Rule of co-ordination SC=IC in the Bangiev Squa...

'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 realizing the goals of another. That's confusing',

yes as you can tell there still exists confusion in my mind, i thought that Bangiev stated that pressure was difficult to keep up on the two opposing areas, but possible, however he also states that we may realize the success of one strategic area but our opponent can utilize another, thus if we succeed in destroying the e5 are, he may very well have secured the d5 area and stand well, it just seemed kind of harmonious to suppose that we could realize both strategies exerting pressure and working harmoniously together, thus a d4S>e5,wsq PaS, could be bolstered and strengthened, even realized by an e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, but as you say its confusing, and its where these changes occur that the confusion lies for me, and anyhow its dangerous to base anything on a supposition.

I will post my annotations as soon as i can, its a game against a java chess program supreme chess that i practice against, and naturally if its useful for you, even if erroneous, then I will be happy - regards Robert.

Hi ivan here is the annotations i promised, please note the they were all made in retrospect as i tried to apply Bangiev theory as a rational basis for the moves that were made. perhaps there are some things that are obviously erroneous and i would appreciate it very much if you brought these to the fore, as its not always possible to see ourselves the way others see us - regards Robert.



1. e4 e6
E:white:d5-Sp**, e5-Sp*,c7sq*, (e4S>d5,Bsq,>>e5,d6,c7*),
CM:d4,Nf3,d3-Bf4,Nc3-Nb5, c3-d4, GM:Nf3,+bI,+S,+D

2. Nf3 Nc6 ,
E:white;d5-Sp**,e5-Sp*,c7* +bI, e4S>d5,bsq,
CM;d4,Bb5,c3-d4,Nc3-b5,GM:d4 +bI, +S, (e4S>d5,bsq)}

3. d4 Nf6
E;white, e5-Sp*,c7*,Nc6*,+bI, A:pe4*, CM:e5, GM:e5 +bI, +S(d4S>c5,bsq, >>d6,c7*)

4. e5 Ne4
E:White; d4S, >d4-Sp >>d5-Sp , d4S>e5,wsq (>>d5,e6,f7*), +wI,
pf7*, SC=IC, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, CM:Bd3, GM:Bd3, +wI, +D, +S (e4S>f5,wsq), Ad:>>e4,f5}

5. Bd3 f5
E: white d5-Sp*, f7*, +wI, SC=CI, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, CM; Nd2,
Qe2, GM:Qe2, +wI, +S(e4S>f5,wsq), +D

6. Qe2 d5
E:white, e5-Sp*, c7*, +bI,
d4S>c5,bsq, d5-Sp*, pe6*, sqf7*, +wI, e4S>f5,wsq CM:exd5 en passant, Ad:d5-sp* +wI +S(e4S>f5,wsq) and >>e5-Sp, +bI, +S(d4S>c5,bsq)

7. exd6 Bxd6
E:white, d5-sp*, pe6*,sqf7*, +wI, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, Plan:BxNe4 pxe4 Qxe4 +wI,
CM:Bxe4, +wI, +S(e4S.f5,wsq), GM:Bxe4

8. Bxe4 fxe4
E:white, d5-sp*, pe6*,sqf7*, +wI, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, CM:Qxe4, +wI, +S(e4S>f5,wsq), GM:Qxe4

9. Qxe4 Be7
E:white, e4-Sp**, e5-sp*, A: c7*, g7* +bI, SC=IC, d4S>c5,bsq, d4S>e5,bsq(g7*), CM:Bf4, +bI, +S(d4S>c5,bsq), +D, GM:Bf4

10. Bf4 O-O
E:white, e4-Sp**,e5-sp*, A: c7*, g7* +bI, SC=IC, d4S>c5,bsq, d4S>e5,bsq (g7*), CM:Nbd2-c4, +bI,
+S(d4S>c5,bsq), +D, GM:Nbd2

