LoA skirmishes
In accordance with my discoveries the last tournament, I started to inventorize the lines of attack (LoA's) in the Colle which form the landscape where the skirmishes take place. I analyzed one of my own games, and the 16 tactical themes that are common in the Colle. This is what I found:
- 6 attacking LoA's
- 5 counter attack LoA's
- 5 defenses against LoA's
If you want to murder your opponent's King in bed, it is very likely that you will make use of quite a few of these LoAs. It helps if you know them well, and the tactical maneuvers that can be applied.
If the tactics don't crack your opponents castle, you can often use them to make favourable exchanges or to get a favourable endgame.
Inventorying the LoA landscape that is common for an opening is only the first step. The next step is to formulate the chess logic that helps me to work with the lines of attack. Luckily the amount of LoA's per opening is fairly limited.
The past 23 years I never analysed a game of my own seriously. For the simple reason that I had no clue how to do that. Until lately. I started to analyze my latest game. I'm busy with it for a week now, and I suspect that it will take me another few weeks to complete the analysis. The lines of attack give a clue how to play the middlegame. So I guess my chess education has finally begun.
ReplyDeleteThe art is to change over from variations to ideas. That is what everybody promotes when you study an opening. Yet that is easier said than done. The first task is to obtain some sort of "LoA awareness". With that, every move is judged in within the context "what does it accomplish within the LoA landscape". And I must unlearn the habit to look at the moves instead of the ideas. For that, I need to have a poised map with ideas that are common in this opening.
ReplyDeleteI’m working on identifying tempo situations by “SEEing” what’s available on the surface. Consider this position:
ReplyDeleteFEN: 4rrk1/pppq2b1/3p2Qp/3P1bp1/2PpN3/1P1B2P1/P4P1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1
The Black pieces are massed on the kingside, so it would seem at first glance that White does not have a winning attack since his queen is under threat of being captured or trapped. Given the immediate threat, White MUST utilize the right to move first to make an equal or stronger threat. Only an attack on the king or queen will suffice. That the right to move first consideration seems to be the crucial ‘clue’ in determining if a tempo situation exists.
The PoPs f6-square and e8-square appear to be B.A.D. (both are [2:2]). Black’s problem is that the BRf8 is overloaded: it cannot defend both f6 and e8.
It’s not too difficult to see that White wins.
Nf6+ is:
DeleteA triple attack ( Kg8, Qd7, Re8 )
A discovered attack ( Bd3, Ne4 )
Another discovered attacki ( Re1, Ne4 )
So black must find an answer against 4 simultaneous threats ( Kg8, Qd7, Re8, Bf5 ). Which is impossible.
Another ‘tempo’ position from lichess.org:
ReplyDeleteFEN: 4r1k1/1b2qppp/1pr2n2/pN1p4/3P4/P4P1B/1P4PP/2RQR1K1 b - - 0 1
White’s previous move was 24. exd4, opening the LoA e1-e8, directly attacking the Black queen.
The c6-square [1:1], e7-square [1:1], c1-square [1:1] and e1-square [2:2] are all B.A.D. The LoA revolve around the c-file and the e-file.
Black (to move) needs to look for an “equal or greater threat” utilizing “the right to move first” associated with the B.A.D. squares AND the LoA. This will involve an exchange sequence on a B.A.D. square, so Black should capture on either c1 or e1. That pares down the candidate move list considerably to only two moves.
This almost feels like a “tit-for-tat” sequence, with an intermezzo embedded somewhere within it.
Given the idea of a check being an “equal or greater threat,” a quick “look” at 1… Qxe1+ 2. Qxe1 Rxe1+ 3. Rxe1 is simply an even exchange of material. That may be okay if there is nothing better, but Black should expect more simply because of “the right to move first.”
By process of elimination, the alternative capture on c1 will probably be better, so try 1… Rxc1. With this capture, Black changes the attacking ratio on the e1-square from [2:2] to {1:2].
White can try using a “tit-for-tat” strategy which seems to make sense: capture the queen with 2. Rxe7, threatening to capture the BRe8 on the next move with check. Unfortunately, this move also creates an absolute pin of the White queen. Black still has “the right to move first,” and can capture the White queen WITH CHECK: 2… Rxd1+ [INTERMEZZO!], following up with 3… Rxe7.
The alternative is to capture 2. Qxc1 but this leaves the e1-square under-protected [1:2]. 2… Qxe1+ 3. Qxe1 Rxe1+ leaves Black up a Rook.
White made a serious mistake with 24. exd4, opening a second LoA against the White position and simultaneously creating a second B.A.D. square. Given that Black then has “the right to move first” in an exchange sequence on multiple squares, that fact alone should have been sufficient to raise an alarm and alert White to potential danger. Instead, apparently he thought that he had the upper hand because of merely discovering a direct attack against the Black queen.
There is more to this idea than just calculating a sequence of simple exchanges based solely on material values exchanged!
Sofar there seem to be three pillars. Piece value, multi purpose moves and intermezzo moves.
DeleteI read somewhere that with B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) pieces, you must look first at the piece with the most defenders and attackers. Since there the chance that one defender will fail is the greatest.
Delete