Two weaknesses
We are all familiar with the idea to attack two weaknesses mutually. But being familiar is not the same as absorbing the associated patterns.
 |
| Black to move |
1r6/2r2p2/4p3/1p1p4/1P1P1Pkp/R1P1KR2/6P1/8 b - - 0 36
Ilfeld, E. vs. Arkell, K Source Chessable, Arkell's endings.
Arkell has first weakened c3 somewhere in the middlegame. Later on, he played g5 g4 to induce a second weakness (g2). Now the coördination between the white pieces is lost.
That is the moment where black takes over the a-file.
- 36. ... Rbb7
- 37.Kf2 Ra7
- 38.Rxa7 Rxa7
PART I:
ReplyDeleteThe position from this post:
FEN "1r6/2r2p2/4p3/1p1p4/1P1P1Pkp/R1P1KR2/6P1/8 b - - 1 36"
While contemplating this position, I realized that the idea of two weaknesses in this position is directly related to the military concept of flanking maneuvers. The usual array of forces is along a line, in order to meet force with force at any point on the line. The power of a flanking maneuver is that either end of the line (or both ends simultaneously, in the event of a “pincer” maneuver) prevents a quick redistribution of defensive forces to meet a concentrated attack on (essentially) a single point—the end point of the line; the defensive forces get in each other’s way trying to regroup. That was as insightful (to ME) as the realization that the Opposition in an endgame is nothing more or less than Zugzwang, which is the primary “weapon of choice” in endgames.
I backpedaled through the moves until I got an even evaluation (with a short time for evaluation). White’s 31. f3 [19th lowest recommended move!] started White on the road to a deteriorating position; there were at least 9 other moves that would have maintained the balance of position. I recall one of the stern warnings from mister Lasker was to carefully weigh every pawn move, especially when on the defensive. “Make NO concessions (especially not weakening pawn moves) unless absolutely forced to do so.
