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.
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.