Originally posted by BedlamHi Bedlam,
Square strategy one is pointless, Bangiev should have called it "I need a quick buck" It basicly consists of doing tactical problems while being told to look at the colour of the squares.....thats fine but really you can just do that for any tactical problem set......
I didnt bother with part two....opening strategy might go back and buy it one day but pro can be an eye opener and worth getting if you dont mind putting a bit of hard work into it.
Thanks for reacting to my post, I really appreciate it.
Bedlam: "Square Strategy 3 is really quite good ... "
All right !
Bedlam: " .... where as the first CD came without any real documentation to Bangiev square strategy the 3rd makes up for it in a big way."
That sounds very promising. I was thinking of buying this CD and now I finally made up my mind about it. I'm going to order it.
Bedlam: "My slight qubbile with the stategy is that its aimed at e4-e5 d4-d5 strategies....while working through the CD I often found myself thinking "ok but I sometime play the dutch and Benko etc....how does this work with the square stategy."
As far as I have been able to understand the Bangiev method so far, please keep in mind that I am a beginning student in this field, I would say the Dutch is a d5 strategy.
In the position after 1. d4 ... if black wants to prevent white from switching to an e4 strategy by playing e2-e4, he can play 1. ... Nf6, 2. ... d5, or 2. ... f5 to accomplish this. In doing so black plays a d5 strategy, allowing black to attack his d5 zone by playing c4. He's even allowing white to play d4-d5 and thus allowing white to occupy his d5 zone. Now whether this is indeed a white candidate move which deserves to become the game move for white of course remains to be seen.
After 1. d4 f5 white usually plays 2. ... c4 attacking black's d5 zone, it will depend on the plan black has in mind whether he'll go for a d5 strategy, the Stonewall, or whether he'll go for wanting to play e7-e5 after the necessary preparation. He may choose the Old Dutch set up with d7-d6 and e7-e6 with the plan to play e6-e5 later. If black aims at playing d5 it will become a d5 strategy and if he's preparing to play e5, he will be playing an e5 strategy. This of course can fail if black doesn't watch out. But as you know the Strategy Question has to be asked and answered after each move which is being played.
The safe way to prevent white from playing an e4 strategy after 1.d4 still is 1. ... d5, very classical or the modern way with 1. ... Nf6, in my humble opinion.
I'll think about the Benko Gambit. My guess is that it is also a d5 strategy.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by ivanhoehm, Im not sure how much you have seen of the Bangiev method, a lot of it is aimed at controling the base the square strategy areas, against 1.e4 ie c2 and g2, not to mention the squares leading up to these points, once you control one of these squares then the other person is ment to be toast. The CD's demonstrate these positions time and time again but I really dont think it can be applied to every opening/position. Take the Benko the idea of just controling the b2 square is too simplistic black can basicly get all his pieces pointing at it anyway, white can hold....this is where the Bangiev method can fall short. I wouldnt keep trying to play the Bangiev plan in such a game.
Hi Bedlam,
Thanks for reacting to my post, I really appreciate it.
[b]Bedlam: "Square Strategy 3 is really quite good ... "
All right !
Bedlam: " .... where as the first CD came without any real documentation to Bangiev square strategy the 3rd makes up for it in a big way."
That sounds very promising. I was thinking of buying this
I'll think about the Benko Gambit. My guess is that it is also a d5 strategy.[/b]
In the CD Bangiev only talks about the areas e4-c2-g2/d4-b2-f2 and their black counter parts I dont believe all chess positions revolve around these plans. Bangiev tries to take this approach to just about every position....while I dont doubt it has some value its more of a tool to be used now and again rather than the answer to every chess question you have.
Originally posted by BedlamBedlam: " .... its more of a tool to be used now and again rather than the answer to every chess question you have."
hm, Im not sure how much you have seen of the Bangiev method, a lot of it is aimed at controling the base the square strategy areas, against 1.e4 ie c2 and g2, not to mention the squares leading up to these points, once you control one of these squares then the other person is ment to be toast. The CD's demonstrate these positions time and time again but I ...[text shortened]... ore of a tool to be used now and again rather than the answer to every chess question you have.
