Hi,
I know that attacking too early results in a horrible death but smashing your oppenent early is a large part of winning the game. How do you know whether you are striking when the iorn's hot or if you are just being fool hardy?
I find it very hard to get this iming of the game right. If anyone has an ideas/views they'll be much appriciated!
Thanks
Originally posted by KingoftheRinkme too
Hi,
I know that attacking too early results in a horrible death but smashing your oppenent early is a large part of winning the game. How do you know whether you are striking when the iorn's hot or if you are just being fool hardy?
I find it very hard to get this iming of the game right. If anyone has an ideas/views they'll be much appriciated!
Thanks
Originally posted by KingoftheRinkKnowing when to attack is just something that strong players develop a sense for. Here'a a general set of guidelines thst msy be helpful.
Hi,
I know that attacking too early results in a horrible death but smashing your oppenent early is a large part of winning the game. How do you know whether you are striking when the iorn's hot or if you are just being fool hardy ...[text shortened]... anyone has an ideas/views they'll be much appriciated!
Thanks
1. Don't try to play in an area of the board where you have no favorable imbalances. If your opponent is castled on the kingside, but you don't have any space or force in that area, then you have to ignore his king and play elsewhere. The way to tell if you have space is this: if the center is locked, look at which way your pawns "point". If it's not locked, look at where you have more squares under your pawns' control but not under his pawns' control. That is where you should be playing.
2. This kind of goes along with the first one, but don't try to attack on the flank if the center is still up for grabs. By the same token, if your oppoennet is attacking on the flank, look to strike back in the center.
3. If the center is locked, you must use pawns to battle for open lines. Typically these are the c and f pawns.
4. If your opponent is behind in development and king still in the center, and the center is partially open, look for a way to bust open the center and keep him from castling. This sort of position must be played fast, or he will get his king castled and catch up in development, and your advantage will be gone. Don't be afraid to sacrfiice a pawn or two, or maybe even a piece, if you can see that the reward will clearly be greater.
5. If your opponenet is behind in development but the center is completely locked, don't rush things and try to force things open. Just continue to play sensiblly and use your advantage in development to improve your position.
6. With kings castled on opposite wings, usually the plans of both sides are to rush their pawns forward and try to pry open the other's castled king's position. When this happens, try as much as possible to ignore his advances and concentrate on your own plan. Play defensive moves only when you MUST. Usually the first person to go into total defensive mode is the one who will end up losing. Once again, don;t be afraid to sacrifice a pawn, especially if it helps you keep the initiative.
I hope these have been helpful and not over anyone's head. 🙂
Originally posted by wibLol.....is it THAT obvious? Silman is terrific. My rating improved by about 100 points almost instantly after I read "The Amatuer's Mind". Then I finally got a used copy of "Reassess Your Chess" and that's where the learning really began.
Ah, another Silman student I see. Good advice NS.
I've learned more from Silman's books than I've ever learned from anything or anyone else. He's outstanding. And he completely changed the way I play chess.
LOL! Yes it is. It also shows that I did the exact same thing.
I got Reasess, Amateur, and one called the Chess Workbook or something like that. It's a series of problems and analysis with the answers in the back.
The Amatuer's mind was absolutely eye opening. I did EVERYTHING wrong exactly as he talks about with his students in that book - King hunting at all costs, playing on the wrong side of the board, making one move threats, setting traps and "hoping" my opponent wouldn't see it, reacting to my opponents threats and not having a plan of my own, I mean everything. I highly recommend that book to everyone except the highest rated players. I'm not sure what they'd get from it, but for everyone else it's amazing.
There's a book out there that I've seen, but don't own, by Tal about how to attack. Written just before his death, as in he didn't complete it. The bits I've seen are, predictably, REALLY GOOD.
Regardless... as the designated psycho attacker of the group, a couple suggestions of my own. More basic, if only because I don't dare speak to less basic. 🙂
1. Everything Natural Science said
2. Steinitz said it best. If you have an advantage, you gotta attack. Moral duty. Or it'll go away.
3. If your opponent has seriously weakened his king by unwarranted pawn moves, this is an opportunity to attack. The classic one, of course, is f6/f3 anytime before castling, which is almost always a huge beginner's blunder. Also, if they've castled kingside, an advanced h pawn is often a weakness, especially if they've also moved/traded their f pawn. This leaves the g file almost totally defenseless, and is a good oppportunity to attack.
