28 Feb 10
Hi.
I did not told any one, but I am playing on a lcub and as helper on the club d'échecs junior de sherbrooke. Hoverer, not many and myself maybe, really understand the position aspect of chess.
How can I describe it to them.. I am a little poor.. I try to give exemple from 1...f4 f5 openings. BUt, they are not famous,
So, how do you view the positionnal play.
Somethings most of the youngs of the upper class do not get.
28 Feb 10
Originally posted by AudreyxSophieI don't know if this is helpful or what you were looking for, but I liked this - quoted from http://www.chessville.com/instruction/instr_novice_introstrategy_intro.htm
Hi.
I did not told any one, but I am playing on a lcub and as helper on the club d'échecs junior de sherbrooke. Hoverer, not many and myself maybe, really understand the position aspect of chess.
How can I describe it to them.. I am a little poor.. I try to give exemple from 1...f4 f5 openings. BUt, they are not famous,
So, how do you view the positionnal play.
Somethings most of the youngs of the upper class do not get.
Positional concept 1: A lead in development. This relates to time since a lead in development will eventually dissipate with time. The opening phase of the game is concerned with development and an opening where you don’t end up developing your pieces properly will usually lead to an attack by your opponent.
Positional concept 2: Superior mobility. Your pieces have free movement and good squares where they can be effectively posted. The bad bishop is the most notorious example of a piece without good squares because of the limitations placed on it by its own pawns.
Positional concept 3: Occupation and control of the center. This is one of the oldest principles of chess and has been subject to a number of interpretations over the years. Because all of your pieces are more effective if they are in the center of the board, controlling the center usually means that you will have control of the game. Resolving the tension in the center is a precondition for an attack.
Positional concept 4: Unsafe king position. If your king is liable to attack, you have a significant positional problem. Steinitz always considered the King to be a strong piece. It is also a juicy target, so beware!
Positional concept 5: Weak squares. Weak squares can be defined as squares where your opponent can safely post his pieces. Weak squares provide an entry point into your territory and are often the precursor to an attack. Naturally, if you can exploit the weak squares of your opponent, then they will work for you.
Positional concept 6: United pawns and isolated pawns. Pawn structure is a key to understanding positional chess because the characteristics of pawn structures determine the nature of the entire game. Connected pawns support one another and control squares. Isolated pawns are unsupported and are subjected to being blockaded by enemy pieces. The actual impact of an isolated pawn depends on the formation in question.
Other positional concepts include the Q-side majority, open files, preponderance of material and the conversion of small advantages into a winning position. As far better writers than your author have addressed these in detail, we will now return to the creation of a personal chess playing style as a way to improve your chess strength.
Positional concept 7: The Queen side Majority. The queenside pawn majority often plays an important role positional because the side that possesses it going into the end game can force a passed pawn on the far side of the board. This can be enough to win a lot of king and pawn endings, assuming you know how to play king and pawn endings, which are among the most difficult ending in all of chess.
Positional concept 8: Open files. Open files are vertical lines designed for use by the rook. An open file has no pawns blocking it. Open files are often crucial during the middle game and many games have been decided by which side controls them.
Positional concept 9: The two bishops. This particular concept is severely overrated but the Classical school fell in love with them early on, so it has become part of the positional lore. Modern authors stress that the advantage or disadvantage of the two bishops depends on the position. Personally, my opinion is that the only thing a bishop is good for is killing knights. This may seem a bit extreme but I have an itsy bitsy problem seeing knight moves…
Positional concept 10: Preponderance of material. If I have more material than you do, and I don’t blunder into a mate or a draw, I should win, assuming I have decent “technique”. We will save a discussion of technique for a later article, since it is beyond the scope of this one.
28 Feb 10
1 edit
Hi Exuma.
Excellent article. - never seen that before. Brilliant piece of instruction.
Audrey one thing in that article stands out.
*****
Now all this is very interesting, but it really doesn’t address the reason
you are reading this article in the first place.
