From a practical point of view, I think it makes little sense to use the animations for full-blown positions unless you insert a bare-bone sequence that highlights the essential idea, as in this example. Otherwise, the viewer has a hard time sorting out which pieces on the board are relevant to the idea and which are not. I think the animation only makes sense if the idea is reducible to a positional setup that can be grasped within a matter of seconds.
Second, I'm not sure I understand what exactly the idea is here. You seem to put the emphasis on manoeuvering the knight out of the way, but if this is the essential idea -- "knights getting out of the way" -- surely there's a more basic and illustrative example you could use? Perhaps you had a more complex idea in mind? Would you mind elaborating a bit which elements of this position you consider crucial to the idea you're trying to capture?
In any case, I'm excited to see you experiment with the animation technique.
My emphasis was on getting the animation to work in blogger.
The problem stemms from Aagaards book and his explanation is as vague as this animation. The point is, it is easy to invests lots of time in such positions. But an opportunistic approach is often better in OTB play. Just regroup your pieces in the best way when nothing is going on.
I just need a few tries to see what works and what not.
CR, but if this is the essential idea -- "knights getting out of the way" -- surely there's a more basic and illustrative example you could use?
The idea is related to the question "why do I not recognize this specific familiar pattern in this position?". Everybody knows the idea of improving your worst piece. But who recognizes the knight as your worst piece here? Why didn't it occur to me that it is better placed at e3? Why didn't I see that it makes my Queen en rook less effective?
The reason is that these little improvements make little impression on my. I don't find them very important. That's not the fault of the characteristics, it is due to my mental make up.
My attitude towards these characteristics is the cause that I don't recognize them. So I have to worship Caissa by making an effort in creating an animation. In order to learn respect to these characteristics. Otherwise I will overlook them all the time.
Ah, so you're using the process of *making* the animation rather than the animation itself as a didactic/disciplinary tool. Fair enough.
There's a lot of subtlety to piece improvement in quiet or complex positions, so that topic as such goes beyond the capacities of an animation. I wonder if there's a feasible way of breaking the topic down into chunks and make a series on piece improvement. Perhaps I should order Aagaard's book. I've ordered Karpov's book on assessing positions from the library the other day; maybe I can squeeze a couple of animations out of that one as well.
Perhaps it'd be useful to think about it more in terms of "good pieces" vs "bad pieces". In other words, before you determine what your worst piece is, look at the board and ask yourself: What are my strongest pieces and *what* makes them strong? This may give you a clue as to what to do with your other pieces?
I can't say for sure my assessment of the position would have resulted in moving the knight. I'll have to take a closer look later.
In the initial position the pawn on e5 is missing, but it shows up afterwards. Why does Black have to sacrifice the c-pawn? Can it be prepared by something like ...Rfc8? Also why is 1...Bg4 necessary - the knight will just gain a tempo on it if it goes to e3. Why not 1...Bd7? Today Aagaard is too deep for me :-)
Aziridine, the missing pawn was my mistake. Aagaard is too deep for everybody, I guess. The line shown was actually played in the game, and a gif-animation can't show no sidelines. To me c6 was a bad move too. But I have learned to focus on the topics I do understand and to ignore the rest. Otherwise you can't come any further with positional play since a lot of the explanations are questionable and the best line isn't always carved in stone, unlike tactics.
.
From a practical point of view, I think it makes little sense to use the animations for full-blown positions unless you insert a bare-bone sequence that highlights the essential idea, as in this example. Otherwise, the viewer has a hard time sorting out which pieces on the board are relevant to the idea and which are not. I think the animation only makes sense if the idea is reducible to a positional setup that can be grasped within a matter of seconds.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I'm not sure I understand what exactly the idea is here. You seem to put the emphasis on manoeuvering the knight out of the way, but if this is the essential idea -- "knights getting out of the way" -- surely there's a more basic and illustrative example you could use? Perhaps you had a more complex idea in mind? Would you mind elaborating a bit which elements of this position you consider crucial to the idea you're trying to capture?
In any case, I'm excited to see you experiment with the animation technique.
My emphasis was on getting the animation to work in blogger.
ReplyDeleteThe problem stemms from Aagaards book and his explanation is as vague as this animation. The point is, it is easy to invests lots of time in such positions. But an opportunistic approach is often better in OTB play. Just regroup your pieces in the best way when nothing is going on.
I just need a few tries to see what works and what not.
CR,
ReplyDeletebut if this is the essential idea -- "knights getting out of the way" -- surely there's a more basic and illustrative example you could use?
The idea is related to the question "why do I not recognize this specific familiar pattern in this position?". Everybody knows the idea of improving your worst piece. But who recognizes the knight as your worst piece here? Why didn't it occur to me that it is better placed at e3? Why didn't I see that it makes my Queen en rook less effective?
The reason is that these little improvements make little impression on my. I don't find them very important. That's not the fault of the characteristics, it is due to my mental make up.
My attitude towards these characteristics is the cause that I don't recognize them. So I have to worship Caissa by making an effort in creating an animation. In order to learn respect to these characteristics. Otherwise I will overlook them all the time.
Ah, so you're using the process of *making* the animation rather than the animation itself as a didactic/disciplinary tool. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of subtlety to piece improvement in quiet or complex positions, so that topic as such goes beyond the capacities of an animation. I wonder if there's a feasible way of breaking the topic down into chunks and make a series on piece improvement. Perhaps I should order Aagaard's book. I've ordered Karpov's book on assessing positions from the library the other day; maybe I can squeeze a couple of animations out of that one as well.
Perhaps it'd be useful to think about it more in terms of "good pieces" vs "bad pieces". In other words, before you determine what your worst piece is, look at the board and ask yourself: What are my strongest pieces and *what* makes them strong? This may give you a clue as to what to do with your other pieces?
I can't say for sure my assessment of the position would have resulted in moving the knight. I'll have to take a closer look later.
In the initial position the pawn on e5 is missing, but it shows up afterwards.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Black have to sacrifice the c-pawn? Can it be prepared by something like ...Rfc8? Also why is 1...Bg4 necessary - the knight will just gain a tempo on it if it goes to e3. Why not 1...Bd7? Today Aagaard is too deep for me :-)
Aziridine,
ReplyDeletethe missing pawn was my mistake. Aagaard is too deep for everybody, I guess. The line shown was actually played in the game, and a gif-animation can't show no sidelines. To me c6 was a bad move too. But I have learned to focus on the topics I do understand and to ignore the rest. Otherwise you can't come any further with positional play since a lot of the explanations are questionable and the best line isn't always carved in stone, unlike tactics.