Temposchlucker

Tentative said: "Yet in two very recent games against 1950 players I won by the basic pattern "Attack the Guard". They move, I attack the Guard, and they resign. This is a very simple pattern, yet they missed it in 1 move deep." This indicates an ommission in their arsenal. There are a few tactics that are not well known by the old school while those who have done the stepsmethod are well familiar with it. This is expressed by the fact that the old school has to consciously think about these combinations - which is prone to error, time and energy consuming and can easy be overlooked - while the stepsmethodists see it right away. More and more I'm beginning to believe that I look way too complicated towards training. Mere conscious exposure seems to suffice. No matter the form. The problem only being that we often think we are conscious while in reality we function on automatic pilot. Where did I park my car two weeks ago? It has disappeared in the blurr of all

***I added new text below in green ***. . . . . ***I added new text below in green ***. My play at Corus shows two evident areas for improvement. The what and the how. What to do (positional play) and how to do it (tactical play). I'm working hard on the what-department by experimenting with the ideas of Nimzowitsch in my play. Of course that leads to the occassional disaster, but since I'm on a loosing streak anyway I don't bother. I'm learning and I feel happy with what I learn. Gaining the points back and more will be just a matter of time. But walking around at Corus and following interviews I can't help but think about the how. I expect to need one or two years to fully incorporate the ideas of Nimzowitsch in my play. But I have to look at the future and think about what will be next. My experiences at Corus point clearly at the how-department. In the group next to me there is a 10 year old German girl who has a rating of 1842. At a certain moment she had black

. . . Every rule in chess has a why behind it. If you don't know the why behind a rule, the rule leads necessarily to a ridgid application. John Watson has written a whole book about falsifying the rules of Nimzowitch. Without offering a workable alternative. Obeying rules is the lazy man's way of development. In stead you must go after the reason behind the rule. There are a few cases where we only have a rule but the reason why remains in the dark. In such cases the rule is often used to describe something. Take for instance the description of the transition of advantages. It only describes what is happening, but it isn't clear why it is happening. And why it is inevitable. Such rules are useless for practical play. Nimzowitsch beautifully explains the relationship between open lines, penetration into the 7th rank, outpost, inducing weaknesses, pawnchain, blockade, centralisation, overprotection and prophylaxis. He welds everything together. It really is a coherent syst

. . . Allthough the grandmasters are already busy for about a week, we start only tomorrow with the 9 rounds-event at Corus. I don't know whether it will be called the Corus tournament next year still. Maybe it's the Tata Europe tournament by then:) What do I expect? I will try to implement my new understanding of My System. Alas I'm only halfway, so I don't expect it to bear fruit right away. My positional thinking is obviously still in its infancy, but it is developing rapidly. That means that I don't expect rating growth, but I do expect to learn alot. I have been on a losing streak lately, so I expect that rating greed will not stand in the way of my research. As usually is the case when I'm doing better. I do expect to make a quantum leap forward anyway, the next two years. Due to illnes I couldn't prepair my new opening as well as I wanted, but I'm going to give it a shot anyhow. If I'm going to score 50%, I will be quite satisfied. Wish us lu

. . . The rook belongs behind the passed pawn, no wether it is our passed pawn or our opponents. Seen from my point of view everything close to me is in front and everything far away is behind. Seen from the point of view of my king one might argue that the front is far away and if he sends a pawn forward he sends them to the front so behind the front is close to the king while in front is far away. If I must put a rook behind a passed pawn from my opponent is that that seen from my point of view, my king's, my opponent's or my opponent's king's? As a computerprogrammer ambiguity in language is my enemy and I'm used to drive my future users mad with questions. Rules as the above are quite useless if you don't understand the why behind the rule. Although My System obscures the why behind the rules with poetic language, close reading usally reveals the why. That's the big plus of this book. In this case: the why is because the rook must be as active as possibl

The first time I read My Sytem I deemed the term "system" to be somewhat exaggerated. The first time I read only the text, while ignoring the games mostly. The system looked like a bunch of quite inspiring ideas, hinched losely together. Now, the second time however, I'm more thorough. And indeed I'm starting to see the contours of a System which I completely missed before. Take for instance the following game between Nimzowitch and Tarrasch: . . Black to move. Nimzowitch writes about this position: "The position we have here appears really harmless but is actually extremely dangerous. White is threathening to occupy the c-file and in addition he has a comfortable square for his king (e2) while it is hard to say as much for black. In positions like this, the defender must play with extreme care." Most clubplayers I know would call this a fairly level position. Even Rybka agrees with this. So where does the danger stemms from? What Nimzowitsch shows here is t

. . . I don't really want to study openings anymore. Especially not now since I'm preparing for Corus. Yet sometimes events have their own momentum. I have looked for a suitable opening against 1.d4 for about 10 years now. My main problem with 1.d4 always has been that you are almost obliged to play e6 at a certain moment, thus leaving a hole on e5 where sooner or later a piece or a pawn appears. Sofar I have tried the Pirc, KID, Slav, Semislav, Benko, Budapest, Fajarowitsch, QID, Classic Dutch, Nimzo-Indian, Albins Countergambit, Englund gambit, Benoni. I might have forgotten a few. At the moment I play the Polar Bear. That works fine, but the Polar Bear has a lot less "punch" with black than it has with white. Against 1.e4 I have played the Najdorf, Scandinavian, French, Petroff, Polish, Italian, Spanish, Alekhine. At the moment I play the Caro-Kann. A lot of these openings have started with a very nice initial idea. But due to refutations and novelties as answer to