Battle of the squares
While studying the Chessable course The Positional Chess Patterns Manual from IM Alex Astaneh it slowly dawned upon me that squares are the next step in my framework.
Themes are the words, scenarios are the sentences, and the combination of scenarios form the stories.
I focus mainly on the "standard scenarios", whatever they may be if they exist. In my world they exist, and I'm building some sort of framework with it. I assume that in ideal world, a storyteller is free to make up his own scenarios on the fly. But to me it make sense to start with the most frequent "standard" scenarios, in order to don't get overwhelmed my the amount of possibilities.
My biggest revelation lately has been the discovery of "the third duck" AKA the invasion squares.
The invasion squares come in three flavours:
- weak squares
- outposts
- pivot points
- A central square is better
- A square that is the most forward is better
- which square has the most concrete advantages?
- A short road of the attacker to the square is better
- How is the balance of attackers and defenders of the squares?
- Which exchanges tip the balance?
- Especially the color of the square can play a role. Pawn chains on one color might create weaknesses on the other
- Which moves come with tempo?
- How long can you maintain the piece on the square?
- What happens when the piece is traded?
Bobby Fischer said "To get squares you have to give up squares."
ReplyDelete