I was curious regarding GM Stockfish’s assessment of the specific position after White’s 31. f3. After nearly 4 hours, this is what he came up with (top 5 variations):
D41 +4.00 36...Rcc8 37.Kf2 Ra8 38.Ra5 Rxa5 39.bxa5 Rc4 40.Re3 Ra4 41.f5 Kxf5 42.Rf3+ Kg6 43.Rf4 Ra3 44.Rg4+ Kf5 45.Rxh4 Rxc3 46.Rh3 Rc2+ 47.Ke3 Ra2 48.Rf3+ Kg6 49.Kf4 Kf6 50.Kg4+ Ke7 51.Rb3 Rxa5 52.Kg5 Ra4 53.Rxb5 Rxd4 54.Rb7+ Kf8 55.Kh5 Kg7 56.g4 Rd2 57.Rd7 Rh2+ 58.Kg5 Re2 59.Kh5 Re5+ 60.Kh4 Kg6 61.Rd8 f6 62.Rg8+ Kf7
D41 +3.92 36...Rbb7 37.f5 exf5 38.Ra8 Rxc3+ 39.Kf2 Rc2+ 40.Kg1 f4 41.Rg8+ Kf5 42.Rh8 Rc1+ 43.Kh2 Rd1 44.Rxh4 Rxd4 45.Rh5+ Ke4 46.Rf1 Rd7 47.Rb1 Rc4 48.Kh3 d4 49.Re1+ Kd3 50.Rxb5 Kc3 51.Rf5 d3 52.Rf1 Kc2 53.b5 d2 54.g3 d1=Q 55.Rxd1 Kxd1 56.gxf4 Rb4 57.Kg3 Rb7 58.Rd5+ Ke2 59.Re5+ Kd2 60.b6 R4xb6 61.Rd5+ Ke1 62.Re5+ Kf1 63.Kf3 Rb3+ 64.Kg4 Kf2 65.Rc5
D41 +2.71 36...Rg8 37.Kf2 Kf5 38.Rh3 Rg4 39.Ra5 Rxf4+ 40.Kg1 Rb7 41.Kh2 Rb8 42.Ra2 Rg8 43.Re3 Re4 44.Rf3+ Kg6 45.Ra5 Rb8 46.Kg1 f5 47.Kf1 Kf6 48.g3 h3 49.Ra2 Kg5 50.Kg1 Kg4 51.Raf2 Ra8 52.Kh2 Ra2 53.Rxa2 Kxf3 54.Kxh3 Rg4
D40 +2.49 36...Kf5 37.Rh3 Rg8 38.Rxh4 Rg3+ 39.Kd2 Rxg2+ 40.Kd3 Rg3+ 41.Kc2 Rf3 42.Kd2 f6 43.Kc2 Rc8 44.Kb2 Rf2+ 45.Kb3 Rxf4 46.Rh3 Kg4 47.Rh1 Rf3 48.Rc1 f5 49.Ra5 Rb8 50.Ra7 f4 51.Rf7 Rc8 52.Rg7+ Kf5 53.Rf7+ Ke4 54.Re7 Rc6 55.Rb7 Re3 56.Rxb5 f3 57.Rc5 Rb6 58.Rf1 Rb8 59.b5 Kd3 60.Kb4 Ke2 61.Ra1 f2 62.c4
D40 +1.81 36...Rh8 37.Kf2 Kf5 38.Rh3 Kxf4 39.Ra5 Rb7 40.Kg1 Kg4 41.Rf3 Kh5 42.Ra6 Rc8 43.Ra5 Rc6 44.Kf2 Rbc7 45.Rxb5 Rxc3 46.Rb8 Rxf3+ 47.gxf3 Rc4 48.b5 Rb4 49.b6 Kg5 50.Rg8+ Kf6 51.Rh8 h3 52.b7 Rxb7 53.Rxh3 Rb4 54.Rh4 Kg6 55.Rg4+ Kf5 56.Rg7 Kf6 57.Rg4 Rb2+ 58.Ke3 Rb3+ 59.Kf2 e5 60.dxe5+ Kxe5 61.Kg3 d4 62.Re4+ Kd5
PART I:
DeleteI was still curious regarding GM Stockfish’s assessment of the specific position after White’s 31. f3—NOT 36. Rf3. Did White not have anything better? Was White destined to lose no matter what (given the disparity in rating)?
GM Stockfish provided this information (after 1.4 days):
