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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 18 Oct '08 23:03 / 1 edit
    I find when you have one small threat that your opponent can't defend adequately that it is better to save it up and use the time that it takes for him/her to shore up the weaknesses by building up pressure rather than play out the threat. Ie putting your pieces on open lines, making a pawn storm, destroying the kings cover etc.

    What are your opinions?
  2. 18 Oct '08 23:14
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    I find when you have one small threat that your opponent can't defend adequately that it is better to save it up and use the time that it takes for him/her to shore up the weaknesses by building up pressure rather than play out the threat. Ie putting your pieces on open lines, making a pawn storm, destroying the kings cover etc.

    What are your opinions?
    I agree completely! None other than the great Nimzovich suggested that concept with his famous dictum, "the threat is stronger than the execution."
  3. 19 Oct '08 08:15
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    I find when you have one small threat that your opponent can't defend adequately that it is better to save it up and use the time that it takes for him/her to shore up the weaknesses by building up pressure rather than play out the threat. Ie putting your pieces on open lines, making a pawn storm, destroying the kings cover etc.

    What are your opinions?
    one of the things that had surprised me a lot was the tendency of strong players (either Rybka or GMs) to hold the threat intstead of executing it and try to improve somewhere else on the board just until the point that the threat could be neutralized.

    I don't know if I could put it correctly in words, but it should be understandable .
  4. 19 Oct '08 09:28
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    one of the things that had surprised me a lot was the tendency of strong players (either Rybka or GMs) to hold the threat intstead of executing it and try to improve somewhere else on the board just until the point that the threat could be neutralized.

    I don't know if I could put it correctly in words, but it should be understandable .
    You mean to improve first then execute the threat a move before the opponent can neutralize it?
  5. Standard member Jie
    19 Oct '08 09:33
    Perhaps an illustration (of a position) might be necessary as what is a threat to a 1500 player might not be to a 2000 not even mentioning a GM.
  6. 19 Oct '08 09:35
    This is a good discussion. If I understand you correctly, then you are talking about putting off a good move such as winning a pawn or playing a tactic based on 2 criteria:

    1. The move can't be immediately stopped anyway.
    2. You can do something useful somewhere else on the board, keeping your opponent that much more off balance.

    I think Reinfeld referred to this as the principle of two weaknesses.
  7. 19 Oct '08 09:38
    If I am remembering correctly, DragonFire may have posted something similar to this in one of the old improvement threads. Something about if you see a weakness, leave it alone. Tactics only work when there are more than 1 weaknesses. Of course it may be misquoted, and may not have been DF who posted it, but that is how I vaguely remember it (being too lazy of course to fish the forums for the reference).
  8. 19 Oct '08 09:42
    Originally posted by Jie
    Perhaps an illustration (of a position) might be necessary as what is a threat to a 1500 player might not be to a 2000 not even mentioning a GM.
    A threat is a threat is a threat it doesn't matter how strong the players are. When you make a move that will allow you to get an advantage on the next move that is a threat.
  9. 19 Oct '08 21:34
    Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
    If I am remembering correctly, DragonFire may have posted something similar to this in one of the old improvement threads. Something about if you see a weakness, leave it alone. Tactics only work when there are more than 1 weaknesses. Of course it may be misquoted, and may not have been DF who posted it, but that is how I vaguely remember it (being too lazy of course to fish the forums for the reference).
    I think that one weakness (if it is significant enough) is often sufficient to be vulnerable to a combination.
  10. 19 Oct '08 22:33
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    I think that one weakness (if it is significant enough) is often sufficient to be vulnerable to a combination.
    Adding to that, putting pressure on a weakness may force the other side to create more weaknesses.
  11. Standard member JonathanB of London
    Curb Your Enthusiasm
    19 Oct '08 23:01
    "The threat is stronger than the execution" is an old saying. Don't know who said it though.
  12. 19 Oct '08 23:42
    Originally posted by JonathanB of London
    "The threat is stronger than the execution" is an old saying. Don't know who said it though.
    The great Aron Nimzovich is generally credited as being the originator of that quote.