Continuing.
Yes the lads b3 was questionalble. but it had an idea behind it. c4.
But we are not talking about his moves. It is your great insights that
need analysing and this statement.
"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else."
In your last example you are talking complete tripe because you are playing
2.Bd3 when the Bishop is already on d3. Because you are losing the argument
there is no need to slip in illegal moves.
Here you played 14....d5
If you don't White will play c4.
I have given variations, tactical variations, showing why 14...d5 may not be all that good.
This brings us on nicley to this sparkling piece of chess thought.
This position was reached in he Beatlemania - Robbier game.
Black has just played 10...Nd7 and the note states:
"this knight belongs on b6 where it shall exercise influence over the d5 square or
white will be induced to trade it giving up the dark squared bishop and the dark
squares with it."
So remove the pieces and as Robbie states, look at the pawn structure.
I'm thinking the Knight should either go to c5 to pressure the e-pawn
Or stay on d7 to hold the e-pawn when Black plays an eventual e5.
Robbie sticks the thing on a b6. An unprotcted square. and it is because
the Knight went to b6 that 14....d5 met with a tactical blow. 15.Bxb6.
With this one move 14...d5 Black overloaded his Queen. She is holding b6 and e5.
It does appear to me that the Knight on b6 is a hinderance to the d5 idea
thus making Robbie's 10th move note invalid.
He's going on about pawn structures and where pieces should go and
he does not have a clue himself. Not a clue.
"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else."
It is clear that the plan of Knight going to b6 was not 'a proper evaluation' of
the pawn structure. He even got that wrong.
Robbie, dear friend, you are helping in your own way.
Chess is not as cut and dried as the often written examples cite.
In those games the loser usually does not put up a fight, as poor Beatlemania
failed to do here. The writer builds up the notes in such a way that it all seems
so easy, so natural.
These games are easy to note up and if you miss out any counter-play the
loser ignored then it is even easier. But it does give a false and dangerous impression.
I remember reading Larsen grew up on the Euwe books. Excellent, clear,
(a tad one-sided) examples.
But when he (Larsen) found himself not progressing he realised these books
where wrong. They did not give the whole picture.
Your quotes and notes are misleading.
If you can plow your way though it, try Dynamic Chess Strategy by Suba.
If you can get your hands on the first version before it went to e-book then
that is the one.
Edit:
I see you have posted again. This quote:
"Please take a look at Morgski and Q thread, note Q's references to pawns and
squares, their weakening effects or otherwise , that is how a game of chess should
be played."
You are picking and choosing other peoples notes to suit yourself.
I think the most beneficial part of the game to players of IRU standard was
the trap if Black takes on b2. (I would have liked Q if you could have given
that has a sub variation - a new pgn).
For the level on here these things have to been seen rather than spoken about
Also the calm way White handle the final part of the game.
It is at this stage, winning the won game, where a lot fall down.
Usually at the first wiff of tactics.
Here as White I would have been feeling most uncomfortable.
That Bishop on e3 is holding the game together.
It protects the c-pawn and f2, it protects the Rook and the Queen,
(thus preventing Bxh2 winning the Queen.)
Too much for one piece. I cannot see a way to exploit it. But I don't like it.
I try in my games never to give pieces such work and I look for the pieces
that maybe have too many defensive roles. I can see me blowing the
final phase of that game by refusing to be tied down and relying so much on one piece.
Originally posted by greenpawn34questionable? it was the losing move, well almost, and if you go back through the
Continuing.
Yes the lads b3 was questionalble. but it had an idea behind it. c4.
But we are not talking about his moves. It is your great insights that
need analysing and this statement.
"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else."
In your last example you are talking complete tripe because you are playin I can see me blowing the
final phase of that game by refusing to be tied down.
thread and wade through the text you will see that i did mention the fact that after
...Nb6 white would be induced to give up the bishop pair and the dark squares which
in the hand of a positional genius like myself, is tantamount to chess suicide!
White could not put up a fight, he did not understand the position, he was probably
doing tactical exercises by the zillions and trying to calculate every move and guess
what, it never helped him in the least, his mistakes were positional, purely and
simply! its getting you to admit this GP that is the difficult thing. The false and
dangerous impression is GP, that you can calculate your way through any chess
game and ignore the strategic elements.
I prefer to look at the positions myself to be honest, i dont read chess books that
much any more and i cannot stomach opening books, i bought the dynamic English
the other week, flicked through it and threw it away. The OP asked about openings,
i provided diagrams and explained my system, it was taken out of context, yet to
my knowledge it appears absolutely sound, sure let the OP keep calculating his way
through a chess game, every ill conceived pawn push, every positional blunder and
he will get squashed and he will not even realise why he is being beaten up because
he does not understand the position.
I dig Q's games, its the type of chess i aspire to.
"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else."
You failed to evaluate it correctly. White giving up his Bishop was the
tactical refutation.
Strategy and Tactics go hand in hand it is the same game.
But first you must learn how to handle yourself tactically.
At the lower levels games like Q posted are very rare.
These games are decided because someone overlooked a trick, very
often in a strategicallly won position.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I evaluated it to the best of my ability, the position practically played itself!
"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else."
You failed to evaluate it correctly. White giving up his Bishop was the
tactical refutation.
Strategy and Tactics go hand in hand it is the same game.
But first you must learn how to handle yourself tactically.