[Note: There were 13(!) better alternatives suggested for maintaining the balance of position. The key takeaway is that White had several opportunities to resist the pressure from GM Arkell’s grinding. Providing maximum resistance (minimizing self-inflicted weaknesses) is not a characteristic of amateur play.]
#1 — D49 0.00 31.Rh1 Rgc8 32.Re1 Rb6 33.Ra7 Rbc6 34.Rc1 R8c7 35.Ra8 Rc4 36.Kd2 Rc8 37.Ra5 Rb8 38.Ra7 Rcc8 39.Re1 Rg8 40.Re3 Kg6 41.Re1 Ra8 42.Ra5 Rgc8 43.Rea1 Rab8 44.Ra7 Rb6 45.R1a5 Rcb8 46.Rc7 R6b7 47.Rc5 Kf5 48.Ke2 Kf4 49.Ra6 Rg8 50.Rcc6 g4
#2 — D49 0.00 31.R3a2 Rb7 32.Re1 Rc8 33.Kc2 Rb6 34.Ra7 Kg6 35.Re3 Rcc6 36.Ra5 Rb8 37.Kd2 Rcc8 38.Kc2 Rb6
#3 — D49 0.00 31.Re1 g4 32.Re3 Ra8 33.Rxa8 Rxa8 34.g3 Kg5 35.gxh4+ Kxh4 36.hxg4 Kxg4 37.Rg3+ Kf4 38.Rg7 Ra7 39.Ke2 Rc7 40.Rg3 Kf5 41.Rf3+ Kg4 42.Rg3+ Kf4 43.Rf3+
#4 — D49 0.00 31.Ke2 Rbc8 32.Rh1 Kf5 33.Kd3 Rc4 34.Re1 f6 35.Re3 Rc6 36.Ra5 Rb8 37.Rf3+ Kg6 38.Re3 Rbb6 39.Kd2 Rc8 40.Kc2 Rf8 41.Kd2 Rfb8 42.Ra7 Rc8 43.Ra5 Rcb8
#5 — D49 0.00 31.Ra5 g4 32.Ke2 g3 33.f3 Rb7 34.Kd3 Rh8 35.Re1 Kg6 36.Re5 Rb6 37.Re1
#6 — D49 0.00 31.Rd1 g4 32.Ra5 gxh3 33.gxh3 Rg2 34.Ke2 Rh2 35.Rd3 Rh1 36.Rf3+ Kg6 37.Ra7 f5 38.Re3 Re8 39.Ra6 Kf6 40.Ra7
#7 — D49 0.00 31.Ra7 g4 32.Rh1 Ra8 33.Ra5 gxh3 34.gxh3 Kf5 35.Rha1 Rab8 36.Re1 Rg2 37.Re5+ Kg6 38.Ke2 Rg1 39.Re3 Rc1 40.Kd2 Rb1 41.Kd3 Rb2 42.Re2 Rxe2 43.Kxe2 Kf5 44.Ra7 Kf6 45.Ra5
#8 — D49 0.00 31.Ke3 Rbc8 32.Rh1 g4 33.hxg4 Rxg4 34.f3 Rxg2 35.Rxh4 Kf5 36.Rf4+ Kg6 37.Rh4 Rg1 38.Kf2 Rg5 39.Rh2 Kf5 40.Rh7 f6 41.Rh4 Rg7 42.Rh5+ Kf4 43.Rh4+
#9 — D49 0.00 31.Rg1 g4 32.hxg4 Rxg4 33.f3 Rg7 34.Rh1 Rh8 35.Rh2 Kg5 36.Ra1 f5 37.g3 h3 38.Rah1 Rgh7 39.Kc2 f4 40.g4 Ra7 41.Kb2 Rha8 42.Rxh3 Ra2+ 43.Kb1 Ra1+ 44.Kc2 R8a2+ 45.Kb3 Ra3+ 46.Kc2 R1a2+ 47.Kd3 Rf2 48.R1h2 Rf1 49.Re2 Kf6 50.Rh6+ Kg7 51.Rexe6 Rxf3+ 52.Ke2 Rfxc3 53.Rhg6+ Kf7 54.Rgf6+ Kg8 55.Rg6+
#10 — D49 0.00 31.Rf1 g4 32.hxg4 Rxg4 33.g3 hxg3 34.fxg3+ Kg6 35.Rf3 Re4 36.Re3 f5 37.Kd2 Kg5 38.Ra6 Kf6 39.Ra5 Rxe3 40.Kxe3 Rg8 41.Rxb5 Rxg3+ 42.Kd2 Rg8 43.Kd3 f4 44.Rb7 Rg3+ 45.Kd2 Kf5 46.Re7 Rg8 47.Kd3 Rg2 48.Rf7+ Kg4 49.Rf6 f3 50.Rxe6 Ra2 51.Rg6+ Kh4 52.Rf6 Kg3 53.Rg6+ Kh4
PART II:
