#### Only Chess Forum

1. 10 Aug '08 19:08 / 24 edits
I received a PM from a player here at RHP regarding a question concerning the Rule of Co-ordination ( ... SC=IC) in the Bangiev Squares Strategy.

We decided to go over this in a thread at the Chess Forums.

>hi Ivan, thanks so much, i really appreciate youre taking the time, my problem i think stems from the fact that I have worked my way through the first two cds, tactics and openings, which were ok, however i have this conflict in my mind, on cd 3 bangiev states that the colour should match the initiative, so for example, if one is targeting the c7 square it should according to bangiev be a dark squared strategy i.e. d4 assuming of course we are white, (d4S>c5,bsq, (c7)) etc etc. however and here is where the conflict has arisen, he also states that when one is employing a white squared strategy i.e. playing 1.e4 that one can also develop a dark squared intiative for example (e4S>d5,bsq >>e5,d6,c7*) as in the ruy lopez etc etc, HERE THE COLOUR OF THE STRATEGY DOES NOT MATCH THE COLOUR OF THE INTITATIVE, we have a light squared strategy and a dark squared initiative, how can this be explained? is kind of driving me to insanity, i have kind of come to the conclusion that one type of strategy can be transformed into another in that while we may have begun with a white squared strategy as in 1.e4 it transmutes to a dark squared strategy i.e. d4 because of the dynamics of the relevant positions, therefore while we may have chosen a light squared strategy because of our opponents play we are forced to realize a dark squared strategy and vice versa, hopefully this makes sense, if not i may already have become insane, thanks for taking the time, kind regards Robert.

****************************************************************************************

The solution of your problem lies first of all in the fact that each control zone contains by definition a strategy square as its central startingpoint ( ... or ending point, depends on how you want to look at it) ... and second in the fact that in a game you can strive towards a certain situation which is favorable for you. Such a situation is described by IC=SC, the basic Middle Game law (Co-ordination rule)in the Bangiev method. Third, the co-ordination rule applies to the middle game ...(... it is a middle game law !) and not necessarily to the opening. ( .... in the opening you concentrate on the squares c2,f2,c7 and f7. ..... because in the opening these are the weak squares ... but this can change during the game ... castling changes the situation considerably).

From white's perspective: the control zone c7 for instance contains the dark squares d4, c5, d6, c7. Therefore, if you want to occupy the c7 square, you should work towards controlling the c7 control zone and this means you should work towards controlling the d4 square, simply because d4 is a part of the c7 control zone. But, controlling the d4 square is in fact a part of executing a d4 strategy (in the c5 direction in this instance).

If Bangiev states that the Colour of the Initiative should match the Colour of the Strategy (... or vice versa) he means that in the Middlegame you should strive (!) for this situation, you should work your way towards (!) the situation wherein the Colour of the Strategy matches the Colour of the Initiave. Simply because of the fact that each control zone contains one strategy square, you should strive for controlling that strategy square ... and in doing so you should strive for a strategy belonging to that particular strategy square.

If the control zone is white then, by definition, it shows a white squared strategy square. If the control zone is black it shows a black squared strategy square.

If you want to control a whole white squared controlzone (f7 for instance containing the squares e4, f5, e6, f7) you should also strive to control the square which is the strategy square of the strategy of that same colour .... e4, because it is part of the control zone. Therefore, in order to co-ordinate your forces, you have to strive towards the situation so that IC=SC becomes reality ( ... and you can continue your battle to control the whole of the f7 control zone and ultimately the target square f7). In this case you should strive for a white squared e4 strategy direction f5. If you are following a darksquared (=d4)strategy on the moment in the game f7 becomes a weak point and you decide to make this square a targetsquare, you should strive for the situation wherein you execute the goals of the e4 strategy, realising the e4 strategy, and thus realising the co-ordination rule SC=IC.

