Family ducks
I had identified two slow moving pieces as the natural targets in a chess game. Both the pawns and the King are the sitting ducks which lend themselves to be hunted down. Each sitting duck has its own parameters which determine how vulnerable it is. Every duck has its own dedicated scenarios to attack them.
Study of the the center and development lately, showed that the duck family has more kin. To name a few:
- King
- Squares around the King (focal points or PoP's)
- Weak pawn
- Strong square
- Invasion square
- Promotion square
- Center square (d5, e5)
- Defenders of said sitting ducks
- Pinned pieces
In the beginning of the game, when the king safety isn't compromised, pawns are not weak yet and promotion is out of the question, you have to focus on the other sitting ducks. The center squares are there from the beginning, so they are the logical sitting ducks to base your development upon.
Every sitting duck has its own set of scenarios to put them under strain, and their own parameters that tell you which duck is the most vulnerable.
Take for instance the weak pawn d6 in the Sicilian. Usually this pawn isn't weak at all due to all pieces around it that can defend it. But you can battle for an outpost on d5. Since you have extra attackers to reach that square (the rooks, since it is on a half open file), you can get the upperhand on that square. So scenarios to trade the right pieces present themselves. Of course you must fix d6 first.
That are the kind of scenarios I'm after. Scenarios and parameters.
Do all of these "ducks" represent varying degrees of restricted mobility (in the most abstract sense)?
ReplyDeleteAre many of the "general principles" [heuristics, maxims, "rules"] derived from this type of generalized consideration?
"Do all of these "ducks" represent varying degrees of restricted mobility (in the most abstract sense)?"
ReplyDeleteYes. The ducks are moving slow, at the pace of a pawn or a king. The ducks have quite a few scenarios in common. First they must sit still. A mobile pawn or a skedaddling king must first be fixed.
There are a few techniques that can be applied to all ducks;
Change the balance:
*Add attackers
*Remove defenders
A square has a color. You can get the upperhand on a color by the the right exchanges. That is based on removing the right pieces. Remove the bishop of that color, and you are left with a knight or bishop of the opposite color. That method works for a single square or a color complex.
A weak pawn or an isolani on a half open file needs a different approach. Exchange all minor pieces and keep the heavies. Pile up against the pawn. You have an extra weapon: a pawn as cowbar. Since the opponent's pawn is pinned.
There are techniques that can be applied to all sitting ducks, and there are techniques that are duck specific.
The devil is in the details, and your enemies are the rules without context. Like "to take is a mistake".
This means that in the end you have to think for yourself. TINSTAAFL. But you must do this thinking in the study room, not behind the board. And even here you must be careful: Of course you must think behind the board, but everything that can be found beforehand, must be done in the study room.
Temposchlucker wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis means that in the end you have to think for yourself. TINSTAAFL.
This is so true! One thing I have learned from this ongoing discussion is that the process of acquisition of knowledge and skill can operate in opposite directions.
One can study (even memorize) the accumulated “wisdom” [such as, “To take is a mistake.”, or the latest currently fashionable opening variation(s)—with little or no appreciation of the REQUIRED context] and then attempt to literally apply that [often times contradictory] “advice” as we study and play, “SEEing” this kind of “advice” as general principles or heuristics to be used to guide our thoughts and plans.
Almost all chess literature (including videos) is based on this approach. “Buy this book/video and it will make you a stronger player.” [Even more beloved of authors and publishers is to include “Secrets” somewhere in the title.] My personal best introduction to “secrets” was when my karate instructor offered the following assessment:
“Do you want to KNOW the ‘secret’ of Isshinryu Karate-DO? It is simple: THERE ARE NO SECRETS!
I am skeptical [based on MY subjective, personal experience] that this will ever achieve its stated goal, much less the implied goal of reaching expert or master level SKILL.
The alternate approach moves in the opposite direction [even if over time one acquires more than a nodding acquaintance with the general principles given as the “rules” to play by]. One starts with specific positions (in all their inevitable messiness) and derives PERSONAL generalized heuristics using categorization and abstraction. At times, there may be a recognition of some general principle(s) gleaned from the tutorial literature. However, that recognition is relatively unimportant in terms of developing more expertise. It does not matter in the slightest whether we have acceptable (to the theorists) “names” for our personal discoveries, nor how limited or extensive those discoveries may be in relation to the overall chess literature. The important thing is to experience the discovery process for yourself, and not vicariously through the hard work of others. Knowing the officially recognized “name” for a concept may allow conversations between the cognoscenti pretending to understand each other, but provides little or no basis for skillful play.
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. – Confucius
“No pain, no gain.”
As you have noted on multiple occasions, each person still has to do the hard work himself. If it ain’t hard, you’re not doing it right.
First step: build a logical narrative which explains the CURRENT situation (which took me 23 years to figure out)
DeleteSecond step: abstractification of the logical narratives. Let the eagle fly higher so see see the forest instead of an abundance of trees. (videos helped me here, especially from titled players below grandmaster, which seems to be better at explaining things. It took me 1.5 years to figure out how this step works)
Third step: dive into the details again, where the devils are. This is the step where hard work is needed. You can't delegate this work.
Focus on variation-free lines. Choosing between two lines is a different animal. First you need to learn how one line works.
DeleteWe have three subjects here that are very close related:
ReplyDelete1. The battle for the center
2. Development
3. King assault
Hence I try to study them together. The thing with development is that you must put your pieces on a purposeful square. In the beginning, there is only one purpose: the center.
To be precise: for white the center consists of d5 and e5. Here is a devil in the details. Usually the center is said to be d4, e4, d5 and e5. But that are TWO centers. Your center and that of your opponent. Both centers are equally important. Conquering YOUR center deprives your opponent from using HIS center. So semantically it might be right to think of the center as four squares, but for reasons of UNDERSTANDING it is less confusing to think of only two squares.
Since in the beginning there is only one goal, the center, you can't say whether you are working on conquering the center OR developing your piece. Since it is the same. But it is important to notice when NEW goals arrive in the position. Like a King assault or a potential outpost. Since that immediately changes the way you develop a piece.
Beware of new sitting ducks when they arrive.
DeleteExchanges are a weapon. Especially in getting the upper hand on a square or complex of a certain color. But it only works when the pawns are fixed to a sufficient degree.
ReplyDelete