What should be the base of a plan when there are no targets yet?
- There are no points of pressure (PoP's), since there are no targets
- There is little function (Fun) since the pieces are too volatile
- Even the lines of attack (LoA's) are just lines yet without targets
- There can be no duplo attack because there are no targets
Well, there's always at least one target: the king.
A plan should be based on the pawns. Pawns form the landscape of the battle. They can open and close the lines. Thus preparing the future lines of attack (LoA's). The piece moves should be based on the pawn landscape.
We must add chance to the equation. Where do my pieces have the greatest chance to have a decisive role later on in the game? The paramount feature is: the center. Hence the value of a piece should be estimated by its influence on the center.
Open lines and diagonals are shaped by pawn moves. Our pieces should be placed "elastic", since you never can be sure beforehand which lines or diagonals will become open or closed.
Lines of attack consist of:
- lines for the rooks
- diagonals for the bishops
- squares for the knights
- A pawn move opens two diagonals behind it and closes the two diagonals that run through the square it newly occupies.
- An exchange by a pawn (half-)opens two lines. Usually one for me and one for my enemy.
- Any pawn move leaves weakened squares in its wake
PART I:
ReplyDeleteThe Romantic school (up until Steinitz formulated his strategic theories) was primarily oriented toward piece activity, i.e., DYNAMICS - WHAT CAN THE PIECES DO? The Pawns were seen mostly as obstacles to be gotten out of the way. Open positions, rapid piece deployment and attacks were the "rule."
The Steinitz (Classical) school emphasized the importance of the static features over dynamic possibilities in a position. (Steinitz, as explained by Lasker, formulated the Classical approach to strategy.) These static features were described in terms of the Pawn structure, which (usually) does not change as frequently as the piece locations because of their (relatively) limited movements.
The Hypermoderns based their "revolution" on central control by pieces, without occupying the central squares with Pawns. Nimzovitch stated quite succinctly that CONTROL of the center is one of the most important tasks. Unfortunately (as he noted), there is a downside to Pawn occupation: the Pawns block the Lines of Attack (LoA) of the pieces.
The Dynamic (Soviet) school shifted the emphasis away from static Pawn structures and back toward dynamic piece activity (similar to the Romantics), even at the cost of fractured Pawn structure and possible loss of material. Whereas the Romantics were primarily focused on attacking the opponent's King, the Dynamics broadened the concept of activity to encompass the entire board. As a result, there are (potentially) dynamic skirmished taking place simultaneously in several areas of the board. The Pawn structure facilitates (or hinders) the possibility of conducting these skirmishes to a successful conclusion but were not the primary focus.
This shift from Classical and Hypermodern strategies toward NeoRomantic and Dynamic approaches occurred between 1935 and (approximately) 1970.
Interestingly (at least to me), a lot of Lasker's advice in Lasker's Manual of Chess, especially in the chapters on Combinations and Positional Play elaborates on Steinitz's theories - and then extends them toward Dynamic play. As a result, Nimzovitch considered Lasker to be one of the "modern" players, rather than a Classicist like Steintiz.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteSome things that have helped me is to realize that:
(1) Having the move is a distinct advantage for planning (i.e., consider what I can do with the pieces, and not fret over always maintaining the theoretically “best” Pawn structure). Correlated to that is the need to pay close attention to the initiative, even at the cost of some material. In the words of Civil War Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, employ the military strategy of "Get there FIRSTEST with the MOSTEST."
(2) A realization that typical material values (the so-called "Reinfeld" values: P=1; N & B = 3; R = 5; Q = 9; K = ∞ [for the overall game] or 4 [only in the endgame]) or other calculated values (like Kaufman’s values) represent a statistical/mathematical AVERAGE over a large number of games IN GENERAL, and are thus useless in any SPECIFIC concrete position in one SPECIFIC game. This includes realizing that regardless of the material "value" of a piece, it can influence (attack or defend) a particular square with a value of 1 (its influence on a square is binary) and is NOT related to its average material value. Additionally, the square on which a piece sits is NOT controlled by that occupying piece. This changed how I look at the pieces as I try to figure out what each piece can DO in each concrete position.
(3) The rules of the game introduce local area distortions. For example, no matter where the King is located, it creates weaknesses in its vicinity. Lasker put it in more general terms:
On the Chessboard there are no lines; hence Steinitz speaks of weak points. The most successful, the most effective combination as well as the widest-visioned and deepest plan of attack—thus his idea—proceed, as if by a miracle, in the direction of the weak points.
(4) Playing concretely ON EVERY MOVE is the most important factor throughout the game. In almost all cases, playing in accordance with and making decisions based on general principle(s) (which, ON AVERAGE, are "good advice") will fail against an opponent who is playing concretely on the basis of SPECIFICS in the given position.