The reason you seek to develop a style is to get better at the game.
In order to get better at the game, you have to co-ordinate four elements,
which are space, time, force, and pawn structure.
The difficulty is that all these elements shift like the sands of the Arabian Desert.
In order to take advantage of them, it becomes necessary to evaluate the
position, come up with a plan, carry out the plan and win the game.
The first step to accomplishing this is to learn tactics and learn them well.
Tactics are a combination of pattern recognition and calculation.
The more familiar you are with the pattern of a particular tactic,
the more likely you are to recognize it over the board.
*****
If you are not confident to teach the finer aspects of positional play.
And I certainly am not, then don't try it.
You will have a lot of "I don't know moments."
However, properly prepared, anyone should be able to teach tactics and
it will be of a great benefit to them and you. (it's also much more fun) 😉
- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24091
28 Feb 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34I often wonder about the mythical idea of Positional chess? I think the chess publishing machine is guilty of force feeding us a lot of twoddle about this subject.
Hi Exuma.
Excellent article. - never seen that before. Brilliant piece of instruction.
Audrey one thing in that article stands out.
*****
Now all this is very interesting, but it really doesn’t address the reason
you are reading this article in the first place.
The reason you seek to develop a style is to get better at the game.
In or ...[text shortened]... ch tactics and
it will be of a great benefit to them and you. (it's also much more fun) 😉
I would love every book written about this topic to contain a warning such as this
"The book you are about to read is full of positional themes which are merely generlisations. the only true way to evaluate a chess position is by hard analysis of variations. The players featured in these pages: karpov, Botvinnik, Petrosian etc were all tacticians of the highest order and could form subtle positional plans because they were able to control all the tactical elements on the board. They were capable of very deep complex analysis whilst sitting at the board. Their positional technique was aquired on the back of thier extraordinary tactical vision NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. So dear reader, my advice to you is rather than studying the icing on the cake, the froth on the beer, go away and hone your tactical awareness and come back when you're capable of anouncing a mate in 6 against the top player at your club!"
That about sums up my view about positional chess.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by DiophantusLol, these two sentences are full of contradictions. Like saying that all that counts in a car are the tires, because in the end it is the friction between them and the ground that makes the car move.
I was once told that chess is 100% tactics. Even the "positional" stuff is just preparing for, or threatening, a tactical strike (improving the position of one's pieces) or preventing a tactical strike (prophylaxis).
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by Mephisto2how you can compare chess to physics is beyond.
Lol, these two sentences are full of contradictions. Like saying that all that counts in a car are the tires, because in the end it is the friction between them and the ground that makes the car move.
the poster you replied to is correct, when it boils down to it, chess is entirely tactics.
1. e4 by itself could be analyzed as a tactic.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by Mephisto2I didn't say I believed it, just that was what I was told! I suspect there is a degree of truth in the idea that most of chess is tactics and that even the positional bits are in some sense preparation for, or prevention of, tactics but I doubt that study of nothing but tactics will reveal positional truths in every position.
Lol, these two sentences are full of contradictions. Like saying that all that counts in a car are the tires, because in the end it is the friction between them and the ground that makes the car move.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryI wasn't comparing chess and physics, merely pointing at the flaw in the logic.
how you can compare chess to physics is beyond.
the poster you replied to is correct, when it boils down to it, chess is entirely tactics.
1. e4 by itself could be analyzed as a tactic.
Saying that 1.e4 could be analysed as a tactic has the effect of reducing the term tactics to nothing relevant. It would make the terms tactics, combinations, openings, positional play, strategy synonyms of each other, because they all exist.
I agree that studying and practicing tactics is the most important tool to improve our game, certainly at our levels. But denying that there are opening strategies, endgame insights and positional play considerations is a bridge too far. In my opinion, a tactic (or call it combination) always has an element of force (if ... then ...). The moves that prepare for that, or prevent that are positional. My 2 cents.