Temposchlucker

 Robert and I seem to be struggling with the precise role of perception and verbalization in the acquisition of tactical skills. Let's try a different angle of attack. I'm very fond of the Reti manoeuvre. There is a whiff of magic in it. And it seems to express the core of chess: striving for two goals with one move. But before we can strive for two goals, we must first learn to strive for one goal. That is not as easy as it sounds. My ordinary method of throwing everything to the wall and see what sticks is abysmal inefficient when the tree of analysis transforms into a jungle. The core of my new method is to use logic as a machete. But logic is awfully inefficient too, because it is applied by system 2, which is notoriously slow by its very nature. In order to speed up things, we must siphon as much tasks as possible from system 2 to system 1. How to do that? look for a goal generalize the goal without accepting trivialities look for patterns that accompany the goal Let me ex...

  In May 2023 I formulated the way how knowledge could be transformed into skill, based on theoretical grounds. After 1.5 years it has become clear that the method works. I have tested the method in practice, and refined it based on the feedback I got. Let me summarize the findings. I found the right problem sets: The Checkmate Patterns Manual 1001 Chess Exercises For Club Players 1001 Chess Exercises for Advanced Club Players I found the right method: Formulate a logical narrative which describes the tactic Go every repetition a bit further, until the narrative is completed for every variation Repeat until the total solution is logically quite clear Speed of any kind is taboo Repeat until you have absorbed the whole solution Limit the quantity in favor of the quality You know that you have absorbed the solution when: You see the solution immediately with great clarity You become too lazy to verbalize the logic since you already know what the position is about You know where the pi...

 About two years ago, I postulated that tactical visualization can only appear when you have absorbed all the logical narratives that are involved. You can compare it with learning the vocabulary of a foreign language. If you don't know the words, you cannot tell a story. You must absorb the words AND their meaning.The meaning must trigger the retrieval of the right words in the right language Now I start to experience that this is true. I have posted about this tactical position some time ago, I don't remember when. But I do know, that my approach back then was very trial-and-error-based. White to move 2rr2k1/p4ppp/2q5/1pbNPb2/2p2P2/P3BQP1/1P3RKP/3R4 w - - 0 1 1001 Chess Exercises For Club Players Chapter 2. Elimination Of The Defence 02. Ris, Robert vs. Vanheirzeele, Daniël With trial and error as your only tool, it is easy to get confused during moving through the tree of analysis. But when you concoct a logical narrative for every variation, you will slowly absorb the patt...

  I like the different approaches to chess. Munich, who bases his opening choices on statistics, on which moves score best in practical play Mikhail Tal, "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." Arkell, who doesn't work on openings but focuses on taking the opponent to an equal endgame and then grind him down in 80 moves The dual purpose move, like in the Reti Manoeuvre as the heart of chess Capablanca, start with the endgame Personally, I like the metaphor of the sitting duck. Base your moves on the slowest piece. From this, the PoPLoAFun system is derived, and from there the emphasis on the LoA landscape (lines of attack). And from there the dual purpose move ("duplo"). Doesn't work for the opening This logical framework works quite well from the early middlegame onwards to the assault of the king. But for the opening it doesn't seem to provide enough guidance. Why not? I a...

 We talked a lot about preconditions for an assault on the king. What do these preconditions look like? White to move r1b3k1/1pp1q3/8/p2Pp2p/2P1P1p1/2N3P1/PP3Q2/5RK1 w - - 0 28 What are the preconditions? Black is behind in development Black needs two moves to consolidate his position The black queen is tied to the defense of f8 and f7 The black king is unsafe white can gain a lot of tempi White has two attackers ready. If he can mobilize the third attacker with tempo , he is good to go. So what is the plan? activate the knight with tempo chase the slowest piece (the king) with tempo until one of the following chances emerge: mate piece loss pawn drops 28. d6 with tempo 28. ... cxd6 Note that it is irrelevant that 28. d6 opens the LoA for blacks bad bishop. Since the tempo pressure leaves black no time to make use of it. 29. Nd5 with tempo 29. ... Qg7 30. Nf6+ with tempo 30. ... Kh8 31. Ne8 with tempo 31. ... Qh6 32. Qf8+ with tempo 32. ... Qxf8 33. Rxf8+ with tempo 33. ... Kh7 34...

