[disclaimer]
If you have been the trainer of Kasparov and Bacrot, your lessons might omit a few details which are necessary for students with a lesser pedigree. Since it doesn't seem to be rocket science, I'm going to try to fill in these omissions myself. I have read the book, but I haven't digested the material yet. Writing this post is supposed to help me with the digestion. So my writings may contain big misinterpretations. Which hopefully will be corrected during the process of digestion. After digestion, I will compare my findings with the series of videos. The book is from 2001 or so and the videos from 2019, so the latter contain the latest insights. Which might differ substantially.
Recap
The book is about decision making at critical moments. A critical moment is when a piece is about to be traded or the pawn structure is about to be changed.
There are four hierarchical elements:
- king safety
- material balance
- who is better without queens
- pawn structure
One of the biggest problems that people can have is mixing up the static elements and the dynamic elements.
Your positional decisions should be based on the balance of the static elements. Only after you have decided what should be done, you make a list of candidate moves. This list only contains moves that might help you to reach your positional goal. Reaching the goal is a matter of technique. Here is where the omissions of the book become apparent. Kasparov and Bacrot have a technique that is slightly better than that of the average Joe (read me). Both the examples and the explanations are aiming for students with a much higher level of technique. But knowing what to do is much more important than knowing how to do it (and I have to start somewhere).
When the balance of static elements tips towards the enemy, you must shift gears and resort to dynamic measures. I haven't quite clear yet what that means, but I suppose something like the following: If you are a piece behind (number two in the static hierarchy), you should attack the uncastled king (number one in the static hierarchy) which is temporary (dynamic) unsafe in the middle of the board, and try to transform the temporary unsafety of the king permanent. Once you have transformed the dynamic element into a static element, you can change your approach again.
King safety
What to do when the enemy king position is unsafe?
- kill the man
- exchange defenders
- add attackers
Material balance
What to do when you are a piece ahead?
- Trade off all pieces
- Trade off no pawns
Don't trade a bishop for a knight when the pawn structure isn't fixed yet. You don't know which bishop is going to be bad. If the trade gains another static advantage, this rule doesn't apply, of course.
He says something about piece tandems like two knights plus a bishop against two bishops plus a knight, but I don't have a clear picture yet.
Queen plus knight is stronger than queen plus bishop.
Who is better without queens
This seems a question that has quite some overlap with the other elements. In the end it will tell you whether you should trade queens, I suppose.
Pawn structure
The following items are identified:
- double pawns
- triple pawns
- protected passed pawn
- number of pawn islands
- compact pawn chain
- hanging pawns
- pawn majority in the center
- pawn majority on the queenside
- weak square
- isolani
- backward pawn
- weak color complex
- blockade
- domination
- outpost a la Dorfman
- ordinary outpost
- bad pieces
- center types
All in all I got a good picture where to start with my investigations. Especially the warning not to mess up static and dynamic elements resonates with me.
Your observations coincide with my own regarding the "Method." If you possess the talent and skill of Kasparov and Bacrot, you don't need the missing stuff - you already possess it. Those of us without the wings of Icarus have no better option than to plod along, picking up the crumbs falling from the gods.
ReplyDeleteI noted one unimportant thing: a quote by The Patriarch Botvinnik in Reader's Digest condensed form:
"I regard chess as being an equivalent (adequate) exchange."
The actual quote is found in Computers, Chess and Long-Range Planning:
"In my opinion, the process of playing chess (and probably any game) consists in a generalized exchange. By this term we mean an exchange in which (in the general case) the values traded may be tangible or positional ('invisible,' situational). The goal of a generalized exchange is a relative gain of these tangible or positional (situational) values. There are not and cannot be other goals. In the end, this generalized exchange process in chess must lead to the winning of infinitely great tangible value (i.e., to mate)."
Dorfman's heirarchy (regressive scale) of four static factors gives a framework for a logical thinking process, assuming that minor technical details (like tactics and technique) have already been mastered. [Note that there is no implied hierarchy of the subelements listed under pawn structure.] As the Poet Lariat Will Rogers opined, "It ain't so much the things that people don't know that makes trouble in this world, as it is the things that people know that ain't so."
Dorfman provides a "crude method" as an alternative to his more robust "method":
"There is a crude method, enabling an immediate static evaluation of a position to be obtained:
- analyze whether it is possible for your own position to evolve independently of your opponent's;
- analyze whether the opponent's position can evolve independently of your own;
The position which is ready for evolution is statically better."
Well, that certainly sounds simple (and crude) enough to make masters of us all! It sounds rather like the advice to "Always make the best move and you will always win!" Easy enough said, much more difficult to apply in practice. Or, as Master Yoda (Yogi Berra) said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
Given my current skill level, I think I'll continue to focus my efforts on mastering PoPLoAFun for a while longer, since I'm still benefiting from it.
* When the unsafe king is ready for attack is knowable by the preconditions of Vukovitsch.
ReplyDelete* When to trade pieces becomes not clear by the book, but it shouldn't be too problematic to unearth the rules.
