Episode 2 of Learning With: How to Reassess Your Chess
As I near the end of Part One of How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition by Jeremy Silman, I am already starting to see changes in the way I view positions. Granted, this is the first chess book I'm reading, so any new information is bound to have a disproportionately positive effect on me compared to a veteran of study material. Even so, I'm impressed by the amount of material packed into the first chapter alone and its accessibility to a beginner such as myself.
Part One helped solidify a couple of concepts that were formerly only half-baked in my mind: taking initiative, and static vs. dynamic imbalances. Yes, I recognized that being the first to attack gives a definite advantage, as your opponent is stuck defending, at least for a certain period of time. What I didn't realize is how even a single move, choosing between pure defense and actively pushing one's own ideas, can end up shaping the entire course of a game and the themes it follows. For further illustration of this idea, I recommend following along with the Diagram 10 analysis featured below and the section "Initiative - Calling the Shots" in your copy of Silman's book (pages 10 through 11). Notice how choosing 1. ... Kh7 versus 1. ... Qf7 has a major effect on which side carries the advantage several moves later.
Diagram 10:
As for static vs. dynamic imbalances, I found it fascinating that the same position could be seen by one player as a static, long-term disadvantage, and a dynamic, short-term advantage by their opponent. This highlights the subjective nature of such considerations while also demonstrating the importance of understanding both your own and your opponent's perspective when trying to predict the next logical moves each of you may make.
Diagrams 13 and 14 from the book:
Let's take a look at the game above as an example. Usually, I don't fully understand what the GMs are up to when I look at one of their games unless I have a move-by-move explanation to accompany it, and often I'm completely lost by the middle game. Silman does provide plenty of helpful commentary, so I wasn't exactly in the dark on this one. Still, I was proud of myself for catching various nuances I would have missed before. For instance, I noticed that 26. ... Ne8 retreats one knight long before black's other knight can be trapped by white's pieces, freeing up an escape square. After 27. ... N4f6, black maintains a knight on this useful square while backing it up with the other knight. At least until white dominates the game shortly after.
My favorite section so far is "Talk to the Board and It Will Talk to You". It reminds me of the sort of things you hear surfers say. "Listen to the ocean and you'll know when a good wave is coming." As a musician, it would be the equivalent of listening to the feedback of what you're hearing from your instrument instead of going purely by a set of predetermined criteria. For instance, when I'm playing violin I may start out with an idea of how much weight on the string I should be allowing with my bow based on past experience and calculations of various factors (bow speed, which string it's on, bow location, etc.). But ultimately, it's the direct feedback of the sound I'm hearing, moment by moment, that will tell me if I need to adjust my strategy.
On page 24 Silman writes, "...if I stopped you from calculating and asked, 'Can you verbally break this position down for me?' the odds are that your answer wouldn't be lecture-worthy. Make no mistake about this: at any given moment, you should be able to lecture other players about the pros and cons of any position you reach!" I'm learning that it's not enough to compile a list of potentially good moves for myself and my opponent and then try to pick the one with the best attacking and defending opportunities. One has to understand the underlying strengths and weaknesses of each side in order to contextualize one's decisions and those of the opponent.
Previously, I may have followed a general set of steps that went something like:
1. Check for opponent's threats and tactics
2. Check for my own threats and tactics
3. Blunder check potential moves and choose the most promising candidate
Silman is suggesting a modified set of steps:
1. Check for immediate opponent threats and tactics
2. Look for imbalances in the position
3. Look for moves that take advantage of these imbalances
4. Plans and tactics follow naturally from step 3
In other news, I'm about 10% done with adding the example games and diagrams from the book to a companion collection to aid in study. Transcribing the analyzed lines has already taught me a lot about chess notation and how to use the analysis tool, as I was only familiar with the basics before this. If you're currently working your way through How to Reassess Your Chess, I hope this collection will make following along with the examples an easier and more thorough process.