11. Nbd2 Rf5
E:white, d4-Sp*, pd4*, >d4-Sp, CM:c3, GM:c3

12. c3 g5
E:white, d4-Sp*, Bf4*, >d4-Sp, CM:Bg3, GM:Bg3

13. Bg3 Bd7
E:white, h7*, +wI,
SC=CI, e4S>f5,wsq, h7*, CoZ,e4,f5,e6,f7,g6,h7, and here it gets hazy!

14. h4 gxh4
15. Bxh4 Bxh4
16. Rxh4 b5
17. O-O-O Qe8
18. Rdh1 h5
19. Rxh5Rxh5
20. Qg4+ Kf7
21. Qxh5+ Kg7
22. Qh7+ Kf8
23. Qh6+ Kf7
24. Qf4+ Kg7
25. Ne5Nxe5
26. Qxe5+ Kg6
27. Qg3+ Kf5
28. Rh6 e5
29. Qh3+ Kf4
30. g3+ Kg5
31. Ne4# *

I'll study the game and formulate my comments .... if necessary 😉 .....

It may take a while though. I'm busy at the moment.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'll study the game and formulate my comments .... if necessary 😉 .....

It may take a while though. I'm busy at the moment.

sure Ivan, no problem, even if you want to post some of your own games if you have the respective annotations i would be really happy to look at them and study your train of thought. in reality i am just glad to find someone in chess cyberworld who is serious about applying the theory - regards Robert.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi ivan here is the annotations i promised, please note the they were all made in retrospect as i tried to apply Bangiev theory as a rational basis for the moves that were made. perhaps there are some things that are obviously erroneous and i would appreciate it very much if you brought these to the fore, as its not always possible to see ourselves ...[text shortened]... 5. Ne5Nxe5
26. Qxe5+ Kg6
27. Qg3+ Kf5
28. Rh6 e5
29. Qh3+ Kf4
30. g3+ Kg5
31. Ne4# *

1. e4 e6

Black intends d5.

White:e5-O*; Pawnc7* (Pawnf7**); +bI; +S (d4S)

(e4S>d5,Bsq,>>e5,d6,c7)

CM:d4 ( +d4 Strategy,+bsq, >>e5, c5)


[E:white:d5-Sp**, e5-Sp*,c7sq*, (e4S>d5,Bsq,>>e5,d6,c7*),
CM:d4,Nf3,d3-Bf4,Nc3-Nb5, c3-d4, GM:Nf3,+bI,+S,+D ]

In my opinion you should only write down the Candidate Moves after CM thus making a clear distinction between the candidate moves and an eventual plan(= a sequence of moves)

2. Nf3 ...

If you chose this CM you allow black to switch to, for instance, the Sicilian, 2. ... c5.

2. ... Nc6 ,
[E:white;d5-Sp**,e5-Sp*,c7* +bI, e4S>d5,bsq,
CM;d4,Bb5,c3-d4,Nc3-b5,GM:d4 +bI, +S, (e4S>d5,bsq)]

The move d4 is a condition to realise the d4 strategy.


Maybe a d4 strategy direction c5 is also possible. (sqc7*)


3. d4 (!) Nf6

[E;white, e5-Sp*,c7*,Nc6*,+bI, A:pe4*, CM:e5, GM:e5 +bI, +S(d4S>c5,bsq, >>d6,c7*)]

The move 4. e5 ... attacks the knight on f6 and thus weakens Blacks control of the white squares , (sqd5, sqe4, sqh7*), +d4S, direction e5, +wI, Nf6* (d4S>e5,wsq)

By playing e5 White is pursueing the goals of the d4 strategy, occupying the dark squares and (... indirectly) attacking the white squares (... weakening the white squares d5, e4, h7)

4. e5 Ne4
[E:White; d4S, >d4-Sp >>d5-Sp , d4S>e5,wsq (>>d5,e6,f7*), +wI,
pf7*, SC=IC, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, CM:Bd3, GM:Bd3, +wI, +D, +S (e4S>f5,wsq), Ad:>>e4,f5} ]

Ne4*

For me the question is whether we have in this position an e4 or a d4 strategy. I vote for a d4 pawn strategy. If we want to attack the white squares on the kingside, we should strive for an e4 piece strategy direction f5.

