Why the isolani?
The isolani is known for its contrast of dynamism vs pawn structure. But how does that piece dynamism looks like? And why does it favor the side with the isolani? And how winnable is the endgame for the side that is fighting against the isolani? Those were the questions I had when I started this investigation.
I have replaced my openings repertoire in the past years, and in a lot of the openings there was a battle going on between the side with the active pieces versus the side with the best pawn structure. So I wanted to know why good pawn structure seems to be opposite to piece activity. What is the origin of that piece activity and why has the side with the good pawn structure no good piece play?
Sofar I found the following answers:
There are a few reasons why the side with the isolani has more piece activity:
- Behind the isolani is more space
- When the isolani is mobile, it leaves even more space behind
- there is much space on the kingside
- blacks e6 pawn cuts blacks army in half. That makes it difficult to defend against a kingside attack
- The d4 pawn is weak
- White should attack on the kingside
- Black must exchange the minor pieces.
- Without minor pieces the kingside attack peters out
- Black can't play e5 since that solves whites weak d4 pawn
- Black must get a queenside attack going, in order to keep the white pieces busy
- Black must block d4
- Black must put pressure on the d4 pawn in order to keep the white pieces busy
The bottle of wine from the Isolani Winery in California intrigued me. (I am not a wine connoisseur by any stretch of the imagination.) The word “isolani” is the masculine form in Italian for “islander” and was first used by Nimzowitsch to describe the isolated queen pawn, in essence a little pawn “island” in the center of the board. The connotation is that certain attributes of an island adhere to this pawn and its surroundings.
ReplyDeleteThe number of pawn islands in typical IQP pawn structures is 1 greater for the possessor of the IQP. which (along with the lack of a pawn defender with which to form a phalanx) is well-known as an indicator of potential endgame difficulties.
The “currents” that freely flow around the IQP are the potential lines of attack, just as water freely flows around an island. Not only do the LoA flow freely around, but also against the island: it is difficult to defend against attacks from all directions on all sides. On the other hand, an island can be a great stepping-stone as a forward base for offensive operations, as happened in the Pacific during WWII.
Perhaps it is possible to gain a better appreciation of what Nimzowitsch had in mind by considering the pros and cons of an actual island in terms of attack and defense by and against the IQP.
Nimzowitsch dogmatically recommended a specific piece configuration in relation to the IQP (from the perspective of White possessing an IQP on the d4-square).
“Many amateurs rush forward too violently when an isolated pawn is in question, whereas there does not seem to me to be any objective reason for an all-or-nothing attack born of despair. The first thing which is required is rather The greatest possible stability. The attack will arise of its own volition (for example, should Black have perhaps moved the Nf6 away from the kingside, which is natural since the knight wants to go to d5). During development (see diagram 446) we recommend a solid set-up with Be3 (not g5), Qc2, Rc1 and Rd1 (not d1 and e1), also Bd3 or b1 (not b3). We cannot warn White enough against aiming for surprise attacks in the earlier stages, led in by something like Ne5xf7 (when there is a bishop on a2) or by a diversionary attack with a rook (Re1-e3-h3). The only correct way to proceed is with a set-up which ensures the security of d3 (the Be3 and the Pd4 belong together like a wet nurse and a baby).
Only when Black has removed pieces from the kingside should White sound the attack! And in my opinion it should be carried out in sacrificial style.”
I suspect that later aficionados of the IQP formation (Botvinnik, Spaasky and Kasparov, to name a few World Champions) were quite happy to utilize a much more active approach to the positive dynamic attributes of the IQP instead of such a passive defensive approach.
GM Siegbert Tarrasch (Nimowitsch’s arch enemy) famously said some things that are applicable to the isolani:
“Every move creates a weakness.”
“He who fears an isolated Queen's Pawn should give up Chess.”
“Weak points or holes in the opponent’s position must be occupied by pieces not Pawns.”
“If the defender is forced to give up the center, then every possible attack follows almost of itself.”
“All lines of play which lead to the imprisonment of the bishop are on principle to be condemned.”
“Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position. If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about!”
“Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the middle game.”
Food for thought, perhaps.
Zlotnik's Middlegame Manual: Typical Structures and Strategic Objectives, Chapter 1: The isolated queen’s pawn gives the four most frequently encountered IQP structures.
ReplyDelete#1: FEN: 6k1/pp3ppp/4p3/8/3P4/8/PP3PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1
#2: FEN: 6k1/ppp2ppp/8/8/3P4/8/PP3PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1
#3: FEN: 6k1/pp3ppp/8/3p4/8/8/PPP2PPP/6K1 b - - 0 1
#4: FEN: 6k1/pp3ppp/8/3p4/8/4P1P1/PP3P1P/6K1 b - - 0 1
Note: I arbitrarily placed the two Kings on the board. I also arbitrarily gave the side to move as the one possessing the IQP.
“In current practice, positions of this type are encountered quite often and furthermore they can arise from a variety of different openings, with both white and black, which accounts for their popularity. The main such openings are:
Queen’s Gambit Accepted
Queen’s Gambit Decline, Tarrasch Defense
Queen’s Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch Defense
Nimzo-Indian Defense
Caro-Kann Defense, Panov-Botvinnik Attack
French Defense
Sicilian Defense
Italian Game
Petroff Defense
The above are the four most frequently encountered IQP structures. It should be noted that in the fourth type, two variants are possible: one with the white king’s bishop fianchettoed on g2 ad the other with a pawn on e3 and with the bishop generally developed along the f1-a6 diagonal.
Even from this simple game [in the book] the fundamental strategic ideas of the typical positions with IQP are clear: the side with the isolated pawn has to attack, while the opposing side usually exchanges pieces, trying to exploit the weaknesses in the enemy pawn structure.
Tournament practice and the ample chess literature on this topic allow us to indicate the following plans for each side.
The side with the IQP has the following four plans available:
A) kingside attack;
B) opening the game by advancing the isolated pawn;
C) advancing the isolated pawn in order to fix an enemy pawn on an adjacent file;
D) developing activity on the queenside. Usually, this plan is employed when two conditions are present:
i) when the side with IQP controls the c-file and has possible invasion points there;
ii) when there are targets in this sector of the board.
The side playing against the IQP employs basically two methods:
A) simplification of the position, aiming for an endgame;
B) transformation from an IQP structure to a structure with hanging pawns.”
An important point to remember:
Chess is a game where for every rule or norm there are numerous exceptions.
Thus spake Zlotnik.
What is important for the one who fight against the isolani, is that he keeps the opponent's pieces occupied. With a queenside attack and/or an attack on the isolani.
Delete