If you want to control a whole black squared controlzone (... c7 for instance) you should strive to be able to also control the square which is part of this controlzone as such and at the same time is the strategy square of that blacksquared control zone ( ... d4 in this case). In order to realise the situation that IC=SC you'll have to strive for a dark squared d4 strategy in case you continue to look at the c7 square as a target square and as a result of that wanting to control its control zone.

Why is the colour of the initiative not always the same colour as the colour of the strategy ? Because you establish the Colour of the Strategy by looking at ( ... examining) your own position and you establish the Colour of the Initiave by looking at ( ... examining) your opponent's position. You will be looking for a weak point (... square), you want to make this point a target square ... and this square belongs to a control zone, which isn't necessarily the colour of your strategy.

... but you should be striving to operate on the squares of a single colour ( ... Basic Law of the Middle game: "Co-ordinate your forces" ) Therefore you should strive to the situation wherein the Colour of the Strategy matches the Colour of the Initiative.

Basic Law of the middle game: "Co-ordinate your forces" meaning in the B-method "Strive for a situation wherein your Strategy Colour matches your Initiative Colour. In short: SC=IC)

Hopefully I have been able to shed some light on the interesting and important questions you raised.
2. 10 Aug '08 20:08 / 1 edit
3. 10 Aug '08 21:26 / 1 edit
hi ivan, awesome stuff, so please let me run this by you for your appraisal, we start say 1.e4, according to bangiev a white squared strategy, either in the direction of d5, or f5. etc etc however our opponent plays say 1.e6 protecting the f square, we must therefore, of necessity, at this point formulate another approach, naturaly on the dark squares taking advantage of the other weakness on c7 ,a d4 strategy according to bangiev and therefore we play 2.d4, and thus in an alternating fashion as bangiev states we should be trying to achieve, from whites point of view a dark squared initiative on the queenside and a light squared initiative on the king side.

now, what if we play 1.e4 1.e5 and then 2.Nf3, which is common, we have started with a white squared strategy but immediately followed it up with a dark squared strategy by playing Nf3 targeting the squares d4 and e5, a d4 or dark squared strategy. how are we to understand this? is an e4 strategy in the direction of d5 black squares, (e4S>d5,bsq), just the same as a d4 strategy in the direction of c5?(d4S>c5,bsq)?
4. 11 Aug '08 21:05 / 7 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
.now, what if we play 1.e4 1.e5 and then 2.Nf3, which is common, we have started with a white squared strategy but immediately followed it up with a dark squared strategy by playing Nf3 targeting the squares d4 and e5, a d4 or dark squared strategy. how are we to understand this? is an e4 strategy in the direction of d5 black squares, (e4S>d5,bsq), just the same as a d4 strategy in the direction of c5?(d4S>c5,bsq)?

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3

You do not change the white-squared e4 strategy to a darksquared strategy by playing Nf3. The strategy remains the same e4 strategy. The goals of the e4 strategy are to occupy the white squares and to attack the black squares. The move Nf3 attacks the black squares. The strategy does not change. 1. e4 ... 2. Nf3 ... 3. Bc4 ... 4. Ng5 ... ( threatening to occupy f7, which is a goal of the e4 strategy direction f5!)

Is (e4S>d5, bsq) the same as (d4S>c5, bsq) ?

The answer is no. Why ? Because the goals of the d4 strategy are to occupy the dark squares (direction c5: most important squares: d4 and c5) and to attack the white squares (direction c5: most important squares: e4 and d5). The goals of the e4 strategy are to occupy the white squares (direction d5: most important squares: e4 and d5) and to attack the black squares(direction d5: most important squares d4 and c5)
5. 11 Aug '08 21:35 / 6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi ivan, awesome stuff, so please let me run this by you for your appraisal, we start say 1.e4, according to bangiev a white squared strategy, either in the direction of d5, or f5. etc etc however our opponent plays say 1.e6 protecting the f square, we must therefore, of necessity, at this point formulate another approach, naturaly on the dark squar ...[text shortened]... view a dark squared initiative on the queenside and a light squared initiative on the king side.
As a rule correct.

