The following picture emerges. Thinking backwards from a tactical shot, you need to create lines of attack. For lines of attack you need holes in the pawn structure. You need invasion squares in the camp of the enemy. That are squares where you outnumber your enemy through the holes in his fortress walls.
The center is paramount. Putting a piece on a central square is the equivalent of a duplo move. From the center, a piece radiates to two flanks at the same time.
The ideal is the open center. With no pawns on both sides in the center. In this situation, the dynamism of the pieces is biggest.
At the same time, these positions are hardest to assess. Due to that very dynamism. One tempo can change the hole picture. Putting your pieces in the open center, provokes pawn moves from the enemy to chase them away. The defending party should withstand the defying pieces by keeping the pawns where they are. Forward movement create holes, invasion squares and weaknesses.
We have to find a way to assess the dynamism of the center.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The following two positions feature the open center and the two Bishops. They also demonstrate how important PoPLoAFun can be in bringing the critical features of the position into focus.
ReplyDeleteM. Blokh, Combinative Motifs
Problem 322 (Difficulty=7): [FEN=r1bQ1nk1/bp3ppp/p7/3B4/1P6/P3P1P1/2P4P/q1B2RK1 b - - 0 1]
Problem 324 (Difficulty=10): [FEN=2r1r1k1/1R4bp/p5p1/2pqn3/8/2B5/1PQ1B1PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1]
On a related note: I was explaining the PoPLoAFun concept to a fellow chess club member on Tuesday night. While doing so, I suddenly realized that there is (almost) a one-to-one correspondence between Lasker’s three most important “motifs” and PoPLoAFun:
Encircling Motif <=> Points of pressure
Geometrical Motif <=> Lines of attack
Function Motif <=> Function(s) of the pieces
(Yeah, I know: we've had this discussion in detail some time ago.)
Well, that dynamism is putting most positional knowledge into the background. Tactics is on the agenda, and tactics needs activity, but that isnt easy to judge.
ReplyDeleteBy rule of thumb: if you are ahead in development, then try to rip the position even more open, maybe with a pawn sac or an exchange sac.
I am bad in this kind of stuff, but I do it if the position requires it. It reminds me of rolling the dice, while I know I can not keep up in tactics with other expert/master players.
Sometimes we cant avoid it. But there are some ways you can try to avoid it: dont block the position like a closed french or the typical KID. Because first very little happens, but tension builds up, and when the closed centre breaks up, tactics are suddenly all over the place!
But also dont play too open. My Reti opening is just the right balance with 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 - I seek this pawn thrust early, because from here I can still prepare my opening theory. I can not avoid contact with the enemy, so I seek it with the pawn tension c4xd5 or d5xc4 early.
I can steer the position often into waters that arent totally blocked, but arent wide open, too. Both avoids tactics, and I am only left with small/easy tactics, but nothing too complicated.
For black, I liked the scandinavian with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5, which again gives some tactics, but not too much.
Maybe the Caro-Kann is also good to reduce the amount of wild sharp tactics for a long time.
(But I play the Nimzo-defense: 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 - kind of an improved Scandinavian: leads to positions that do not have too wild tactics, but at the same time releasing a bit of tension with easy tactics. Nothing I can not handle against a master.
I guess, if my opponents knew I am bad in tactics, they good force wild tactics, but I am not telling, so people usually play with common sense and that usually doesnt mean they want to overrun me in a wild gambit.
In my previous incarnation as a "chess player," I tried the same approach of avoiding tactical melees for the same reasons - and too much reliance on Nimzovich's My System. As a result, I got up to 1810 USCF rating, but then usually had difficulties against stronger players (except for rare exceptions where the stronger player played cautiously, waiting for me to commit suicide tactically - I did manage to win a few games against Experts and Masters). Since returning to the chess wars OTB (and as a result of the discussions here), I have worked very hard on improving my "intuition" for tactics (System 1). I realized that the general approach to the game has changed from 50 years ago. Instead of playing in accordance with "classical principles", players now seem to be following the trend noted by John Watson toward more "rules-independent" play. That means considerably more dynamism right in the opening (not necessarily gambits). Static weaknesses are often accepted in return for more dynamic chances. When I first resumed playing OTB, I was getting killed right out of the opening because I couldn't keep a lid on the tactics. Now I often initiate the tactical melee myself, especially against players that I know want to play less dynamically. It doesn't often lead to an immediate advantage, but it does keep them off balance, because they don't know whether its bravery or bravado. I don't study the openings very much; usually, I play what I think is best, and then check the theory after the game. I've always enjoyed playing in accordance with Lasker's idea of playing against the opponent, rather than focusing on the theoretical best variation as if the opponent does not exist. It may not be the strongest way to play, but it does provide me with the most enjoyment of the game (even when I lose). To each his own!
ReplyDeleteThe best way to keep the lid on Pandora's box is to control the center.
ReplyDeleteHere's a recent game with someone who is at about the same rating level as me. I make no claim that it is educational or particularly "brilliant"; it simply illustrates what I was saying about changing how I approach the game these days. (The "$nn" are the ECO symbols used by Fritz during annotations; unfortunately, NotePad doesn't translate them into the proper symbols. I'm too tired to look them up and translate them.)
ReplyDeleteNorm and I both "saw" that Black should play ...f5 at some point to close at least one of the Lines of Attack. Norm was very sporting, allowing me to finish the game with checkmate, even after he saw that it was inevitable.
[Event "Ricochet 24+5 Delay"]
[Site "Asheboro, NC"]
[Date "2019.09.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Coble, Robert"]
[Black "Askew, Norman"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D03"]
[WhiteElo "1609"]
[BlackElo "1543"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 9 64 (60s)"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "2019.09.24"]
[EventType "game (rapid)"]
{D03: 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bg5, including Torre Attack with early ...d5}
1. Nf3 d5
2. d4 Nf6
3. Bg5 e6
4. e3 Nbd7
5. Bd3 {last book move} a6 {Covers b5}
6. Nbd2 c5
7. c3 cxd4 (7... h6 8. Bh4 $11)
8. exd4 $14 ({Weaker is} 8. Nxd4 e5 9. N4b3 Be7 $11)
8... Bd6
9. Qe2 (9. Bh4 h6 $14)
9... O-O (9... h6 $5 {has some apparent merit} 10. Bh4 Qc7 $14)
10. Ne5 $16 Qc7
11. f4 {Black's piece can't move: c8} Ne8 (11... b5 $16)
12. Qh5 (12. O-O $16) 12... Ndf6 $2 (12... f5 $142 $5 $11 {must be considered})
13. Qh4 (13. Qh3 b5 14. O-O Bb7 $18)
13... Bd7
14. Ng4 $4 {White threatens to win material: Ng4xf6. a transit from better to worse} (14. Bc2 $142 Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bxe4 $16)
14... Bxf4 $4 {ruins a clearly superior position} (14... Ne4 $142 {would hold out} 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bxe4 f5 $11)
15. Bxf6 (15. Bxf4 $142 {and White can already relax} Qb6 16. Be5 $18)
15... Bxd2+ (15... h6 {desperation} 16. Rf1 Bb5 17. Rxf4 Qxf4 $18)
16. Kxd2 Qf4+
17. Kc2 h6
18. Rhf1 Qd6
19. Qxh6 $1 {Deflection: g7} gxh6 (19... gxh6 20. Nxh6# {Mate attack Deflection})
20. Nxh6# 1-0