Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why is (central) space so good?

At the top levels of chess, space is an absolutely huge asset. The exploitation of such an advantage is often rather slow, at least until a mistake is made by the opponent that allows a decisive initiation of tactics that are likely to favor the guy with space, who should have superior piece activity, as in this game.

A lot of times space doesn't seem so bad to play against. For example in the hippo black's position looks really bad (and maybe it is), but white players often have a hard time breaking it down. That however doesn't change the fact that black's pieces there are too passive to do really anything, that is until white makes an impatient, unnecessary mistake that loosens his position maybe a bit too much. That can be all it takes for the position to collapse. But if treated right space is very, very strong.

In fact this game with Fritz has actually made me dislike every single hypermodern black opening. I think they give white way too much space, and really, all you have to do when you have a space advantage is make ONE HUNDRED percent sure, or as close as you can get, that black can't challenge it in a favorable way. The big problem with not only allowing a space advantage but not challenging it early on is that while both sides develop, guess who will be more free? The guy with more space, for a very simple reason: he has more options for his pieces! The guy with a lot of space can often develop all of his pieces quite easily, and this includes the heavy pieces, which often have easy access to the central files. If black were then to challenge the center, he'd be allowing it to open, and that favors the better developed guy, which will be white.

When you have space, in this case more space in the middle, you don't want to force immediate action unless otherwise your space will be challenged (like in most openings; but here we will assume the guy is a turtle and will in hippo style wait for you to leave an opening: something you need not do, ) with ...c5 or something; what you really want to do is develop and see how your opponent likes having crappy pieces! If you are really well developed, then you probably can gain space on the wings, as even if the pawn center is challenged you may well be able to transform it into a piece center, because your pieces are so active.

The key is just to stay patient, carefully gain more space within reason, and proceed to strangle the opponent.

The only exceptions when space may not be favored, is for one thing if the guy with space isn't well developed as has some loose squares and pawns. If the player with less space has a temporary edge in development, he needs to do his best to tie white down to any weak squares he may have, and ideally force him to develop his pieces awkwardly, rather than harmoniously, which is what usually happens. If the guy with space is tied up, then his pieces are not truly free because they're all on defense; in that case the guy with less space would actually be more free and active! But you need strong pressure to achieve this.

Also, of course, if you can get into the holes left behind. I used to love seeing juicy dark square holes, but a lot of times, even this is not enough. If you only have, say one piece on a nice square, which may be a hole created by the pawns advancing, it in itself may be underwhelming enough that the guy with space can basically just leave it there and work around it. So holes shouldn't be overestimated, as it's not like occupying them will automatically destroy the position; you need something a bit extra, like central pressure, weaknesses to attack, big development lead, maybe a couple more occupied holes, stuff like that, because if you just let him develop in peace, his pieces will simply be much better and will have a more or less permenant advantage.

 

To anyone who wants to say I had better defense after 13...d5: I had gone over this with fritz but I don't remember everything but what I do remember is that the computer confirms there was no way to get out of trouble after this mistake.  From move 14 on other tries merely lose in different ways. For example, the ...gxf6 recapture may avoid allowing the passed d6 pawn but still loses a pawn with a wretched position.

Comments


  • 2 years ago

    Ziryab

    In a word: mobility.

  • 2 years ago

    Elubas

    lol it would be sweet to get money for this, because I don't find these kind of posts too difficult, it's just that a lot of times people aren't too interested in them which gives me less motivation.

  • 2 years ago

    jdm

    chess.com should put you on the payroll, or at least a consultant position.

  • 2 years ago

    Elubas

    That's part of having a cramped position, my friend! The real culprit here could be considered the blockage, but perhaps more deeply, the pawn structure that determined the freedom of the pieces. It's not like I wanted to block in my stuff, but after forming the structure it didn't give me many aggressive options at all, and I have already explained why I didn't favor giving up the bishop with ...Bg4 (though it's true that if I don't fianchetto, h3 can safely be met by ...Bh5, I don't like how cramped and inflexible it is -- true, it may hit e4, but that doesn't equal a powerful central attack in itself, and on the contrary I wouldn't like how not only it abandons the queenside for a very long time but is also exposed to future kingside pawn advances such as h4-h5) . That's just the nautre of this opening, and it undeniably favors white and is counting on solidity.