Delete#11 — D49 0.00 31.g3 hxg3 32.fxg3 Rh8 33.Rh1 Rb7 34.Ra5 Kg6 35.h4 f5 36.Re1 Rb6 37.hxg5 Kxg5 38.Re3 Kf6 39.Ra1 Rh2 40.Ra8 Rg2 41.Rf8+ Kg7 42.Ra8 Kf7 43.Ra7+ Kg6 44.Ra8 Rc6 45.Ra5 Kf6 46.Rxb5 Ra6 47.Ra5 Rxa5 48.bxa5 Ra2 49.Rf3 Kg6 50.Re3
#12 — D48 0.00 31.g4 hxg3 e.p. 32.fxg3 Rh8 33.Rh1 Rb7 34.Ra5 Kg6 35.h4 f5 36.Re1 Rb6 37.hxg5 Kxg5 38.Re3 Kf6 39.Ra1 Rh2 40.Ra8 Rg2 41.Rf8+ Kg7 42.Ra8 Kf7 43.Ra7+ Kg6 44.Ra8
#13 — D48 -0.08 31.Ra6 g4 32.Rd1 Rbc8 33.Ra3 gxh3 34.gxh3 Rg2 35.Ke2 Rcg8 36.Rd3 R8g5 37.Rf3+ Rf5 38.Rxf5+ Kxf5 39.Ra5 Rh2 40.Rxb5 Rxh3 41.Rc5 Rh1 42.Rc8 Ra1 43.Kf3 Ra3 44.Kg2 Rb3 45.Rc7 f6 46.Kh3 e5 47.dxe5 fxe5 48.Kxh4 Kf4 49.Rf7+ Ke4 50.f3+ Ke3 51.Re7 e4 52.fxe4 dxe4 53.Kg3 Rxc3 54.b5 Rb3 55.Kg2 Rxb5 56.Re6 Rg5+ 57.Kf1 Rf5+ 58.Kg2
#14 — D48 -0.10 31.f3 Rb7 32.Ra7 Rxa7 33.Rxa7 Re8 34.Ra5 Rb8 35.Ra7 Kg7 36.Ke3 Rb6 37.Ke2 Kg6 38.Ke3 f6 39.Rc7 Ra6 40.Rb7 Ra2 41.Rxb5 Rxg2 42.Rc5 Rh2 43.b5 Rb2 44.Kd3 Kh5 45.c4 Rb3+ 46.Ke2 dxc4 47.Rxc4 Rxb5 48.Rc6 Kg6 49.Rxe6 Kf5 50.Re4 Rb2+ 51.Ke3 Ra2 52.Re8 Ra1 53.Kf2 Rh1 54.d5 Rd1 55.Rb8 Rd4 56.d6 Ke6
#15 — D48 -0.10 31.Kd2 g4 32.Ke2 gxh3 33.gxh3 Rg2 34.Rh1 Rc8 35.Kf3 Rgg8 36.Re1 Rg5 37.Rf1 Rc4 38.Ke2 e5 39.Rd1 e4 40.Ra6+ Ke7 41.Ra7+ Kf8 42.Rc1 Rc6 43.Ra5 Rb6 44.Rca1 Rf5 45.Ra6 Re6 46.Rxe6 fxe6 47.Ra6 Kf7 48.Ra7+ Kg6 49.Ra6 Kf6 50.Ra8 Kg7 51.Ra7+ Rf7 52.Rxf7+ Kxf7 53.Ke3 Kf6
#16 — D48 -0.12 31.Rc1 g4 32.Ke2 gxh3 33.gxh3 Rg2 34.Rh1 Rc8 35.Kf3 Rgg8 36.Re1 Rg5 37.Rf1 Rc4 38.Ke2 e5 39.Rd1 e4 40.Ra6+ Ke7 41.Ra7+ Kf8 42.Rc1 Rc6 43.Ra5 Rb6 44.Rca1 Rf5 45.Ra6 Re6 46.Rxe6 fxe6 47.Ra6 Kf7 48.Ra7+ Ke8 49.Ra8+ Kd7 50.Ra7+ Kc8 51.Ra8+ Kc7 52.Ra7+ Kb6 53.Rh7 Rf3 54.Rxh4 Rxc3
#17 — D48 -0.13 31.R1a2 g4 32.Ke2 gxh3 33.gxh3 Rg1 34.Rd2 Rbg8 35.Rd3 R8g5 36.Rf3+ Rf5 37.Rxf5+ Kxf5 38.Ra7 Kf6 39.Kf3 Rc1 40.Rc7 Rc2 41.Kg4 Rxf2 42.Kxh4 Rg2 43.Rb7 Rg7 44.Rxb5 Kf5 45.Rb8 Kf4 46.Rh8 f6 47.b5 Rb7 48.Rh6 Kf5 49.Rh5+ Kg6 50.Rh8 Rxb5 51.Kg4 Rb1 52.h4 Rg1+ 53.Kf4 Rh1 54.Kg4 f5+ 55.Kg3 Rc1 56.Rc8 Kf6 57.Kf2 Rh1 58.Kg3 Rd1