(5) As you noted, a lot of “good” chess advice is counter-productive for improving playing SKILL. Lasker phrased it this way:
Education in Chess has to be an education in INDEPENDENT THINKING AND JUDGING. Chess must not be memorized, simply because it is not important enough. If you load your memory, you should know WHY. Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. If need be, I can increase my skill at Chess, if need be I can do that of which I have no idea at present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of good use in many and varied emergencies. I KEEP IT IN ORDER, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight.
"Education in Chess has to be an education in INDEPENDENT THINKING AND JUDGING."
ReplyDeleteThat's the point. At the end of the day, you have to think for yourself. So I better start with that right away. Now I know where to begin.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteThe Romantic school (up until Steinitz formulated his strategic theories) was primarily oriented toward piece activity, i.e., dynamics - WHAT CAN THE PIECES DO? The Pawns were seen mostly as obstacles to be gotten out of the way. Open positions, rapid piece deployment and attacks were the "rule."
The Steinitz (Classical) school emphasized the importance of the static features over dynamic possibilities in a position. (Steinitz, as explained by Lasker, formulated the Classical approach to strategy.) These static features were described in terms of the Pawn structure, which (usually) does not change as frequently as the piece locations because of their (relatively) limited movements.
The Hypermoderns based their "revolution" on central control by pieces, without occupying the central squares with Pawns. Nimzovitch stated quite succinctly that CONTROL of the center is one of the most important tasks. Unfortunately (as he noted), there is a downside to Pawn occupation: the Pawns block the Lines of Attack (LoA) of the pieces.
The Dynamic (Soviet) school shifted the emphasis away from static Pawn structures and back toward dynamic piece activity (similar to the Romantics), even at the cost of fractured Pawn structure and possible loss of material. Whereas the Romantics were primarily focused on attacking the opponent's King, the Dynamics broadened the concept of activity to encompass the entire board. As a result, there are (potentially) dynamic skirmished taking place simultaneously in several areas of the board. The Pawn structure facilitates (or hinders) the possibility of conducting these skirmishes to a successful conclusion but were not the primary focus.
This shift from Classical and Hypermodern strategies toward NeoRomantic and Dynamic approaches occurred between 1935 and (approximately) 1970.
Interestingly (at least to me), a lot of Lasker's advice in Lasker's Manual of Chess, especially in the chapters on Combinations and Positional Play elaborates on Steinitz's Classical strategic theories - and then extends them toward Dynamic play. As a result, Nimzovitch considered Lasker to be one of the "modern" players, rather than a Classicist like Steinitz.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThe modern openings strive to become concrete from the very first moves. Planning is not limited to just creation of PoPLoAFuns. Following “General Principles” into battle is a recipe for disaster. Civil War Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest described the goal of opening a battle this way: “Get there first with the most.”
Munich (back on 12 JUL 2020) made the following suggestion:
With openings, if caro Kan or not - I play statistically promissing openings, and since I did that, I really got hold of more promissing positions for me. I like positions where I have the better game, so my tip is: play an opening that is statistically promissing, and you will see - the stats will work for you, too.
Addressing your concerns (and not trying to be snarky or contentious):
What should be the base of a plan when there are no targets yet?
(1) There are no points of pressure (PoP's), since there are no targets
The initial opening plan must create the possibility for PoPs, which will result in targets.
(2) There is little function (Fun) since the pieces are too volatile
The initial opening plan must place the pieces (without loss of tempo) into cooperation (harmony) so as to give the pieces scope to acquire Function(s).
(3) Even the lines of attack (LoA's) are just lines yet without targets
The initial opening plan must place the piece (without loss of tempo) so as to give
the pieces scope to quickly reach potential lines of attack.
(4) There can be no duplo attack because there are no targets
Opportunities for duplo attacks will necessarily be created by addressing the other
3 factors.
Look specifically to "see" the PoPs, LoAs, and Funs that are created beginning with the very first moves by both players. They exist, in every opening, including in the Hyperaccelerated Dragon and the Stinger.
Sorry about that double post. I used the same temporary Word document to write the latest comment and didn't realize that the earlier stuff was still there.
ReplyDeleteMea culpa.
Whether you are going to play romantic, hypermodern, dynamic, or neo hysterical, whether you want to grind down your opponent by a superior pawn structure or are going to sac your pawns by the dozen, a plan starts with the pawns.
ReplyDeleteThe pawns facilitate the lines of attack. They open and close them. They create the landscape of the battlefield, the hills and the valleys, so to speak. A line of attack is neutral by its very nature. Both sides can make use of it, principally. You must decide which lines of attack you can dominate and which not. You must decide which line of attack you are going to open, and which ones you are going to close.
There is no such thing as a duplo move in positional play. But the elastic move comes close. A piece that can choose between two lines of attack.
I used to be the victim of a developing line of attack landscape. The lines of attack seem to appear and to vanish out of the blue. Now I see what is happening. Albeit I not have developed a philosophy about lines of attack yet myself. But that is a matter of time. It starts with seeing what is happening in the first place.