There are two weak squares in black's starting position:c7 and f7. White should be trying to attack these squares.

Should he wish (!) to attack square f7, white should decide to realise a white squared initiative, after such moves as e4. Bc4, Qh5; abbrev: Sqf7*, +wi, +S(e4>f5,wsq)

Should he wish (!) to attack square c7, white should choose a black squared initiative, after such moves as d4 and Bf4; abbrev: Sqc7*, +bsq, +S(d4>c5,bsq)

1.e4 e6

White: Attention; idea 2. ... d5.
There are weak squares at c7 and f7 ... c7* and f7** ( f7 now protected by the move e6). White should attack the pawn on c7, thus aiming for the initiative on the black squares. Abrev. Sqc7*, +bI, +S(d4>d5,bsq)

CM 2.d4
6. 11 Aug '08 21:52 / 1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3

You do not change the white-squared e4 strategy to a darksquared strategy by playing Nf3. The strategy remains the same e4 strategy. The goals of the e4 strategy are to occupy the white squares and to attack the black squares. The move Nf3 attacks the black squares. The strategy does not change.

Is (e4S>d5, bsq) the same as (d4S>c5, bsq) ...[text shortened]... te squares (most important: e4 and d5) and to attack the black squares(most important d4 and c5)
ok Ivan this is really excellent, please forgive me if it seems that a basic understanding is missing, the cd itself contained errors which in itself confused things. however there are instances when the strategy does change, or is 'overturned', as Bangiev states, so while one may be perusing an e4 strategy circumstances may be such that we are in essence forced to alter our strategy, is this not the case,?

for example, in the french defense advanced variation, we begin with 1.e4 (e4S>f5,wsq),>>e4,f5,e6,f7*, our opponent then plays 1...e6, the d5 area is now secure from blacks perspective so we turn our attention towards the weakness in the e5 area, c7* and we play 2.d4, or Nf3 or whatever (e4S>d5,bsq)>>e4,d5,e5,d6,c7*, our opponent then plays the definitive French defense move 2...d5, securing the d5 area. the e4 area is now attacked, pe4*, we can either defend with Nc3 or advance the pawn to e5, and here is where the change occurs is it not, with this move 3.e5 we are no longer occupying the white squares but are in effect occupying the dark squares and the white squares therefore become our target, the e4S has transmigrated into a d4S (d4S>e5), is it not the case or am i still confused. please i thank you for taking the time and your continued patience - regards Robert.
7. 11 Aug '08 22:04 / 2 edits
hi, sorry i just read your last post after posting my previous one, it makes it quite clear thanks, it must be a d4 strategy after 1,e4 ..e6, 2.d4 ..d5, because as you state the black d5 area is now secure, d5-Sp** and we must look elsewhere, the weakness in the e5-Sp , the pawn on c7*. regards Robert.
8. 12 Aug '08 17:53
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok Ivan this is really excellent, please forgive me if it seems that a basic understanding is missing, the cd itself contained errors which in itself confused things. however there are instances when the strategy does change, or is 'overturned', as Bangiev states, so while one may be perusing an e4 strategy circumstances may be such that we are in e ...[text shortened]... onfused. please i thank you for taking the time and your continued patience - regards Robert.
Correct.

The change of strategy for white ocurred when white played d4 and black answered d5 ( ... playing a white squared strategy himself, goals of d5 strategy are occupying the white squares and attacking the black squares).
9. 12 Aug '08 18:04 / 9 edits
An interesting game to study in this context is the game Tal-Granda Zuniga, Rio Honda 1987.

