Tactics Against "High-Priority" South Eastern Offense

Tactics Against "High-Priority" South Eastern Offense

Nov 2, 2012, 10:51 AM |

Originally a post at a recent match played against Kudaperang (1334) as White and myself as Black on November 2nd 2012:

This is strictly my opinion: players from the Phillipines and Indonesia have a carefully refined sense of "high-priority" offense. They tend to use a finely honed set of offensive maneuvers to great effect. In my experience, they can take total control over a chess game within 15 moves!

My opponent in this match, Kudaperang (playing as White) from Indonesia, was definitely one of these types of challenging players.

What is the answer to such a series of amazingly effective players? For the purpose of this analysis - counter-attack and feints. Counter-attacking is self-explanatory. Feints are not.

Feinting is a boxing term. It means "to appear to attack" but it's true purpose is to find another opening within an opponent's defense.

In a game versus a player who places high-priority on offense using counter-attack is not enough. Forcing an opponent to committing pieces towards defense is this type of player's real intent by using such an blistering offense.

Let me make this clear: the intent of "high-priority" offense is to force opponents into a strictly defensive stance. It is a very effective strategy.

However, using the feint of a commanding line of pawns marching towards promotion will constantly worry this opponent - who fears a second Queen coming even during his ferocious assaults. This presumption is seemingly confirmed when the Black Queen (on defense due to White's high priority offense) is offered as a trade on two occasions.

But, this is all a carefully constructed feint. Horse-radishes, in other words.

Not knowing this is a feint - what is White to do? What series of moves takes "high-priority" when Black's defense is enough to handle the quickness of it's assault and build a pawn line that is aimed at a second Queen?

By placing so much priority on moving towards Black's Kingside, my opponent makes his second blunder at move 11 (see 10. Qxf6) by leaving his White Knight at c3 unprotected from the forth-coming pawn and is taken. He did this by prioritizing his Queen position over the White Knight's value whether he was conscious of this choice or not!

At this point his strategy and my counter-attacks and feints have become extremely taxing for my opponent - even this early in the game.

By move 29, White is ready to have clarity restored on the board and makes a serious second blunder by challenging an invader, the Black Rook at b2, by moving to g2. This results in a check that costs him both White Rooks. White gains the invading, expeditionary Black Rook that has been a threat since move 21 at a high cost. To make matters worse, he has also trapped his King on the back rank by taking the Black Bishop on move 25 at f3 with his remaining Castle pawn and his offense has lost all momentum.

I conjecture that a better move would have been to strengthen his own separated pawn line by moving to the White Rook from a1 to e1. White had to move the White Rook at a1 due to the threat from the Knight in any case!

This would have done nothing to stop the eventual taking of his White Pawn at a3 but it would have built a much better defense for the momentum shift on the side of Black that was inevitably coming.

After both White Rooks are removed. White is left with a Queen and a few pawns to use as offensive pieces while Black has the same plus a well-positioned knight and a rook.

As a result of the pawn line feint, Black is left with an entire board dominated by pawns.

At move 37, White hastily makes a Queen trade, once again following the Fillipino and Indonesian "high-priority" offense. After which my opponent immediately resigns with only his King remaining after checking my King for the first and last time of this game.