At the lower levels games like Q posted are ver ...[text shortened]... are decided because someone overlooked a trick, very
often in a strategicallly won position.
I do not deny that strategy and tactics go hand in hand, what are we to do when there
are no tactics GP? calculate some? or when ones opponent disengages in the opening,
playing in a hyper modern style? put our pawns in the centre and hope for the best?
Surely we need some other criteria for evaluating the position?
I'm going to give a quick $ 0.02 (2 cents) here with hopes I don't cheapen anyone's ideas. Chess is a difficult monster, trying to crack it is just about impossible. I wouldn't personally feel comfortable saying that the pawn structure should guide your development over the other two principle guides that beetle mentioned (opponents development, and of course Greenpawn34's tactics).
Coming up with solid steadfast absolute principled answers in chess is dangerous. You will almost always be proven wrong in one position or another.
My personal style is to evaluate my pieces. The pawn structures do need to be understood - but I don't think you can understand them fully until you have the maneuvering down (the crap you call tactics). Now that I've gaffed and said my personal style is to evaluate my pieces, I suppose I better explain a tad bit.
I look at my pieces as more and less valuable all the time. A knight stuck in a corner isn't worth a whole lot to me. One in the center of the board that cannot be challenged? He's worth a whole lot. A bishop that is biting granite isn't worth a whole lot. A bishop controlling the long diagonal with an iron boot? He's worth a lot.
So how can you tell if the piece is going to be worth a lot? Well this is where things get tricky. Quite often you want to watch your opponents pieces. Its important to understand whether or not a piece can control valuable squares. A bishop that can never control a long diagonal (say because you have no pawn breaks) may not be that valuable. The piece's value is dependent on how active it is, how active its opponent piece is, and of course your pawns. But a piece is also made monstrously more valuable by tactics. If a piece has a way to create a quick jumpstart due to a tactical oversight - isn't it more valuable? OF COURSE!
This is how I make my decisions when things are difficult. Which pieces are worth something to me? Robbie this is a position from our last game:
Lets look at a few pieces.
The light squared bishop of whites seems like a penny short of worthless right now. That e pawn is monstrously overprotected. Black isn't even interested in e4. Black is hacking at d4! But can we really trade it off? how strong does blacks bishop become if white can't dispute it? Thats food for thought. But the book can't be written on this piece without more to come...
The dark squared bishop is a lean mean dominating machine. You at all costs want to keep him right where he is and doing just what he is doing. If white can find a way to take off blacks dark squared bishop - then whites dark bishop becomes a single manned guillotine.
How about the knight on d2? Doesn't it have an interesting square on c4? For black to kick it off, he'll have to adjust his pawns - or trade a piece. Isn't blacks c6 Knight REALLY valuable? It seems to have a square under its control that looks like a mighty snare awaiting a victim. But what if white place Nc4? What can black do to kick it away? Surely black doesn't want to lose his own valuable knight on c6 by play Ne5 right? ... I know I wouldn't want to. But what about playing d5? This greatly changes the pawns then doesn't it... and the value of the light and dark squared bishop. One option which is not necessarily a mistake - but a road I'd refuse to travel as white:
Now this position can be torn to shreds 1,000 times and maybe I even made a mistake. It doesn't matter. The point of this thing is that if you don't see the back-rank mate and you don't see the d4 pawn push before making a decision your flapping around like a fish on the beach. You can't do it. So study the tactics - watch how the masters move their pieces, because they do it right and worry about evaluating the worth of your pieces as you go. Just do your best. Maybe ask yourself "What can I do to open up this pieces activity?" and never ignore the tactics. That sounds like good sound strategy to me.
I guarantee that type of thinking won't do as much harm as:
"I can't play Bf4 with my pawns sorted like this"
P.S. Thanks for all the flattery in this thread.
Q
As promised I publish the OTB game played today. Well... it's not a complete game - after 11th move my opponent's phone rang. Game was over. The rest was played without clock and without much thinking. Then he was not interested to continue. The guy was really pissed off... I played white.
Originally posted by Vartiovuorii will write in twenty years time, 'all the things i wrote about pawns is true', and then
If you truly are a genius and positional play is as important as you would have us believe, then why is your rating only under 1700? Logic tells us that one of these statements must be false.
you will realise the import of my words! Actually genius is originality, please see the
philosopher Mills for confirmation of this variation.
Originally posted by PhySiQNice post!
I'm going to give a quick $ 0.02 (2 cents) here with hopes I don't cheapen anyone's ideas. Chess is a difficult monster, trying to crack it is just about impossible. I wouldn't personally feel comfortable saying that the pawn structure should guide your development over the other two principle guides that beetle mentioned (opponents development, and of cour ...[text shortened]... Thanks for all the flattery in this thread.
Q
In my mind, the essence is that at the amateur level, the tactics are in the game, while in Master games the tactics are often in the notes.
Originally posted by greenpawn34GP, I am afraid you are confusing me with someone else - I've never PM'd you my phone number.
Hi. Iru.
I phoned that number you PM'd me at the time you wanted me to.
But it was not you. Wrong number I guess.
How did your OTB game go?
GP.
As for my OTB game - I've published it few posts above.
Cheers.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Good joke! 😀
But I was sent this:
Dear dear greenpawn
At 7:44 tight please call this number.....I did.
Edit: Just saw the game.
What a coincidence! The guys mobile went off just about the same time I called.... 😉
Sorry I was slow to get it first time...