    Nevertheless, strong players do play this way sometimes, and try to slowly, slowly, neutralize the position. The advantage is that this kind of central position is solid, and good defense in my opinion will keep you out of too much trouble, but against a strong, patient player that defense could be very long.

  • 2 years ago

    dgmisal

    While I am no super-GM by anyones stretch of imagination, I would suggest NOT closing in your bishops like that and effectively going 2 pieces down early in the game due to their passive placement.  Seems to me that in a lot of ways THIS was the culprit.

  • 2 years ago

    r3dg1ant

    Takin notes. Fritz your a genius.
  • 2 years ago

    r3dg1ant

    Takin notes. Fritz your a genius.
  • 2 years ago

    Elubas

    Thank you!

  • 2 years ago

    Skeptikill

    good work elubus!

     i enjoyed your article and all attempts to bring popular lessons to everyone.

    things like this make chess.com worthwhile!

  • 2 years ago

    Elubas

    Playing against a computer is excellent training because any mistake you make will be punished so it practices a disciplined thought process as well as dynamic, tactical chess in general, because that's basically how the computer beats you each time. trying to hold out as long as possible trains defense, a very important skill, which is really attack in revese. It's very very good, you just have to be ok with never, ever winning Tongue out

    I mean it's sort of an equivalent to a GM; it plays differently than one, but the play as a whole is really probably super GM quality, so that makes for a very worthy opponent.

  • 2 years ago

    Nasty-Nate

    so... do i need to get fritz in order to become a better player?

  • 2 years ago

    Cadaz

    Nice article

  • 2 years ago

    markronilodevera

    me0w... mukhang mas mahaba pa nung c0mment kaysa artik0l heheh!

  • 2 years ago

    Mimchi

    Space is the most difficut advantage to convert, simply because it requires INTENSE ACCURACY. One little slip and your busted; overreaching pawns make very easy targets. Nice game! Fritz is AMAZING!!

  • 2 years ago

    Elubas

    Yeah. I was lost rather early, but against any decent computer at full strength I think I'm doing well when I'm not down a whole piece or worse. Also, the fact that I was black didn't help Smile Thanks.

    I made this rather quickly and I still missed some things, such as, you generally don't want to push your pawns in places with low friendly piece concentration, as then it's easy to undermine, and this is why black in the game couldn't really play ...b5 in a favorable manner (which ultimately led to his passivity), which was a big dream of my original plan. I remember when I was reading the famous how to reasses your chess by Silman, he said something like "in closed positions, if you get your pawn to g4, you usually control the kingside", which I think is horribly general. You certainly won't control the kingside if the other guy has two bishops aiming right at it; then you're just giving your opponent an easy way to open lines favorably for him there, with say ...h5, and if white tries to close things with g5 he's probably not ready to defend his g5 pawn if all of his pieces are on the queenside.

    It's a surprisingly complex issue, because you may well find a situation that contradicts what I just said; sometimes whether a space grabbing pawn chain can be maintained depends purely on tactics. In fact, that was a big issue in the game; had I been able to play ...b5 safely I'd have some reasonable chances to play on the queenside, since it's rather difficult for white to counter in the center, despite a bit more space in the middle. In this case white's ability to coordinate his pieces more effectively allows him, in the ...b5 variation, to exploit the holes created by ...b5-b4 rather easily. Even the fact that black had to release the tension with his b pawn is saying something, that black can't handle white's piece pressure there without pushing it soon. So piece concentration is a big thing, and can sometimes justify opening lines on a certain part of the board even where you have "less space". For example, if black was lucky enough to have doubled rooks or something on the b file when he had the pawn on b5, then he'd be happy to play the "concession" ...bxa4 and open the file! In the concrete situation, black didn't have control of the squares behind, so white's better pieces took over.

    Ideally of course you'd want to counter in the center as they say, but what that really means is not necessarily just pushing a pawn there but having enough central pressure to force the opponent to liquidate and bring your pieces crashing into the middle, and that's especially good if pawns have been pushed, as where is a better place to eye weak squares? If you however have to liquidate the center, then your opponent will bring his pieces to the center squares, so you have to be careful.

