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

The Bangiev method is about finding Candidate Moves.

I've read somewhere in this thread that you do not need to calculate moves when using the Bangiev method. Well, that's true ànd not true .... 😛

When determining the candidate moves you do not calculate, but you assess the situation on the board, the position, according to the Squares Strategy and after determining the candidate moves which meet the criteria formulated by the Squares Strategy in this particular position, you have to choose the Game Move ... and that's where the calculation comes in .... if necessary.

Do you agree, Robbie ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Bangiev method is about finding Candidate Moves.

I've read somewhere in this thread that you do not need to calculate moves when using the Bangiev method. Well, that's true ànd not true .... 😛

When determining the candidate moves you do not calculate, but you assess the situation on the board, the position, according to the Squares Strategy and af ...[text shortened]... ve ... and that's where the calculation comes in .... if necessary.

Do you agree, Robbie ?

absolutely, 100%, could not agree more, the confusion i think lies when statements are taken out of context,misrepresented or misunderstood, for example, Bangiev himself states, ' The thought process should allow the player to take adequate decisions whatever the situation in the game. Decisions are always based on a correct evaluation of the position and not on calculation of variations!'.

this on the surface looks as though Bangiev is disregarding variations and their subsequent effects, however it as you say Ivan, only partly the truth.

the method and its application by its very nature looks as things positionally first, THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH CONVENTIONAL POSITIONAL CONCEPTS such as open files, passed pawns, superiority of minor pieces etc, but with specific areas of strategic importance, squares which we are targeting and seeking to take control of or occupy, or others that we are trying to attack, and which retain their strategic significance for the duration of the game. when the candidate moves have been ascertained FIRST AND FOREMOSTLY through the application of the methodology, they are then verified to ascertain whether they are sound or otherwise, and this naturally takes calculation if its a tactical sequence, but sometimes not if we are simply occupying a square.

what is really interesting from this way is that there is always a specific criteria for making any move, we have subjugated the thought process within the realms of specific goals and targets and thus our moves are thoughtful and meaningful, thus as Bangiev states elsewhere, 'Every chess player frequently finds himself in the situation of having to decide between several possibilities. What he should aim to do is to take these decisions essentially not after calculating individual variations (which is of course important too) but rather after logical reflection; this can be achieved by all players including weaker ones. The starting points for this process of reflection are provided by the Bangiev method, which is intended to help you take the correct decisions.'.

The problem is that most players think in a radically different way, they immediately start to consider previously learned variations, look at extensive calculation without evaluating the position, without constructing a plan, i know i still play like this!

i leave the reader this consideration,

'Thoughts must always be subordinated to a specific goal or starting point. As Stefan Zweig pointed out, thoughts need a solid base or else they start to spin and create meaningless circles', and i should know, i have played millions of meaningless moves!

keep the thread alive Ivan if you can, i have been looking at a Fischer game and trying to evaluate the opening through the use of the method, its a Sicilian, Sozin attack, i may post it for your perusal and usual helpful comments - regards Robert. 😀

hi Ivan this consists simply of the opening as i wanted to ascertain your thoughts prior to posting the more complex middle game, anyhow, here goes

1. E:white, e5-Sp*, pf7*, +wI (e4S>f5, wsq), pc7*, +bI (e4S>d5, bsq),
CM:1.e4, +wI, +S(e4S>f5,wsq)
GM:1.e4...c5

2.E:white, e5-Sp*, pf7*, +wI (e4S>f5, wsq), Sqc7*, +bI (e4S>d5, bsq)
CM: (+wI), Nc3, Bc4, (+bI), Nf3, +bI, +S(e4S>d5, bsq), +D
GM: Nf3..Nc6

3.E:white, e5-Sp*, pf7*, +wI (e4S>f5, wsq), Sqc7*, +bI (e4S>d5, bsq)
CM:d4, +bI, +S(e4S>d5, bsq)
GM:d4...cxd4

3.E:white, >e4-Sp, pf2*, pc2*, pe4* (also inner squares are attacked d2, e3, f2)
CM:Nxd4 (>e4-Sp)
GM: Nxd4..Nf6

4.E:white, >e4-Sp, pe4*
CM:Nc3 (>e4-Sp, >pe4)
GM: Nc3...d6 (this move d6 is incredibly interesting from whites point of view as it weakens the inner squares of the e5-Sp, e6,f7, signaling that a white squared initiative may be possible, this is just my own thoughts and as yet i have found nothing in the methodology to indicate if this is the case or otherwise)