The Bangiev method certainly isn't the answer to every chess question. It is "merely" a method of deciding which are the candidate-moves in a given position. The calculation of the resulting variations for instance is not, as such, a part of the Bangiev method, unless of course you reach a point where you need to select candidate moves. Neither is studying the Bangiev method a replacement for studying positional and strategic chess. The method is just one tool in the box of the chess player. That's why the Bangiev method cannot be called an overall chess "philosophy" or a new theory on how to play chess. The discoveries made by Philodor, Steinitz, Tarrash and of course Nimzowitch, who laid the fundaments of modern positional chess, still stand and will stand in the future.
This knowledge from the past forms the basis of the knowledge invested in the Bangiev method, which is aimed at finding the candidate moves and the same knowledge given to us by these chess giants is absolutely necessary in deciding, after thorough investigation and calculation, which one of the candidate moves will be the actual game move.
The Bangiev method is a way of structuring and streamlining one's chess thinking, making it more efficient, aiming the thought proces towards certain goals, set by the chosen strategy, the chosen direction and the chosen colour of the initiative. If one does not posses any knowledge about positional chess for instance, or if one absolutely doesn't have a clue about calculating chess variations, then the Bangiev method certainly will not be a replacement for this lack in one's chess knowledge.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by ivanhoeSorry, my little rant about the SS not being fine for every position/opening was aimed at the review for the SS
[b]Bedlam: " .... its more of a tool to be used now and again rather than the answer to every chess question you have."
The Bangiev method certainly isn't the answer to every chess question. It is "merely" a method of deciding which are the candidate-moves in a given position. The calculation of the resulting variations for instance is not, as such, a tigation and calculation, which one of the candidate moves will be the actual game move.[/b]
"The Bangiev method of thinking is a strategy based on squares. Before every move, it therefore checks the constellation of pieces against quite specific pre-determined criteria. What it encourages is not your memory but your thinking: learn to understand the logic of the game by means of a few rules! It always the same restricted number of questions which you have to ask yourself and to answer at whatever stage of the game. Once you have understood the principle, you can have the pleasure of discovering that, with a little practice, you are always able to find the best move."
I believe this to be quite misleading...
The third CD certainly gave me food for thought, the square colour complex ideas especially. Since doing the CD's iv looked at my own thought process and made it much more stuctured, adding to it the parts of the Square Strategy that I like.....this has been the main impact of the Bangeiv stategy on my chess. I certainly dont seek to impliment the Square Strategy in its pure form in my own games, but I imagine some people do with great results, its pretty much a taste thing I guess...however there is no doubt the CD does contain a lot of useful info/ideas.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
This is the thought process iv been using since doing the Square Strategy. Just copied and pasted from a post I made earlier.
1. Define areas of control.
This is basicly something that iv learned from IM Bangievs square strategy training(although I do it a little different to his recommendation). The first thing I do on each move to to look at the area I control and the area the other player controls. This helps show yours and their general strong and weak points of the board, just to get an over all feel for the game.
2. Define direction of attacks.
So you know the area that you control (where your pieces are coordinated) now you need to find in which direction you want to attack, pieces can normally only work well when working together on one part of the board, so you need to group them and coordinate them there.
3. Square complex/colour weaknesses (maybe the most important)
A lot of the middle game of chess is all about square colour. You can only attack one colour at a time, if you try to play on black and white, then your pieces automaticly become uncoordinated, however once you define which colour you want to play on and get all your pieces controling squares of that colour you will find a flow to the game and the other player will find it very hard to stop you from moving around on the colour you control. Try to limit your colour weaknesses and if you have one, trade off the other players pieces that can control the weak squares.
4. Enemy pieces to be challenged (traded).
I expect everyone knows what the pieces are worth, pawns = 1 knights =3 bishops = 3+ rooks = 5 and queen =9........... well thats a good lie. The piece values are never static, for example at the start of the game the rooks in the corners are basicly pointless and after 1.Nf3 the knight is better than the rooks (at least for that move) since it is doing something and the rooks arent. You have to make pieces work for you in the most effective way, which normally means centralisation, a cental piece will control more squares. If a bishop can control more squares than a rook, or more important squares then the bishop is worth maybe 5 and the limited rook is worth 3.5 etc, its all about your judgement. You have to look at each piece and give it a value, a rating, how good is this piece etc. Once you have worked out how good each piece is you then know which one of your pieces you need to keep on and which of the enemy pieces you need to trade, if you can trade your bad pieces for their good pieces you will find yourself winning effortlessly.