5. Bd3 f5
[E: white d5-Sp*, f7*, +wI, SC=CI, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, CM; Nd2,
Qe2, GM:Qe2, +wI, +S(e4S>f5,wsq), +D]

At this moment there is not an e4 piece strategy yet.

Nd2 -D (Bc1)

6. Qe2 d5
[E:white, e5-Sp*, c7*, +bI,
d4S>c5,bsq, d5-Sp*, pe6*, sqf7*, +wI, e4S>f5,wsq CM:exd5 en passant, Ad:d5-sp* +wI +S(e4S>f5,wsq) and >>e5-Sp, +bI, +S(d4S>c5,bsq)]


7. exd6 Bxd6

At this moment I would forget the c7 square and focus on a kingside attack, because the squares e6 and f7 have been weakened seriously.

[E:white, d5-sp*, pe6*,sqf7*, +wI, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, Plan:BxNe4 pxe4 Qxe4 +wI,
CM:Bxe4, +wI, +S(e4S.f5,wsq), GM:Bxe4 ]

By removing the knight on e4 we weaken Black's control of the black squares (in particular f6 and g5). Because white gives his white bishop for a knight. This action strengthens white's control over the black squares and weakens white's control over the white squares.

By removing the pawns on f5 and gainig the pawn on e4, white strenghtens his control over these white squares and at the same time establishes the e4 piece strategy.

8. Bxe4 fxe4
[E:white, d5-sp*, pe6*,sqf7*, +wI, e4S>f5,wsq, PiS, CM:Qxe4, +wI, +S(e4S>f5,wsq), GM:Qxe4]

+M

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

I want to stop here for the moment.

If you want you can give your comments on this part of my annotations.

Going over your game and making the annotations I found it rather difficult to give meaningful comments. Pffffft ..... 🙂

Hi Ivan, been having a little debate with other users of this site over the merits of Bangievs theory. they inevitably want evidence of its effectiveness before trying, i did my best to reassure them of its merits, rather unconvincingly i imagine, however, thanks for taking the time, your comments are really helpful and my understanding has increased. you are correct, as soon as 4.e5 is played, the game then becomes (d4S) as in the previous Tal game. however, why is this the case, and i agree with you fully that d4 is a prerequisite of the d4 strategy, however, say we have chosen the move 1.e4 e5, we can then follow up with moves like Nf3, d4, f4, c3 intending d4 all of which are intended to put pressure on the dark squares, yet the strategy remains white, in that we are trying to defend the e4 area and attack the e5 area, therefore rather than a move like say 1.e4 e5, 2.d4 changing the strategy, our intention is not to occupy the d4 square, but to challenge the e5 square, thus it remains an e4S>d5,bsq , the same with the move 1.e4 e5, 2.f4, again putting pressure on the dark squares, especially e5, (e4S>d5,bsq >e4 >>e5,d6,c7) however our intention is not to occupy the dark squares rather the white, therefore the threat is not fxe5 but the pawn push f5 occupying the white f5 square, hopefully this makes sense and has not confused matters even further. it would be really good if you had one of your own annotated games, perhaps i may look at one and do so in my primitive fashion, i would post one of mine but they are of such poor quality that the benefits would be negligible - regards and thanks so much Robert.

ps. if you could find five minutes to relate any benefits that you have received this would be incredibly interesting😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi Ivan, been having a little debate with other users of this site over the merits of Bangievs theory. they inevitably want evidence of its effectiveness before trying, i did my best to reassure them of its merits, rather unconvincingly i imagine, however, thanks for taking the time, your comments are really helpful and my understanding has increase ...[text shortened]... ive minutes to relate any benefits that you have received this would be incredibly interesting😀

Well, to comment on your last remark: It is very helpful to discuss the ins and outs of the Squares Strategy in order to deepen one's insight in what it is all about.

Hi Ivan, been having a little debate with other users of this site over the merits of Bangievs theory.

In short: The merits of Bangievs theory is that this theory increases one's understanding of what the importance is of certain squares or certain complexes of squares in a given position.


