Seize the center
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "Dubai"]
[Date "2004.01.01"]
[White "Al Hadarani"]
[Black "Carlson"]
[Result "*"]
[BlackElo "2400"]
[ECO "B31"]
[Opening "Sicilian"]
[Time "19:37:22"]
[Variation "Rossolimo, 3...g6 4.O-O Bg7 5.Re1 Nf6 6.c3 O-O 7.d4"]
[WhiteElo "2400"]
[TimeControl "300"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp1pppbp/2n2np1/1Bp5/3PP3/2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 b - d3 0 7"]
[Termination "unterminated"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[WhiteType "human"]
[BlackType "human"]
7. ... {It looks as if white totally dominates the center. A lot of black
players would play here cxd4. But Magnus wants the center for himself.} d5
8. exd5 Qxd5 {Now there is a pawn on c3, the Queen cannot be harassed by
Nc3.} 9. c4 Qd6 10. d5 Nd4 11. Nxd4 cxd4 12. h3 (12. Qxd4 Ng4 13. Qf4 Qxf4
14. Bxf4 Bxb2) 12. .. a6 13. Ba4 b5 14. cxb5 axb5 15. Bxb5 Qxd5 {Look at
the center now! Compare it with the situation on move 7!} 16. a4 Bb7 17.
Bf1 {The pieces of black come to live. Look at the poor white pieces. There
are all misplaced on the backrank, waiting for the coming onslaught.} *
This is a nice example from the young Magnus Carlsen with a demonstration how to turn the tables in the center. Our task is to unearth the scenarios that make this possible. Is there some kind of methodology behind all this?
The Blogger html mode tends to add html code all by itself for no apparent reason. Hence it takes sometimes some time to make everything work again.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm looking for, is a finite amount of scenarios for the battle of the center. All the other areas, like tactics, kingside attack, endgame, creating a passer, the Trébuchet, the PoPLoAFun system, the battle of the lines of attack et cetera, which I have investigated in the past 16 months, all had a finite amount of scenarios. I haven't been able to do the same with the battle for the center yet.
ReplyDeleteMy method of acquiring skill is based on a limited amount of scenarios. You can't develop skill for an infinite amount of scenarios.
I probably have to work my way a few times through the videos and the games before the penny drops. I might need to analyze a few positions here possibly. Don't expect those analyses to be coherent from the get go. Any feedback is welcome.
What I'm sure about though, is that this is the main hole in my bucket. So it is all hands on deck.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI looked up the game in Chess Tempo so I could get a “feel” for what led up to the situation on move 7(!).
LINK: https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/1352762/ply/13
The game is also in the chessgames database:
https://www.chessgames.com/nodejs/game/viewGamePGN?text=1&gid=1283043
I was curious as to whether the line played is current “theory” up to the 7th move; the short answer: it is.