5.E:white, e5-Sp*, pf7*, +wI (e4S>f5, wsq), Sqc7*, +bI (e4S>d5, bsq)
CM:Bc4, +wI, +S(e4S>f5, wsq), +D
GM:Bc4...Bd7

6.E:white, e4-Sp*, Bc4*, pf2*, pc2* , >e4-Sp
CM:Bb3 Ad;>e4-Sp, >pc2, >Bc4-b3
GM;Bb3..e6 ( this type of move i found very difficult to evaluate using the method, as its a defensive type of measure, it does not attack anything, nor begin an initiative but seems to be a strengthening move to consolidate the white position, in this case the e4-Sp and particularly it gets the bishop to relative safety while defending the c2 vulnerability, your thoughts on this Ivan much appreciated)

7..E:white, e5-Sp*, pf7*, +wI (e4S>f5, wsq), Sqc7*, +bI (e4S>d5, bsq)
CM:0-0,+wI, +S(e4S>f5, wsq),+D
GM; 0-0...Be7 (here again Ivan i am unsure how to evaluate a castling move, quite clearly the rook is now pointing in the f7 direction, but it also defends f2, this has always been an area of confusion, thoughts appreciated)

8..here Fisher played Be3, another consolidating move which defends the pawn on f2 and over protects the knight on d4, how are we to evaluate such a move with regards to the methodology? does it begin some kind of attempt at a dark squared initiative, mmm, it seems to me to be more of a defensive measure so i leave it unassigned, perhaps you could interpret it in some way so as to throw some light on the matter.

hopefully you could find some time to air your thoughts, i left it deliberately short as i know you are real busy - regards Robert.

Chess Symbols - explain please!

(robbie or ivanhoe or someone)

Are these chess symbols typical for the "The Bangiev method" or is this same other method?

I've googled around the net but I couldn't find anything about this. What's the origin and who does use this unusual system?

wsq = white square
bsq = black square
CM = candidate move
GM = game move

Ok, so far i do follow, but what does the following symbols mean?

bI
+bI
wI
-sp
PiS
d4S
-SB
+D
SC=CI

-
+
*
**
>
>>
=>
( )

and others...

wS x N =>
e5-Sp, +bI, +S(d4S>c5,bsq)
e4S>d5,Bsq,>>e5,d6,c7*
CM:0-0,+wI, +S(e4S>f5, wsq),+D
3.E:white, >e4-Sp, pf2*, pc2*, pe4*

Be so kind and try to explain!

sure no problemo

Abbreviations (Explanation of symbols).

White:The position is considered from White's standpoint; White has the move.
Black:The position is considered from Black's standpoint; Black has the move.

SQ: Strategic question
DQ: The question of direction
CQ: The question of colour
CM: Candidate moves or moves worth considering
GM: Game move, most appropriate move
HM: Harmless move: it does nothing, but concedes nothing.
pap Pawn play
Pip Piece play
wsq on the white squares
bsq on the black squares
Sp Space
+Sp gain of space or space advantage
-Sp loss of space or space disadvantage
T tempo
+T gain of tempo
-T loss of tempo
S Strategy
+S reinforcement of the strategy
-S weakening of the strategy
M Material
+M gain of material
-M loss of material
C the centre
D Development
OD Best possible development (optimal)
+D Developing move or advantage in development
-D Disadvantage in development
I Initiative
+I Increase in the initiative
-I Decrease in the initiative
wI initiative on the white squares
+wI development of the white squared initiative
-wI loss of the white squared initiative
bI initiative on the black squares
+bI development of the black squared initiative
-bI loss of the black squared initiative
E: evaluation of the position
A: attention; pay close attention to
Ad: Advantage
Dis: Disadvantage
QS queenside
KS kingside
+KS kingside advantage
+QS queenside advantage
Sq square
Sqs squares, square complex
= exchange
>> put to the question, attack
> defend or protect
< prevent
* (space, piece, square) insufficiently well protected or under attack;
a piece which is passively placed or not placed to its best advantage
** (space, piece, square) sufficiently protected or not under attack;
a piece which is in play or placed to its best advantage

In addition, there are the usual designations of the pieces (K, Q, R, B, N) and p for pawn.

hi, if you need any explanation of the method or the strange looking text then please do not hesitate to ask - regards robbie - Bangiev lives!

So many thanks!! 🙂