Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 26 Mar '09 03:41
    Another attempt at creating a thread that will help us all(or at least me) improve. My idea is to post middle games where the position was probably equal-ish and you came up with an interesting plan. Maybe the only plan. Explain (if you will)how you came up with it.

    I don't have a game to post yet, but I will soon.
  2. 29 Mar '09 22:17 / 1 edit
    OK, so here I have a Ruy Lopez where I had this position after my opponent just played 14...Rc8




    Now, most of the time in these positions I would try to keep the tension with 15.Rc1, but this time I decided to make an important middle-game decision. I knew that after d5 both his bishops scope would be nil and I could play on the queen-side with decent initiative.
    I just had to make sure I could handle 15...Nb4. 16.Bb1 looks bad, but I saw that he wouldn't have any squares for his knight then I could play 17.a3 and 18.Bd3 and continue with a good queen-side initiative.

    Here's the rest of the game, including my horrible 32.Qb5 and the follow-up 33.Ng5. In the end my opponent missed a back-rank mate. A tactic I had been looking for since he had played 37...Kh8.



    There were a couple of other strategical decisions I made during the game. After 23...Ba6 I didn't think the trade of bishops would hurt me much since my light-squared bishop was technically a bad bishop, but I saw the hole on c6 and decided the best thing to do was to plant a knight there. 30.Qa4 may seem like a strange move, but the point is to prevent 30...Nf8 to keep my knight planted on c6. 28.Bd2 was a decision to keep my bishop as I thought it would be an awesome piece in an endgame with lots of targets.
  3. 29 Mar '09 22:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by ResigningSoon
    OK, so here I have a Ruy Lopez where I had this position after my opponent just played 14...Rc8


    [fen]2rq1rk1/1b2bppp/p1np1n2/1p2p3/3PP3/4BN1P/PPBN1PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 15[/fen]

    Now, most of the time in these positions I would try to keep the tension with 15.Rc1, but this time I decided to make an important middle-game decision. I knew that afte keep my bishop as I thought it would be an awesome piece in an endgame with lots of targets.
    Hi, I liked 15.d5 for different reasons. when looking at the position, it is evident to me that the white squares in blacks camp are the weakest! the pawns on f7 and h7 being protected only with the king, f5 not protected at all, and the absence of the white bishop on c8 leaves e6 and d7 a little weak. therefore in order to take advantage of this colour complex, it seems to me that white would do well to target those squares and pieces which are defending the white squares, for it is understood that if there is to be harmony between pawns and pieces, then they should co-operate together, and as bishops, knights and pawns can only attack one complex at a time, it makes sense to try to achieve it on the least defended squares, in this instance the white ones.

    what are the pieces defending the aforementioned squares? the knight on f6, the bishop on b7, which is effectively shut out, the pawns on f7 and on h7. therefore can we drive or exchange off any of these pieces and take advantage of the weakened colour complex? putting our pieces this would form the basis of my strategy! i am only 1600 player, so perhaps this is no good, but it is interesting never the less - regards robbie.
  4. 29 Mar '09 23:28 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Hi, I liked 15.d5 for different reasons. when looking at the position, it is evident to me that the white squares in blacks camp are the weakest! the pawns on f7 and h7 being protected only with the king, f5 not protected at all, and the absence of the white bishop on c8 leaves e6 and d7 a little weak. therefore in order to take advantage of this co ...[text shortened]... 1600 player, so perhaps this is no good, but it is interesting never the less - regards robbie.
    Yes, I always had f5 in the back of my mind, but couldn't figure out how to occupy it (opponent can play a timely g6 which you see often in these positions). I felt I should play on the queen-side mostly though as that is where my pieces would be aimed along with my center.

    But I agree I lot of the strategy was around the light-squares and taking off one of his strongest minor pieces (his light-squared bishop, which he offered!).
  5. 30 Mar '09 04:30
    Originally posted by ResigningSoon
    OK, so here I have a Ruy Lopez where I had this position after my opponent just played 14...Rc8


    [fen]2rq1rk1/1b2bppp/p1np1n2/1p2p3/3PP3/4BN1P/PPBN1PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 15[/fen]

    Now, most of the time in these positions I would try to keep the tension with 15.Rc1, but this time I decided to make an important middle-game decision. I knew that afte ...[text shortened]... keep my bishop as I thought it would be an awesome piece in an endgame with lots of targets.
    The feature I like about your 15 d5 is the protection it gives your fortress. After 15 d5 you have a wall composed of pawns at d5 and e4 blocking his light-coloured bishop, plus his own pawns at d6 and e5 (which you have locked in) sheltering you along that b8-h2 diagonal where your kingside is weakest, your having advanced the h-pawn.