5. Own pieces to use and how.
Pretty much like the last one, you are aiming for max amount of control with your pieces, finding good squares for them or exchanging them for better enemy pieces.
6. Enemy plan
Work it out!
7. Your plan
Get one!! ie, short term improving piece position, controling a colour, challenging the other players good pieces. Maybe move a pawn to take away a good square from an enemy piece (mainly knight), but also have a long term plan, like kingside attack, on central breakthrough.
8. Look for tactical chances.
Weak king
Undefended piece
Weak pawns
Overloaded piece
etc
If they have only one weakness dont attack it, ie if a piece is undefended DONT attack it leave it undefended because the only way tactics or combinations happen is the rule of two weaknesses. You need to hit two weaknesses at once for a tactic to work, so dont help the other player and pointless attack things forcing them to strengthen their position.
9. Positional moves
If theres no tactical tries then its time to use everything you looked at and judged in the position and start to list candidate moves. Once you have the moves, caculate and find the best one for you.
Imrpoving the position of your pieces.
Trading good enemy pieces
Taking away good squares from their pieces
Trying to control a colour complex
Gain space
Controling center
Controling open files
Prophylaxis moves (ie taking care of your own weaknesses, undefended pieces, exposed king etc etc)
etc
Originally posted by BedlamWell first of all we need to establish that in this position white is allready two pawns up.
This is what im talking about, applying the Bangiev method here would probably come back with a "erm...hmm..errr"
[fen]2r3k1/1r2pp1p/1n1p2p1/qN1P4/P1P1P3/1Q4PP/1R3PK1/2R5 b - - 0 25[/fen]
The thought process can still apply in parts but not in total.
On the first CD, Squares Strategy 1, Bangiev explains that the positions chosen on this CD are positions in which both sides are materially more or less equal, there is a certain balance in the position. By selecting the candidate moves and deciding on the game move one hopes to turn things in one's favour. The above position does not meet these criteria. The decision has allready occured in the game. White is two pawns up. White has a won position.
But still you can apply the basic ideas of the Bangiev method, deciding the Question of Direction = c6, and the Colour Question = black.
Candidate moves are Nd4 with the idea of Nc6 and Qb4.
Originally posted by cmsMastercmsMaster: "Doesn't Art of Attack focus on the same topic at points?"
Bedlam used to teach me chess on Playchess, and he taught me a bit about color coordination, obviously based on squares. IDK if this is where he got it from, but it definitely makes sense. I'd look into it.
Doesn't Art of Attack focus on the same topic at points?
Sure. Vukovic calls the relevant squares in the vicinity of the king, focal points. You could call the material Vukovic presents, an area on which the B-method also is applicable, a special application of the B-method. As I pointed out in a previous post, the accumulated chess knowledge from the past is incorporated into the knowledge on which the B-method is based.
Same goes for Nimzowich's idea of "Überdeckung" ("Overprotection" ).
Originally posted by ivanhoeOk, yeah, because pretty much everything in Art of Attack in Chess is incredible and very useful knowledge. Although from reading some of Bedlam's comments I'm a little skeptical of some of the B-Method ideas, although I think looking over it may be quite helpful.
cmsMaster: "Doesn't Art of Attack focus on the same topic at points?"
Sure. Vukovic calls the relevant squares in the vicinity of the king, focal points. You could call the material Vukovic presents, an area on which the B-method also is applicable, a special application of the B-method. As I pointed out in a previous post. The accumulated chess kn ...[text shortened]... method is based.
Same goes for Nimzowich's idea of "Überdeckung" ("Overprotection" ).
Nimzowich's idea of overprotection is suspect at best, imo.