#18 — D48 -0.15 31.Rb1 g4 32.Ke2 gxh3 33.gxh3 Rg2 34.Rd1 Rbg8 35.Rd3 R8g5 36.Rf3+ Rf5 37.Ra7 Rxf3 38.Kxf3 Rh2 39.Kg4 Rxf2 40.Kxh4 Rg2 41.Rb7 Rg7 42.Rxb5 Kf5 43.Rb8 Kf4 44.Rh8 f6 45.b5 Rb7 46.Rh6 Kf5 47.Rh5+ Kg6 48.Rh8 Rxb5 49.Kg4 Rb2 50.h4 Re2 51.h5+ Kg7 52.Re8 Kh7 53.Rf8 Re4+ 54.Kf3 f5 55.Rd8 Kh6 56.Rh8+ Kg5 57.h6 Kg6 58.Kf2 Rh4 59.Re8 Kf6
#19 —D48 -0.20 31.Rb3 g4 32.Ke2 gxh3 33.gxh3 Rg2 34.Ra7 Kg6 35.Rb1 Rc8 36.Rc1 Kf6 37.Ra5 Rh2 38.Rxb5 Rxh3 39.Rc5 Ra8 40.Ra5 Rb8 41.b5 Rb6 42.c4 dxc4 43.Rxc4 Rb3 44.d5 exd5 45.Rxh4 R3xb5 46.Raa4 Ke6 47.Raf4 f6 48.Rf3 Rb2+ 49.Kf1 R2b4 50.Rh5 Rd6 51.Rhf5 Ke7 52.Re3+ Kf7 53.Rd3 d4 54.Kg2 Ra4 55.Rc5 Ke6 56.Kf3
#20 — D48 -0.44 31.Kc2 g4 32.hxg4 Rxg4 33.g3 Rc8 34.Ra8 Rc7 35.Rd1 hxg3 36.fxg3 Rxg3 37.Rd3 Rg1 38.Rf3+ Kg7 39.Rh3 Rg4 40.Kd3 Rg2 41.Ra5 Rb7 42.Ra8 Rg1 43.Rhh8 Kf6 44.Rh3 Rg6 45.Rf3+ Ke7 46.Rh3 Rg5 47.Ke2 Rg1 48.Kd3 Rg6 49.Rf3 Rg4 50.Re3 Kf6 51.Rh3 Rf4 52.Ke2 Rf5 53.Ke3 Rc7 54.Ke2 Rg5 55.Rf3+ Kg7 56.Kd3 f5 57.Rb8 Ra7 58.Rb6 Rg6 59.Re3
The most important message of Arkell is that he wants a position where the plan is clear. So he only needs to check for tactics along the way. If you are grinding down your opponent with 80 moves, there is not too much time per move. Your opponent may be able to find a few Stockfishish moves. But can he devise the plans that belong to these moves in time?
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteIt appears that GM Stockfish endorses playing in accordance with your plan of getting a Rook into the queenside via the a-file. That some of the moves are different does not matter. I was surprised that he recommended White to play to allow Black to exchange on the a5-square rather than exchanging and giving up the a-file.
The interesting thing is that GM Stockfish refuses to “go gently into that good night” in the 2nd line with 36...Rbb7 (the move played by GM Arkell). The recommended response is to sacrifice a couple of pawns to get more activity for the White Rooks. I am certain that I would never have thought of doing that—and given the rating of the White player, I’m fairly certain it didn’t cross his mind either!
