Activity by the center
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.
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.
Your first line "Activity = attack."
ReplyDeleteI am not really an attacking player. Rather I am infamous for being very defensive. Like a spider, I am waiting for mistakes from my opponents. This isnt really what you might have in mind with "attack". Nevertheless, your way might work, too. It is just - chess isnt only complicated, but in chess different strategies can be successful, and you would think they these different strategies are (on times) not compatible.
Example: 1.Nf3 (the move that is most flexible, while reducing some of black's options in a subtle way - well, black can still do most moves (except ...e5), but in fact, he has only a few left unless he like to be worse)
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 (is this what you call Activity = attack?) 2...dxc4 (some might call the move ...dxc4 active and an attack) 3.e4 (my Bf1 attacks c4) 3...b5 (defends c4 or is it also mobilizing a black pawnstorm on the queenswing?) 4.a4 (attacking b5) 4...c6 5.axb5 5...cxb5 6.Nc3 Bd7 7.d3 cxd3 8.Bxd3 - white is a pawn down.
I am not so sure who was attacking here, though. Was black winning a pawn, or was white sacrificing it?
And who is attacking?
I guess it was both. With active play, black depleted all active moves, and he seem to have depleted (wasted) his activity. It is like gunning down a lot with a lot of bullets, just to find out that you are left with an empty gun. But black's firing means that he successfully kept his pawn advantage.
You see: you can use up your activity - and this is what I try to provoke. I leave black the initiative until he is overstreched, runs out of active moves. "to take is a mistake" says GM Smirnov. This is what I like to provoke: black's c-pawn on c4 does cxd3, and by doing so, my bishop on f1 gets drawn into the center (to the square d3). I have not really tried to attack black's main position. All I did was "losing the battle to regain material" - and still, white's resulting position is great!
Simlarly this opening I love to play with black:
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 (active push, gains territory) 3...f6 (you shall not move your f-pawn in the opening) 4.exf6 Nxf4 5.Nf3 (aiming against e5, so black suffers from a backward e-pawn) 5...Bg4 (fight about the weakness of e5).
You could argue that white was actively achieving this (created black's e5 hole/weakness), but looking closely, black is ahead in development, although black usually is BEHIND in development. So this is where white used up his activity.
You need probably to think of it like moving waves on the shore: if you watch the waves, they dont only go up and down. No! while the water (which was pushed up) flows down again, it fights the next wave. But the 2nd wave is stronger, and the water gets up even further. Then the 3rd waves gets water even higher up the beach. Only at the 4th or 5th wave, the backflowing water creates so much pressure, that it pushes back the water a lot, and the 6th wave barely gets to the beach. And then it all repeats. In chess it is similar - you can hardly maintain the pressure, and like in football: you get the best counter strikes in exactly that very moment, when too many attackers are in front of the opponents goal.
You put forward a lot of clever thoughts. As usually. You made it clear that we have to circumvent semantics. Activity is the pressure from PoPLoAFun. (PoP = point of pressure.) How do we measure pressure? By the binding of defenders (function). How much and how tight is this binding.
DeleteTactics flow naturally from good positions. Good positions are based on limited possibilities by the opponent. Read bound pieces.
Raising activity means: bind pieces to defense.
Sometimes it is annoying to have a bound piece. And when the opponent is all over me, I can hardly move - so I likely lose. But I guess, that is kind of having already a winning attack. And nobody would deny that having a winning attack is not something nice to have.
ReplyDeleteBut usually you first have a struggle where you often you are only marginally better. And there you have the wave-thematic I explained before. You can achieve something, just to find out that the tide turns, and you are thrown back again.
I have now a very concrete position in mind, and if you can explain it with your system - then you will be fine. I want to point out that "attack and pressure" is what most people do up do A-Class. But at expert level, moving pieces get much more subtle, and here the position I have in mind.
Watch this video, but start at minute 5:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg
You see: black has an active knight in the centre, and this is what people below 2000 often are not aware of: getting the centre, achieving "something" - it is often just that the expert player lured the A-class player forward. It is this very common misconception of getting ground, binding pieces, going for the open file --> but everything as soon as possible.
When you pause the video at 5:45 - you can argue that black did it clever: his double pawn wont remain a double pawn, and meanwhile he can occupy the half-open c-file.
The Bb7 is likely more pressuring the white kings position than the Bb2. Why? Because it looks like black is the one who can open up the centre (sooner or later) and he will do so in a moment where his Bb7 will be more dangerous than Bb2. Really: if dxc4, then the d5 pawn gave way for the Bb7, but c4xd5 will not free the Bb2.
And still, the wave is flowing back, and it means black got thrown back. And if you think this is an exceptional position, it maybe is indeed. Smirnov chose this position because it is explaining his point.
Nevertheless, there is this struggle, and you sometimes dont aim for activity, because you "sense" that you unleash a strong counter.
Smirnov concludes that white has a positional advantage after white gets his knight to c3.
He forgets to give some explanaition, though. And I struggle myself to explain why white is better after Nc3.
