Learn by example
I'm working my way through the course about the center for the second time. There are no clear scenarios presented. Meaning, that I'm told that I must occupy the center (the what), but not exactly why I should do that, nor how. Instead a lot of examples are given from grandmaster games. Okay, there are a lot of hints, concerning the why and the how, but when you try it for yourself, you can't help to notice that you are still on your own. Tinstaafl!
Apparently I have reached the limits here of chess education. Where an author can't do anything more than providing examples from grandmaster games. We were already told that that is the way how grandmasters learn.
The strange book of John Watson "Advances since Nimzowitsch" already pointed in that direction. I was quite disappointed by that book, since I expected that he would go further where Nimzowitsch had stopped. In stead he came up with rule independent chess. Where he proved that rules have their limits, and in the end you have do to concrete calculations instead.
My skill acquiring method is based on a finite amount of logical scenarios. Since system 1 looks over the shoulder of system 2.
Is conquering the center really so complex that it can't be captured in a limited amount of scenarios? I must at least investigate that. Ofcourse, when the amount of possibilities rises through the roof for some reason, and these possibilities have too little in common or can't be generalized, the amount of scenarios might go through the roof as well. Which makes my method impractical.
If conquering the center can't indeed be captured in standard scenarios, I must develop another approach. Then I must optimize everything else that can be captured in generalized logical scenarios.
If such explosion of scenarios is real indeed, then it seems to be logical that modern chess at grandmaster level is so utterly focused on openings. Since there you can make always the difference with skills. But alas, those skills are only temporarily.
But first I must try to find out whether the end of skills is indeed reached with the center. At the moment, I can't imagine that that is the case.
What are the areas of investigation?
How to open a file?
- by exchanging center pawns one of the adjacent files becomes half open or open
- by sacrificing a pawn
- by luring a pawn away
- by putting an annoying piece in the center protected by a pawn so your opponent exchanges it (Nimzowitsch proposed that as the main reason to put a piece in the center, if I remember well)
- undermining the central pawns from behind or the side
- creating a protected outpost
- attacking a weak pawn from the front
- beware of pins in the center
- beware of pawn forks in the center
- in the center
- in front of the center
- behind the center
Temposchlucker asks:
ReplyDeleteIs conquering the center really so complex that it can't be captured in a limited amount of scenarios?
PART I:
I firmly believe that a limited number of scenarios will capture the essence of any particular opening system. The myriad detailed variations may be confusing, but abstraction and categorization can be very helpful in reducing the number of concepts that must be ground into memory.
In spite of IM John Watson’s thesis that chess has become totally concrete and is now “rules independent,” I think heuristics still serve a valuable role as an aid for memory triggers (in addition to serving as shorthand to avoid killing entire forests of trees when annotating a game).
Let’s look at some ideas gleaned from My System regarding the centre and development.
Nimzowitsch defines the border as a line drawn horizontally across the board between the fourth and fifth ranks. Each player begins the game with possession of 4 ranks. The centre is the four squares d4-d5-e5-e4. The extended centre includes the centre and the 12 squares around the centre (corners at c3-c6-f6-f3).
Nimzowitsch gives two “rules” [with EXCEPTIONS] regarding the centre and development:
1. By development we mean the strategic march of the troops toward the border.
2. A pawn move must not be considered in itself to be a developing move, but rather simply a move which helps development.
Every opening has an underlying set of objectives and associated logical scenarios, ranging from gambit play designed to tear open lines to get at the enemy forces (particularly the enemy king) to the opposite “style” of trench warfare where the troops settle into siege positions that involve one or more local skirmishes before the final climatic battle. WHY, WHAT and HOW are clearly involved.
A broad generalization scheme identifies three subcategories of opening: open games (primarily based on clashes between pieces), semi-open games (fights revolving around lines of attack and bolstered by outposts supported by pawns) and closed games (involving long and intricate maneuvers behind the lines in order to finally gain sufficient advantage to break through into the enemy position). Even though this categorization is too broad to provide specific detailed guidance at the individual move level, it does constrain the set of moves to be considered as meeting the requirements of the position.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteNimzowitsch:
From “rule 2,” it [LOGICALLY] follows that pawn moves in the development phase are only permitted if they help occupy the centre or have some logical connection with the occupation of the centre. I mean something like a pawn move which protects its own centre or one which attacks the opposing centre. For example, in an open game after 1.e4 e5 both d2-d3 and d2-d4—immediately or later—are always correct moves [depending on the circumstances, of course].
So, if only the above mentioned pawn moves are allowed, this means that the much-loved advance of the rook-pawns should be considered as a waste of time. [EXCEPTION: (In the closed game this “rule” is only partially relevant; there is less direct contact with the enemy and development is completed at a slower pace.)]
