Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Weak Squares? Who Cares?

  • GM DanielNaroditsky
  • | Feb 28, 2014
  • | 16101 views
  • | 48 comments

To chessify Jane Austen, it is a truth universally acknowledged that all chess players in possession of a weak square are doomed to a miserable existence. The concept of weak squares appears rather straightforward: avoid creating them, but never fail to utilize them. In fact, most positional manuals eschew the topic altogether. While the subtleties of maneuvering or the benefits of positional sacrifice obviously require elucidation, no positional training is required to identify the cause of Black's troubles in the following position:


You guessed it: the f5 square is horribly weak, and after the imminent Nf5, White will simply tear Black's position apart. True, the square is "protected" by my light-squared bishop, but after 1...Bg5 2.Nf5 Bxf5 3.exf5 Black found little relief! I was tempted to resign immediately, but did so only after 12 more moves of agony. 

However, modern grandmasters thrive not only because they have mastered the principles of positional chess (a task that might have appeared daunting 200 years ago), but because they know precisely when and how to deviate from these principles. While an amateur may well understand the rationale behind developing a bishop before a knight or temporarily positioning a knight on the side of the board, he or she might find it difficult to explain how strong players break apparently inviolable positional rules with impunity. Each article will hopefully come one step closer to resolving this conundrum, and as you may have guessed, today's sub-topic is a particularly thorny one: when is it permissible to voluntarily weaken a square? 

phpgf0RXg.png

I always write under the assumption that every strong move or subtle idea can be logically and clearly explained. Most world-class players certainly possess an accurate intuition (i.e. they sense that a move is correct or incorrect without much calculation or logical reasoning), but all of their decisions can be decoded. To this end, we will introduce a concept that will streamline our quest for an answer to the aforementioned question: inaccessibility

Put simply, inaccessibility refers to the idea that a square can often be permanently weakened if your opponent cannot immediately access it with a desirable piece. From a psychological standpoint, it is often quite difficult to leave a square terminally weak, but concrete thinking trumps general evaluation nine times out of ten: if a square is inaccessible, do not be afraid to weaken it! The following game is a terrific illustration. 

So what should White do? Well, of course there is 27.f4, nipping the idea of ...e5 in the bud, but no self-respecting player would ever make such a positionally heinous move on the board...or so you might think! Let us enumerate the flaws of 27.f4. Of course, the bishop will be closed in by his own pawns, but it can later reroute to the a5-d8 diagonal with Be1. Most importantly, however, 27.f4 leaves the e4 square horribly weak. If Black can position a knight on e4, the tables will instantly turn to his favor. But take a closer look: to actually maneuver his knight to e4, Black needs a staggering eight moves (...Nh8-g6-e7, ...Kh8(7), ...Qf7, ...Ng8-f6-e4)! To crash through on the queenside, White needs half that time. Thus, since the e4 square is inaccessible, the preclusion of ...e6-e5 makes this trade-off incredibly favorable for White. 

Unfortunately, cases of total inaccessibility are relatively rare. In fact, some may even argue that an unreachable square cannot be classified as a weakness at all. In any case, what truly distinguishes leading chess players is their ability to weaken a square that can be accessed, at least to some extent, by the opponent. Chess is a quid-pro-quo game at its heart, and you must be cognizant of the fact that to dent your opponent's solid position -- to introduce a defect that you will later seek to utilize -- frequently requires a major positional concession from your side. Sargissian-Tomashevsky was an exception, but in the following game, Bobby Fischer shows us that even ostensibly ludicrous positional blunders should be considered! 

What's so rewarding about chess is that hard work -- a headstrong desire to penetrate the thought process of a legendary chess player -- almost always results in an aha moment. For me, one of these moments was a realization that the disobedience of one positional principle (e.g. do not voluntarily weaken a square) is the observance of another, no less important principle. In Fischer-Unzicker, White weakened the e5 square but totally restricted the movement of the c8 bishop in return. In the following game, Boris Spassky epitomizes the quintessential "quid-pro-quo-ness" of chess: the only way to unlock the path to Black's king is to create a gaping (and accessible) central hole. 

The position arose out of a relatively tame Breyer Ruy Lopez. Black's queen seems out of place, but in fact, Black is eyeing the possibility of ...Bh6, forcing the trade of dark-squared bishops and making the weakness of g5 less noticeable. On the other hand, White's knight on h2 is terribly inactive while Black's knight is firmly situated on the dream square c5. To arrive at the correct decision, it is important to recognize just how time-sensitive this position is: given one more move -- ...Nfd7, perhaps -- Black will rid himself of any kingside dangers. For instance, 1...Nfd7 2.Be3 Qe7 (2...Bh6 is also feasible) and Black already has the edge. 

phpGsUtoJ.png

Boris Spassky | Image Wikipedia

Thus, White must act before Black plugs all of his kingside holes. The best way to do so is obviously to open the position, but the only way to do that is the dreadfully weakening 1.f4. The problem with this move is rather conspicuous: after 1...exf4 2.Rxf4 Nfd7, Black's knight will entrench itself on the ideal square e5. After 3.Raf1 Ne5, for instance, White is positionally busted.

