The previous post told us about the relation between the slow moving pieces as targets (sitting ducks) and their potential as source for the creation of tactics:
- Create targets (weak pawns)
- fix targets (so they can't skedaddle)
- attack targets (points of pressure, lines of attack)
- bind pieces to the defense of a target (FUN)
This describes the relation between pawn structure and the slowing down of pieces by giving them a function (defense).
The next step which should be considered is the relation between pawn structure and dynamism. Often dynamism and pawn structure are treated as if they were contradistinct. But is this totally justified? Lots of openings compromise the pawn structure in favor of piece activity. While a wrecked pawn structure is riddled with weak pawns which are potential targets in themselves, especially in the endgame, the hunt for the ultimate target (king) is judged as more important.
41% of the games end with an endgame of some sort. This seems to justify the precedence of piece activity over pawn structure. But can't we add a bit more precision to our judgement?
Any pawn move alters the pawn landscape. Lines and diagonals are opened or closed. Lines of attack are opened or closed. Some pawn moves result in the creation of weak pawns. AKA targets.
Piece activity can only have meaning in relation to targets. A knight on a beautiful outpost on b6 is useless when there are no targets in the vicinity.
The king as target is a somewhat vague concept. When is a piece active in relation to the king? When it can give check? When it covers the squares around the king? We need a precise definition.
Momentarily I study the ways to create targets in the enemy pawn structure. The next step should be the study of the effect of pawn moves on the lines of attack. Since you can't create a pawn target without altering the pawn landscape. So that we can judge the pawn landscape in terms of targets and lines of attack.
We must develop pawn landscape awareness.
Pawn targets provide us with an extra weapon: We can always liquidate towards an endgame when things go wrong. I'm starting to like that extra weapon.
Tempo writes:
ReplyDelete"Lots of openings compromise the pawn structure in favor of piece activity. While a wrecked pawn structure is riddled with weak pawns which are potential targets in themselves, especially in the endgame, the hunt for the ultimate target (king) is judged as more important."
Bobby Fischer succinctly said:
"To get squares you have to give up squares."
TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Structural pawn weaknesses are (usually) self-inflicted. Dynamic weaknesses are (usually) inflicted by forcing the opponent's pieces to acquire functions. Each player uses his judgement to decide if the tradeoff (imbalance) is favorable or not.
This is the meaning behind Dr. Lasker's aphorism:
"By combination the master aims to show up and to defeat the false values, the true values shall guide him in his positional play."
A visually damaging "weakness" is NOT a real weakness unless you can attack it, either immediately or at a later stage of the game. Knowing HOW to take advantage of targets is vastly more important than merely identifying (knowing THAT) a potential weakness. Pawns don't move backward, so pawn moves must always be weighed carefully in terms of tradeoffs - what am I giving up in return for what am I getting?.
Choose wisely.
Blogger is creating difficulties so I hope it doesn't effect your ability to comment. If so, let me know. There is supposed to be no comment moderation by me. No reCaptcha stuff and so on. I can't comment as Temposchlucker, for instance, though.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a common consensus (pleonasm) about the maximum rating improvement for an adult with a rating of at least 1600 who is plateauing for quite some time. I belief that it was Silman who said that 100 points was the realistic maximum improvement in practice for adult improvement.
With the knights errant we have shown that a plateauing adult who has never been exposed to tactics before, can gain 250 rating points when he WILL BE exposed to tactics, no matter the method.
I personally have proven that you will lose 150 of the gained rating points again when you continue to train tactics in the wrong way, due to the elapse of time.
In the run up to the tournaments at the end of July, matters are culminating. First there is my basic endgame training. Then there is my endgame strategy training. Together it should materialize into a 70 rating points increase at maximum.
Second I started with a calculation course, with the emphasis on the two subjects which we found lacking in al the types of training that I have done in the past: Adding logic and adding concepts, which are designed to take care of the transfer of knowledge between positions.
I'm training incredibly hard lately, so I expect that the tournaments will shed some new light on what works and what not.