About space advantages

lol, that's pretty good.

"Tell me you've never played a game of chess without telling me you've never played a game of chess."

Well you see, world champions gain an edge over the competition by deeply studying a type of piece. Once your knights become unstoppable, for example, then you become very hard to beat.

#40
"The four squares, e4, e5, d4, and d5 are the centre squares, and control of these squares is called control of the centre. The control of the centre is of great importance. No violent attack can succeed without controlling at least two of these squares, and possibly three. Many a manoeuvre in the opening has for its sole object the control of the centre, which invariably ensures the initiative. It is well always to bear this in mind, since it will often be the reason of a series of moves which could not otherwise be properly understood." - Capablanca

Here is an example: white wins space, black wins the game
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008397 

Oh thanks.

You know, back when I was about 2.5 years old, I always had trouble understanding what the center of something was, and during the last 35-ish years it never really clicked... but this sorted it out for me thanks so much.

BTW, you quoting Capablanca without knowing the 3 classic elements were space, force, and time?

I mean, you're saying space isn't a real advantage, but supposedly you've seen a chess book at least once in your life... interesting.

Also, even if you hadn't read about space once in your life... it can be derived logically by understanding e.g. that a queen is worth more than a rook because it controls more squares.

But I guess understanding that much is too advanced for someone rated 2000 /sarcasm.

Which is why I say you're weird.

#46
My point is that space advantage means nothing, but control of the center is important.

Often one side controls the center and also has more space, then that side has an advantage because that side controls the center, not because of more space.
Sometimes one side has more space, but does not control the center. Then the space advantage is no advantage at all. I gave an instructive game where white gained a space advantage, but had no control over the center.

The great thinkers like Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich all stressed the importance of the center, not of space. Cramped positions can be very strong. Positions without control over the center are weak.

I have now denied your accusation that I am lonely, hence your accusation that I didn't deny it hence it must somehow be true is now mute.

If I supposedly fit the profile of a lonely troll, then actually profile me, you are only relying on a subjective criteria as opposed to any observed evidence that you have collected about profiling others, you have no right to claim to create profiles on others and slander them as you have no expertise in profiling people, go ahead, make a chart or a diagram with your alleged profile, HAHAHAHAHA!

It's easy to see who the OP of a thread is, if you don't like reading them then just look away.

A winning position is a losing position, use your brain.

Look up the definitions for both and they actually mean the same thing.

I am asking different questions in each thread, not the same ones. I am asking the questions in the form of new threads as opposed to being asked within the same thread because if I was to ask different questions within the same thread despite the original question being different it would be difficult for other players to answer all the questions within the same thread all at once. I am doing it to make it easier for others to provide complete answers.

Everybody knows that I have created multiple threads, no one is denying it or trying to hide anything from you or anybody else.

If black trades pieces, he also loses even more opportunity to control the centre or slow down white from maintaining control over the centre, with both sides being less cramped

"Well you see, world champions gain an edge over the competition by deeply studying a type of piece. Once your knights become unstoppable, for example, then you become very hard to beat."

Go read Petrosian's quote about learning deeply about the positional elements of each piece in the game then come back to me.

I can offer an alternative explanation for your odd views.

You just don't know how to properly convert a space advantage into a win.

If I had no idea how to convert a material advantage into a win, I might be tempted to think that it "wasn't a real advantage".

What is the definition of a violent attack in comparison to the definition of a regular attack?

What is the definition of an attack that has succeeded? Is the definition of an attack that has succeeded the same as an attack that has just completely won the game and left the king vulnerable to a mating thread as well as an attack that leaves your opponent severely behind in material, or something else?
Can an attack that has succeeded also just mean an attack that furthers the game without losing any advantages for the side that has just launched the attack whilst maintaining a position that is playable for the side that has launched the attack?

Having more space can equalise when the opponent has greater central control.

#53
I showed a game where white had a space advantage but no firm grip over the center and lost.
Can you show a game won on space advantage alone?
#54
I quoted Capablanca verbatim. I presume a violent attack that succeeds = an attack that wins the game.
#55
I presented a game where white had a space advantage but no firm grip over the center and white lost because of that. So that game is a counterexample.
#51
The advice by the great thinkers Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich is to first seize the center and only then start the attack. If the center is shaky, then an attack is bound to fail as the opponent can counterstrike in the center.

As far as we know there could have been other advantages in that game that added to the advantage in central control.

#57
Look at the game. White undeniably gained a space advantage, but his center was shaky.

Letelier vs Fischer? What space advantage?

For instance, at move 11 Black (not White!) is ahead 14 to 12 in space. Even after retreating his Bishop back to e6, Black is still ahead 13 to 12.

Maybe you should count again?

Regarding "show me a game where a player won with a space advantage without a central advantage...

These will naturally be rare since dominating the center allows you to extend your pressure into multiple areas of the board, and normally leads to a space advantage.

I can show you a game where I couldn't claim any particular advantage in the center, but won through exploiting a space advantage.

FIRST, though, we had better make sure that you know HOW to win with a space advantage.

If you control more space than the opponent then you will typically have more freedom of maneuver... he is cramped, and you are not. So you proceed by alternating threats on widely separated parts of the board... K-side, center, Q-side, back to the K-side... and since you have more freedom of maneuver, his pieces will start getting in each other's way, and interfering with each other. At minimum, they will be forced into non-optimal positions to counter your threats.

A series of such alternating threats will cause the opponent's pieces to lose time and (typically) be forced back in order to cover each weak point in turn. You thereby transform your space advantage into a time advantage... and every experienced player knows how to exploit a time advantage: you attack, and look for combinations.

The sequence is:

Space Advantage => Alternation => Time Advantage => Combination.

With that method in mind, play over the game in post # 19 of this thread:

GM Larry Evans' method of static analysis - Chess Forums - Chess.com

... and pay particular attention to the annotations and to the METHOD that Black uses to convert his space advantage into a win.

#59
"Letelier vs Fischer? What space advantage?"
++ After move 5 white undeniably has a space advantage.
The center however is not secure and black smashes the center with 6...d6, 7...c5, 8...Nc6

I have looked at your post #19, but that is not a good example of conversion. If your opponent had played 29 Qxb4 than white would have won. He apparently could not resist giving a check.

You use a premature and unsound attack as your exemplar, to "prove" a point?

A premature attack doesn't prove anything about the comparative value of center control vs space advantage.

I could just as easily claim that 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc3 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Qxf7 mate "proves" that center control is wrong. Black developed both of his Knights to control the center, and quickly got mated.

#61
Letelier was wrong in gaining space with e5.

By the way in your example game 12 Bxf6? cedes the bishop's pair without compensation. The later attack does not come from more space, but from an unopposed dark square bishop.