Once again, strong players have the ability to consistently penetrate the superficial layer of a position to immediately and precisely locate its latent aspects. In this case, Spassky recognized that, positional considerations aside, he had a rather formidable conglomeration of pieces on the kingside; whereas Black's rooks, c5 knight, and b7 bishop are doing little to defend the monarch. If White can open the h-file, his rook and queen will have a prime access route to the Black king. Hopefully, by this point your intuition is screaming at you to sacrifice the knight! 

I would encourage you to play through this game more than once. Always remember that positional concessions -- no matter how significant -- are perfectly permissible when made for a concrete tactical gain.

By way of a summary, I would now like to present an example from modern top-level chess. It is given as an exercise, but since you know the topic of the article, it should not be very difficult to find the correct first move! In any case, try your best to apply the concepts of inaccessibility (or partial inaccessibility, as in Fischer-Unzicker) and tit-for-tat -- weakening a square to further your prospects in another aspect of the position. Then, be sure to read the annotations carefully -- the logic behind a move is often more important than the move itself! Note: After you have solved the one-move exercise, please scroll down to view the entire annotated game segment.

To be sure, chess cannot be reduced to an algorithm. You will always have to be the one making a decision, but hopefully, this article sheds some light on the various ways in which an ostensibly heinous positional blunder can be rationalized. Since it is my first "real" article, I would encourage any comments, constructive criticism or discussion. Auf wiedersehen!


RELATED STUDY MATERIAL

Comments


  • 7 months ago

    baruchyadid

    Nice Spassky pic.

    The chess content was also good :)

  • 7 months ago

    bennnyg

    don't change the writing style it's brill. It appears some commenters have attempted to improve your prose and only mangled it. keep up the good work

  • 7 months ago

    MrMars

    yes, as silman has said, articles do not get better than this.

  • 7 months ago

    OldFashionedRocks

    Most chess writing fails to penetrate the chess and find the thinking underneath the chess.  That is precisely what is most critical, and that is precisely where this article excels.  Looking forward to the next installments.

  • 7 months ago

    loupe_noire

    I simply love it.

    Way far better than reading...Austen.

    Thank you for sharing it with us and keep on developing your literary skills.

    Best regards!

  • 7 months ago

    tpe09222012

    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of positional understanding, it was the age of tactical blunders... gosh, this is much harder than it looks.

  • 7 months ago

    XxSkullxX

    This was GREAT!

    I'm always saying to myself : "Don't break the rules,man!" Well, I learned today that rules sometimes need to be broken!

  • 7 months ago

    RoderickGorbyFSU

    All good feedback = no feedback.  Still, great article.

  • 7 months ago

    Ricardoruben

    (about this part of the article: 19. g4?!One must tip his hat to Bobby for his audacity, but this move is simply too optimistic.)

    I only wonder if Fisher would have played a certain position in the same way against different opponents. Or did he knew that a certain player would be more willing to play a certain move? (that could account for moves that objectively might not appear very sound, like 19.g4?!, but "weighing" in the opponent, his remaining time on the clock and other variables, they might be the best choice).

    For sure to become as big in something as Fisher was on chess takes alot more than technique in that sport/art/science. Usually all the guys at the top are great technicians, but only the very best are also good at spotting other things (maybe not related to the technique of the subject itself) that help them to be on top.

    Great article!! (well, the best critic you can get from people that are very good at this -not my case- and you had IM Silman here, after his comment, what else can we say?). :)

  • 7 months ago

    FM MikeKlein

    Excellent 2nd offering! I'm quickly forgetting who that other Daniel is who works here Foot in Mouth

  • 7 months ago

    mathemaat

    Very instructive! When I think about this subject, instantly Carlsen - Grischuk from the Candidates 2013 comes to mind:

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1713205

    It starts with 13 c4!, seemingly leaving a hole on d4. Then the theme is repeated by 18 c5! seemingly leaving a hole on d5. Incredible how Carslen manages to change an equal looking position into a seemingly winning position in just a couple of moves.

  • 7 months ago

    bmiscoski

    Nice article. I'm not sure how effectively I can use the information, but I enjoyed it. Please don't water down your writing style or stoop to demonstrating an encyclopedic knowledge of history. As a native English speaker and lover of engaging work, I am too often put upon by flaccid, halting chess writing without a clear sense of purpose. That's not fair as a complaint about people willing to share their insights, but it is still true that I appreciate people who, in their first or any language, know how to put their voice into their writing. Don't squelch it when you see it. The solution to language barriers should be to translate, not to write in a plain technical style.

  • 7 months ago

    illusivelord

    This is super smart. You are officially one of my favorite columnists. Thus I crown you. Thanks for the read. Bookmarked!

  • 7 months ago

    IM Silman

    A fantastic, extremely instructive article. Very well written, wonderful examples, and copious prose that lovingly explains his theme (his words clearly demonstrate his passion for the subject). Chess articles don't get better than this.

  • 7 months ago

    gabrielconroy

    A top quality article - thanks for the read.

  • 7 months ago

    TheMagicianPaul

    Amazing article, good job!

  • 7 months ago

    HughEclesson

    I think it's a great article and I don't think you should use simpler language because your style makes your lesson even more enjoyable to read.

  • 7 months ago

    StevieBlues

    I thought the article was flawless. Thanks!

  • 7 months ago

    Catguy25

    exelent article

  • 7 months ago

    Towerwood

    Excellent article! Clearly a lot of time and energy went into this!

Back to Top

Post your reply: