Temposchlucker

There are four types of centers which are more or less stable. Two of them comprise the two extremes: The closed center, where two pawn chains are standing opposite to each other The open center, where there are no pawns on the center files And two centers that are somewhere in between: The half open center The pawn center, where one side has two center pawns against no pawns on the other side Each center has its own standard positional plans. But before you reach one of the more or less stable centers, there is a dynamic struggle going on, from which it is impossible to say beforehand which type of center is going to emerge. Yet even in this not yet crystallized situation there is a plan: conquer the center and try to get a favorable version of one of the four center types. I have subscribed for a nine round tournament in July. So the work is cut out for me. I intend to focus the first two month on positional play. The following two months I will focus on endgames. Sinc

Writing about piece activity has clarified a whole lot of things. Of course that leads to definitions that aren't everybody's cup of tea. But I belief that I can work with this simplification of matters. The punishment of oversimplification is that I have to think again. So no worries. Activity = attack. The pressure of PoPLoAFun so to speak. Where PoP= point of pressure . Weakness = target Target = weak pawn, B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) piece or defender Defender = function (Fun) Outpost = attacking square = the other end of the line of attack (LoA) Sofar it is all nice and simple and coherent. I think it might even be workable. What remains obscure though, is the relationship between piece activity and the center. I read rules, but the why behind the rules isn't clear to me. And as we know, following rules that you don't understand leads to disaster.

I absorb a lot of information lately from all kinds of sources. Most sources use different definitions. Without an exact definition, matters remain obscured. It must be as concrete as possible. What is piece activity and how is it measured? What is exactly a weakness? When can we consider a piece as being developed? UPDATE Once I played a knight to a beautiful outpost on c6. I thought it would be a super monster octopus there. But it accomplished nothing. The pawns it could attack were long gone, and the king was on the other flank where my knight could not reach it. So all the effort to get my knight there, was in fact wasted. That leads to the following rule: Activity of a piece should be measured by what it accomplishes. A piece must do something concrete . Now what are the concrete things a piece can do? It can attack a backward pawn It can attack a piece It can attack a defender It can invite  an enemy pawn to forsake its duty by occupying an outpost If none of th

Aox provided me with a playlist about square strategy theory . Which handles about the method of Bangiev. The videos describe the how of this method. I try to re-engineer the why. The PoPLoAFun system tells us: duplo attacks appear at random traps appear at random There are three bases for a tactic: lack of space lack of time lack of freedom due to function Only the latter can be used as a guide from move one. Pawns are the natural targets for positional play due to their limited mobility. All pawns on the 7th rank can only be defended by pieces or by pushing them forward. The f7 and c7 are weakest in the start position because the king and the queen are bad defenders. In the opening phase, the position is very fluid. This means that the least defended pawn can change rapidly. Until there comes some fixation of the position, positional targets can change from move to move. When the enemy pawns become less mobile, it becomes time to pick your target. Bangiev helps yo

The more I think about it, the more I start to see how all-important the pawns are. It was told me long ago, but the comprehensive nonsense that dominates the realm of good willing chess advice had made me deaf for this specific issue. Until now. Let's begin at the end. The end is: tie your enemies' pieces to the defense of a pawn. From the end to the beginning: tie your enemies' pieces to the defense of a pawn ( point of pressure )+ function make a pawn backward challenge the adjacent pawn to come forward open a file in front of the backward pawn trade the right pawn, or the right piece defended by a pawn fixate the backward pawn push the right pawns for trade or fixation This is all a bit vague, of course. So I tried to remember what Bangiev said about color complexes in his method. Alas, somehow the book has disappeared, and it seems out of print. He said something like: A base pawn is a backward pawn. In the opening position, that are all pawns on the 7th

The positional battle for the center is already reshaping my chess thinking. I play much faster for instance. Since when you have no clue what to think about, you can't get a signal that you are ready with thinking. I play more quiet now. When you maintain a solid center, your king won't be murdered in bed by surprise. Hence there is no need anymore to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent under all circumstances because of the fear of being caught off guard yourself at any moment. It is no sinecure to transform the 45 blue prints which constitute positional pawn play into a workable thought process. I used to think that that would be impossible, but at least I  have an entrance point for my thinking now. And that is great! I only have to follow the trail like a bloodhound. I think it is a good idea to split the realm of positional pawn play into two. What is the usual purpose for a pawn move, and what for a piece move? Which leads to an additional question, what decides