From https://www.chessgames.com:
[Event "London Chess Classic Open"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2013.12.08"]
[EventDate "2013.12.07"]
[Round "2.28"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Etan Ilfeld"]
[Black "Keith Arkell"]
[ECO "B17"]
[WhiteElo "2178"]
[BlackElo "2438"]
[PlyCount "108"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Nxf6+
Nxf6 7. Ne5 Be6 8. Be2 g6 9. O-O Bg7 10. c3 O-O 11. Re1 Nd7
12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. Bf3 Rfe8 14. Bf4 h5 15. Qe2 Bg4 16. h3 Bxf3
17. Qxf3 Qd5 18. Qxd5 cxd5 19. Kf1 b5 20. a3 Bf6 21. Ke2 g5
22. Bh2 h4 23. Kd3 Rec8 24. Be5 Kg7 25. a4 a6 26. Ra3 e6
27. Bxf6+ Kxf6 28. axb5 axb5 29. Rea1 Rab8 30. b4 Rg8 31. f3
Kf5 32. Ke3 Rgc8 33. Rf1 Rc7 34. f4 g4 35. hxg4+ Kxg4 36. Rf3
Rbb7 37. Kf2 Ra7 38. Rxa7 Rxa7 39. f5 exf5 40. Re3 Ra2+
41. Kf1 f6 42. Re6 Rc2 43. Rxf6 Rxc3 44. Rd6 h3 45. gxh3+ Kf3
46. Kg1 Rc1+ 47. Kh2 Rc2+ 48. Kg1 Rg2+ 49. Kh1 Rd2 50. Rf6 Kg3
51. Rg6+ Kxh3 52. Rh6+ Kg3 53. Rg6+ Kf3 54. Rb6 Rxd4 0-1
PART III: [CORRECTION}
ReplyDeleteThe statement:
I was curious regarding GM Stockfish’s assessment of the specific position after White’s 31. f3.
should have read:
I was curious regarding GM Stockfish’s assessment of the specific position after White’s 36. Rf3.
Sorry about that.
Arkell is an interesting guy. He doesn't bother about openings or Stockfish. He develops, trades pieces, and starts to grind in the endgame.
ReplyDeleteHe focuses on the pawn structure. He wants a minority attack on the queenside, and an attack with the g pawn on the kingside.
He wants positions where his plans are clear. He chooses openings that are easily to convert into a Karlsbad structure. Like the Caro Kann.
I like his way of thinking. A lot of his tactics revolve around trading the right pieces in an unavoidable way, without compromising his pawn structure. The only problem in his videos is that he tends to mumble in a Brummie accent. Which is hard to follow for a non native English speaker.
From a video after playing e4 at the 69th move of a game : "There are those who squander this precious thrust as early as move one, but I prefer to get myself organised first."
ReplyDeleteRobert said "While contemplating this position, I realized that the idea of two weaknesses in this position is directly related to the military concept of flanking maneuvers. The usual array of forces is along a line, in order to meet force with force at any point on the line. The power of a flanking maneuver is that either end of the line (or both ends simultaneously, in the event of a “pincer” maneuver) prevents a quick redistribution of defensive forces to meet a concentrated attack on (essentially) a single point—the end point of the line; the defensive forces get in each other’s way trying to regroup. That was as insightful (to ME) as the realization that the Opposition in an endgame is nothing more or less than Zugzwang, which is the primary “weapon of choice” in endgames."
ReplyDeleteTo me, chess is a tempo game. Meaning that you must try to serve two goals with one move. In the opening that means "elastic" moves. Putting your piece on a square from where it has the choice of two different threats. It doesn't need to threaten already something, but the very placement on a square where a piece threatens to threat anything, is an invitation to your opponent to waste time with defenses of things that aren't currently under attack.