In short, we may say: In the open game speed of development is the overriding law. Each piece should be developed with only one move; each and every pawn move — with the EXCEPTION of those which either establish or support your own centre, or attack that of your opponent — can be considered a waste of time. So — as was already made clear by [Emanuel] Lasker — 1-2 pawn moves in the opening, no more.
A lead in development is an ideal.
That sufficiently bolsters my thesis regarding the restricted number of logical scenarios associated with the three categories of openings. Other considerations will further limit the number of logical scenarios.
I think it is vitally important to explore “WHAT IF?” questions when studying any opening variation/system. This is especially true when studying GM games or studying based on GM Stockfish. As you noted, System 1 “peers over the shoulder” of System 2, silently absorbing various logical alternatives that are examined with focused attention. Not only will this provide the WHY but also the WHAT and the HOW. System 2 must examine and re-examine every possibility until satisfied that the essence of every move in a variation has been completely understood.
Beware the “trap” of easy acquisition by merely parroting what some GM has recommended, especially the classical “teachers” such as Steinitz, Lasker, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, etc.
As you have noted many times, YOU still have to DO the hard work yourself!!
TINSTAAFL!
Beautifully said.
ReplyDeleteIn my past OTB games I have experimented with the center, and I noticed that little moves can have big effects. Which means that the problem doesn't seem to be to keep the amount of possibilities in check, but to judge the quality of a move. To judge the (sometimes long term) impact.
Sometime ago I identified 3 holes in my bucket: the center, development and pawn structure. I have now three good courses that teach exactly that.
ReplyDeleteI think it is necessary to plug these holes in my bucket with priority. I want to become more independent of the openings that I play. In the sense that if my opponents play differently (what they do 90% of the time), I'm not immediately in trouble, as is now often the case.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteIn Chess Tempo, I brought up the game Al-Hadarani vs Carlsen and advanced to the position after 7...d5 and then did a Search Using Current Position for all 925 games in the database. Then I sorted the games by the Black player’s name. I found 5 games that Magnus Carlsen played with this specific variation. His score was impressive: he won all 5 games!
My usual method of preparation for a tournament is to find as many games as possible of my potential opponents (if it is a local tournament). I pore over them, looking for telltale signs of weakness or oversights. Then I try to find several games with the same opening variations played by a very strong GM (if the variations played by my potential opponents is a standard variation). In this way, I gain some insight to what I potentially will face and typical ways to go about playing it. I try to get a “feel” for some of the tactics and stratagems that are commonly used in those types of positions. I don’t try to memorize a lot of complex variations from specialist books, because I figure (1) I’ll probably forget (or I won’t really understand) most of the variations before I play the game, and (2) I’ll be on my own as soon as one of us deviates from “theory”—which is likely to occur “sooner rather than later” in the game.
Here are those 5 games, in chronological order (oldest to latest).
In two of the games, his opponent played 8. exd5. In the other three games, his opponent played 8. e5. Note that 3 of his opponents are Super GMs (2700+). He did not attempt to avoid his opponent’s preparation.
