Dorfman is, just like Nimzowitsch, a bad educator. He is from the Russian school. And he has a tendency to assume that what was common knowledge there, is common knowledge for his audience. Since he omits what he thinks is common knowledge, his ideas are hard to follow.
His videos are packed with gems, and it is hard work to unpack them. If in the end the pile of gems adds up to a usable Method, I don't know yet. But I can give you a few gems from the first 50 minutes.
He works with elements. An element can by static (lasting in time) or dynamic (temporary). He works with symmetrical and unsymmetrical properties. Somewhat comparable with the imbalances of HTRYC.
There are four elements, sofar:
- King safety
- Material balance
- Pawn structure
- Who stands better when the queens are taken off the board
The material balance goes not only about wood, but about what kind of wood too. The asymmetry of the pieces.
From the chapter about the pawn structure:
A half open file is stronger than an open file, since it is asymmetric. Look at the pawn structure after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5:
 |
| Diagram 1 |
You put a piece on the outpost, from where it exerts influence over the enemy camp.
 |
| Diagram 2 |
With which pawn should white take the knight back when black decides to swap it off with a piece of its own?
If you take back with the d pawn, then the symmetry is restored. The d-file becomes open, and the advantage disappears.
But when you take back with the f pawn, f7 becomes weak. The half open file shifts from e to f. And f7 can only be defended by pieces.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 New International Version (NIV)
ReplyDelete9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Reuben Fine, The Middle Game in Chess:
In the middle game, our main concern must be with the ideas that are used to understand what goes on.
Force (or material), mobility, and King safety are the three basic principles of chess. Mobility can be further subdivided into Pawn structure (or Pawn mobility) and general freedom of the pieces. Add to these the tactical situation at any moment (combinations), and we have a complete outline for the analysis of any position.
However, not all of these elements are of equal importance. First place must of course be given to the position of the King. When it is endangered, nothing else counts. Hence we must devote a special chapter to the various possibilities of attack against the King, i.e., mating attacks.
Still, even in mating attacks the factor of crucial importance is the combination. The reason why a strong player can give a weaker a handicap is that he "sees" more, i.e., he is more alive to the combinations inherent in the position. Among players of equal strength, it is always the last blunder, and the ability to see it, that determines who will win. At every level of chess skill, including the world championship class, it is still true that Tactics is 99 per cent of the game.
. . .
At first sight, combinations strike us as a bolt from the blue. The amateur looks at the games of the master, and says in awe and wonderment, "How did he SEE it?" Yet combinations are based on only two simple principles. If the King is not involved, all combinations are based on a double attack. If the King is involved, the combination has a mating threat as the pivot.
. . .
V. How to Analyze a Position
The player understandably is always facing us with the question: What shall I do in this position? Before this question can be answered, we must first ask: How is this position to be evaluated? It is the second question that we are concerned now.
The analysis of a position is based on the three fundamental principles of force, mobility, and King safety. Mobility is further subdivided into Pawn structure and freedom of the pieces. Add the tactical situation at any moment, and we have the five basic questions:
1. Am I ahead, behind, or even in material? (MATERIAL)
2. Are my Pawns well placed and how do they compare with my opponent's? (Mobility - Pawn structure)
3. How much freedom of action do my pieces have, and is my degree of mobility greater than my opponent's? (Mobility - piece freedom)
4. Are the Kings safe or exposed to attack? (King safety)
5. What is the threat? (Combinations)
Once these questions are answered, we can evaluate the position as superior, equal, or inferior, form plans, and proceed accordingly. . . . In those positions where there is a decisive combination, everything else is of secondary importance.
