Development
I have adopted five new openings in the past few years. It is rare that both me and my opponent follow a book line. Often one of us deviates early in the game. Most of the time due to a lack of knowledge of the book lines. Usually I am standing bad after the opening. When I'm out of book, my opponent is out of book too. Not because we reached the end of the book variation, but because somewhere along the way I don't know how the book line goes again. That is the price of replacing five openings at the same time. And when I deviate, my opponent has reached the end of the line too, of course.
Often I am able to fight my way back into the game. But there are clearly a few holes in my bucket here. Of course I can blame that on my limited book knowledge, but since my opponent is out of book too by definition when I deviate, that cannot be the reason.
I identified three holes in my bucket between the opening and the kingside attack or the endgame:
- Pawn structure
- The center
- Piece development
Pawn structure
My investigation of the isolani was very interesting. It provided me with insight which strategies to follow for both sides. There a finite amount of scenarios, and you must know these scenarios well. I didn't realize at first about which scenarios we were talking, but in the end they became crystal clear. It is not rocket science, and once unearthed, I felt a bit dumb. Since the scenarios tend to sound somewhat trivial. "when you have more space on the kingside, attack on the kingside" or "when you are attacked on the kingside, strike back in the center or the queenside in order to keep the pieces of your opponent busy".
It is good that I have seen these scenarios now, because I need to play in accordance with these scenarios, but are this really universal truths which are going to help me to win games? Of course, when my opponent violates these scenarios, I might have an easy win. But their triviality invites my opponents to play in accordance with them.
The center
I bought this course probably a few years ago, but health problems and other events in live prevented me from having a look. I discovered that the battle of the center starts at move one, and guides every move in your game until the endgame. A move that has no effect on the center is a wasted move.
- occupy the center with pawns
- don't trade pawns or pieces when you don't gain anything from it. It is better to keep the tension
- protect pawns in the center
- protect pieces in the center
- overprotect them so they become flexibele
- march your pawns forward so that the protectors get a pivot square where the pawn just left
- attack pieces in the center
- attack defenders of the center
- that is why a pin of a defender of the center is a positional asset
- prevent such pins of your own defenders. That's why h3 can have an effect on the center
- exchange piece which have an influence on the center
- use flank pawns to attack the center
These ideas are not trivial, but very practical. You can judge from every move its effect on the center.
Development
I just went once through all the videos of the course about development.
[Event "6th European Individual Championship"]
[Site "Zegrze POL"]
[Date "2005.06.23"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Elmir Guseinov"]
[Black "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2400"]
[ECO "D12"]
[Opening "Slav"]
[Variation "4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Nc3"]
[WhiteElo "2400"]
[TimeControl "300"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[WhiteType "human"]
[BlackType "human"]
1. c4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Ne5 Nd7
{Black starts to undermine the center} 8. Qb3 {White threatens two pawns}
e6 9. Qxb7 {White neglects his development and grabs a pawn} Ncxe5 10. dxe5
{Whites only well placed piece is removed from the board} Rb8 {black
develops is rook with tempo} 11. Qxa7 Bc5 {black develops his bishop with
tempo} 12. Qa4 {white wasted four queen moves while black developes his
army with tempo by kicking the white queen around.} O-O {And black is ready
to fight} 13. Be2 Nxe5 14. O-O {White seems to catch up, so black pushes
the accelerator} Rb4 15. Qd1 {The white pieces are having a back rank
party} Qf6 16. a3 Rh4 {Notice how pawn e3 prevents the white army from
reaching the kingside} 17. g3 Qg6 18. b4 Bb6 19. Bb2 {White has finished
his development. Here the game connects with the ideas of Vukovic.} Ng4 20.
Bf3 Nxh2 21. Bg2 {Two defenders against four attackers.} Bg4 22. Nxd5 exd5
23. Qxd5 Rh5 {And white resigned} 0-1
Notice how pawn grabbing was answered by developing moves with tempo. Developing is mainly a tempo battle. The difference in development means that the balance on the kingside is disturbed. That is the way how the preconditions of Vukovic are met.
I played gambits for seven years. Originally I wanted to play in that way for only one year. But if one is good, then seven is better, right? It gained me 250 rating points. But when my opponents got better, my attack seldom materialized.
In these days, it doesn't make sense to play a gambit on move two. Since everyone is booked up to the eyeballs nowadays.