The advantage is (I guess): black has no good plan in the position. What to aim for? Very slowly white will gain ground, and black has no way to stop white, nor to initiate a counter. Others might argue white has the pair of bishops, but I am not convinced this plays a major factor here. Sure: Bb2-a3 could be annoying.
But rather it is this moving centre opportunity which places white in a good position. It gives white a long lasting initiative. It is nothing decisive, though, just a position which feels nice to play.
AND(!): White has not bound black's pieces (yeah, ok, with the option of Ba3, but I'd dare to say white was still better if the white a-pawn was already on a3). There is no attack after Nb1-c3, just a subtle advantage, based on his flexible position. His pieces are in harmony, but there is no attack, and not real tactic.
ok, that is that. There are sometimes moves, where you just give way. You let it happen, and by doing so, the tension disappears, while the remaining wreck of position doesnt seem to be so bad at all.
ReplyDeleteHere an example, just recently played at Tata Steel. The game Duda vs Anand in round 13.
Here the link:
https://lichess.org/broadcast/tata-steel-masters-2020-round-13/MMKMGz0N
look at move 9.Bd3 - I struggle to find moves like that. Would it not be much more natural to play 9.Be2, to prevent a double pawn?
But 9.Bd3 ignores black's threat. And Anand does inflict the double pawn - after which the white pawn structure is pretty wrecked, isnt it? It amazes me that 9.Bd3 is not a bad move.
And then - the game continues strange: Black move Rd8, just to place it shortly afterwards onto c8. Why not c8 in the first place? Why isnt white playing Be4-c6? It would block the c-pawn, something black is playing later in the game (...c7-c5).
The game really is difficult to understand, but even if I do not understand the subtle details here: I can see that all is done with purpose. If your poploafun is helpful here? I doubt it. And yet, there is dynamic in there, it isnt totally blocked, there are lines/files and there are captures, and pieces are in contact.
An alternative to GM Smirnov's aphorism "To take is a mistake" is to simply consider it a matter of maintaining or resolving tension in the center. I think it was GM Rowson (in one of his books) who wrote that amateurs (class players) "feel" this tension psychologically and want to resolve it as soon as possible. NM Dan Heisman goes so far as to recommend that less advanced players should avoid using a counterattack (maintaining or increasing tension) unless absolutely sure that everything will work out in their favor. [Somehow, it seems this is a recipe for never increasing skill above a certain level.] Only more advanced players "feel" comfortable maintaining the tension or even increasing it. As a consequence, amateurs will exchange in such positions in order to reduce the tension. Tension explains the "why"; the aphorism tells you "what" to do (or more explicitly in this case, what NOT to do) in these types of positions.
ReplyDeleteIn the Smirnov position, Black has acquired an outpost on e4. There is a broader issue: per Steinitz, one should apply restriction (restraint) to remove the opponent's Knights ability to gain and/or retain an outpost, especially in the center. Pawns are usually preferred for this restricting purpose. [There is a price to be paid, because a Pawn must be advanced to do this, which MAY leave the changed Pawn structure somewhat weakened.] Exchanging off the opponent's Knight simply reduces the tension. Since the center Pawn structure is still somewhat fluid, it is in White's best interest to NOT exchange, and to figure out some other way to force the Black Knight out of e4. 1. f3 easily comes to mind, with a remote tactical threat of h4, trapping the Black Knight (if nothing is done by Black to give that Knight an escape square). Immediately playing 1. f3 also allows that Black Knight to "escape" by exchanging on d2. Which course of action is "better" for White? To not allow the Black Knight to escape through exchanging. Ergo, White should prevent Black from exchanging, and can only do that by retreating (temporarily) the White Knight to b1. After that move, Black has a single escape square and White threatens a tactical sequence which is only 2 moves long to capture the Black Knight. (Tactics ALWAYS rears its heads like the Hydra in cases where the tension is maintained, not dissipated.) The onus is shifted to Black to "see" that there is a Load involving f3, followed by h4. [It is important to not restrict our "vision" of lines of attack to mere geometrical movement lines of the Queen, Rook and Bishop. A LoA can also be a logical sequence of moves involving threats, either immediate or remote, or a combination of both types.]
The e4 square IS a PoP, simply because it is an outpost in White's side of the board AND in the center, ad occupied by a Black Knight. It seems counterintuitive to retreat the White Knight, until we realize that we are merely repositioning it - after we force Black to abandon the e4 outpost by playing f3. Black must figure out how to safely extricate his Knight from e4; if he doesn't, then he will lose it.
A move like Nb1 is not easy to find. It is not really a tactic (it threatens a tactic at best, but black only needs to react and play Nf6-d7), but rather a silent move. Well, yes, this knight gets re-positioned. However, this on it's own isnt that great, too. The fact remains - white is avoiding an exchange.
ReplyDeleteThis is the sort of thing I mean with "waves moving forward and backward".
You retreat, just to come back stronger.
I avoid exchanges in my games, too, and it became so much part of my play, that I would probably find Nb1 - if I have enough time. No way I find such a move in Blitz!
With all this talk of attack and pressure - I just want to remind that this is exactly why A-class players lose against me. They are tactically not much weaker than me. But all they do is attack, attack and attack.