[“WWn%—Dn%—BWn%” = White Win—Draw—Black Win percentages of games played]
1. e4 [#1 choice: 1,053,071 database games]
—WW39.6%—D26.7%—BW33.7%
1… c5 [#1 choice: 1,053,071 database games]
—WW38.2%—D26.1%—BW35.7%
2. Nf6 [#1 choice: 809587 database games]
—WW38.7%—D26.5%—BW34.8%
2... Nc6 [#2 choice: 224126 database games; #1 choice: 2… d6]
—WW39.1%—D27.4%—BW33.5%
3. Bb5 [#2 choice: 53453 database games; #1 choice: 3. d4]
—WW43.4%—D27.5%—BW29.1%
3... g6 [#1 choice: 26488 database games]
—WW44%—D28%—BW28.1%
4. O-O [#1 choice: 14104 database games]
—WW42.8%—D28.8%—BW28.4%
4... Bg7 [#1 choice: 13943 database games]
—WW42.8%—D28.8%—BW28.4%
5. Re1 [#2 choice: 5650 database games; #1 choice: 5. c3]
—WW42.8%—D28.8%—BW28.4%
5... Nf6 [#1 choice: 2913 database games]
—WW40%—D33.1%—BW26.9%
6. c3 [#1 choice: 4174 database games]
—WW40.8%—D30.2%—BW29%
6... O-O [#1 choice: 3951 database games]
—WW41%—D30%—BW29%
7. d4 [#1 choice: 2277 database games]
—WW39.1%—D30.2%—BW30.7%
7... d5 [#2 choice: 925 database games; #1 choice: 7… cxd4]
—WW40.7%—D30.7%—BW28.6%
FEN: r1bq1rk1/pp2ppbp/2n2np1/1Bpp4/3PP3/2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 w - d6 0 8
Apparently no mistake was made by either player in terms of opening theory; the percentages didn’t vary significantly up to that point.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThe 7th move alternatives (based on the Chess Tempo games database) are:
#1: 7… cxd4 [1245 games; WW40.7%—D30.7%—BW28.6%]
#2: 7… d5 [925 games; WW37.6%—D29.6%—BW32.8%]
#3: 7… Qb6 [72 games; WW31.9%—D26.4%—BW41.7%]
#4: 7… a6 [28 games; WW32.1%—D39.3%—BW28.6%]
#5: 7… d6 [7 games; WW57.1%—D0.0%—BW42.9%]
#6: 7… Qa5 [2 games; WW100%—D0.0%—BW0.0%
NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that the win/draw percentages are based on the number of games, not on an objective evaluation of the merits/demerits of any specific move or moves during the games. Evaluating the individual moves based solely on the result of the game is fraught with potential for errors.
Structurally, the WPc3 supports his pawn “center” but the downside is that it also inhibits the development of his queenside pieces. [You noted that.] This is the hidden “problem” of occupation of the center with pawns that Nimzowitsch and the Hypermoderns so eloquently expounded upon—the pawns get in the way of free piece activity.
My guess is that Carlsen felt that his lead in development justified a break in the center, opening a line for his white-squared Bishop, clearing the back rank of minor pieces (BBc8) and connecting his Rooks, and thereby beginning middlegame operations against the center and the White kingside. Black is grabbing for the initiative, using tactical means. White’s attempt to gain control of the center through tactical exchanges leaves him with a very static (blocked) center [which rapidly disappears] and far behind in development.
Nimzowitsch’s My System, Part I, The Elements has two chapters that might prove very helpful in determining what to do and why, as well as how to do it in this specific variation:
Chapter 1: The centre and development
1 — By development we mean the strategic march of the troops towards the border.
2 — A pawn move must not be considered in itself to be a developing move.
3 — A lead in development is ideal.
4 — Exchanging followed by a gain of tempo.
— A possible intermezzo between exchanging and gaining a tempo.
5 — Liquidation followed by development or a bid for freedom.
6 — The centre and its urge to demobilize.
6a — Surrendering the centre
7 — Pawn grabbing in the opening
7a — Take any central pawn if it can be done without too great a danger!
Chapter 5: Exchanging
1 — We exchange in order to occupy (or open) a line without loss of time.
2 — We destroy a defender by exchanging.
3 — We exchange in order not to lose time retreating.
3a — “He tries to sell his life as dearly as possible.”
4 — How and when exchanges usually take place.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteIf we start analyzing and trying to figure out WHY? after Black’s 7th move, I think we will miss the most important aspects of this opening variation. It is also highly likely that we will never identify and understand the logical scenario that brought about this position.
Possible applicable heuristics [“rules”] leading up to this position and beyond:
—Strike while the iron is hot!
—To take is a mistake.
—When ahead in development, open lines of attack.
—A flank attack is best met with play in the center.
—If needed to maintain momentum, don’t hesitate to sacrifice material.
My point is that even if we recall these aphorisms, we still don’t know why or what or how to do what the heuristics tell us we should do!
I cannot know whether either player was merely playing memorized moves or were figuring it out at the board. In any event, the moves were “normal” theory. For argument’s sake, let’s assume they were figuring out there moves as they went—can we recreate that logical sequence?