FWIW:
ReplyDeleteAs Nimzowitsch pointed out, pressure is exerted behind the outpost against the blockaded Pawn (e6, in your example). However, the final attack on that e6 point will (likely) be a Pawn traveling on the adjacent file (here, the f-file). It really doesn't matter if the Knight remains in place or is exchanged (assuming that White can retain control over e5). This Pawn advance against e6 opens up the possibility of a direct frontal attack (on the weakened e6 Pawn, after a capture by a Pawn on e6 and recapture by the f7-Pawn) and the possibility of an enveloping attack (allowing a Rook or Queen to utilize the f-file to gain access to f7, then moving to e7 to attack the target from the rear. An alternative attack is to place a Rook on f6 in order to attack e6. An indirect usage of the f-file is to launch a Kingside or Queenside attack, using the f-file as a highway to a "jumping off" point. This would be illustrated by advancing the Rook to f3, then moving it horizontally to attack some target other than e6, perhaps forcing a structural weakness before continuing the assault on e6.
Addendum to FWIW:
ReplyDeleteNimzowitsch states that establishing an output on a half-open file is only the first objective, a means to an end, not an end in itself. (Similarly, the opposition in an endgame is a means to an end, not an end in itself.) If the blockaded "target" can be conquered, all well and good - grab the loot! However, the ultimate objective (often only realizable in the late middlegame or endgame) is a penetration to the 7th or 8th rank, using the adjacent file as the pathway, if the immoblized target remains in place.
By observing and attempting to create/utilize these "elements" (of strategy), we begin to transition away from purely opportunistic tactical shots and toward longer range strategical planning. In short, we begin to be able to "look ahead" so as to create (or avoid) potential tension and critical positions. If we are more aware of the possibilities of "playing in accordance with the requirements of the position", we have a greater chance of eventual success, assuming our opponent is not even more astute regarding the "signposts" in each position.
ReplyDeletePoPLoAFun does the same thing, blending tactical and strategical elements and enabling a longer range viewpoint that does not depend solely on "I go here, he goes there, etc."
"Seeing" farther ahead, whether tactically or strategically, is a very good thing!
The reviews of the method aren't very good.
ReplyDeleteSo far I have listened to 3 hour of the 9 hour during series of videos. He claims that he has found an algorithm to analyze a position and to come up with a suitable candidate move. I tend to believe him.
But he is a horrible teacher. The cause is that I'm a horrible student. He is impatient, can't place himself in the position of the student, and goes in lightning speed through the positions.
Besides that, he has a terrible accent, and he is hard to follow for someone who isn't native English.
The reviews of Nimzowitsch's book aren't all that well either. For the very same reason, I suppose. Nobody sees a system in My System. But after studying the book for the second time, I know there is a system in it.
The same is true for The Method. I'm pretty sure there is a method in it. But it has to be decoded first. That is both a daunting and an exciting job.
IM Watson is a strange guy. He broke down the system of Nimzowitsch, but didn't replace it with something useful. Even when rule independency rules, we need rules to simplify the realm of chess. We cannot do without simplification.
The funny thing is, that even Dorfman doesn't recognize a system in My System. Yet what he says sofar doesn't differ all that much from what Nimzowitsch said.
I reckon that what Dorfman says is easier to decode than what Nimzowitsch said, so that is what I'm going to do first. I acquired the book too, so I have two angles of attack now.
On Aox's "recommendation", I bought a copy of GM Kotov's The Science of Strategy, in spite of some negative reviews. (I only have to wait until Christmas to get to read it!)
ReplyDeleteOften times, I like to see for myself whether I think a book or video is worth my shekels. I'll look at excerpts and all reviews before purchasing, but in the final analysis, the question is whether I can get some value from it. I learned a long time ago that there is no universal "magic" source for improvement for all people.
What you call "Method" other call Thinkingsystem or Thougtprocess. The best overview about the existing Thinkingsystems you find here: http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/ Excerpts of different Thinkingsystems analysed by a grandmaster.
ReplyDeleteI orientate on smirnovs own system where Kotovs Science of Strategy perfectly fits in.
Wow. Again there is no lack of advice. . .
DeleteThx for sharing, btw.
About Nimzowitch and his book: I dont really want to laugh now and say: "see? Last month --> I told you so!"
ReplyDeleteBut sorry ... I just cant resist:
I told you so:
http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2019/11/mein-system-redux.html?showComment=1573819397082#c7973000003850292069
I forgot to share it with you. But of course you are right!
Delete