Then I replaced all my gambits by solid openings. It turned out that throwing the kitchen sink from a stable position works much better than from a position that is already feebly.
Yet I had no idea what I was doing. But these three subjects in this post, finally give me a clue.
Furthermore, the jury was still out for one of my openings, i.e. 1. ... b6 for black as answer to 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. With the aid of these three courses, I have been able to decide on the Nimzo-Indian for black in stead of 1. ... b6. With the sign of approval of IM Andras Toth.
I have decided on The Fierce Nimzo Indian from Chessable by WGM Maaike Keetman.
I have some thoughts about development and opening preparation along with an analogous game to the game given in the blog post, but before that word salad:
ReplyDeleteINTERMEZZO:
Another example of the Trébuchet, encountered while playing Puzzle Storm on lichess.org last night:
FEN: 8/8/3p3p/8/4Pp1P/3k1P1K/8/8 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0...K(c2)d3.
It is obvious (?) that if the d6, h6, e4 and h4 pawns are removed, the position would be a “pure” Trébuchet—and White to move would be lost in all variations.
WHY? Because White loses the distant Opposition AND (after Black captures the f3-pawn) Black’s King is on the 6th rank in front of the pawn, which is a winning position (IFF you KNOW how to win that position!).
Just out of curiosity, I tasked GM Stockfish to work the “pure” Trébuchet out to the end based on all possible moves by White; the result is mate in 13 (14 at worst).
The presence of the additional pawns somewhat complicates the situation.
The solution springs readily to mind IFF you “SEE” that a tempo move is available for both players using the h-pawns. When that tempo move is played is crucial.
Common knowledge about HOW to play the Trébuchet is that being the first to occupy the attacking square against the enemy pawn (in this position, the g4-square for White) leads to the loss of your own pawn, so it would be natural—and WRONG—to apply that general “rule” to this position. [Watson’s assertion of “rules independence” strikes again!] Of the 5 legal White moves, only one move wins for White: he MUST occupy the g4 square with 1. Kg4! The telltale “loophole” is that White has a tempo move in reserve to the h5 square if Black responds with 1… Ke3 (otherwise, he loses his f4-pawn immediately), forcing the loss of the f4-pawn and the ending.
It still feels amazing that the entire solution can be “SEEN” at a glance!
END INTERMEZZO
It still feels amazing that the entire solution can be “SEEN” at a glance!
DeleteThere where we can replace rules by calculation, we should go one step further, and replace them by patterns based on logical narratives.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteIn Botvinnik’s excellent book one hundred selected games, pg 144, he made the following observation about development as part of his annotation of the game A. Sokolsky vs M. Botvinnik, Leningrad 1938 following White’s 11th move:
It is gradually becoming apparent that White has no plan of play whatsoever, and is occupied only with the “development” of his pieces. Perhaps this was sufficient fifty years ago (!), but in our day, when at the sixth to eighth move every master formulates his plan for the middlegame, there is no “better” way of getting a cramped and passive position than by aiming only at development.
[An aside: in this book in the Foreword, Botvinnik asks and answers the question most of us have asked, but never really answered satisfactorily for ourselves):
“How do I prepare?”]
Having already appealed to “authority,” let’s look at a different game which is somewhat related (in essence, not surface-level clues) to the Elmir Guseinov vs Magnus Carlsen given above. (Both games are in the Chess Tempo Game Database.)
Nimzowitsch, Aron (2620) vs Capablanca, Jose (2730)
Date: 1914
Event: St Petersburg prel, St.Petersburg-1
Round: 1
Result: 0-1
Opening: Spanish Game, Steinitz Defense, Nimzowitsch Attack (C62)
Near Duplicates: 1906728
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Qd3 exd4 8. Nxd4 g6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Qa6 Qd7 11. Qb7 Rc8 12. Qxa7 Bg7 13. O-O O-O 14. Qa6 Rfe8 15. Qd3 Qe6 16. f3 Nd7 17. Bd2 Ne5 18. Qe2 Nc4 19. Rab1 Ra8 20. a4 Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Qc4 22. Rfd1 Reb8 23. Qe3 Rb4 24. Qg5 Bd4+ 25. Kh1 Rab8 26. Rxd4 Qxd4 27. Rd1 Qc4 28. h4 Rxb2 29. Qd2 Qc5 30. Re1 Qh5 31. Ra1 Qxh4+ 32. Kg1 Qh5 33. a5 Ra8 34. a6 Qc5+ 35. Kh1 Qc4 36. a7 Qc5 37. e5 Qxe5 38. Ra4 Qh5+ 39. Kg1 Qc5+ 40. Kh2 d5 41. Rh4 Rxa7 42. Nd1 White reigns
Perhaps this game was the genesis of IM John Watson’s assertion of “rules independence” in modern chess. He annotates the Nimzowitsch-Capablanca game in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, pp 20-22.