 I have the feeling that I'm standing at a crossroads when it comes to opening play. I made a lot of progress in positional play lately, and my middlegame play has benefited greatly, but I still suck at the opening. If they play within my league, I'm doing great, but when they deviate, I soon find myself in trouble. The reason is that I don't really understand the openings I play. So I'm in doubt whether I should try to learn the openings based on the books I have, or that I better can learn to think for myself in this specific area. Black to play 2bq1rk1/1pb2ppp/1np2n2/2PppP2/1P2P3/2NP2P1/1B2N1BP/Q4RK1 b - - 0 16 I played black here, and I wasn't happy at all. My knight was under attack, and after 16. ... Nbd7, my position would be very cramped. I had the feeling that I misplayed the opening because my opponent played a move order which got me on the wrong foot. I screwed up the variations myself voluntarily because I was out of a plan. Luckily I decided here to op...

 After the adage of Philidor "the pawns are the soul of chess" I used to add in my mind "yada, yada, yada". But finally I understand what he was talking about. The pawns determine what the scope of the the pieces is. They restrict both your opponents and your own pieces. This means, that the battle of the pawns decide which pieces are going to get more scope, and which pieces are getting restricted. Now the goal is clarified, it is time to get more insight in how that mechanism works. Since Lucas Chess don't let me create boards without kings, I cut the board in half, so we are not being distracted by irrelevant variations that accidently emerge. Diagram 1. White at bottom In diagram 1, white wants the juicy outposts e5 and g5 for his knight. By pushing g4-g5, he undermines the black pawn on f6. Black has 3 options: f5 fxg5 do nothing In all 3 scenarios, white gets the upperhand on e5 and g5. Diagram 2. Black at bottom. Black to move Instead of directly attackin...

 Capablanca: Start with e4 or d4 Anchor at least one pawn in the center and give it support Knights before bishops to f3 and c3 Moves with threat first Move each piece only once Max two pawn moves Let bishops and knights control the center Keep the queen close to home sot it cannot be kicked away No pawn grabbing Castle early on the kingside There are quite a few caveats with these rules, to the extent that these rules are close to useless in practice. In the diagram in the previous post I violated rule 6 by playing 5 pawn moves instead of 2. Of course my opponent violated a few rules too, like 5 and 2. Which might be the reason why I could come away with my own violations. The rules in themselves contain a core of truth, ofcourse. But without the necessary stipulations you can't make use of them. This means that the rules are too coarse to be of much practical value. I need a coherent logical framework to judge the moves instead. At least I have a begin now: The center contains th...

 It is not easy to get the hang of what is going on in the opening. There are a lot of things that play a role, building a logical framework from there is no sinecure. Currently I'm working on the book about development from IM Andras Toth (in general IM's and CM's seems to be better in explaining stuff than GM's). Generally, the advice for a speedy development is to limit the amount of pawns moves to two in the opening, in order to get you pieces out. From a statistical point of view, there seems to be something to say for building the LoA landscape first (LoA = line of attack). The pawns decide where the LoA's will come, and you keep your opponent guessing which LoAs your pieces are going to utilize. Pawn moves create space, and space = room to manoeuver for you and lack of space for your opponents pieces. Giving them less room to adapt to your final piece placement. Your pieces are safer behind your pawns, hence it is more difficult to gain a tempo for your oppon...

 We are familiar with the static piece count. But for an attack, you need the dynamic piece count. Which pieces can contribute to the attack? The following game demonstrates this. [Event "Voronezh op"] [Site "Voronezh"] [Date "1998.06.17"] [Round "6"] [White "Abashev, Denis"] [Black "Chernyshov, Konstantin"] [Result "1-0"] [BlackElo "2485"] [ECO "B48"] [Opening "Sicilian"] [Variation "Taimanov, 6.Be3 a6 7.Bd3 Nf6 8.O-O Bd6"] [WhiteElo "2365"] [TimeControl "300"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "51"] [WhiteType "human"] [BlackType "human"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 {White is ahead in development already. Look at the bishop at c8 which in turn blocks rook a8. White has more space. The price white paid for this is that in the long term he has a minority in the center. Black has a minority a...

 It starts with the LoA (line of attack). You have to decide which LoA you want to use. Then you sculpt it. And then you put your attacker on it.  Don't start with putting your attacker on the LoA! In doing that, you show your hand, and give your opponent the chance to oppose your idea. White to move If, for some reason, you decide that invading with your rook to c7 is the LoA you want to work on, you can act in two ways. If you place your rook on 1.Rc1, you show your hand, and give your opponent the chance to block your idea by 1. ... b5 After 1.Rc1 b5 In fact, you might have simple wasted a tempo. Pawns are the slow moving sculptors of the LoAs. Look at the difference: After 1.c4 Dependent on how your opponent reacts, you can decide whether you place your rook on c1 or not.