1.e4 e6
2.d4 d5
3.Nd2 Nf6
4.e5 Nfd7
5.Bd3 b6
6.Ne2 Ba6

White: d4 strategy, >d4-O, >>d5-O, Pawnf7*, Ba6*(SB): +wI, +S(d4S>e5, wsq). The d4 strategy is in this position a pawn strategy. If we want to play a e4 strategy, because we want to co-ordinate our forces and strive for the situation wherein the Colour of the Initiative matches the Colour of the Strategy ( CI=CS, the most important middle game law), we should strive for a e4 piece strategy ( Why a piece-strategy? Well, simply because the pawn on e4 is lacking, it moved to e5). EP:>>f7, Ke8, Ba6, +KA. CoZ belonging to f7: e4, f5, e6, f7. If we want to control f7, we want to control the control zone f7 including the e4 square, the strategy square of the e4 strategy. White wants to control the e4 sqare.

Plan: Ba6+c4+Qf3 (ideaQe4)

CM 7.Bxa6.

7.Bxa6 ...

-SB:d5-O*, +wI

7. ... Nxa6

White:d5-O*(-SB). +S(d4S>e5, wsq)

8.0-0 c5

White:+S(d4S>e5, wsq), +PiS, EP:>>Pf7, Ke8, +KA, controlzone f7 (e4,f5,e6,f7) Plan:c4+Nf4+Qf3 (Idea Qe4) CM 9.c4

9.c4 ! Nc7
10.Nf4 ...

+CZ, +PS

10. ... cxd4
11.cxd5 Nxe5

White:+S(e4S>f5,wsq); >>pawn e6, pawn f7, Ne5, Nc7, Ke8
12.dxe6 f6 (12. ... Nc7xe6. 13.Nf4xe6 14.f7xe6 14.Rf1-e1
13.Nf3 Nc6
14.Qa4 b5
15.Qc2 ! ...

Strategysquare e4 occupied!

white: e4-O**, d5-O*, CoZ**

15. ... Qd6
16.Bd2 0-0-0
17.Rac1 Kb7
18.Qe4 Nd5
19.Rxc6 Kxc6
20.Nxd4+ Kb6
21.Rc1 Be7
22.Rc6+ 1-0
10. 12 Aug '08 19:05 / 3 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoe
An interesting game to study in this context is the game Tal-Granda Zuniga, Rio Honda 1987.

[pgn][Event "Rio Hondo"]
[Site "Rio Hondo"]
[Date "1987.09.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Tal,Mihail"]
[Black "Granda Zuniga,Julio E"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C06"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Ne2 Ba6 7.Bxa6 Nxa6 8.0-0 c5
9.c4 Nc7 10.Nf4 cxd4 ...[text shortened]... .Rac1 Kb7
18.Qe4 Nd5
19.Rxc6 Kxc6
20.Nxd4+ Kb6
21.Rc1 Be7
22.Rc6+ 1-0
(Source: I used the CD, Squares strategy 3, middlegame, Alexander Bangiev and I got the game pgn from http://www.chesslive.de/)
11. 12 Aug '08 19:11 / 1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe
An interesting game to study in this context is the game Tal-Granda Zuniga, Rio Honda 1987.

[pgn][Event "Rio Hondo"]
[Site "Rio Hondo"]
[Date "1987.09.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Tal,Mihail"]
[Black "Granda Zuniga,Julio E"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C06"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Ne2 Ba6 7.Bxa6 Nxa6 8.0-0 c5
9.c4 Nc7 10.Nf4 cxd4 ...[text shortened]... .Rac1 Kb7
18.Qe4 Nd5
19.Rxc6 Kxc6
20.Nxd4+ Kb6
21.Rc1 Be7
22.Rc6+ 1-0
Correction:

15. Qe2 ...

... aiming for the e4 strategy square !

18. Qe4 ...

.... occupying the e4 strategy square !

The comment: white: {e4-O**, d5-O*, CoZ** } should come after move 18. Qe4 ....