4. Tal had this great concept called "launching" which appears in the aforementioned book -- the basic idea, as I understand it, is to put your pieces in positions close to the enemy king, not necessarily making any threats just at the moment, so that, if an opportunity arises, they're already there to attack.
Everything said above sounds groovy.
Also, I believe the time to attack is when you have a few different lines of attack, and have a little flexibility in terms of options of attack. It's very effective to change the focus of the attack once the defence begins.
yours briefly...
Yep- what NS said is all stuff that is true in more positions than it isn't. Like most rules of thumb though, there are a lot of exceptions... if you have a good reason to break them, go ahead. Part of getting better is getting better at knowing when to break them... but probly best to be a bit chary about it 🙂.
A good book on knowing when to attack, and how to do it safely, is "Storming The Barricades", by Larry Christiansen- one of the few players (along with Tal I think?) to have gone straight to GM without passing IM. It's mostly just a lot of annotated go for the throat games, and game fragments, but it's very nicely done, and has a great chapter called "How Not to Attack". I always like it when good players include their own losses in books. One thing it does well is talk about how to attack safely- Alekhine is a good guy to look at for that as well.
For pawn storms with opposite side castling Kotov's section of the Keres and Kotov book (art of the middlegame?) is really good (not to mention that Keres' section on analyzing adjourned positions might have been tailor-made for correspondence players, while its relevance has fallen for OTB play, as adjourrnments are rare in OTB play now). A big feature of these positions is whether or not you can win tempi while advancing your pawns on the appropriate side of the board. The rule about not wasting time defending unless you have to is a good one- but it's also often useful to use a tempo for prophylaxis if it will save you a few down the road- if you can shut down your opponent's play in these kinds of positions you will usually win.
One good hint that a kingside attack is justified is that you have a lot of pieces pointed at the enemy king, and it is difficult for your opponent to bring his own to bear. Total control of the center is another good (related) clue that an attack is justified, particularly if you can post pieces there menacingly. This is particularly true if you have a lead in development (which is another good indicator). This mostly all boils down to piece activity- if you have really active pieces pointed at the enemy king, and your opponent's pieces are less active, and can't come to the defense easily your attack is likely to be sound.
A serious weakness in the pawn structure around the opposing king is another good hint, as are nice open files pointing at the king, when you are stronger on that side of the board and can bring Rooks to them.
One thing I think is really interesting about Kasparov's play is the way he often causes the board to be divided in two, with his pieces on the kingside, and his opponents' cut off from it. Not a new idea, but he is really good at it.
I tend to try to avoid committal moves as long as possible- attacking the king is dangerous. What's the old saw? "If you shoot at a king you must make sure to kill him." I suspect I am usually too conservative in this regard.
Tal has a quote about leading your opponent into a dark wood where the path leading out is only wide enough for one- the way I read it is that Tal was good enough to go into hairy positions that were objectively lost for him and emerge victorious- this is chess as sport, rather than chess as science and is part of why everyone loves Mischa (doesn't hurt that he sounds like a great guy).
I'm no Tal though- I want to make sure that before I lead my opponent into that forest I am armed with a machete, an AK, a bazooka, and a thermonuclear hand-grenade- and that he has at most a Swiss army knife with which to respond.
It's a bit (more than a bit, really) presumptuous of me to talk about emulating world champions, but I'd rather emulate Fischer than Tal (chessically, that is).
So, as far as I am concerned, the hints above are only hints that there might be a win in a given positiion- I'm not likely to launch an all out attack unless I can actually find that win though. Your mileage may vary 🙂. But don't be afraid to build up for an attack- in really open positions you may not be able to afford the time, but otherwise it is often better to build up pressure until it explodes than to dribble your threats out one by one.
The _main_ thing though, is getting really good at attacking tactics- good position play may bring about positions in which you can successfully attack, but most attacks against competent defense require you to make huge concessions- and if you lose your way tactically you will lose against good defense, even if your attack is objectively sound. The other side of the coin is that you have to be tactically strong to really know if an attack is justified, most of the time. Easier said than done 🙂, but no-one (other than maybe Fred Reinfeld) ever said Chess was easy.