In my first years as a chessplayer (started in 1994) I did think that it was allways good to have the initiative, I did actually think it was a advantage just to have it.
-But is it so?
Actually I think it could be the opposit, see this game in your mind:
you have done the opening strong and good, all your army is well placed, your king is safe and it's your move!
Your opponent have of course done exactly the same, what to do?
Wait and smile :) give up the initiative (if you find a good plan, a weak spot in your opponents army you should explore it)
To do this you need to find a good waiting move, a move that doesen't make your position worse, if it makes it a bit better thats good, but your move doesn't need to do much.
If your position have no weak spots, your opponent cant do much either (this is not boring cause the current position should be tense at this point)
The first one to make his position worse, and thats really easy in a tense position! would faster than he could imagine, lose the game fast and painfull!
Making a diagram would be more effective in making your point, but I definitely know what you mean.
A lot of famous chess swindlers (Lasker, I believe, was an example) would by all appearances give up the iniative and lure their oppenent into attacking a pseudo-weakness in their position. Once the opponent over-stepped the attack, the swindler would punish them for their mistake and win. I believe Marshall was famous for this, too. Do you think the two concepts are related?
Making little waiting moves when you should be coming up with a plan is a good way to squander the initiative, which in fact is a good thing to have.
Yes, thats the genious at work, many opponents would fall for that trap, but I dont think it's a swindel.
I have made my "own" chess rule:
"you shouldn't take the iniative when you cant do anny good with it"
I know that evrybody knows this, but it's easy to think " I have the initiative, hence I should have some good "Winning" moves just vaiting for me to find"
If both sides of the board is well balanced with no obvious weak squares/ points, what is the right plan? Wait is just what many of the best player does.
If you do to much, you could easy lose the game or exchange to much and you have to little left to make a good fight. "all rook endings is draw"
Actually I think swindling is more often about gaining the initiative, rather than giving it up. I think it's more likely to swindle a game, say in the KID as black, because white didn't pay enough attention to his kingside (maybe he's totally won the queenside battle) and black broke through with a sacrifice that maybe isn't completley sound, but has a lot of practical "bite". White made a crucial mistake in time pressure, and got mated. That's a classic example of the power of the initiative - your opponent is under a lot of pressure and eventually cracks.
I have seen many games like that, played them too, both sides of the board (losing/vinning) But I think I have lost many games because I did to much.
Bad defence is just bad defence, if you know that your opponent doesent like to defend a tough position, an attack gives you good winning chances, but what if he loves to defend and counterattack....
My point is that, I dont think the initiative in it's selfe is an advantage.
What seems like just waiting to you is subtle maneuvering for the master.
Doing "too much" is not recommended by anyone that I know of, so why bring it up. Playing riskily and unbalancing the position, on the other hand, is a gamble, and some GMs are more prone than others to go this route. This is a matter of style.
Weaker players should be working on a plan. One saying is that Tactics is what you do when there is something to do and Strategy is what you do when there isn't anything to do.
What you are positing, that the initiative isn't worth much if anything at all, just doesn't hold water.
I think you have a good point. Sometimes players will think that a slight initiative should bring about a forced win at all costs. There are times when the initiative isn't even an advantage - just a way to open up some opportunities. There is definately a risk of overplaying your position when you have a bit of an initiative, however I think that in the hands of a good player the initiative is always a good thing to have. I'm quite certain that Topalov, who lost some games where he had an amazing initiative and he blew it by overplaying his position (the second game in his WC match against Kramnik is an example of a beautifully played middlegame turning into a sad sight for Topalov) won more games than he lost because of the initiative in chess. Also, look at Tal - he would often give up material just for the initiative and it won him like half of his games. If you're good with the initiaitve then you should strive to take it.
Of course, but thats the point of "my" rule :)
I have seen the initiative listed as an advantage in many chessbooks, but it's a definition too, do you really have the initiative when you have "nothing" to do?
Waiting is waiting no matter what rating you have, no one can win a game without an error from the opponent.
I know that I'm not a master at chess, I think even Tal did do to much in many of his games, he wasent world champ for that long time.
Tal vs Rybka would just be embarrasing for the humanpart, even Rybka waits.
Now you've changed the subject to errorless games. Please.
What I said is true, that waiting and sitting on your initiative is a great way to lose it altogether. Ask any master.
That Tal wasn't champion longer doesn't validate any of your arguments. If a gambling style was bad he never would have been champion.
As for Rybka simply waiting: I guess if it can't find something better to do it does. Usually it is working to get or increase an advantage, right? It would be maneuvering, right? You have some sample Rybka games that support your argument that the initiative isn't worth what it commonly is regarded to be?
I'm allways confused, thats my strength and weakness :)
Even then, where one side is attacking but known theory holds that such attacks peter out to nothing--or equality-- I wouldn't say the attacking player has the initiative. Is my take on this non-standard do you think?
I would say the player with a space advantage who is maneuvering has the initiative even if the position is very quiet. Standard or non-standard do you think?
If the advantage isn't enough to win, I'd say the initiative has ebbed and disappeared.
It's a definition question, but "my" rule has helped me sometimes annyway, and I know why, I'm to lazy and to impatient.
I think it's a bit non-standard. If one side didn't try for the initiative ever then they would only be defending while one side was left to simply create a big space advantage and possibly an unstoppable attack. The hippo is a good example. Black defends for a long time allowing White a big space advantage and initiative but still plans to pursue his own with ...d5 or ...f5. It's also interesting to note that Black almost never wins if he can't play those moves leaving only a draw or loss possible.
I think that pursuing the initiative increases your chances of a better position than your opponent and that's why people pursue it. It's also known that you can't win a chess game unless you attack and the initiative gives you at least better chances for them.
I have never said that you should do nothing, you need good waiting moves up to the point when your opponent starts doing something, then you should of course start doing something about it!
You can provoke weaknesses, gain space (especially in the center), even attack. That king may start off super solid but if you threaten mate he is forced to make a weakness. If you strangle him with a huge space advantage and attack certain undefedned (but not exactly weak) points it's harder for your opponent to defend without pushing a pawn (and so creating a weakness).
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.
