Adopting a strategy
Yesterday, my 100 points higher rated opponent offered me a draw in this position.
 |
| White to move |
n2r1rk1/4q2p/5bp1/pBNbpp2/8/P3P3/1BQ2PPP/2RR2K1 w - - 1 28
I thought for 10 minutes and accepted the draw.
The reason that I accepted the draw was that I looked for tactics, but couldn't make any of them work. I was inclined to play 28.Nd7, but I knew that would not work.
Today I looked at the position with Stockfish, and it deemed the position as +2.78 for white.
The move that I considered scored +1.30, which is giving a lot away.
Stockfish confirmed that there is indeed no winning tactic here. Stockfish proposed 28.Qa4
This example made me realize that I need a strategy for this type of positions. When I know that there is no tactic OR I simply am not smart enough to find one OR I cannot make a tactic work, I must make a positional move without further ado. Absorption of more tactical patterns will not help me here.
The past 4 months I looked whether it would be possible to make positional play work for me. It showed me that I must look for invasion squares. d7 is a logical invasion square, which makes Qa4 a logical move. That it attacks a5 doesn't hurt either.
Hence I must make positional moves the base of my play. Tactics will emerge whenever they like to. I must stop trying to force them when they refuse to show themselves.
An important lesson!
It never seizes to amaze me that every deep chess insight turns out to be highly trivial once formulated. Of course you must base your moves on positional considerations and wait until tactics emerge. Not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteYou can always work on an invasion. But a tactic is simply not always there.
As a consequence, I must dive deeper into positional play.
ReplyDeletePermit me to play devil’s advocate. You wrote (in part):
ReplyDeleteThe past 4 months I looked whether it would be possible to make positional play work for me. It showed me that I must look for invasion squares. d7 is a logical invasion square, which makes Qa4 a logical move. That it attacks a5 doesn't hurt either.
The BPa5 is unprotected - LPDO. The BBd5 is B.A.D. [1:1]. There is a potential line interference on d7, disrupting the BRd8 defense of BBd5.
As you note, d7 is an “invasion” square, and also a “hub” for tactical shots. After WQa4, White has superiority [4:2] on that square.
A combination of multiple weaknesses (a5, d5 and d7) indicates potentially FAVORABLE tactics.
I'm not a member of Pawngrabber Anonymous. This means that I usually don't look at pawns during an attack. I drop them by the dozen. I was focused on ways to make use of the vulnerable bishop on d5. Tactics are usually about gaining pieces. To me, that is.
DeleteI spent 10 minutes on trying to force to gain a piece. That showed me that I have a problem in my approach to the game. The clock is my friend. Because the clock shows where I'm weak. Where I lack absorbed patterns. If I don't look at Qa4 in 10 minutes, then I have a problem.
When I force myself to look at invasion squares, I immediately look at Qa4. I know what to do because I thought about these things the past 4 months (invasion in the middlegame), but it is not a habit yet.
Maybe when my opponent hadn't made a draw offer I might have found Qa4. Some people seem to sense when I might accept a draw.
I think the relationship between positional play and tactics is reciprocal, as intertwined as the two serpents on the Caduceus, the symbol of Hermes, the messenger of the gods. At each crossover point, one or the other is in the foreground, supported by the other in the background. The wings represent the flight of an idea growing out of the interaction. So much for Greek mythology.
DeleteI started out as a charter member of Pawngrabber Anonymous. My focus was almost entirely on positional themes. (Not very surprising, given that by (bad?) luck, one of my first chess books was Nimzowitsch’s My System.) It took some time before I realized that moderation in all things (especially Nimzowitsch) is a virtue.
My suggestion was to utilize the surface aspects of the current situation such as LPDO (yes, even a lowly isolated pawn can be one prong of a potential tactic) AND other positional “clues” (such as B.A.D. squares) as pointers toward a particular direction of thought IFF there are no “obvious” tactical “clues” screaming “Look here FIRST!”
Overall, White’s pieces are better placed than Black’s to create tactics, and coordinated toward Black’s side of the board. The immediate issue is to maintain the initiative. That can only be accomplished by making threats (which can be either positional or tactical). As long as you can call the tune, you ARE the piper. It’s only a matter of time before the children (the tactics) line up behind you.