The first divergence (by Black) from the “best” move (from GM Stockfish) occurs with 2… Nc6. Black is logically developing and adding pressure to d4.
White’s 3rd move 3. Bb5 is another divergence from the “best” move. White develops a piece to an active square and “threatens” to pin the BNc6 against the Black King (if Black decides to move the d7-pawn at some point). This would negate the Knight’s pressure against the d4-square.
Black’s 3rd move 3… g6 is logical but somewhat provocative. The intent is to develop the Black Bishop to g7, where it will add pressure to the d4-square and, by extension, the long diagonal. The only potential problem is that it takes two moves to add that pressure on the long diagonal.
White’s 4th move 4. O-O develops the WRh1 and gets the King out of the middle. White had the opportunity to exchange the WBb5 for the BNc6, damaging Black’s queenside pawn structure at a cost of the two Bishops. The valuation of this imbalance is subjective and totally unclear.
Black’s 4th move 4… Bg7 follows up with the additional pressure on the d4-square, and develops the bishop to a beautiful diagonal. Now Black has the possibility of advancing the BNc6 to the d4-square, because the WBb5 does not pin it to the Black King. Moving the BNc6 a second time before development has been completed may not be a good idea, but it remains as a threat.
White’s 5th move 5. Re1 is perhaps premature. GM Stockfish prefers 5. c3, immediately blunting the long-range effect of the BBg7, preventing an incursion on d4 by the BNc6, and bolstering the central area, perhaps in anticipation of playing d2-d4 in the near future.
Black’s 5th move 5... Nf6 puts pressure on the e4 pawn, and develops the kingside in anticipation of castling kingside.
White’s 6th move 6. c3 blunts the long-range effect of the BBg7 and anticipates advancing d2-d4. The d4-square is becoming a central point of tension [3:3].
Black’s 6th move 6... O-O gets his king off the same file as the WRe1, brings his rook into play and awaits developments. Notice that at this point, neither player has lost tempi in developing.
PART IV:
ReplyDeleteI think at this point both White and Black should “look ahead” to see what tactical resources are available when the tension ratchets up after 7. d4. More importantly, both players should evaluate the consequences in strategic terms, i.e., in terms of development and tempi.
If White forces 7. d4, then both players have to be ready for a series of exchanges. There is no threat of losing/gaining material (the d4-square is balanced [3:3]) BUT what happens to the tempi balance if Black does NOT capture on d4 but instead attacks the e4-pawn [1:2]? White will be forced to either advance the e4-pawn or begin a liquidation of the center tension.
Black’s 7th move 7… d5 forces a White to a decision: advance the e-pawn or capture the d-pawn? GM Stockfish thinks White should advance [“To take is a mistake.”], but exchanging on d5 with gain of tempo proves fatally attractive to White. Perhaps White stopped looking deeper after the sequence 8. exd5 Qxd5 9. c4 Qd6 10. d5, and evaluated the position as favorable: there is a protected “90% passed pawn” in the center and a half-open e-file with a rook already on it.
Black’s 10th move 10… Nd4 illustrates the flaw. Black has assumed the initiative, and after 11. Nxd4 cxd4, White faces a conundrum: capture the cheeky d4-pawn with 12. Qxd4 (allowing a terrible double threat against his King and Queen after 12… Ng4 13. Qf4 Qxf4 14. Bxf4 Bxb2) or preventing that double threat and allowing his center to be demolished (after 12. h3 a6 13. Ba4 b5 14. cxb5 axb5 15. Bxb5 Qxd5.
Look at the tempi carnage on White’s side! Black has the only center pawns (with a passed d-pawn), has his queen in the center of the board, has open lines for his bishops and is in position to create threats against the White King. White’s queenside development is nonexistent, the advanced d-pawn prevents development of the WNb1 with gain of tempo, and the WBb5 is going to be needed back on f1 after 16. a4 Bb7 (threatening checkmate on g2).
