Sitting duck redux
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 whether you should move a pawn or a piece?
When there are no weaknesses, you should try to induce them. A weakness is a target. No weakness, no target. There can of course be accidental tactical targets. But when your opponents become stronger, the chance of tactical accidents manifesting themselves out of the blue, will turn out to diminish.
I let GM Stockfish play against himself from a position with no pawns:
After 14 moves the following position was reached:
Most people would probably agree that this position will end in a draw.
I draw the following conclusion: when there are no pawns on the board, you cannot make any progress. The pieces are simply too volatile. Any attack can be answered. An eye for an eye. A move for a move.
In order to make any progress, we need to slow the pieces down. We have two tools in the box for that:
The pawns and the king are both slow moving pieces. This makes them the natural targets of the chessboard. But in order to convert a slow moving piece into a target, we must immobilize it all together. The pawns have the least mobility of all pieces. We can convert them into a sitting duck by restraining or blockading them.
Only when a pawn cannot be protected by another pawn, there is any chance to actually win it. But maybe winning the pawn is not necessarily how it works. By attacking a pawn that cannot move and cannot be protected by another pawn (point of pressure), we force the other enemy pieces to protect the weak pawn (function). We tie the pieces to the pawn. Thus limiting their mobility.
The pieces which are limited due to their function become targets themselves.
The attacking pieces are mobile by their nature. They can direct their attention in another direction at any moment. While the defending pieces cannot.
Positional play is the art of converting pawns into targets.
HNY2UALL
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 whether you should move a pawn or a piece?
When there are no weaknesses, you should try to induce them. A weakness is a target. No weakness, no target. There can of course be accidental tactical targets. But when your opponents become stronger, the chance of tactical accidents manifesting themselves out of the blue, will turn out to diminish.
I let GM Stockfish play against himself from a position with no pawns:
 |
| White to move |
 |
| White to move |
Most people would probably agree that this position will end in a draw.
I draw the following conclusion: when there are no pawns on the board, you cannot make any progress. The pieces are simply too volatile. Any attack can be answered. An eye for an eye. A move for a move.
In order to make any progress, we need to slow the pieces down. We have two tools in the box for that:
- limit mobility of the hostile pieces by restraint
- limit mobility of the hostile pieces by function
The pawns and the king are both slow moving pieces. This makes them the natural targets of the chessboard. But in order to convert a slow moving piece into a target, we must immobilize it all together. The pawns have the least mobility of all pieces. We can convert them into a sitting duck by restraining or blockading them.
Only when a pawn cannot be protected by another pawn, there is any chance to actually win it. But maybe winning the pawn is not necessarily how it works. By attacking a pawn that cannot move and cannot be protected by another pawn (point of pressure), we force the other enemy pieces to protect the weak pawn (function). We tie the pieces to the pawn. Thus limiting their mobility.
The pieces which are limited due to their function become targets themselves.
The attacking pieces are mobile by their nature. They can direct their attention in another direction at any moment. While the defending pieces cannot.
Positional play is the art of converting pawns into targets.
HNY2UALL
Happy New Year to you and Margriet - and all the rest of the Temposchlucker fan club as well! I wish you excellent health for 2020 and beyond!
ReplyDeleteHere is the nutshell of planning positional play: "No weakness, no target."
Here is the bridge between PoPLoAFun (directed toward tactical play) and positional play:
"By attacking a pawn that cannot move and cannot be protected by another pawn (point of pressure), we force the other enemy pieces to protect the weak pawn (function). We tie the pieces to the pawn. Thus limiting their mobility. The pieces which are limited due to their function become targets themselves."
The lines of attack are the specific means for bringing attackers to bear on one or more weaknesses.
Identifying and utilizing these tactical and strategical ideas is the essence of "playing in accordance with the demands of the position".
Congratulations on bringing the disparate concepts together into an integrated whole!!
I guess there are many ways to "understand" and play chess. Hypermodern style (leaving the centre and then attacking the centre) is as valid as classic centralising style.
ReplyDeleteWith the target thing there is a good advice here, Probably it came directly from Yoda, the little green guy from star wars. Yoda said:
"If a time advantage you have ... an object of attack, you must create."
A time advantage is certainly a tempo advantage in development.
If there is no weakness, you need to invest your advantage and force him to give a tiny concession - and then play against it.
This goes together with a second wisdom:
"If a time advantage you have ... engaging the enemy you must"
So, that means that to make anything of your better development, you need to act. Open up the position. If necessary sac a pawn or an exchange. Engage your opponent right now. Attack! Then, in a wide open position, you will have the initiative and collect advantages in return, or regain the material and leave him with another tiny weakness.
Your development advantage is only temporarily worth something - and it is fading quickly. Dont let him consolidate.
"Master Yoda, are we on the right track?"
Delete"Off course, we are.."
Great observation on the key role of pawns in securing (or at least enabling) a victory.
ReplyDeleteRelated to that, I think one of the under-studied elements of the middlegame is the importance of pawn levers. Without them, it is very hard to make any progress at all. Tactical studies largely ignore them, but they are often decisive strategically, including leading to new tactical opportunities.