Time to broaden the scope
Now the weather becomes worse, I feel less the urge to go out and ride my recumbent trike. Time behind the computer doesn't feel so wasted when the weather is cold and rainy. So I have been able to flick in a few training sessions. Where am I standing now?
I feel that I have found the right method for tactical training now. I focus solely on the four duplo attacks. Double attack, discovered attack, pin and skewer. They form the base of all tactics. Two moves deep, rating between 1600 and 2000. Every problem solved is copied to paint with the aid of a macro. There I evaluate the position by drawing the critical PLF (PoPLoAFun) elements. It took me 19 years to develop the method, now it is time to practice it for at least a year or so.
Since I don't need to spend time on developing the method anymore, it is time to broaden the scope. The approach of Munich which he describes in the comment of the previous post has drawn my attention. In January I adopted the London system, and the lesser ambition of the system (in contrast to my all out throwing the kitchen sink no matter what attacks) feels very healthy (when I can suppress the urge to castle queen side). It saves a lot of time and energy, and the longer the game is, the more chances my opponents have to go astray.
For black I readopted the classical Dutch, with the aid of GM Simon "Ginger" Williams. Which seems viable enough for the rest of my life.
Leaves me with one problem: what to do against 1.e4? I used to play the Dutch lion, but since many people play f4 in an early stage, I have lost my faith in it. So I'm looking for a solid option against 1.e4. As solid and less ambitious as the London System.
I don't like the French, the Aljekhine, the Caro Kan, the Najdorf, the Scandinavion and everything with 1.e4 e5. Maybe I have a look at the accelerated dragon.
Tactics - check
Openings - in progress
This means that now the time is ripe to focus on a different aspect of the game: positional play!
What can we say about that?
I feel that I have found the right method for tactical training now. I focus solely on the four duplo attacks. Double attack, discovered attack, pin and skewer. They form the base of all tactics. Two moves deep, rating between 1600 and 2000. Every problem solved is copied to paint with the aid of a macro. There I evaluate the position by drawing the critical PLF (PoPLoAFun) elements. It took me 19 years to develop the method, now it is time to practice it for at least a year or so.
Since I don't need to spend time on developing the method anymore, it is time to broaden the scope. The approach of Munich which he describes in the comment of the previous post has drawn my attention. In January I adopted the London system, and the lesser ambition of the system (in contrast to my all out throwing the kitchen sink no matter what attacks) feels very healthy (when I can suppress the urge to castle queen side). It saves a lot of time and energy, and the longer the game is, the more chances my opponents have to go astray.
For black I readopted the classical Dutch, with the aid of GM Simon "Ginger" Williams. Which seems viable enough for the rest of my life.
Leaves me with one problem: what to do against 1.e4? I used to play the Dutch lion, but since many people play f4 in an early stage, I have lost my faith in it. So I'm looking for a solid option against 1.e4. As solid and less ambitious as the London System.
I don't like the French, the Aljekhine, the Caro Kan, the Najdorf, the Scandinavion and everything with 1.e4 e5. Maybe I have a look at the accelerated dragon.
Tactics - check
Openings - in progress
This means that now the time is ripe to focus on a different aspect of the game: positional play!
What can we say about that?
There are pattern/weaknesses and methods to handle these pattern/weaknesses
ReplyDeleteThe positional pattern are the prinziples of steiniz and/or the imbalaces of silman
The problem in my eyes is the thinking method to handle that all
@ Tempo: I am glad to see you resume your quest! I hope that Margriet's health has improved significantly.
ReplyDeletePART I:
The PoPLoAFun does much more than "point" TACTICALLY toward the important aspects of a given position. Potential Pawn breaks can be considered important "points of pressure". "Lines of attack" give clues regarding strong and weak pieces in cooperation with each other. "Functions" identify weaknesses associated with specific pieces, which can then be "attacked" using standard patterns (devices/themes).
I am finding in my own games that this sequence of thinking works for both tactical and strategic reasons:
(1) Identify who is to move.
(2) Identify the relative material balance.
