Temposchlucker

 The previous post told us about the relation between the slow moving pieces as targets (sitting ducks) and their potential as source for the creation of tactics: Create targets (weak pawns) fix targets (so they can't skedaddle) attack targets (points of pressure, lines of attack) bind pieces to the defense of a target (FUN) This describes the relation between pawn structure and the slowing down of pieces by giving them a function (defense). The next step which should be considered is the relation between pawn structure and dynamism. Often dynamism and pawn structure are treated as if they were contradistinct. But is this totally justified? Lots of openings compromise the pawn structure in favor of piece activity. While a wrecked pawn structure is riddled with weak pawns which are potential targets in themselves, especially in the endgame, the hunt for the ultimate target (king) is judged as more important. 41% of the games end with an endgame of some sort. This seems to justify th

 Which leads us to the following grand scheme of preparing tactics: The slow moving pieces like the king and pawns are the potential sitting ducks of the game Provoking the pawns to move forward is the way to alter them in targets Targets need to be fixed so they can't skedaddle the coming onslaught Add pressure to the targets, this forces hostile pieces to defend them Pieces with a defensive task have a FUNction. The FUN of PoPLoAFun. Pieces with a defensive function must give up their mobility. So they become potential sitting ducks themselves. Add a second front by creating a second target By changing the pressure from one front to another and back, the immobile defenders with a FUNction might have trouble to follow. Which clears the way for tactics to appear.

 According to Capablanca: “In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.” And he is right. I'm making good progress with "100 endgames you need to know". I have build the concepts for the first 10 chapters. And it got me thinking about the middlegame. Especially about my hypothesis about the sitting ducks. In recap: the pieces are too fast to chase them. The natural targets of the chess game are the slow moving pieces. I.e. the king and the pawns. The king is a target right from the onset of the game, while the pawns must be tricked into becoming a target. This vision simplifies the way I look to the opening and the middlegame. In stead of looking for the most brilliant move, I look for simple plans that concerns the enemy king and pawns. That prevents me from overloading my mind by a search f

  Black to move. White wins 8/8/4K3/8/4pk2/8/8/R7 b - - 1 1 White wins, no matter who has to move. If the white king was in the area with the circles, it would be a draw, no matter who has the move. If the white king was adjacent to a square with a circle, white would win if he has the move, but it would be a draw if black had to move. g6, g7, h6, h7 form a curious bulge. That is caused by the fact that the black king shoulders away the white king. The fact that white wins when his king is on h5 (and he has the move), has to do with that white can expel the black king from his blockade with a check. So a new technique annex transferable concept is created: A rook can chase away a shouldering king with a check.

  Have a good look at the following position. White to move wins. Black to move draws 4R3/8/7K/8/1kp5/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 Moves are low level concepts. They are mainly geometrical. We have been long on the wrong foot by giving geometrical patterns way too much attention. Geometrical patterns transfer poorly to other positions. Concepts do a much better job for transferring knowledge between positions. What is going on in this position? What concepts can we distill from it which transfer to similar positions? White wants to win by conquering the pawn without the need to give up the rook Black wants to promote the pawn, thus forcing white to give up the rook This is a kind of freak position, since white to move wins and black to move draws with best play. With the white king in an other position it is always a win or always a draw, no matter who is to move. The same techniques apply for similar positions, if the black pieces are translated a file to the left or the right, for instance. Or a

 In the past I have invested quite some time in trying to get some aptness in treating the endgame. To little avail. Due to poor endgame books on the one hand, and to the predilection of chess authors for freak compositions on the other. I worked my way trough the endgame books of Euwe, who was quite influential in the Netherlands for apparent reasons. In his rabid zeal to be complete, I was obliged to work through nine chapters of irrelevant material, which you get probably once in a lifetime on your board. If you are lucky. Only to discover in chapter 10 some useful material. If you don't know where to start, you buy a book of a former world champion who can save you work, so I thought naively. Showing a freak composition of Grigoriev to a beginner is like exhibiting a differential equation to someone who struggles with 3 x 6. I do not doubt it is beautiful, but way over my head. The composition, not the differential equation 😋 41% of the games end with an endgame of some sort.

Transfer of knowledge from one position to another We found that concepts are the way to transfer knowledge from one position to another. I can imagine this might sound rather vague and abstract for most of you. Let's see if we can concretise this a bit. I have started with the study of "100 endgames you should know" from New In Chess. I studied the first 11 chapters for the first time. It took me 11 days. I feel that this is the right time to study these chapters again before doing the remaining chapters. Endgame as perfect realm for concept building Endgames might be the right vehicle to study concept building in depth. The book is published on Chessable. Chessable provides an AI assisted way of spaced repetition learning. I learned 68 endings with 161 variations of 892 moves in total. To be more precise: I learned the moves of 161 variations. With some variations I know what I'm doing, with other variations I have no idea. Moves form the lowest level of abstraction

 I subscribed for two tournaments this summer. Finally. I did so two years ago, but both corona and health issues spoiled it. I made the choices which openings to play, and I'm gathering the plans which accompany these openings. To concoct plans behind the board is very time consuming, and should be avoided whenever possible. In stead the plans must be standard plans, formulated in the study room. Only to be fine tuned behind the board. Often these plans lead to good positions. But I spill points when I try to convert these good positions into wins. I noticed I need two kind of plans in a good position: an attacking plan and an endgame plan. Often I see that I probably can convert a good position into a good endgame, if I only had an idea how to play these endgames. I lack the standard plans. I feel now is the right time to fill in that omission. So I started with the 100 endgames you must know from the Chessable website (New In Chess and GM de la Villa). It's very refreshing a