    That's the defensive plus.

    On the offense, by having closed in the center for the middlegame phase, 15d5 lets you migrate your king to the center so you can post rooks (and Queen) devastatingly on the h-file -- and use that as your attack corridor.



    *
  6. 30 Mar '09 14:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Shamash
    The feature I like ab out your 15 d5 is the protection it gives your fortress. After 15 d5 you have a wall composed of pawns at d5 and e4 blocking his light-coloured bishop, plus his own pawns at d6 and e5 (which you have locked in) sheltering you along that b8-h2 diagonal where your kingside is weakest, your having advanced the h-pawn.

    That's the ...[text shortened]... oks (and Queen) devastatingly on the h-file -- and use that as your attack corridor.



    *
    I'm surprised. Never had this occured to me. And I don't really think the h-file seems like a viable plan. I don't think this position really calls for me to attack on the king-side. The queen-side is ripe for play though.

    In fact, I was sure that after his knight retreat he should start his own play on the king-side simply due to the pawn-pointing rule. If he wanted to play on the queen-side I thought he should've followed up Nb4 with Qc7 sticking his knight down my throat. I would've been forced to counter a4!.

    I think piling up on the h-file and pushing the h-pawn would've taken so long in this position that he would've ripped apart the queenside in that time and pushed through on the c-file.
  7. 30 Mar '09 15:20 / 1 edit
    Not with his light-coloured bishop penned up.

    And in a closed position -- unlike an open position -- time is no longer a luxury, often you find you have all the time in the world for subtle and strategic maneuvering for the support of a deadly attack

    You will find positions arising in the Classical Variation of the King's Indian Defense (other than Black's deployment of his King's bishop) that are similar to this one and useful for comparison.
    (A KID example would be Piket-Smirin (Biel Interzonal 1993), if at the 10th move Piket played e5.)



    *
  8. 30 Mar '09 18:17 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Shamash
    Not with his light-coloured bishop penned up.

    And in a closed position -- unlike an open position -- time is no longer a luxury, often you find you have all the time in the world for subtle and strategic maneuvering for the support of a deadly attack

    You will find positions arising in the Classical Variation of the King's Indian Defense (other than Bla would be Piket-Smirin (Biel Interzonal 1993), if at the 10th move Piket played e5.)



    *
    I don't think there's anything subtle about piling up on the h-file. And I understand closed positions give me more time to maneuver, but my opponent isn't a sitting duck. If he had had a chance to do some sort of Rc7, Bc8 fiddling about he would have the chances on the king-side. As it was I just hit his weaknesses on the queen-side until I won a pawn and that was enough for me. Until I blundered that pawn back, of course. Then I was just trying to keep tactics alive that would allow me to push my outside passer.

    Is the position not calling for queen-side play? My center pawns point to the queen-side after d5. My bishops are aimed at the queen-side after Bd3. My e4 pawn makes my scope on the king-side worse. The c6 outpost is really the only safe outpost I have and it's on the queen-side. His pawns are targets on the queen-side, while his king is relatively safe (as is mine). This is why I'm surprised about a call for king-side play.

    The Piket-Smirin game is a little different after 10.e5 as the center pawns point both ways and the light-squared bishop is on e2(more scope on the king-side). And pushing the h-pawn against fianchettoed king's bishops are usually a simple, yet effective strategy. Edit: I noticed that Piket played on the queen-side in this game with a3, b4, c5 then planting a knight on the outpost d6 and busting through with his rooks on the c-file. King-side play isn't always called for! (Beautiful queen-sac btw.)

    I won't disagree with you completely though. I know in these positions I can almost force black to play g6 (after Nh4, say) then he'll have a sort of fianchettoed position of which an h-pawn push might take advantage.

    Please more ideas though. I like the discussion. I'll try to post another middle game soon, if no one else does.
  9. 30 Mar '09 18:39
    Originally posted by ResigningSoon
    I don't think there's anything subtle about piling up on the h-file. And I understand closed positions give me more time to maneuver, but my opponent isn't a sitting duck. If he had had a chance to do some sort of Rc7, Bc8 fiddling about he would have the chances on the king-side. As it was I just hit his weaknesses on the queen-side until I won a p ...[text shortened]... like the discussion. I'll try to post another middle game soon, if no one else does.
    I also like this thread, keep the coming!
  10. 30 Mar '09 20:03
    Originally posted by ResigningSoon
    I don't think there's anything subtle about piling up on the h-file. And I understand closed positions give me more time to maneuver, but my opponent isn't a sitting duck. If he had had a chance to do some sort of Rc7, Bc8 fiddling about he would have the chances on the king-side. As it was I just hit his weaknesses on the queen-side until I won a p ...[text shortened]... like the discussion. I'll try to post another middle game soon, if no one else does.
    The features I liked about your position -- that was my point.

