I hope this discussion helps others, too.
Attack.
When I hit a middle game where I am looking at opponents' pieces that are defended, coordinated, not blocking each other, etc.....I haven't a clue how to plan an attack. I try to move my pieces to the best squares (not to squares where I hope for a blunder), shrug my shoulders, and see how the game evolves. Seems too passive to me.
In other games, I do aim pieces at a square, pawn, piece, king, etc. only to see the idea fizz many times.
What am I missing? (Kasparov's brain, yes, but aside from that.)
My vitals--I'm hovering around 1500 on here (for the moment, at least). I don't know a Ruy-Lopez from a Rui Costa. "Win the Middle" is about all the coaching I've had. The 40 games I've played on here is probably double the number I've played in my life.
Any thoughts would be most welcome. Thanks in advance!
Thank you for your help, Tony!
Open to other perspectives, too. Got something? Let us know!
You all are great! Thanks for your input.
Anybody else? Would love to hear it!
Hi Lisa,
You might want to check out the lessons section of chesskids.com. A friend of mine e-mailed me a page with links to the lessons. I pasted it below.
The lessons are for people of all ages. I have been taking the lessons, and I am learning a lot!
Hope this helps! Good luck!
Take care,
George
Thanks for the link, gramos! Looks comprehensive.
Again, calls for more. If you are simply reading this thread, perhaps you could drop a post to let me/the rest of us (?) know if a topic like this is helpful to you.
Gracias!
You're welcome, Lisa.
If you decide to tackle "My System"--a classic book on chess strategy--there's a chess.com reading group forming that's about to work through it. I've also used and also highly recommend the Chess Kids lessons--although My System, How to Reassess Your Chess, or Art of Attack (advanced) more directly address the problem you're having.
Good luck and have fun. :)
"When I hit a middle game where I am looking at opponents' pieces that are defended, coordinated, not blocking each other, etc.....I haven't a clue how to plan an attack."
Perhaps because you have no right to attack. Before you can attack, you must have an advantage, even if it's just a temporal one and only in that area of the board. Using the old Steinitz principle of accumulated advantages, you start with a teeny tiny advantage and use it as leverage to gain a slight advantage which in turn you leverage for a greater advantage, etc. until an attack is warranted.
Another thing is recognizing advantages/weaknesses. This falls under tactics, I believe. It dosn't help to have an advange if you can't recognize it. Teichmann said chess is 99% tactics. Who knows about the math, but the idea is reasonable. Study tactics religiously and you'll see positions more clearly and recognize more often, and more accurately, what needs to be done in many situations.
Thanks to everybody!
Perhaps I need to read Steinitz, but I'm confounded about how to *create* advantages. Maybe Steinitz and the sources cited above address this concern, maybe the mere movement of pieces creates weaknesses that practice with tactics expose as advantages. ???
Any thoughts?
In most positions, both sides have advantages. For example, in the position below, White's up a pawn, but Black has a slight lead in development (his knight on f6) and he has the initiative (his queen and knight are threatening White's d5 pawn). Strategy is about recognizing these imbalances, and forming plans to maximize your own advantages while minimizing your opponent's advantages. Material-winning tactics usually flow from superior positions... although they can also occur due to oversights especially at faster time controls or between lower-rated opponents.
> I would suggest not going over the games of Steinitz to learn how to attack
lol. Good point, although he did made one of the most stunning attacks in chess history (As you know of course, this game is featured in the "Art of Attack").
" I would suggest not going over the games of Steinitz to learn how to attack"
...misses the point.
Since Steinitz postulated earning the right to attack, he never attacked until he felt his advantages warranted such. He had a strange, but generally effective defensive technique and such a winning record that essentially proved most attacks were faulty. Before developing his principles he was known as the "Austrian Morphy" from which you can surmise that he was indeed a capable and successful attacker and understood attacking very well - yet changed his own style. So, in studying Steinitz' games you can learn a great deal about attacking, particularly the appreciation that attacks aren't always advisable (unless you're playing blitz) and that often even successful attacks say more about the defender's lack of skill than about the attacker's wisdom. Seeing a premature attack repulsed is a better learning experience in understanding attacks than in seeing unwarranted attacks succeed due to lack of defensive skill.
Quiet position such as this topic asks about generally don't call for attacks and trying to force the issue is generally not a wise decision unless there is some feature in that quiet position that give a player a temporal advantage that he must use. Hence, you must study tactics relentlessly. As likesforst implied, tactics flow from postion and they flow because positions are fluid. Meanwhile one tries to improve one's position and this, barring mistakes, is usually a tedious process.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.