GAME #1:
Al-Hadarani, Hatim (2356) vs Carlsen, Magnus (2552)
Date: 2004-04-21
Event: 6th Open, Dubai UAE
Round: 3
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Nyezhmetdinov-Rossolimo Attack, Fianchetto Variation (B31)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Re1 Nf6 6. c3 O-O 7. d4 d5 8. exd5 Qxd5 9. c4 Qd6 10. d5 Nd4 11. Nxd4 cxd4 12. h3 a6 13. Ba4 b5 14. cxb5 axb5 15. Bxb5 Qxd5 16. a4 Bb7 17. Bf1 e5 18. b4 e4 19. b5 Nd7 20. Ra3 d3 21. Nd2 f5 22. Qb3 Rfc8 23. Qxd5+ Bxd5 24. a5 Bf8 25. Ra4 Nb6 26. Ra1 Bb4 27. a6 Rc2 28. Rd1 Bc3 29. Ra3 Rxc1 30. Rxc1 Bxd2
GAME #2:
Caruana, Fabiano (2792) vs Carlsen, Magnus (2865)
Date: 2022-01-29
Event: 84th Tata Steel Masters, Wijk aan Zee NED
Round: 12.1
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Nyezhmetdinov-Rossolimo Attack, Fianchetto Variation (B31)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Nf6 6. Re1 O-O 7. d4 d5 8. e5 Ne4 9. Be3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qb6 11. Qe2 Bd7 12. Ba4 Rac8 13. Nc3 Nxc3 14. bxc3 Qd8 15. Bb3 Na5 16. Rac1 Nxb3 17. axb3 Qb6 18. Qa2 a5 19. Qa3 Rfe8 20. c4 dxc4 21. bxc4 Qa6 22. c5 Bc6 23. Rb1 a4 24. Rec1 Rcd8 25. Nd2 Qe2 26. f3 Rxd4 27. Bxd4 Qxd2 28. Rd1 Qf4 29. Qb4 e6 30. Bc3 Qxb4 31. Bxb4 Bxe5 32. Ba3 Bf6 33. Kf2 Be7 34. Rb6 Rc8 35. Rd2 f6 36. f4 e5 37. fxe5 fxe5 38. Re2 Rf8+ 39. Ke1 Rf5 40. Rb1 e4 41. Rc1 Bh4+ 42. g3 Bg5 43. Rb1 Rf3 44. Bc1 Bf6 45. Rb6 Rf5 46. Ba3 Kf7 47. Rf2 Rf3 48. Rxf3 exf3 49. Kf1 Bd4
PART II:
ReplyDeleteGAME #3:
Duda, Jan-Krzysztof (2750) vs Carlsen, Magnus (2864)
Date: 2022-03-26
Event: Charity Cup KO 2022, chess24.com INT
Round: 3.21
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Nyezhmetdinov-Rossolimo Attack, Fianchetto Variation (B31)
Problems: 143194223
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Nf6 6. Re1 O-O 7. d4 d5 8. e5 Ne4 9. Be3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qb6 11. Bxc6 Qxc6 12. Nfd2 Be6 13. Nb3 f5 14. f3 f4 15. Bc1 Rad8 16. Qe2 Ng5 17. h4 Ne4 18. fxe4 dxe4 19. Qxe4 Bd5 20. Qd3 f3 21. Be3 fxg2 22. N1d2 Qe6 23. Bf2 Rf3 24. Qxf3 Bxf3 25. Nxf3 Qh3 26. Nh2 Bh6 27. Re4 Rf8 28. Rae1 Rxf2 29. Kxf2 Qxh2 30. Rg1 Qh3 31. Re2 a5 32. Rxg2 a4 33. Nd2 Qxh4+ 34. Kf1 Qxd4 35. Nf3 Qd5 36. Rgf2 Qxa2 37. Rc2 Qd5 38. Rc8+ Kg7 39. Kg2 Qe4 40. Rfc2 Qg4+ 41. Kf2 Bf4 42. R2c3 Qg3+ 43. Kf1 Bxe5
GAME #4:
Gukesh D, (2614) vs Carlsen, Magnus (2864)
Date: 2023-07-05
Event: SuperUnited Rapid 2023, Zagreb CRO
Round: 1.1
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Nyezhmetdinov-Rossolimo Attack, Fianchetto Variation (B31)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Nf6 6. Re1 O-O 7. d4 d5 8. e5 Ne4 9. Be3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qb6 11. Bxc6 Qxc6 12. Nbd2 Bf5 13. Nb3 b6 14. Nh4 Be6 15. f3 g5 16. fxe4 gxh4 17. Bg5 f6 18. Rc1 Qb7 19. Bxh4 dxe4 20. Rc3 f5 21. Bg5 f4 22. Qc2 h6 23. Bh4 e3 24. Qg6 Qd7 25. Rec1 Bxb3 26. axb3 Qxd4 27. Rc7 Rae8 28. Be1 Qxe5 29. Rxa7 Qf5 30. Qxb6 f3 31. gxf3 Qxf3 32. Qe6+ Kh7 33. h3 Qf1+ 34. Kh2 Qe2+ 35. Kg3 Rf3+ 36. Kh4 Bf6+
GAME #5:
Nakamura, Hikaru (2750) vs Carlsen, Magnus (2864)
Date: 2023-09-22
Event: chess.com SpeedChess 2023, chess.com INT
Round: 4.15
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Nyezhmetdinov-Rossolimo Attack, Fianchetto Variation (B31)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Nf6 6. Re1 O-O 7. d4 d5 8. exd5 Qxd5 9. c4 Qd6 10. dxc5 Qxc5 11. Be3 Qh5 12. h3 Rd8 13. Nbd2 Nb4 14. Bd4 Bxh3 15. gxh3 Qxh3 16. Be5 Nd3 17. Bg3 Nh5 18. Ng5 Qf5 19. Nge4 Nxg3 20. fxg3 a6 21. Ba4 Nxb2 22. Qb3 Nxa4 23. Qxa4 Bxa1 24. Rxa1 Qe5 25. Rd1 f5 26. Nf2 Qxg3+ 27. Kf1 Qc3 28. Qb3 Qxb3 29. axb3 Rd4 30. Ke2 Rad8 31. Nf3 Rxd1 32. Nxd1 e5 33. Nc3 e4 34. Ne5 Kg7 35. Nd5 g5 36. Ke3 h5