Capablanca rulez
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 the most important squares that form the pivotal points of the LoAs (lines of attack) that end on a focal point near the king or at an invasion square in the enemy camp.
- Use pawns to build the LoA landscape
- Use statistics for the piece placement (pawns before pieces)
- Ignore pawn structures that are designed for the endgame for now, in order to reduce complexity
Building the LoA landscape
This is probably the most complex part.
- When the pawns are in contact, the open lines can change in the blink of an eye.
- When the pawns are not in contact yet, like in the Hedgehog, the center can be blown open and the pieces behind it spring into live. He who has developed his pieces to the right places will dominate the LoAs. A difference in development is inclined to increase.
- When the pawns are fixed, other rules come into play. Like bad bishops and knights that cannot move.
Ad 1: with statistical piece placement I mean that pieces can choose to enter the most useful LoAs when they appear. Flexibility is another word. Or elastic moves.
Fighting for the center includes:
- Clear the LoA
- Annihilate the defenders of the LoA
- Put your pieces where they can reach the pivotal squares in the center
Ad 2: that is why Nimzowitsch considered the pin of knight f6 as a stratetigal feature.
Scholar's mate
Black to move |
This simple example shows what happens when your pieces enter the LoAs too soon. The idea in itself is good, ofcourse, but black has three moves to defend the focal point.
- g6, gaining a tempo on the white queen
- Qe7
- Qf6
This demonstrates that it is a fight between the attackers and the defenders of a LoA. A fight is about creating imbalances between attackers and defenders.
Most likely places to develop your pieces to
According to Capablanca, you should develop your pieces with only one move. This means that you can predict where the pieces will be most likely after development.
The knight
The bishop
The rationale behind rule 3 "develop the knights before the bishops" is that you already know where the knights should go, while you can make the places for your bishop dependent on what your opponent does with his bishops.
The rook
Inspiration
I need every inspiration I can get. Let your associations run freely, maybe I can use them. Don't feel offended when I seem to do not.
The most problematic seems to be to judge the pawn clash. Where are the future LoAs going to emerge? The scholar's mate shows what happens when you anticipate too early. It is about getting the upperhand on a LoA that isn't there yet. How do to anticipate to that?
ReplyDeletePiece placement is dictated by the pawn breaks.
ReplyDeleteThe piece supports the pawn. When the pawn moves, the square behind it becomes part of the LoA.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to boil down to the following: which of your pieces get more activity by a pawn move and which of your opponents will remain or become restricted. It is this balance that judges whether a pawn move should be made or not. It is irrelevant whether it is just a pawn move or a trade.
ReplyDeleteIn IM John Watson’s book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch, Part 2: New Ideas and the Modern Revolution, 2: Rule-Independence: The Demise of the General Rule: Examples from Practice, he gives the following example game, borrowed from GM Andy Soltis’ book The Art of Defense.
ReplyDeleteKhliavin [Khlyavin—Soltis]-Zhdanov, Latvian Ch. 1961
1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3 g6 4 d4 Bg7 5 h3 a6 6 Bf4 Nf6 7 e5 Ng8 8 Qd2 b5 9 Be2 h6 10 O-O-O e6
Evaluate this position in terms of Capablanca’s Rulez.
Would you prefer White or Black?
11 g4 Nd7 12 Bg3 Bf8 13 Rdf1 Nb6 14 Nd1 a5 15 Ne1 b4 16 Nd3 Nc4 17 Qe1 Qb6 18 b Qxd4 19 bxc4 Qa1+ 20 Kd2 dxc4 21 Nf4 Qxa2 22 Ke3 Bb7 23 Qd2 g5 24 Nh5 c3 25 Qd3 Rd8 26 Qe4 Bc5+ 27 Kf3 Rd4 28 Qe3 Qd5+ and mates
I posted a comment (in three parts) on November 18, 2019 that contained all the commentary on this game from both books; I won’t repeat it here.
The point is that several of the commonly touted “rules” (classical precepts) are flagrantly violated in this game in favor of concrete structural goals. This is typical of modern (post-1970) chess and the reason for the explosion of opening variations that would have been unthinkable prior to that time simply because the moves violated the “rules.”
I played tournament chess a lot 1970-1975, and then took a long hiatus until around 2013. When I resumed playing, I was bewildered by the change in opening play, mostly because of apparent violations of the classical “rules.” It took a while to adjust my playing style.
The problem with learning the “rules” as an adult is that we expect the “rules” to do the heavy lifting, so that we don’t have to think so hard about every move. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t hold true in modern chess.
As I see it, the primary value of “rules” is to provide some guidance to those just starting out, so that they don’t get slaughtered right in the opening. As one advances in skill, the “rules” get violated (or ignored) because of myriad exceptions, until the “rules” can no longer be relied upon to guide the move choices. “It all depends” is the modern day mantra.
An important component of the evolution toward “rule independence” is the realization that every game is the combined result of TWO opponents (preferably at approximately the same skill level) making separate evaluations of the concrete features of each position as it changes move-by-move, and playing accordingly. GM Mihail Suba refers to this as “respecting the opponent,” an integral component of chess played between equals in the modern style.
This is the gist underlying IM Jeremy Silman’s idea of playing strategically on the basis of imbalances. There are all kinds of imbalances, some more important than others in a specific position. The player who can make the most of his favorable imbalances relative to his opponent’s imbalances will often (but not always!) gain the advantage and possibly the win (assuming, ceteris paribus, that neither player makes a mistake). In short, both players evaluate each position and play accordingly.
A fine example of the creation and fine-grained evaluation of imbalances occurs in the famous(?) game Bronstein-Rojahn, 1956.
[Event "Moscow ol (Men) qual-A"]
[Site "Moscow URS"]
[Date "1956.09.05"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "Ernst Rojahn"]
[ECO "C58"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. d3 h6
7. Nf3 e4 8. dxe4 Nxc4 9. Qd4 Nb6 10. c4 c5 11. Qd3 Bg4
12. Nbd2 Be7 13. O-O O-O 14. Ne5 Bh5 15. b3 Nbd7 16. Bb2 Nxe5
17. Bxe5 Nd7 18. Bc3 Bf6 19. Rae1 Bxc3 20. Qxc3 Qf6 21. e5 Qf5
22. f4 Bg6 23. Ne4 Rab8 24. Qf3 Bh7 25. g4 Qg6 26. f5 Qb6
27. Qg3 f6 28. e6 Ne5 29. h4 Kh8 30. g5 Rbc8 31. Kh1 Qd8
32. g6 Bxg6 33. fxg6 b5 34. d6 Qb6 35. d7 Nxd7 36. exd7 Rcd8
37. Nxf6 Qc6+ 38. Qg2 1-0
Is White “playing by the ‘rules’” with his 8th move?
I (for one) would NOT have the cajones to play that 8th move against an equal rated player.
Correction:
DeleteIn the Khliavin-Zhdanov game, the following 18th move is incomplete:
18 b Qxd4
It should be:
18 b3 Qxd4
I have a sticky "3" key which sometimes does not register. My apology.
The game of Bronstein is quite interesting.
DeleteSome grandmaster said that it is a good idea to play gambits for a year or so, in order to get the hang of it. I played solely gambits for seven years. After all, if a year is good, seven years is better, isn't it?
In a tournament in Wijk aan Zee I made a piece sac in every game, and added countless pawn sacrifices to it.
I'm no gambler, and I don't like taking risks. So that kind of play felt quite alien to me. The good thing though, is that I learned to play unmaterialistic. So at least I can admire what Bronstein did, acting according his judgement, with the feeling that I would do the same. The problem being that I lack the judgement, not the cajones.