    I expanded in terms of how I play chess, I am Not telling you how to play chess.

    We all have our own styles and personal expectations. And in spite of what GMs like Alfonso Romero write, one strategy is not necessarily better than another. Kibbutzers often think they can play a winning position better, forgetting who it was who achieved the winning position in the first place!

    The way I got better at chess was like this:
    in over the board play, when my opponent would despair at his position -- if it was not totally lost -- ( wish we could do this here! ) I would offer to switch sides -- and then would win with his pieces and his position against the one I had had.

    After all, who knows your positional weaknesses better than you do? And it is a given that any position is in flux, constantly changing. You are not married to the position. Dynamic play trumps static structure. Because you can only coast one way: downhill.

    Victory in the middlegame I find is Not about being better at tactical chess -- it's being more strategically efficient. Usually one cannot play a tactical move to make up for the absence of a strategic plan.

    Efficient chess to me is keeping only those of my pieces that 1) attack, 2) support an attack, or 3) defend against a genuine threat. My style is to exchange or sac what I cannot deploy effectively.

    Again this is my style, am not suggesting it would work for anybody else. But it struck me how perfect your position after d5 was for putting this approach into play.


    *
  11. 30 Mar '09 20:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Shamash
    The features I liked about your position -- that was my point.

    I expanded in terms of how I play chess, I am Not telling you how to play chess.

    We all have our own styles and personal expectations. And in spite of what GMs like Alfonso Romero write, one strategy is not necessarily better than another. Kibbutzers often think they can play a winnin struck me how perfect your position after d5 was for putting this approach into play.


    *
    hi, do you have any examples of these concepts (strategy triumphing over tactics, dynamic play triumphing over static conditions), please you do not need to post the games in full, just a link to the games would suffice or better still one or two of your own games, regards robbie.
  12. 30 Mar '09 22:15 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    hi, do you have any examples of these concepts (strategy triumphing over tactics, dynamic play triumphing over static conditions), please you do not need to post the games in full, just a link to the games would suffice or better still one or two of your own games, regards robbie.
    Averbakh-Bebchuk (Moscow 1934) -- The dynamic advantages of White's position prove stronger than the static advantages of Black's position.


    The dynamics also beat statics in:
    Weinstein-Rohde (Lone Pine 1977)


    Black's dynamics triumph over White's statics in:
    Keres-Botvinnik (Lengingrad/Moscow 1941)


    White's dynamic factors overwhelm Black's static structure in:
    Smyslov-Euwe (The Hague/Moscow 1948)


    White's dynamic piece activity dominate Black's static strengths in:
    Stein-Petrosian (Soviet Championship, Moscow 1961)


    White's strategic choices & resulting dynamic position after middlegame exchanges (not the initial position)
    prevail over Black's tactical calculations & classic, static, structural advantages in:
    Stein-Smyslov (Soviet Championship, Moscow 1972)



    *
  13. 30 Mar '09 22:20
    Originally posted by Shamash
    Averbakh-Bebchuk (Moscow 1934) -- The dynamic advantages of White's position prove stronger than the static advantages of Black's position.


    Dyanmics also beats statics in:
    Weinstein-Rohde (Lone Pine 1977)


    Black's dynamics triumph over White's statics in:
    Keres-Botvinnik (Lengingrad/Moscow 1941)


    White's dynamic factors overwhelm Black's ...[text shortened]... structural advantages in:
    Stein-Smyslov (Soviet Championship, Moscow 1972)



    *
    thanks, i will check them out, I fear that the concepts may be beyond me at present, but it will be interesting never the less - regards robbie.
  14. 31 Mar '09 02:49
    Well, OK OK. Here's a new position that arose from a Nimzo.

    Black to move.



    My question to you is: e5 or f5?

    I'll post later what I chose and why.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    31 Mar '09 05:29
    Originally posted by ResigningSoon
    Well, OK OK. Here's a new position that arose from a Nimzo.

    Black to move.

    [fen]r1b2rk1/ppp1qpp1/2n1p2p/8/1bpPN3/5NP1/PPQ1PPBP/R4RK1 b - - 0 11[/fen]

    My question to you is: e5 or f5?

    I'll post later what I chose and why.
    I immediately dislike f5 because it gives White a beautiful home for his pieces on e5.