Brainstorming

 

I watched a video of GM Yasser Seirawan and GM Aman Hambleton who were solving chess problems together. It gives a good idea how they do that and at which speed. They use pattern supported logical narratives. Exactly as I had theorized. So that gives a lot of confidence in my method. It gives an impression how much work it will take to reach such level. The good news is, that there is no reason to think that it is out of reach when you are willing to work for it.

My first attempts to battle for the center has lead to exiting games. I'm definitely convinced that the combination of fighting for the center and improving tactics will lead to a quantum leap forwards.

Yet I struggle to find the beginning. Let me start with the first step.

Black to move

rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/3P4/2P2N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

From the Chessable course of IM Andras Toth:

Reinhardt, Bernd - Svetushkin, Dmitry

Ditzingen 2009

1.

d4

f6

2.

f3

e6

3.

c3

This is a typical case of a move where we can't call it a mistake, but we should be frowning upon such ideas as it does not have the same ambitious energy that c2-c4 would.

Openings that are based on the idea of completing development safely without engaging in early (theoretical) battles (such as The London, The Colle, reversed Stonewall etc), all have the same huge flaw: it teaches people the terrible and remarkably harmful habit that they can play sound (and in the short run very successful) chess by compromising hugely important principles.He criticizes the move 3.c3 by white. To me, c3 looks like it is supporting the center. But apparently it is not fighting like 3.c4 would. How do I judge the difference? When is it fighting and when just supporting?Yasser Seirawan should the ideal positions of the chess pieces, based on the amount of space they cover.

Kight: c6 and f6Bishop e4 and d4Rook: every square above the equatorQueen: c6, d6, e6 and f6