* The rules when to trade queens probably isn't rocket science either.
That leaves us with the pawn structure to investigate.
I find the following things to be revealing from the book:
* first the plan, then the moves
* plans are based on the long term (static) elements
It gives me a starting point for further investigation. About the relationship between pawn structure and PoPLoAFun
PART I:
ReplyDeleteHere's some additional (I hope!) material from Dorfman. I reworded it so that it makes more sense to me [perhaps making it even less intelligible]. My apology in advance for any duplication of what you’ve already written.
THEORECTICAL SECTION
The theory of the [Dorfman] method analyzes the conception of statics and dynamics, their various elements, and the relative hierarchy of these elements. A number of rules will be formulated for the first time, generalizing the processes taking place during play. These rules enable certain well-known postulates to be explained, and others to be looked at more critically.
Alekhine: “In chess, what is important is the “how,” not the “what"."
Botvinnik (Computers, Chess and Long Range Planning):
In my opinion, the process of playing chess (and probably any game) consists in a generalized exchange. By this term we mean an exchange in which (in the general case) the values traded may be tangible or positional ("invisible," situational). The goal of a generalized exchange is a relative gain of these tangible or positional (situational) values. There are not and cannot be other goals. In the end, this generalized exchange process in chess must lead to the winning of infinitely great tangible value (i.e., to mate).
The tangible [material] value of the pieces in chess is well known to all beginning chess players. But what of the invisible, conjuctural (positional) value of the pieces? This value depends on the position of the piece and on the role of the piece in the general combat then taking place on the board. The positional value of a piece is subject to sharp changes.
In many games the hierarchy [relative importance] of strategic factors varies, thus determining the evaluation of a position and resulting in modification of plans and ideas. This modification of plans and ideas (as circumstances change, perhaps even from move to move) constitutes dynamism in chess.
The [Dorfman] method enables the player to foresee how relative importance of the strategic elements will change as the result of a series of moves, allowing the interactions of the elements to be concretely analyzed and for this process of “foreseeing” to be controlled by the player. In concentrated form, this method represents the move search algorithm in chess [see below].
Identifying critical positions enables the player to foresee the necessary modification of the hierarchy of strategic factors. I emphasize analysing critical positions on the basis of their static state, WITHOUT TAKING ACCOUNT OF DYNAMIC FACTORS. The analytical static balance provides the basis for determining candidate moves.
Definition of STATIC and DYNAMIC factors
‘Static’ are those factors that have an enduring effect. ‘Dynamic’ factors are associated with a change in the state of a position, with breakthroughs, and when the two armies come into contact. As the game progresses, the role of dynamic factors diminishes toward zero. [???]
If the static balance is negative for one player, he must without hesitation employ dynamic means to compensate for his disadvantage(s), and be ready to go in for extreme measures [perhaps sacrificing material to shift the relative importance away from the favorable (for the opponent) static factors] in order to change the relative unbalance in his favor.
[As noted by Tempo, this idea is extremely vague, at least to non-master players.]
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThe move search algorithm:
1) Find a critical position (a turning point in the play, a moment when there is a potential change in the hierarchy of strategic elements).
2) Draw up the static balance of this critical position, using this relative balance to decide which player should use static means and which player should use dynamic means.
3) Determine the candidate moves based on the [static or dynamic] means selected, and choose a specific move that meets these requirements.
Between critical positions, there are technical phases (moves) linking together the critical positions. Separation of a game into opening, middlegame and ending phases has no practical purpose and may even be harmful, since the game may have several critical positions at a very early stage.
I. Definition of a critical position
There are three criteria for determining the existence of a critical position:
1) A position containing a possible exchange. If the exchange is forced [using what criteria?], then there is no change from the previous critical position.
2) A position containing a possible change in the pawn formation, especially the center pawns.
3) A position at the end of a forced sequence of moves. There is no necessary connection between a series of forced moves and a combination.
Sensing and identifying critical positions is a crucial chess skill. When analyzing, mark all critical positions with a recognizable sign. Record the amount of thinking time taken at the critical positions. When analyzing, try to figure out moves and variations that will restore the static balance. Note critical positions in master games by the relatively large amount of time spent on such positions, and the problems solved in those positions. Note also how much faster masters play in positions where the moves are predetermined (either from opening or endgame theory, or a specific knowledge of chess tabiya and priyomes).
II. Drawing up the static balance
Use a hierarchical list of strategic elements, ordered by relative importance in each critical position. King safety is at the top of the list. Material balance is next in the list. Considerations of positions after an exchange of queens is third on the list. Various positional factors (specifically pawn structure issues) are at the lowest level on the list. Note that the pawn structure subelements are not ordered.
First: The important static elements are listed in order of importance.
Second: Some of the elements may be either static or dynamic, depending on the specifics of the position.