I apologise.
12. 12 Aug '08 21:58 / 5 edits
Ivan, incredibly interesting game and annotation, correct me if i am wrong, initially obviously its a d4 strategy after move 2.d4 3.e5 etc etc, (d4S>e5,wsq) >d4-Sp >>d5-Sp, d5,e6,f7*, however like you say me must strive to fulfill the formula, SC=CI, therefore as you say we should strive for a white squared strategy, e4S>f5,wsq, >e4-Sp >>d5-Sp, e6,f7* thus we have the two strategies running concurrently, until at least move 18 when the e4 strategy is fully realized and in order for us to fulfill the d4 pawn strategy i.e. occupying the dark squares and attacking the white d5 area we must adopt an e4 piece strategy aimed at e4,f5,e6,f7 is this also not the case, correct me if i am wrong.

would you mind if i tried to annotate another game using the B-method and post my results for your appraisal, if its taking too much of your time then i understand and no problemo, thanks for everything - kind regards robert.

ps. in retrospect i think that the d4 strategy was probably abandoned as early as move 7.Bxa6 when white must above all strive for a white squared initiative after removing blacks white squared bishop, defender of the d5 area. wBxwB=+wI
13. 12 Aug '08 23:55
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ivan, incredibly interesting game and annotation, correct me if i am wrong, initially obviously its a d4 strategy after move 2.d4 3.e5 etc etc, (d4S>e5,wsq) >d4-Sp >>d5-Sp, d5,e6,f7*, however like you say me must strive to fulfill the formula, SC=CI, therefore as you say we should strive for a white squared strategy, e4S>f5,wsq, >e4-Sp >>d5-Sp, e6,f7 ...[text shortened]... quared initiative after removing blacks white squared bishop, defender of the d5 area. wBxwB=+wI
Please, go ahead and post the game and your comments. As a student who is studying the Bangiev method, I look upon this as a means of improving myself. I will comment your annotations to the best of my ability.
14. 12 Aug '08 23:57 / 1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie.

ps. in retrospect i think that the d4 strategy was probably abandoned as early as move 7.Bxa6 when white must above all strive for a white squared initiative after removing blacks white squared bishop, defender of the d5 area. wBxwB=+wI[/b]
Correct. It is interesting to study the way Tal accomplishes that.
15. 13 Aug '08 00:01 / 9 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ivan, incredibly interesting game and annotation, correct me if i am wrong, initially obviously its a d4 strategy after move 2.d4 3.e5 etc etc, (d4S>e5,wsq) >d4-Sp >>d5-Sp, d5,e6,f7*, however like you say me must strive to fulfill the formula, SC=CI, therefore as you say we should strive for a white squared strategy, e4S>f5,wsq, >e4-Sp >>d5-Sp, e6,f7 ...[text shortened]... quared initiative after removing blacks white squared bishop, defender of the d5 area. wBxwB=+wI
" .... thus we have the two strategies running concurrently, until at least move 18 when the e4 strategy is fully realized and in order for us to fulfill the d4 pawn strategy i.e. occupying the dark squares and attacking the white d5 area we must adopt an e4 piece strategy aimed at e4,f5,e6,f7 is this also not the case, correct me if i am wrong."

I would not formulate the events on the board the way you do in the above quote. You do not fulfill a certain strategy by realising the goals of another. That's confusing.

At a certain point in the game, after the removal of Blacks SB, it is wise to decide to realise an e4 strategy, because f7 is still a weak square, and on top of that we have the chance to remove Black's strategic bishop. This circumstance weakens f7 (... and the f7 controlzone, including e4) even more. As a result of these circumstances it is wise to try and realise an e4 strategy. Because we cannot put a pawn on e4 we have to strive for a e4 piece strategy, occupying [ ... as a general rule, not meant as a forcing rigid "prescription" accompanying every move. (Sometimes the means are very refined in order to realise the goals of a strategy)] the white squares (Qe4 !) and attack the black squares.

Maybe you ( .. and I) can investigate whether the strategy changes during the last few ,not annotated, moves in the Tal-Granda Zuniga game.