LoA related tactics
The direct goal of a tactic is to gain wood or to mate the king.
Often, a tactic is used to obtain a certain positional goal. Which is an indirect use of a tactic. We talk often about patterns without an exact definition of what we mean by that. The tactical patterns are all well known, but when they are combined with a certain goal, new patterns arise. If the goal has a high frequency of occurrence, these combinatorial patterns will have too.
Getting the upperhand on a LoA (line of attack) is a very frequent occurring positional goal, which happens in each and every game. Let's have a look.
| Diagram 1.Black to move (!) |
r1bqk2r/pp3ppp/2nbpn2/2ppN3/3P4/1P1BP3/PBP2PPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 1
Beware, although it is black to move, the diagram is projected from whites perspective!
I'm trying to investigate the important LoA's in the Colle Zukertort. In the previous post, I drew some arrows which highlighted these LoA's.
According to Stockfish, there are 12 perfectly playable moves for black in this position, possibly more. Some of these moves interfere with the LoA's which white is hoping to exploit, but most of them don't.
I'm especially interested in 1. ... Qc7. It is in fact a double attack, aiming at two LoA's where white is interested in.
| Diagram 2. Black to move |
Qc7 accomplishes two things:
- It obtains the upperhand at e5
- It sets up a battery against c2
- long diagonal b2-h8
- diagonal d3-h7
(This is so tiresome: Blogger is not recognizing my Google sign in - again. I've logged out and back in 3 times without being able to choose my Google account for commenting. so, FWIW, this is Robert, not Anonymous.)
ReplyDeleteThis brings back into mind the quote by Tigran Petrosian, former World Champion: "In general I consider that in chess everything rests on tactics. If one thinks of strategy as a block of marble, then tactics are the chisel with which a master operates, in creating works of chess art."
Since the basic underlying idea is to play forcefully based on “compulsion” (restricting the opponent’s options), it makes sense to that tactics can be used to achieve ALL goals, regardless of whether the object is checkmate, material gain or some positional goal (improvement of position).
I just tried commenting from my phone. The first attempt, I did not allow cookies - unable to use my Google account to comment. The second attempt after allowing cookies was successful - evidenced by this comment. PITA.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 6k1/p1r3q1/1p1R1P2/4p3/2P1Pbp1/1P1B3Q/P5P1/6K1 w - - 0 1
ReplyDeleteThis position appears to difficult to categorize using standard tactical names.
There is a “weak” Black back rank; is that the decisive feature? On the surface, it appears that Black certainly has sufficient defensive resources on the 2nd rank (Q+R). Material is balanced. Black is “attacking” the White queen, and the White Bishop looks passive (“tall pawn” biting on his own granite) compared to the Black Bishop.
As the “tactic” progresses, there are standard tactical “concepts” utilized such as pinning, overloading and deflection of the defender. However, those descriptive names don’t seem to capture the essence of the entire operation.
The glue between the tactical elements is logic. The essence of the whole is the logical narrative. We must connect the logic with the tactical element. Like a word and its meaning.
DeleteThe name that Stockfish gives to it is irrelevant for practical use (mate in 13)
PART I:
DeleteHere’s an “interesting” position, leading up to a tactical puzzle on lichess.org. The game score is appended. I suggest loading the PGN into Chess Tempo (or some other game playing engine) and stepping forward from 22. g4 Qb4.
Note the “progression” of scoring moves (GM Stockfish) from 0.0 to mate-in-3. This is a training issue with merely “solving” tactical problems without having the context of HOW/WHY the tactical possibility arose.
FEN: 5rk1/pp2Rppp/2p2n2/8/1qB3PP/1P3Q2/P4P2/6K1 w - - 1 23
GM Stockfish: 0.0
FEN: 5rk1/pp2Rppp/2p2n2/8/1qB3PP/1P6/P3QP2/6K1 b - - 2 23
GM Stockfish: -1.1
FEN: 5rk1/pp2Rppp/2p5/8/1qB3nP/1P6/P3QP2/6K1 w - - 0 24
GM Stockfish: +5.6
FEN: 5rk1/pp3Rpp/2p5/8/1qB3nP/1P6/P3QP2/6K1 b - - 0 24
GM Stockfish: +5.4
FEN: 6k1/pp3rpp/2p5/8/1qB3nP/1P6/P3QP2/6K1 w - - 0 25
GM Stockfish: #3
One of the crucial chess SKILLS that must be developed is the ability to not only be aware that unexpected opportunities may arise at any moment but also to “KNOW HOW” to take advantage of those opportunities.
Once the final opportunity arose, White was able to take advantage of it.
Your observation is correct: The glue between the tactical elements is logic.
