Temposchlucker

Sofar, the framework I developed consists of: PoPLoAFun 2 sitting ducks (weak pawn, king) invasion square (3rd duck) attack on two fronts I have a pretty good idea where I'm weak (endgame, assault) and how to address it. It will take about two years to get to the level I imagine to be good enough in these areas. I know what to do and how to do it. At the same time, I look at the future in order to get an idea what I should improve next. I don't want to work for two years on my endgames and then to find out that I'm stuck again. That a crucial piece of the puzzle is still missing. So I'm working my way through all positional ideas in order to deem whether they will fit easy in my framework or not. Only positional ideas that I'm able to fit in my framework I consider to be mastered. Otherwise it are just loose ideas with no connection to the rest of my game. The past eleven days I worked on the center. Because a lot of positional elements play a role in the center, it...

 In 2008 I was already pondering about battlements . Finally these ideas get imbedded in a bigger framework. There are all sorts of positional middlegame books out there. Like HTRYC for instance. The problem with these books is that they leave you with a lot of loose dots without connecting them. You cannot make a checklist of all these points. That is not workable. This means that I can only work with what I can relate to a framework that provides context. This way it becomes more easy to evaluate the points. And to value them when there are two conflicting interests. I only understand what I can relate to my framework. The framework provides the context. Recently, my framework got two big extensions: Invasion. Before an assault or a winning endgame sits the invasion. Attack on two fronts can mean two invasions Currently I'm studying space via the Chessable course The Positional Chess Patterns Manual. Space without context leads easily to misinterpretation. The course helps m...

 This morning I was thinking about why I am so bad at endgames. And I said to myself "because I always see too much possibilities". But then I heard the RCCM chime in "wait a minute, you don't SEE these possibilities, you only suppose them to be there". And I realized that that has been true all the time. I always felt overwhelmed by chess. Not by the amount of possibilities that I SEE , but by the amount of possibilities that I suppose there are. On another note: Invisibility You win when you see patterns that your opponent doesn't. To name a few areas: tactics mate pawn ending rook ending The first two I master reasonably well, and that is where I win my games. The second two are a recent discovery: I lose 0.5 per endgame galore. With the pace I'm going now, I deem that I need a year to fix pawn and rook endings to the degree that I see the invisible patterns. Furthermore, I have reason to believe that a full fix of endings would bring me to 1950 ratin...

 Let's have a look at the following position. Diagram 1. White to move 8/4k3/8/1p2Pp2/p7/P1K1P3/1P6/8 w - - 0 1 Stockfish indicates that two moves are winning: 1.Kd3 1.e4 First I try to get a global overview.. If white focuses on the left sight of the position and black on the right side, both need 8 moves to promote the pawn. This assumes no interaction between left and right. Since both parties promote at the same time, we have to look further. What if we take only the right side into account? Diagram 2. White to move The winning moves ar now: 1.Kd3 1.Kc4 Two remarkable things happened. We have a new winning move (1.Kc4) and a winning move (e4) has vanished. The first is caused by the fact that in the first diagram c4 is taboo for the white king. The second is caused that the black king can walk over to the left side and assist the pawns there. I think it is save to say that isolating pawn groups is complicating matters while having no tangible benefit to justify the attempt. Ok ...

 I'm trying to find which methods are practical. Diagram 1. White to move 8/1k6/2p5/2P5/K7/P7/8/8 w - - 1 2 What is going on? White must conquer the black pawn White cannot go via the left side White must go to the key squares of the black pawn via the right side Black cannot defend the key squares on the right side because white has a spare tempo (a4) Blacks only try is to conquer the white pawn on c5 via the left side Square d4 (red a) is mined (typical for the Trébuchet) White must avoid d4 until black steps on b5 (blue a) The two squares c4 and d5 (marked x) are rigged They are the cause that d4 is mined c4 is only rigged after the black king steps on b5

 Let's have a closer look at what is happening with the conquering of the black pawn. Diagram 1.White to move 8/5k2/3p4/3P1K2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 The battleground revolves around the key squares (red circles). The red arrows indicate the axis of outflanking. On the left side is a mirrored situation. If white decides to walk to the left, black must make sure that he can occupy the left axis of outflanking at the same time that white does. No matter whether he walks over the 7th rank, the 8th rank or a zigzag. When black reaches the c-file, be it on c7 or c8, he can always decide on which square to step on the axis, once white has showed his hand. But there is more going on. Diagram 2. White to move The distant opposition gets another meaning here. The kings are in a distant opposition, relative to the key squares. If you consider the red circles (not drawn here to prevent cluttering), white to move means that the white king steps out of the opposition. But relative to the blue circle...

 So what are the key squares for the Trébuchet? Diagram 1 What do these key squares represent? In a clean situation, the red circles represent the squares where the white king must be in order to win the black pawn in a "guaranteed" manner. In practice, the situation is usually more murky. What the opponent is doing might influence the effectiveness of occupying the key squares. Another term you sometimes find is critical squares . Since I intend to use that idea of a double attack in a more general sense, I prefer the term invasion squares . I think. There are other key squares too: Diagram 2 If the white king conquers the black pawn, then the red circles indicate where the white king must be in order to guarantee the promotion of the white pawn. If the black king conquers the white pawn, then the blue circles indicate the key squares. The white king must prevent the black king from entering the blue squares. Al these circles have to do with opposition. The attacking king tr...