Temposchlucker

. . . Update : A nice positional win today at Corus here . DK wrote in a comment: there was a time in the past that this would have been a private email, not a public post, but time and again you say you prefer this. here it is. my god, its even spell checked: ---------- Now that I have dispensed an obligation—the sending of extensive Caro-Kann material to you—I turn to a very different subject: the proffer of a question if not an implicit critical remark. So there I am—first supporting then a something else… I was as once gladdened then surprised at your remark here that you were going to study the Caro-Kann. I hope that i am not reading too much into it, but having deliberately held off from any study of the opening for a VERY long time as a matter of principle, now that I am doing so, am employing a rigorous approach. In fact, you might laugh, but a student of mine who is a candidate to be an International Master ASKED me about organizing his opening study, asked me about ho

. . Thinking about the center due to a comment of Blunderprone has opened a Pandora's box of thoughts and ideas. To name a few: The importance of space What you can do with that space The blocking of your pieces Center pawns being pinned Manoeuvring in the space behind your center pawns Different values of diagonals 3 diagonals through the center (per bishop) 3 diagonals ending up in the neighbourhood of the enemy king possibility to change the pawnstructure vs being blocked possibility to block possibility to open lines if your pieces protect each other they stand in each others way battle for central squares Definitively the center is an asset of its own. Its not implicitly derived from piece activity. In the middlegame I managed to share a whole lotta types of moves under the same noumer piece activity . I'm trying to do something equal with the list above. I'm not very far in this process yet but the common noumer flexibility seems to cover at least a few of the topics

. . . Tomorrow the Corus tournament begins for us with the nine-round events. After the tournament in Groningen last Christmas I wasn't satisfied with my 3. ... Qd6 of the scandinavian. Allthough I wanted to focus solely on positional play I couldn't but help to study the Caro Kann. The book of Houska has given me enough understanding to dare to give it a try tomorrow. I will play for the first time in group four and I hope to manage to uphold myself in that group, but it will be tough, I guess. Margriet will be playing in group 8.

. . . BlunderProne pointed out that there is a vast hiatus in my rantings about the game : Missing in the battle of the piece placement is the need to control the center. This oversight could be explained by the fact that back in the Steinitz’s day ( and Tarrasch), controlling the center with pawns was the main idea while an augmentation of that included indirect control with pieces on the wings through the hypermodern movement. So the question is whether this meme is something to included for piece battle or pawn battle. I believe its ultimately a piece battle issue since I view pawns in the opening and middle game as a “supporting cast” member in the play. In studying the old games, controlling the center was the first priority for both piece and pawn placement. The battle of the center dictates where the players will create secondary weaknesses as they take resources and time to defend or attack the central squares. If one is allowed to “win” the center, then the conversion to a

. . . When BDK wrote about his latest blunder some time ago a few issues crossed my mind. Since he was focussing on a new approach to his game, that is to say, he intended to pick up his old approach again (CTT), I tried to draw his attention with a few jokes. The message that I had something to say obviously didn't come across. Since I have no inclination to help people who don't want to be helped, I didn't simply say what I had to say. I never do. But since everybody has the right to be awoken when he signals it, I continued to poke him with hints. As I always do. To no avail, btw. When BDk wrote an excellent post about lack of chess vision as the main cause of blunders, he covered 90% of the matter, so what I had to say started to look somewhat obsolete. Due to the law of inertia I continued to poke though. What especially triggered me was his call up: Fellow patzers : when it is your turn to move, do not waste your time thinking about pawn structure, whether to exchan

. . . Due to positonal study my chess thinking is evolving. At the moment I have identified three battles in chess. The battle of the pieces. The main ingredient is piece activity about which I have written a lot in the past. Piece activity consists of 4 elements: A safe home or outpost, where the pieces can stand without getting harassed by pawns. (sub-battle for a good outpost) A pathway or open line, leading into hostile territory. Pieces try to dominate the open line. (sub-battle for the open lines). Bridge head or invasion square or focal point, where pieces try to infiltrate into enemy territory. (sub-battle for invasion squares) Targets. A piece needs targets to attack. Usually a weak pawn or the enemy king. (sub-battle for inducing weaknesses.) The battle of the pawns. If you look closely to the 4 elements of piece activity, then you see that it are pawns that play the decisive role in the 4 sub-battles of piece activity: It are pawns that tell you which square is suited for a

. . . If I remember well it was Wormwood who advocated to train out of your comfortzone. Since I associate WW with a person who is often right for the wrong reason (=ideal mindset for fast chess improvement), I always listen to him carefully. When he writes something, that is, which isn't very often. The idea of training out of your comfortzone stemms from physical training, if I'm not mistaken. I'm always a bit sceptical when transiting idea's from the physical area to the brain area. Yet there seems to be something in it. At the moment I'm busy with the positional exercises of Aagaards excelling at positional chess . My score is 0% after the first 5 exercises, because the way of looking at a position is quite unfamiliar to what I'm used to. I notice that my mind is not at ease. I frown upon the given solutions, allthough they are probably right. I seek distractions, like writing this post and such kind of things. I'm definitely not in my comfortzone. Yet I

. . . Allthough I don't want to spend time on openings before Corus I can't simply help to worry about it. After some research I'm convinced that the Scandinavian 3. ... Qd6 which I have adopted lately and the Taimanov Sicilian aren't the openings for me. Remain the French and the Caro Kann. Actually I want to learn both systems. I don't know if I'm right, but I have the feeling that if I learn the idea's of the French first, that will be of great help when starting with the Caro Kann. Is there anybody who can confirm this? In the mean time I will have to fall back on my old 2. ... Nf6 Scandinavian against 1.e4 for Corus. But since I'm playing at a higher level now I'm no longer happy with the involved gambitlines. The actual preparation I intend to do when I'm not distracted by blogging and openings is solving the positional problems of Aagaards excelling at positional chess .