In tactics, that means the duplo move. In the endgame you have things like the Reti manoeuvre. Where a King defends and attacks at the same time with one move.
Your idea of the duplo move ("two goals with one move") is the dynamic aspect and counterpoint to Capablanca's structural idea ("two pawns that hold one"). Averbakh's broad categorization of the "double attack" (two simultaneous direct attacks, or a direct attack combined with a threat, or a combination of two threats, whether against one target or more than one target) is subsumed in your fundamental concept.
ReplyDeleteCombining both the dynamic and static aspects yields the more abstract concept of two weaknesses, whether dynamic or static. Conceptually, the strategy in all cases is to establish (or take advantage of) a situation in which the idea of "two goals with one move" can be applied. The strategic implication is that if only one weakness (goal) is currently present, take direct advantage of it if possible (as in the encircling motif (combining the idea of immobility and superiority of force against that immobility [2 with 1]); otherwise, look for a potential second weakness that can be created or taken advantage of. Whereas one weakness may be adequately defended, it is much more difficult (if not impossible) to defend two (or more) weaknesses successfully. Eventually, the defensive Funtions become overtaxed.
It is even broader. The goals can include defensive ones as well (like in the Reti manoeuvre). Furthermore, think of the Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovic. The main goal is the assault on the king. Yet, you only build up the attack as far as possible without commitment, without surpassing the critical point of no return. This means, that until you commit yourself, you keep both options open. Assault on the king AND a well enough endgame. Only when all preconditions are met, you start an all out attack and throw the kitchen sink at your opponent.
ReplyDeleteArkell has specialized in the other branch, grinding your opponent down with as little risk as possible.
I think it is useful to learn the skills of both options. I'm sure they have their own patterns.
It seems to me that the difference shows itself in the treatment of the pawns. For an attack you use a few pawns to increase the activity of your pieces, not worrying about their fate too much. For an 80 move grind though, you undermine the piece activity of your opponent by trading them when they become dangerous. Keeping your pawns compact and intact.
There is an element of time involved too. A weakness is only considered to be a weakness when it can be attacked. How much time does your opponent need to attack a weakness in your camp? You both can have two weaknesses, but if it takes your opponent too much time to attack one of them, it counts as one.
ReplyDeleteThere is another reason to have a look at endgames just now. Maybe endgames must have an influence on my choice of openings. If that is the case, I will have to change my opening repertoire. Currently, the repertoire doesn't seem to need another overhaul. It was changed in the past to get more positional play, and that might be enough already.
ReplyDeleteIt can have an influence on certain variations though.
I obtained a copy of My System, Fast Track edition. That is a simplified version of My System by GM Alex Fishbein. I'm very happy with that, because I want to incorporate the ideas of Nimzowitsch, but I'm really dreading to waste a few years with the summarization of his ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this comment, I had a flash of insight.
DeleteBoth Steinitz and Nimzovich started playing chess as avid practitioners of tactics, tactics and more tactics. It was only later in their careers that they began investigating other ideas – which enabled tactics to be set up. The chess literature is filled with advocates for the classical ideas of Steinitz and the Hypermodern ideas of Nimzovich, without much emphasis on the tactical foundation upon which those ideas are based.
As the late master Ken Smith was known for this saying:
Until you are at least a high Class A player:
Your first name is "Tactics", your middle name is "Tactics", and your last name is "Tactics". You can overcome a weak opening and be so far ahead in material that the endgame is mopping up.
I demand that you get every book on tactics and combinations that you can afford and study it as if your life depended on it!
Also, there is nothing like a complete game to school you in these tactics as well as the rest of the elements of chess.
Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20010405004904/chessdigest.com/lssn.html
You are following a well-worn path!
Given the past 20 years work, TS I can see that you are a Grinder.
ReplyDeleteThe vision that GM Keith Arkell describes in his book Arkell's Endings feels like coming home.
DeleteI am grinding as well lightly going through Ct-art working on intuition and learning why tactics work.
ReplyDelete