Setting Up Checkmate Patterns
While the building of a positional framework is on its way, I analyze the games I play. For 23 years I didn't do that, because I didn't know how to do that. In december I played a tournament, and I found three areas where I suck. The opening, king assault and endgames.
It seems that I managed to fix my opening problems. Usually I emerge on top after the opening nowadays. I calculated somewhere that the mastering of the endgame will gain me another 150 rating points. I have to start with studying endgames yet. The games that I played the last three months point mostly at the assault of the king as the main culprit for sucking though.
After a successful opening, the question arises, what now? The building of a positional framework is intended to give a partly answer to that question. I'm sure it will. But mostly, I am ready for a king assault, but I struggle to get it off the ground. All of a sudden I start to use excessive time, while I am looking for tactics that aren't there yet. In this phase, my pieces need to cooperate. But I have difficulty with deciding how.
The fact that I start to use excessive time in this phase of the game, is a sure indicator that I lack the patterns that are needed here.
Hence I started with the course setting-up-checkmate-patterns at chessable. I already absorbed the mate patterns from the-checkmate-patterns-manual , and this course is how to set up these mates. I hope it will show me the patterns that are involved in the preparation of mates.
Another approach could be to find some model games of the openings I play. Anyhow, I will keep you posted.
Furthermore, I bought the autobiography of Susan Polgar lately. I use to pretend that the Polgar family inspired me to follow my chess quest, so I better get an idea what they have actually done in the past.
I studied some model games of the Colle Zukertort. My conclusion is that these games are build on too specific variations, which will not translate easy to other games. Maybe I can distill some generalisations from it, but my hopes are not high.
ReplyDeleteSo I will focus on a two-track policy: building a positional framework and setting up mate patterns.
GM Rudolph Speilmann once observed:
ReplyDelete“I can comprehend Alekhine's combinations well enough; but where he gets his attacking chances from and how he infuses such life into the very opening - that is beyond me.”
“Get there first with the most men.
— General Nathan Bedford Forrest
There is so much hidden in that simple aphorism. It involves coordination, cooperation and local superiority at all levels. It’s not about quantity but about quality. Preparation of the battlefield is necessary before launching a direct attack. That involves the placing of reserves in strategic positions, so that they can enter the battle at the critical stage, and swing the outcome in your favor.
Vukovic was very explicit about the need to understand Alekhine’s dynamic methods of preparation for attack prior to the attack itself.
We have to learn the skill of setting up the preconditions for an attack, and also possess the technique to execute that attack. The final objective (material gain or mate) changes the some of the preconditions but not necessarily the technique.
I think you are sufficiently skilled in tactics to carry out rather brilliant mating attacks—if/when you recognize the starting point. Perhaps my suggestion to carefully examine what precedes a combination might have merit in your training at this point. Look at an entire game (regardless of whether the game is part of your opening repertoire or not), with special emphasis on what sets up the preconditions for an attack.
Vuković postulated the chief principle of the attack on the king as obtaining the maximum preconditions for an attack with the minimum of commitment.
ReplyDeleteHe also notes that (at least, at the time of his writing The Art of Attack in Chess) “it is still not clear what the minimum preconditions are, or what kind of advantage is necessary for mating.”
“It may be a question, for example, of a single moment in a game which never returns. Another still unresolved question is that of a player’s skill in weighing up the obligations which he has undertaken when preparing for an attack. The order of his preparatory moves is extraordinarily important. The only really simple thing is the principle itself—that moves entailing fewer obligations should be carried out before those which are more strongly binding.”
As Lasker noted, every judgment is based on a valuation. Valuation of more complex situations is based on valuations of simpler situations. While there are certainly “clues” (based on pattern recognition) regarding launching a direct attack, pattern recognition provides nothing to arrive at the correct valuation. There is an intangible “feel” that is developed over time by exercising good judgment, which most often is a result of demonstrable bad judgment.
“If it hurts when you do THAT, then don’t do THAT.”
It has always bothered me that both the works of Nimzowitsch and of Vukovic never got a proper follow up. The good news is that it indicates that you can come a long way with simpler methods.
DeleteMy games show me that there is a big gap. Let me call it the Vukovic gap. For now, I try to narrow the gap from both sides. That is what this post is about. But that will not stop me from thinking about the middle of the gap.
The clock is my weapon. Excessive time usage is my sensor.