Black set up a self-pin on f7 (and could have avoided doing so at a significant cost), making his back rank vulnerable. White gives a back rank check, forcing the interposition of the Black queen. Logic then points out two vital facts: (1) the Black queen is self-pinned, which eliminates the Black queen as a defender of the BRf7, and (2) an exchange on f7 (while maintaining the pin on the Black queen) cannot be defended by the Black king because the Black king can not capture into check; it is thus deflected away from defense of the Black queen. Mate inevitably follows. (2) is the part that we don’t often think about because we ASSUME that recaptures are available whenever the number of “defenders” is equal to or greater than the number of “attackers.” The use of the king as a defender has caveats that we often overlook in the heat of battle.
PART II:
Delete[Event "Lichess Bundesliga2 Team Battle"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/IoJq9q6q"]
[Date "2025.02.23"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Demon702"]
[Black "Triettee"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "IoJq9q6q"]
[UTCDate "2025.02.23"]
[UTCTime "20:37:28"]
[WhiteElo "1887"]
[BlackElo "2004"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+8"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-7"]
[WhiteBerserk "true"]
[BlackBerserk "true"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Opening "French Defense: Exchange Variation, Monte Carlo Variation"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 { C01 French Defense: Exchange Variation, Monte Carlo Variation } Nf6 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Bd2 O-O 8. Nxd5?! { (-0.06 → -0.88) Inaccuracy. Nf3 was best. } (8. Nf3 c5 9. Be2 Nc6 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. dxc5 Qxc5 12. O-O Rd8) 8... Bxd2+ 9. Qxd2 Qxd5 10. Nf3 c6?! { (-0.71 → -0.16) Inaccuracy. Re8+ was best. } (10... Re8+ 11. Be2) 11. Be2 Re8 12. O-O Bg4 13. b3 Nd7 14. Rfe1 Nf6 15. Bc4 Qd8?! { (-0.16 → 0.69) Inaccuracy. Qd6 was best. } (15... Qd6) 16. Qf4?! { (0.69 → -0.28) Inaccuracy. Rxe8+ was best. } (16. Rxe8+ Qxe8 17. Re1 Qd8 18. Ne5 Be6 19. Bxe6 fxe6 20. Qb4 Qc7 21. Qc5 a5) 16... Bxf3 17. Qxf3?! { (-0.22 → -1.01) Inaccuracy. Rxe8+ was best. } (17. Rxe8+) 17... Qxd4 18. Rad1 Qb6?! { (-1.26 → -0.37) Inaccuracy. Rxe1+ was best. } (18... Rxe1+ 19. Rxe1 Rd8 20. g3 Kf8 21. Kg2 Rd6 22. Qf5 Rd7 23. Re3 g6 24. Qf3) 19. h4 Rad8?! { (-0.90 → 0.00) Inaccuracy. Qa5 was best. } (19... Qa5 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. g3 Qe5 22. Kg2 h6 23. Rd2 Qe4 24. Qxe4 Rxe4 25. a4) 20. Rxd8 Rxd8?! { (-0.43 → 0.18) Inaccuracy. Qxd8 was best. } (20... Qxd8 21. Rxe8+ Qxe8 22. Qf4 h5 23. Qc7 b5 24. Bf1 a6 25. g3 Ng4 26. Qa5) 21. Re7 Rf8 22. g4 Qb4 23. Qe2?! { (0.00 → -1.09) Inaccuracy. Rc7 was best. } (23. Rc7 b5 24. Be2 h5 25. gxh5 Qxh4 26. Rxc6 Re8 27. Rc5 a6 28. Kg2 Qd4) 23... Nxg4?? { (-1.09 → 5.60) Blunder. b5 was best. } (23... b5 24. g5 bxc4 25. gxf6 cxb3 26. fxg7 Rd8 27. Re8+ Rxe8 28. Qxe8+ Kxg7 29. Qe5+) 24. Rxf7 Rxf7?? { (5.39 → Mate in 3) Checkmate is now unavoidable. Kh8 was best. } (24... Kh8 25. Rxf8+ Qxf8 26. Qxg4 b5 27. Be2 g6 28. Qe6 a5 29. Qxc6 b4 30. Qe6) 25. Qe8+ Qf8 26. Bxf7+ { Black resigns. } 1-0
The essence of my method is understanding. Like Feynman described it.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding is the guide for your attention. Both system 1 and system 2 look over the shoulder of understanding. Attention is the light. Both system 1 and system 2 work their miracles in the background.
You don't know where your thoughts come from. Nor who or what created them. They just appear in the light of attention out of nowhere. Automagically.
ReplyDeleteWe have an inclination to identify ourselves with those thoughts. As if we created them. But that is objectively not true, as you can observe yourself.