Really, the main thing that I do better is that I am aware of not wanting all at once and too much.
The game Duda vs Anand - seriously: look at the move 9.Bd3.
You see, these are really two skilled players. The natural reaction of most players (including me) is "to react".
Standard thinking is: "He takes, I take, he takes, I take - and I am left with an ugly double pawn."
point of pressure: square f3.
But really, Duda thought - well, so what. I let him have that, it doesnt matter.
An other picture (instead of waves going up and down the beach) is a grass straw in the wind, compared with a sturdy tree. After a heavy storm, the grass straw will still be there, whereas the heavy storm de-rooted the sturdy tree, or even broke it.
If you really want to improve in chess, you need to have the soft side, too, like the grass straw moving with the wind.
It is tough to do. First thing is: sit on your hands and keep telling you "to take is a mistake".
This is a short sentence, and it doesnt overload your brain to much.
But after a while it becomes second nature of your play. And much after that, you realise that it isnt really only about "to take is a mistake", but to think ahead where and when pieces are exchanged. Only then you are ready for moves like Nb1.
I am saying you are not even getting to the point where you need to think "to take is a mistake", because you considered that 2-3 moves before the capture emerges on the board.
You start to re-positioning more, and you completely review your ideas of "development". For me, there is no development, but rather "opportunity" - points to where to place my pieces.
Example: 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8 5.Nc3 Be6 6.e4 Nd7 7.Nf3 f6 8.Be3 c6 9.O-O-O Kc7
Yeah, I am behind in "development" - if you see it from standard club play.
However, I have more potential/opportunities in the position. My pawn on c6 nicely takes squares from the Nc3, and his light squared bishop is pretty bad. There is a hole on d4, which I might exploit later.
I intend to exchange my bishop on the c5 square, and when my knight recaptures on c5 I hope I got a previous a7-a5 in - which avoids a white b2-b4 and thus my knight can remain in a position where it has opportunities (attacking pawn e4, or go to e6 and then jump into the hole d4.
Whatever I do - I am the grass straw in the wind. White is ahead in "development", but does not have all the opportunities that black has.
I do win this position as black often, and there are hardly any tactics involved.
PopLoafun is always onto something concrete, it doesnt think of maybe-opportunities or give a little bit back (like 9.Bd3 in the Duda-Anand game in round 13 at Tata Steel).
GM Smirnov explained much better than me what I tried to explain here so hard.
ReplyDeleteStart the video from 0:40 and listen up to 3:00.
This is what I experience, too, and this is what worries me if I read about "points of pressure" (poploafun, etc).
Smirnov shows then some example games, but if you want to see what I mean with "waves on the shore coming forward and backward" or "grass straw in the wind", the most typical game is actually Smirnov's last example, starting at 18:00
In this KID example, you can see the ideas of Bf4-e3-d2 and Nd4-c2 -> both backward moves. And once the black queen moves, the tide is turning and white pushs his pawns forward. All his pieces are placed for that purpose, and this is how I win my games, too. I can not deny that there were tactics involved at this KID example. And sometimes all goes wrong and his attacking ideas just crush me. However, often enough, I do know how to handle my middlegames, and I get my plan slowly into motion. Often I push him back. But to push him back means he went forward.
People in my club said I am a devious very defensive player. Rock solid. Nobody can crack me. But the truth is: I do normal moves, fitting to my plan, whereas "they" attack me like crazy, and with no plan.
Just like Smirnov says, and I win games against A-class players even though I am not really tactically that (much) stronger. A lot of A-class players can reach about my CT Blitz rating at chesstempo.
Uri Blass said, he wish he could move as accurately like I do. Hell, I do not move accurately - I just play strategic chess! (while I try to avoid tactics. Because as GM Smirnov says around minute 3:00 :
"A typical club player does attack. And he uses tactics. Take those 2 components away, and he does not know what to do."
Sorry, here the link to the video:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy10Q-b2gZU
Here I want you to show a typical, really typical game of how I beat an average club player. Think about what Smirnov said: all the do is attack. They use tactics. When there is no attack and not tactic, they do not know what to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd see how I seemingly look like a very passiv player. However, I do get my knight to c5. I play a5 to secure the position of my knight. I jump into the hole d4 with my knight. I do have a "goood" bishop.
I sacrifice my a5 pawn for the c5 square.
Why did my opponent play Nf3-h2? Smirnov would say "I really dont know".
I think, my opponent was looking for further ways to attack, and figured, he might want to push f2-f4, so his knight was in the way (in front of the f-pawn).
My pieces go forward and backward (Bc4-e6, or Nh6-f7, or multiple times Nd7-c5-d7-c5-d7, or even my king goes backwards when recapturing the rook on d8).
White gets forward, and forward - until he loses. If he wasnt check mated - do you have any doubts I would not win the game? I have all the good squares, I pick up his pawns, and I will win - pretty savely, with shallow tactics. Tactics that everybody can understand. Nothing special.
Here the game (I am black):
https://lichess.org/NZC6D3FJS6ih
Interesting - his thinking time goes up when there are no attacking moves. "If the can not attack - they dont know what to do".