Originally posted by BLReidMaybe you should also do what I did. I gave a short description of how I handled the first CD in my fourth post in this thread (10 Nov '06 20:33 )
Here’s a much less forgiving review of Squares Strategy 1 from ChessCafe.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review469.pdf
I fully appreciate that you and Bedlam are much stronger players than me, but if the path for me to reach your level goes through Bangiev’s training, then I’m afraid I will never get there.
Looking at your max rating here at RHP, there is no reason to assume you will not be able to do what I did.
Originally posted by Bedlam[/i]Bedlam: " ..... Once you have understood the principle, you can have the pleasure of discovering that, with a little practice, you are always able to find the best move."
Sorry, my little rant about the SS not being fine for every position/opening was aimed at the review for the SS
[i]"The Bangiev method of thinking is a strategy based on squares. Before every move, it therefore checks the constellation of pieces against quite specific pre-determined criteria. What it encourages is not your memory but your thinking: learn ste thing I guess...however there is no doubt the CD does contain a lot of useful info/ideas.
I believe this to be quite misleading... "
Absolutely, it makes people expect too much. It should say that the Bangiev method is a way of selecting candidate moves, no more no less.
I guess the people from the sales department had to much influence in deciding what should be written on the backside of the CD. They should be more careful with making people expect something that the B-method does not give. The Bangiev method deserves an honest approach.
Bedlam, I will respond to your posts later. I'm not sure when, but certainly within a couple of days. They deserve a close reading and I haven't got the time for this right now.
See y'all.
By the way, I hope there will be more RHP people who study or use the Bangiev method and are willing to share their experiences with us here in this thread.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think its the marketing sales pitch that causes the Bangiev method to get quite a bit of bad press, shame really.
[/i][b]Bedlam: " ..... Once you have understood the principle, you can have the pleasure of discovering that, with a little practice, you are always able to find the best move."
I believe this to be quite misleading... "
Absolutely, it makes people expect too much. It should say that the Bangiev method is a way of selecting candidate moves, no more ...[text shortened]... ct something that the B-method does not give. The Bangiev method deserves an honest approach.[/b]
What would be an intresting experiment is if someone took say 4 players of different ability 1400-1600-1800-2000 and gave them a thought process method then had them solve 20 positions both tactical and positional then give them another thought process method and solve 20 more positions of simlar difficulty and see how well they preform with each thought process. One might get a feel for the strong points and weak points of any thought process and answer the question of is one better than the other.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe first CD only askes 3 questions of every position...the 3rd askes quite a bit more. Squares...the ones you control, their area, the direction you will play in, weak squares. Pieces, which of the enemy pieces need to be traded, which of your own to use, strategy. Then selecting candidate moves. The typical Candidate move in B-Notation would look like this....
Well first of all we need to establish that in this position white is allready two pawns up.
On the first CD, Squares Strategy 1, Bangiev explains that the positions chosen on this CD are positions in which both sides are materially more or less equal, there is a certain balance in the position. By selecting the candidate moves and deciding on the game = c6, and the Colour Question = black.
Candidate moves are Nd4 with the idea of Nc6 and Qb4.
White: d4-strategy >d4-†, +S (d4S>c5,bsq); CoZ: (¬¬ d4, c5, d6, c7); +End, +PiS (-¬d4); EP: >> Nc6, Bf8; CM: 12.Rc1 (Nc6*), 12.Nc6;
White d4 strategy in the direction of c5, Squares to control d4, c5, d6, c7. Aiming for an endgame (+end) Piece strategy (+pis) Enemy pieces to be challenged/traded Nc6, Bf8, Candidate moves Rc1 pressuring the knight on c6 or 12.Nxc6
Not all the questions it askes nor methods are useful in every position. In a defensive position with the exception of working out what the opponent might do next they are even less useful.
Originally posted by BedlamWell, this certainly looks quite impressive and makes a thorough impression. Bangiev would be proud of you. 🙂
This is the thought process iv been using since doing the Square Strategy. Just copied and pasted from a post I made earlier.
1. Define areas of control.
This is basicly something that iv learned from IM Bangievs square strategy training(although I do it a little different to his recommendation). The first thing I do on each move to to look at the are ...[text shortened]... xis moves (ie taking care of your own weaknesses, undefended pieces, exposed king etc etc)
etc