PS. I'm working on the other remarks you made.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie..... you are correct, as soon as 4.e5 is played, the game then becomes (d4S) as in the previous Tal game. however, why is this the case, and i agree with you fully that d4 is a prerequisite of the d4 strategy, however, say we have chosen the move 1.e4 e5, we can then follow up with moves like Nf3, d4, f4, c3 intending d4 all of which are intended to put ...[text shortened]... te, therefore the threat is not fxe5 but the pawn push f5 occupying the white f5 square, ...... [/b]

..... therefore rather than a move like say 1.e4 e5, 2.d4 changing the strategy, ....

In order to understand what you are trying to communicate, the following question:

What makes you think white's e4 strategy changes after 1.e4 e5

... our intention is not to occupy the d4 square, but to challenge the e5 square, thus it remains an e4S>d5,bsq ,2.d4 ...


Correct.

1. e4 e5
2. d4 ... White: Ad: Pawne5*, +bI, +S (e4S>d5,bsq), +D; Dis: Pawnd4* (…2...ed4), Pawne4*;


From Black's point of view:

1.e4 ...

Black: Pawnf2*: +bI; CM: 1...e5 …Idea Bc5; e4-O**; d4-O*

2. ... e5

Black: Ad: …Idea Bc5; +bI; +S (e5S>f4,bsq); Dis: pawne5*; d5-O*;
Goals:> e5-O: protect Squares(c7,d6,e5,f6,g7), occupy (d2 and/or f2 controlzones); protect(d7,e6,f7) ; >> e4-O : >> Squares(d2,e3,f2) Goal: occupy (d2 and/or f2 controlzones) +bI; Squares (c2,d3,e4,f3,g2) Goal: attack (c2,d3,e4,f3,g2); +wI; Pawnf2* +bI: on the KS "bsq"; Pawnc2*: on the QS "wsq";

2.d4 ...

Black: e5S>d4, wsq; CM: 2...ed4, 2...¤f6;



Source: Alexander Bangiev, Squares Strategy 2, Opening.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie.... it would be really good if you had one of your own annotated games, ...[/b]

I'm not annotating my games yet with the help of the Bangiev method. I'm still trying to understand the method by studying the CD's.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'm not annotating my games yet with the help of the Bangiev method. I'm still trying to understand the method by studying the CD's.

ok, yes Ivan, thanks for your helpful advice, really it has cleared up some areas of confusion in my mind. i posted one of his lessons, the very first one infact, which he uses to illustrate his method, Andersen, Kieseritzky, London 1851 under the book post, to see if the tacticians could solve and find the strongest continuation. Actually they did very well, it was just an experiment really, but perhaps it may inspire others to take the method seriously.😀

A.Bangiev has its own site(s) at:

http://bangiev.de/

http://bangiev-bibliothek.de/

German language though .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
A.Bangiev has its own site(s) at:

http://bangiev.de/

http://bangiev-bibliothek.de/

German language though .....

.... but I'm quite sure if you ask a question in English he will answer you in English.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... but I'm quite sure if you ask a question in English he will answer you in English.

do you really think that he would? amazing, even if he doesn't i could get my friend from Bavaria to translate for me. anyhow, Ivanhoe, thanks for last comments on book topic, and yes like you say this illustrated the concept for tactics, can you think of any good examples, that could be utilized to illustrate the concepts well for the middle game. because of the enthusiasm of the participants i promised them i would submit another! lol, 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do you really think that he would? amazing, even if he doesn't i could get my friend from Bavaria to translate for me. anyhow, Ivanhoe, thanks for last comments on book topic, and yes like you say this illustrated the concept for tactics, can you think of any good examples, that could be utilized to illustrate the concepts well for the middle game. because of the enthusiasm of the participants i promised them i would submit another! lol, 😀

My advice: chose compact and concise examples. Also keep in mind with what goal the examples were chosen. They were chosen in order to illustrate a certain aspect of chess.

For instance the section "Planning in a chess game" ( ... CD III, Middlegame) gives the example of the Capablanca-Treybal game. The section "Conducting an attack" gives the example Bosboom-Khenkin.

I think it's best you choose a subject and a corresponding example you yourself find clear, interesting and attractive.