(3) Identify the PoPs, LoAs, and Funs for both sides.
These first three steps ORIENT my thinking toward the critical elements that must be considered. Often, these are sufficient to give a "feel" for the general strategic plan to be considered.
It is a less mechanical process than Znosko-Borovsky's process described in The Middle Game in Chess, Part I, III Strategy and Tactics, pp 48-75. He stresses mechanically counting the relative tempi, space and material (Reinfeld values), considering this to be an outer "preliminary analysis." After totaling the relative STATIC values for each side, any imbalances (Silman's terminology) or differences between the two sides will reveal broad general approaches to strategy. These relative imbalances in TIME, SPACE, and MATERIAL must be dealt with differently. A TIME advantage invokes a memory of Lasker's "attack motif", or in Nimzovitch's axiom "Thou shalt NOT shilly-shally!" A SPACE advantage requires an avoidance of exchanges so as to be able to rapidly shift pieces from one target to another, while the defender has insufficient space within which to respond. The motif of the "two weaknesses" is important for both TIME and SPACE advantages. The MATERIAL advantage involves a plan of exchanging pieces (generally; not Pawns) which changes the ratio of material in the superior side's favor AND it also reduces the potential for the defender to launch a desperate (complicating) counterattack.
Z-B's "inner analysis" simply drills down into the PoPs, LoAs, and Funs, attempting to get past the "feel" created by the outer analysis of the position. One drills into the specifics looking at each PoP, LoA and Fun, and how these factors interact between pieces and squares. If there is a superiority in a particular sector (especially in the vicinity of the enemy King), then one looks at available resources (motifs, devise/themes) for attacking that King, diverting defenders away, etc. If there is at least one "loose" piece, one looks at how to either capture it or create another weakness by forcing a defense of that piece (losing time). After considering these factors, one has a much clearer idea of what is potentially possible, and this guides the in-depth analysis of variations by pruning uncritical variations away from consideration.
None of this "process" has to be followed religiously "step-by-step". I prefer to follow GM Speelman's advice to pick what seems to be the most critical aspect of the position (for instance, if I've got a potential checkmate, I may "ignore" the gain of a Pawn or possibly ignore my opponent's checkmate threat if I have TIE on my side) and to analyze a principal variation around it, which he calls "variation processing". Note that this is in direct contradiction to GM Kotov's advice regarding identification of all possible candidate moves FIRST, followed by a tree search of variations, scrupulously avoiding analyzing any variation more than once.
Correction: "if I have TIME on my side"
DeleteYou can ignore your opponents threats when you have a TIE on your side as well.
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteAs for various openings, I have no specific recommendations. Sometimes I'll play a sharp Sicilian variation against 1. e4, and at other times, play something more conservative. Using the PoPLoAFun approach has made it easier (NOT necessarily EASY!) to "see" what is more critical in each position, beginning with the very first moves. For example, I essayed the O'Kelly Sicilian successfully because I could "see" the tactical shots that could catch White off-guard if he tries to play the conventional Open Sicilian moves against it. Against someone who plays a Closed Sicilian as White, I would try something else (perhaps a transposition from Sicilian to French). It depends on my opponent and what mood we both are in as to the specific opening I'll play. As a result, I don't spend a lot of time trying to memorize any particular opening "system" to any depth as either White or Black. I like Lasker's advice to just ATTEMPT to reach a playable middlegame, even if it means I am at a slight disadvantage theoretically. PoPLoAFun provides the guiding "light" at the end of the tunnel. (I always hope that light is not on the front of a train! I guess that makes me guilty of playing "Hope Chess" (tm Heisman)!)
While I was scribbling my comments, Tempo was already ahead of me (as usual) with his next blog post. Oh well, it's nice to see we are heading in the same general direction.
ReplyDeleteOne more correction: GM Jonathan TISDALL, not GM Jonathan SPEELMAN, described "variation processing" in Improve Your Chess NOW!. Confusion of the two English Jonathans on my part. I've recently been observing GM Speelman's commentary on lichess, and I got confused.
ReplyDelete