In spite of the broad difference in opening, the games unfold along similar strategic paths. The Black player (intentionally or not) sacrifices a pawn for active piece play, utilizing the exposed White Queen to gain tempi for piece development. This is also a hallmark strategic theme of the Benoni Defense, Benko Gambit [1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6].
Another Benko Gambit similarity is the White outside passed pawn, which (usually) never becomes a significant factor because Black has too much piece activity in the middlegame.
Thus, logical scenarios “bleed over” between dissimilar openings, again reducing the total number of scenarios to learn. If we focus intently on specifically narrow opening sequences of moves, it is highly likely that we will not “SEE” potential similarities.
Botvinnik is quoted in GM Andy Soltis’s book The Inner Game of Chess: How to Calculate and Win, pg 6, The Myth of the Long Variations.
A popular view among amateurs is that grandmasters are grandmasters because they routinely SEE 10 moves ahead. There are, of course, examples of this by GMs, but they are relatively rare.
Much more common is the kind of calculation that calls for SEEing not more than two moves into the future. And most of the time these two-move variations lead only to minor improvements in the position. But these improvements can add up.
When Mikhail Botvinnik lost on first board during the 1955 Soviet-American match, the world champion explained the result simply:
“It shows that I need to perfect my play of two-move variations.”
Since he was World Champion at the time, that remark seems ridiculous—if one assumes that he was talking about tactical calculations. On the other hand, if he is talking about plans, it makes sense. Sometimes it is only possible to SEE one or two moves into the potential future, because we have no idea what the opponent is planning.
I love funny typos: at the end of the Nimzowitsch-Capablanca, White does NOT "reigns"; he "resigns."
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to learn to SEE the “negative spaces” as well as the “positive forms” (using the language of Dr. Betty Edwards in her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain).
To uncover a reusable pattern, you must SEE what is there [WYSIATI— the positive form] and also what is NOT there [the negative space]. In the chess context, that means playing over GM games looking for logical scenarios, and simultaneously looking for what is missing in order for that logical scenario to exist. In short, “fiddle around” with the piece/pawn positions as an integral part of learning from GM games with the questions WHAT IF I FOLLOW THIS PLAN INSTEAD? and “WHAT ABOUT THIS ALTERNATIVE MOVE/VARIATION? kept in mind at all times.
I lost my enthusiasm for opening monographs a long time ago because I would memorize the mainlines, and then be out of “book” a long time prior to realizing any putative advantage. It was like looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow; all I ever managed to do was get drowned in a storm of unknown variations.
Over the last few years, I have intentionally tried to find GM games that embody typical scenarios that seem to occur repeatedly. I look for similarities and differences without being too concerned with the specific details. [Yet, the devil hides in the details!]
Memorization of games as exemplars of logical scenarios is good, whereas memorization of opening sequences (stopping at the end of a proposed variation without having a full game to SEE “the rest of the story”) is probably a waste of time and effort.
I counted about 50 different scenarios in the chapter "quickstarter" of the course "The fierce Nimzo Indian". I guess that I need at least one week per scenario to work out the parameters and the logical narratives. Meaning that I need at least a year for a quickstart per new opening.
ReplyDeleteI already decided to let feedback from OTB practice decide when which scenarios to study. My priority lies not by my openings but by the Battle for the Center and by Piece Development.
I'm very happy with the Nimzo Indian though. Exactly what I was looking for.
Learning the variations of an opening by heart is really nonsensical. You need more information than that. That knowledge must be abstrahered from the scenarios first.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that a year is not very fast for a "quickstart". I assume that that depends on your perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe scenarios in the Nimzo Indian are presented at a dazzling rate of one scenario per minute in the video. Which is confusing and mind numbing. It can put you easily on the wrong foot when you don't realize that every minute will take you at least a week or so to work out. Otoh you get an overview in no time.