Chess philosophy

 

I like the different approaches to chess.

• Munich, who bases his opening choices on statistics, 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 already showed you why the direct approach didn't work with the scholar's mate. When you head directly for the LoAs, your opponent always finds a way to defend against your attack. I once had formulated the best piece placement for an attack. I tried this in a series of correspondence games. In ten games, they found ten different ways to prevent my attack and to render my theoretical best setup useless. So I need something different.

What do I need?

Dual purpose

I think that the dual purpose approach is paramount in chess. Accomplish two things while the opponent can only answer to one. That can take different forms:

• discovered attack by a mobile pawn. The pawn does something awkward with tempo, while leaving a pivotal point or open line in its wake.
• elastic moves. If you postpone the piece placement on a certain LoA, and keep two options open, you might invoke a reaction by your opponent who defends against one of your options and waste a tempo. I like donkey ears to prevent my bishop coming to g5 which I didn't plan to put there anyway.
• pawn moves that frees your own piece and restrict your opponents'.
• alternating attacks on different areas of the board in order to put defenders on the wrong foot.

Take your opponents' moves into account

 I have the habit to look only into my own plans.

Unbalanced openings for black

FM Charlie Storey once told that in order to win tournaments, it isn't sufficient to win with white and to just draw with black. You must go for the win in every game. That is why I have chosen openings with black that tend to be imbalanced. 

Developing my own logical framework for the opening

That might be a long shot. But I learn more from my own mistakes than from the mistakes made by others. Take for instance the following position:

Black to move

rn1qkb1r/pbpp1p1p/1p3pp1/8/2PP4/4PN2/PP3PPP/RN1QKB1R b KQkq c3 0 6

This position stemms from the Chessable course 1... b6 Against Everything by IM Lawrence Trent. He advices here the move 6. ... f5. Which is a good move, of course. But I'm hesitant to play this. According to my ideas, f5 is premature. From a LoA point of view, f6 restricts the knight. So I'm currently intend to refrain from 6. ... f5.

Of course I can be wrong. But that is okay. Wrong means feedback. And I need feedback in order to develop a logical framework.

I might well come to the conclusion that 6. ... f5 is better. But when that will be the outcome, I at least know why it is better.

For now, I deprive myself from the variations that Trent has prepared for me. Which I tend to forget anyway because I don't know what I'm doing.