I’ve tried to show that by looking a few moves in advance and evaluating the development and tempi situation, better decisions could be made during the opening. None of the ideas required complex tactical calculations. Instead, a strategic assessment of the pros and cons of the anticipated variation should have been sufficient to guide both players.
PART V:
ReplyDeleteGM Stockfish has the following ‘opinion’ regarding the “best” 7th move and how to follow up on it [moves scoring lower than -1.00 were omitted]:
D42 -0.29 7...a6 8.Bd3 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Be3 Bf5 11.dxc5 Qb8 12.Bd4 Rc8 13.Qe2 b6 14.e6 Bxe6 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.Ng5 Bf5 18.Nxe4 bxc5 19.Nxc5 Qb5 20.Qxb5 axb5 21.b4 Nd8 22.Nd2 Ne6 23.Ndb3 Ra3 24.h3 Rc7 25.g4 Nxc5 26.Nxc5 Bc8 27.Re3 Rca7 28.Kg2 h5 29.Kg3 f6 30.f3 Kf7 31.Rd1 Rc7 32.f4 Rxa2 33.Rd8 hxg4 34.hxg4
D42 -0.32 7...Qb6 8.a4 cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 Ne4 11.Nc3 Rd8 12.Be3 a6 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Nh4 Qxb2 15.Ne2 Bd7 16.Rb1 Qa2 17.f3 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Bxa4 19.Ra1 Bxd1 20.Rxa2 Bxe2 21.Raxe2 Nc3 22.Rc2 d4 23.f4 g5 24.Nf3 dxe3 25.Rxc3 gxf4 26.Kf1 b5 27.Ke2 e6 28.g3
D42 -0.41 7...d5 8.e5 Ne4 9.Be3 Qb6 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Qc1 c4 12.Nbd2 Nxd2 13.Nxd2 Bf5 14.b3 Bd3 15.h4 a5 16.Qd1 a4 17.bxc4 dxc4 18.h5 Rfb8 19.Qg4 Qa5 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.Qh4 Qxc3 22.Nf3 f6 23.d5 cxd5 24.Bd4 Qa3 25.exf6 exf6 26.Bxf6
D42 -0.50 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.Bd3 Qd7 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bxe4 Rfd8 14.Bxc6 Qxc6 15.Bg5 Qd7 16.h3 Be6 17.Qd3 Rac8 18.Qa3 f6 19.Bd2 b6 20.Qe3 Bd5 21.Bc3 a5 22.a3 Qb7 23.Red1 Rc6 24.Nh2 Rcc8 25.Qg3 f5 26.Nf1 Bh6 27.Bd2
D42 -0.57 7...Qa5 8.Na3 cxd4 9.e5 Ne8 10.cxd4 d6 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Bg5 f6 13.Bd2 Qd5 14.exd6 Nxd6 15.Nc2 Qf7 16.Nb4 Bd7 17.Rc1 Rfc8 18.h3 Bf8 19.Nd3 Be8 20.b3 Nf5 21.g4 Ng7 22.Qe2 Qd5 23.Nc5 Bf7 24.Bc3 Ne8 25.Qe3 Nd6 26.Nd2 a5 27.a4 Rcb8
D42 -0.78 7...d6 8.d5 Na5 9.Bf1 b6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Qc7 13.a4 Bg4 14.Nbd2 c4 15.h3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Rae8 17.g4 Nf6 18.Qg2 e6 19.dxe6 Rxe6 20.f4 Rfe8 21.Rad1 g5 22.fxg5 hxg5 23.Bxg5 d5 24.Kh1 Nb7 25.Bxf6 Bxf6 26.Re2 d4 27.g5 Be5 28.cxd4 Bxd4
The most important thing is not to find the best move, but to find a feasible plan. Since a plan makes moves to cooperate in the same direction.
ReplyDeleteSmirnov noted that you must reevaluate your plan everytime a pawn moves or a piece is exchanged. I'm starting to see why that is. A pawn move changes the open diagonals, brings new possibilities and closes other possibilities. A piece exchange changes the evaluation of the weak squares in the position and the value of a line of attack.