  • 2 years ago

    philidor_position

    Very nice explanation of space, and a nicely annotated game. When I play against shredder at full power or master level, I feel quite ok if I can reach move 20 and don't have a resignable position. Good game.

  • 2 years ago

    Elubas

    @hietnunc: black certainly had a decent share of space as you say, but because he has less of it and thus has inferior pieces it keeps him firmly on the defensive, until white makes a mistake. In fact I think black can defend pretty solidly against whatever white does, but unfortunately there's nothing active he can really look forward to. This game indeed had more elements than black suffocating in space, mostly because of course I tried to play ...d5, which had to be refuted in a more open tactical way; because of this I really didn't have a chance to let fritz crush me in a more methodical, gradual way. However, I do think it illustrates that when you allow someone with more space to develop his forces, often the opening of the center favors him, and Fritz here demonstrated that in a very concrete way. Also I was just dazzled by Fritz and felt the need to post it with some justification Smile. But I really learned just how good central space can be when used right; really, I determined the entire long term fate of my piece activity on moves 1-3, forming the fundamental structure.

    When I said space, in this case I was subconsciously thinking of central space the most here. Maybe I should change the title.

    ...Rfa8 is indeed inferior and overly optimistic -- I wanted to defend b6 but obviously bigger problems emerged. At this point I still thought my position was pretty decent: I had slightly inferior pieces, but wasn't down in space; unfortunately there was a way to exploit my more awkward pieces in this case. ...Raa8 is probably better, but still quite bad for black, because now b6 can be taken without so much retribution. 

    Deranged: I'm not a big fan of playing for ...Bg4, because then my light squares have more long term weakness. ...Bg4 slightly increases pressure on d4, but we need about 3 more things on that square for it to give white any worry at all! I think it's pleasant for white to acquire the long term asset of the two bishops in such a painless fashion, but no matter what black does white will have a slight but stable edge. The way I played kept the bishop in, but later in the game it may have been nice that his light squared bishop wouldn't rule those squares with no challenger. On the other hand it makes black's development easier, so there's ups and downs to each, but this is no black and white situation: either method has elements of compromise.  Also if you looked at fritz's recomendation of ...Qc7 you'd see it was possible to either try for ...Nf8, maybe ...Be6, or, also as mentioned, fianchettoing the bishop.

    @sheardp: I was considering that plan at some point, but ultimately had too much faith in making a queenside pawn mass; I should have had more foresight to see if I'd actually be able to get away with ...a5 and ...b5, but I realized it too late. I also think I was overly attracted to the idea of ...Ba6, which trades pieces but doesn't solve the problem of space and leaves the queenside a tad exposed in the long term (pawns like b6 can be attacked a bit). I do like that plan, but again, there isn't any easy route to equality for black here, because unless he compells white to give up his space his pieces have much less potential. The bishop puts pressure on the center potentially from b7, but not enough to make white worry, so he will certainly be better.

    I was actually making things up as I went along, as these were very new waters for me -- even the first move, 1...d6, I had played for like the second time, and just played it cause I felt like trying something different. I could say I'd play your plan next time I reach this position, but I'm not sure if there's going to be a next time! Tongue out No matter what plan black chooses, his game may be supple, but if he allows white to keep his space, inactive. That was basically my point in this. Black can fianchetto the king bishop for example -- there's tons of different subtleties for black's setup if you look for them, but none of them truly solve the fundamental problem of a spacial disadvantage with insufficient compensation.

  • 2 years ago

    DevinCamenares

    What is the point of 16..Rfa8? Maybe 16..Raa8 would have put up more resistance.

     

    Impressive play by Fritz, I agree.

  • 2 years ago

    Deranged

    You had a fair bit of space, you just chose to crowd your light squares bishop in by your knight for no apparent reason.

  • 2 years ago

    hicetnunc

    I very much agree with your (excellent) explanations about what is a space advantage, but I'm not sure the illustrative game is a case in point, as Black had a decent share of the center (the pawn on e5) and queenside space. I see it more as an example of classical center pressure.

Back to Top

Post your reply: