get triggers something in me. Allthough I still mistreat the opening from time to time, I like the long term pressure you get. Slowly squeezing the enemy is more according to my character than a risky assault. Being able to do both is having the best of two worlds.

My positional play is below all standards. In order to improve in this area, I have decided to play the Polar Bear with both black and white. For now only in cc-games and unrated OTB games at the club. Since my positional play is below the standards of my opponents, I can't permit to use the Polar Bear in rated games at the moment yet. Except with black, since for the moment I don't have a better opening against 1.d4. But with hard work that gap in positional level between me and my opponents will soon be bridged. Of course the Polar Bear is slow. But not any slower than 1.d4 or 1.c4.
I really look forward to it!

Swift kill with the Icelandic Gambit

Yesterday my opponent underestimated the Icelandic gambit. Or how to win in 13 moves.

At the club I had my first win with the Polar Bear. Allthough I mistreated the opening (according to my own feeling, not according to Rybka) it was surprising how resilient the pawn structure is. I have to learn how to keep the hostile pieces out. That's doable perfectly well, I just have to learn how to do it under all circumstances. Often it even proves to be possible to drive invaded pieces back, as in this game. But preventing invasion in first place is much better of course. You can find the game here.

I'm looking for a free chess client for someone for who Babaschess is way too complicated. It must have a simple possibility to chat. Idea's anyone?