Temposchlucker

 I had identified two slow moving pieces as the natural targets in a chess game. Both the pawns and the King are the sitting ducks which lend themselves to be hunted down. Each sitting duck has its own parameters which determine how vulnerable it is. Every duck has its own dedicated scenarios to attack them. Study of the the center and development lately, showed that the duck family has more kin. To name a few: King Squares around the King (focal points or PoP's) Weak pawn Strong square Invasion square Promotion square Center square (d5, e5) These sitting ducks have a few derivatives too. Pieces that slow down due to their function or due to tactical motifs: Defenders of said sitting ducks Pinned pieces  In the beginning of the game, when the king safety isn't compromised, pawns are not weak yet and promotion is out of the question, you have to focus on the other sitting ducks. The center squares are there from the beginning, so they are the logical sitting ducks to base your d

I played a nine round OTB tournament in Amsterdam lately. I scored a measly 3 out of 9, which is in accordance with my rating. All players except one were higher rated than me. I had prepared for the tournament by doing  the course CPR The Center  in the past weeks. That started to totally transform my play already. I outplayed four of the nine opponents right from the opening, just like the game I show you here. Yet a few holes in my bucket made that I wasn't able to convert these four games in four full points: I overlooked a counter knight fork I didn't see a bishop sac that I could do to secure the mate I was busy to mate my opponent, while I had to avoid a perpetual check. My flag fell while my opponent had only 3 seconds on the clock All in all I consider the tournament a great success. It clearly confirmed that I'm on the right track the past year. The most important issue is that I now play according a plan. That supplies the feedback that I missed so dearly the pas

 In the diagram below, the central square d5 happens to be weak. How do you fight for it? Only the minor pieces within the red circles can contest the square d5. If you trade them for the pieces within the green squares, you are left with a good knight against a bad bishop. When you place that knight on d5, it can't be challenged. It gives you central dominance.

 The strategy for black and white around the conquest of the center might differ a bit. For white: ideal is d4 d5. Or even c4, d4, e4, f4 pieces behind the pawns pieces cover c4, d4, e4, f4 (the pawns) pieces cover c5, d5, e5, f5 (where the pawns want to go) white has more space when your center disappears, block the center pawns of black with pieces For black: black allows a broad pawn center pawn moves (to build a broad center) let white lag in development black blows the center open as soon as possible the white pieces aren't ready yet for a confrontation (the price for pawn moves) black opt for imbalances in order to play for a win (that's my choice) black plays slow openings (my choice) and must play highly aggressive because of that the white pawn closest to black is a logical target blowing open the center may cost a pawn or two focus on e4 and d4 (from blacks perspective) b5 can be played to harass Nc3 which weakens whites center always be on the lookout for queen trade

  I watched a video of GM Yasser Seirawan and GM Aman Hambleton who were solving chess problems together. It gives a good idea how they do that and at which speed. They use pattern supported logical narratives. Exactly as I had theorized. So that gives a lot of confidence in my method. It gives an impression how much work it will take to reach such level. The good news is, that there is no reason to think that it is out of reach when you are willing to work for it. My first attempts to battle for the center has lead to exiting games. I'm definitely convinced that the combination of fighting for the center and improving tactics will lead to a quantum leap forwards. Yet I struggle to find the beginning. Let me start with the first step. Black to move rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/3P4/2P2N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3 From the Chessable course of IM Andras Toth: Reinhardt, Bernd - Svetushkin, Dmitry Ditzingen 2009 1. d4 f6 2. f3 e6 3. c3 This is a typical case of a move where we can'

 Slowly the big picture of a whole chess game emerges. 250 scenarios for the opening 50-150 scenarios for the middlegame 50-150 scenarios for the endgame 50-150 scenarios for tactics with one week per scenario it takes somewhere between 7.5 and 13.5 year to master the game to a certain degree. This leads to the question: with which scenarios to start? With the scenarios that have the highest frequency of occurrence. The scenarios that happen in each and every game. Every game: Middlegame scenarios battle for the center development pawn structure piece exchanges activate your pieces bury your opponents pieces Tactical scenarios Not every game: Openings Endgame scenarios

 I have adopted five new openings in the past few years. It is rare that both me and my opponent follow a book line. Often one of us deviates early in the game. Most of the time due to a lack of knowledge of the book lines. Usually I am standing bad after the opening. When I'm out of book, my opponent is out of book too. Not because we reached the end of the book variation, but because somewhere along the way I don't know how the book line goes again. That is the price of replacing five openings at the same time. And when I deviate, my opponent has reached the end of the line too, of course. Often I am able to fight my way back into the game. But there are clearly a few holes in my bucket here. Of course I can blame that on my limited book knowledge, but since my opponent is out of book too by definition when I deviate, that cannot be the reason. I identified three holes in my bucket between the opening and the kingside attack or the endgame: Pawn structure The center Piece dev