 My openings play is usually pretty bad. That coincides with little understanding of what I'm doing. Hence you will notice that my approach will be a wee bit chaotic. Please bear with me. Alas, Lucas Chess doesn't accept positions without a king. But the position is about the pawns, not the kings. Diagram 1. White to move When there is tension in the center, white has three options: trade the e-pawn advance the e-pawn protect the e-pawn Trading the e-pawn Diagram 2. exd5 The pawn trades 1.exd5 exd5 has the following consequences for the LoA landscape (line of attack): For white: e-file opens diagonal b1/h7 opens For black: e-file opens diagonal c8/h3 opens Whether to exchange the pawns or not depends from the question: who's pieces are going to benefit the most from the opening of the position? And that depends on the piece placement on both sides. Advancing the e-pawn Diagram 3. e5 This has the following consequences. White: diagonal b1/h7 opens up e6 becomes the base of t...

 The most principled goal where you can strive for in the middlegame is the assault of the king. This deliberately puts the second goal on the back burner. The second goal is to get a profitable pawn structure for the endgame. 60% of the games are decided by mate and 40% by endgames. In order to don't make things too complicated, I think it is justified to ignore the second goal for now. When there is complete  understanding of the assault of the king, it is soon enough to have a look at wat is left on the back burner. This means that I can say that the middlegame is about the battle for the pivotal squares. Fiddling around in the opening Now that the goal and the method of the middlegame is clear, I have an endpoint for the opening. So I'm going to fiddle around a bit in order to get more clarity about the methods of the opening. In no particular order: White to move r2q1rk1/pbpn1ppp/1p1ppn2/8/1bPP4/2N2NP1/PPQ1PPBP/R1B2RK1 w - - 4 9 There is a battle going on for e4. White ca...

 The next step is to incorporate the opening in the strategy. When there are no weaknesses, your only weapons are tempi and pivotal squares. Develop your pieces to meaningful squares Don't move the same piece twice Develop with tempo whenever you can What are meaningful squares? A meaningful move of a piece is a move that fights for a pivotal square. A pivotal square is a square on a line of attack. During the opening, these are the center squares. So: a piece aims at the pivotal square a piece aims at the defender of a pivotal square When there is a pawn on a pivotal square, that isn't necessarily a problem. As long as the pawn is mobile or is an attacking unit in itself. Look at the following diagram: White to move rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/4pn2/2pp4/3P4/3BPN2/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq c6 0 5  Blacks last move was c5. Which isn't a bad move, of course. But you need to realize, that it makes the d4 pawn mobile. And a mobile pawn leaves a pivotal square in its wake. This means that b3 B...

 Last monday, I played the following OTB game at the club: White to move r2qr1k1/pp2np2/2b1pQpp/3pP3/3N2PP/PP1P4/1B3P2/2R1R1K1 w - - 4 25 Can you find the winning move? d4 has become a pivotal point. The problem to solve is how to clear the long diagonal (line of attack LoA) with tempo. 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Nc6 6. O-O cxd4 7. exd4 h6 8. Bb2 Bd6 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Re1 Qc7 11. a3 Re8 12. Ne5 Nd7 13. Qh5 Nf6 14. Qh4 Bxe5 15. dxe5 Nd7 16. Nf3 Nc5 17. g4 Nxd3 18. cxd3 Ne7 19. Rac1 Qd8 20. Qg3 Bd7 21. h4 Bc6 22. Nd4 g6 23. Qf4 Kg7 24. Qf6+ Kg8 25. Nxe6 fxe6 26. Qxe6+ Kf8 27. Qf6+ Kg8 28. e6 1-0 Black resigned Now I understand how to look at the center, the next step is how to extrapolate this to the opening. To any opening I play, I mean.

 I have struggled for a few years to understand what the center is about. That is partly caused by the veil of mystery that surrounds it. I think I finally got the point what the fuss is all about.  Stripped from its whiff of magic, the center is about the pivotal points in the lines of attack (LoAs). To give your pieces the greatest statistical potential, they need squares where they can hop from one point of the board to another. To formulate it more precise: where your attackers can attack their target. That makes all the ideas of conquering the center, or the rules like put your pieces in the center, or put your pawns there obsolete. I now have a method to judge the value of a move. Not what is its effect on the center, but what is its effect on the pivotal points of your LoAs.