Example: A ‘bad’ Bishop may be statically bad, if the pawn formation in the center is fixed. On the other hand, it may be dynamically bad in variations similar to the Queen’s Gambit Declined, with the Black Bishop stuck on c8.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteI can "see" the influence of Botvinnik and his views on computerized (algorithmic) chess in Dorfman's method. Apparently, he agrees with The Patriarch's view of chess as a generalized exchange of values. (After all, who in the Soviet School is going to directly contradict Botvinnik or Kotov?!?) He also describes the process for conducting the move search as an "algorithm". Unfortunately, his definition is far too broad and vague to be generally useful.
Let's look at a concrete example.
After 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5, according to definitions (1) and (2), we have reached a "critical position." There is the possibility of an exchange of pawns, thus changing the pawn formation of the center pawns.
After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6, we reach another "critical" position, again by the criteria of definitions (1) and (2).
After 2 moves (in either mainline opening), have we really reached a "critical" position? Both players have equally viable alternatives, with neither player having to make a decision that will effectively determine the outcome of the game.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, nor do I presume that I have more insight than GM Dorfman as to what constitutes a viable "method" for identifying and resolving critical chess positions (especially at the level he is at). But I do have extensive experience defining and using computer algorithms, and his move search "algorithm" just doesn't work as an algorithm. Please feel free to disagree.
smirnov says: only exchanges of pieces or move(! not only takes ) of pawns change the poeitionals features, only then its necessary to modify the plan.
ReplyDeleteA move of a pawn opens lines, diagonals, create a weak square...
An exchange creates a bishoppair, stron knigh vs weak bishop...
This positional features ( imballances ) come with a set of rules how to play ( see HTRYC ). A selectetd subset of these rules + some concrete ideas form "The plan"
As far as i understand it, its all about recognising weaknesses and the methods how to handle them.
There is a open file, you put your heavy pieces on it, you invade the 7.rank. (Positional)
There is a pinnable piece, you pin it, you attack it further, you take it. (Tactical)
The question is: to know the weaknesses, know the methods how to use them, getting aware of the weaknesses, calculate precise, judge the final positions correct.
From ChessBase:
ReplyDelete(”https://en.chessbase.com/post/critical-moments-in-chess-an-invaluable-lesson”)
The idea of critical moments is not hard to understand, and perhaps because of this is so easy to underestimate. These key moments in our games are essentially the turning point, leading to a decisive and negative change if missed or played improperly.
What is a critical moment? These are words we often read in the comments of top players, whose understanding of their importance is absolute. This is not to be confused with always playing them correctly or even recognizing them when they occurred. If the top players have this issue, imagine the lesser mortals at the chess board.
Obviously, playing them correctly is not something a simple 60-minute course can teach, as they are still the domain of technique in all its shades and tones, but if you fail to even realize you face such a time, the task will be that much harder. The famous trainer Iossif Dorfman [The Method in Chess], we are told, espoused the theory that every game had 5-6 critical moments in them, though explained that these were for both sides, and their nature would vary as well.
What kind of moments are we talking about? In a nutshell there are three types: positional turning points where a plan must be adopted, calculation where precise moves must be found within the tree of variations, and finally one of the most difficult and advanced ones, the endgame transition. This last is one the author emphasizes quite rightly, explaining that transitioning to pawn endgames is especially critical as they will allow no wiggle room to change the evaluation once there.
For those interested in critical moments, there are a couple of books on the subject (which I do not have at present - I may get the Gaprindashvili book eventually).
Critical Moments in Chess (Batsford Chess) - Paata Gaprindashvili $39.95
(Critical Moments in Chess)
From Chapter 1:
"Almost every game has its own critical moments. Moments, where you have to decide questions about the initiative, advantage, where situations of conflict arise. Such moments have great significance, having an influence on the further course of the struggle. In games, there will usually be 2-3 critical moments. They will arise in very different situations, but most frequently during 1) the struggle for the initiative; 2) development of the initiative, creation of the attack; 3) delivery of a decisive blow.
Gaprindashvili’s book got really good reviews on Silman’s blog.
The Critical Moment (by the Grandmaster Iossif Dorfman) - $179.00
(The Critical Moment)
This apparently is an update to his "method." (Perhaps the "method" was not as all-encompassing as he initially thought.) In any event, it is extremely expensive, and there is no preview available. The reviews opined that it was useful but it still uses the same "heavy" translation verbiage, i.e., it is difficult to read and understand. I think I'll pass on it.
I read the book The Critical Moment In Chess. Pfeww. . . It was quite an effort, but I wanted to settle the matter for now.
DeleteThe problem is as follows. We need to learn to optimize the pawn structure under any circumstance. Since both our opponents and we have no idea how to do that, there is a lot to gain in this area. When we become better in this area, our rating will climb. Until we meet higher rating opponents, who know how to frustrate our pawn play. Then, and only then, we need such books as from Dorfman. It tells you when you scr*wed your position, and it is time to resort to dynamical play.
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteYou can review all of Gaprindashvili's book online here:
Critical Moments in Chess
If you like it, I strongly suggest purchasing it. Having seen the entire book, it's now definitely on my "must have" list for immediate future purchase.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete