An ideal center... so now what?

I would also move the bishop to b3. More space, better development, the possibility of mating him in under 10 moves, nope, I am not exchanging pieces.

Well given that the c4-f7 diagonal was an important part of my later attack, I can see that trading would be bad at least in one way. I'd be giving up an active and powerful piece in exchange for a black piece that really wasn't doing much.

At the time, my focus was on preserving the center I'd just built up. (As has been noted, I was seeing the center more as an important goal in itself rather than as space to further secure an advantage.) So my thought was to keep the tempo I'd gained by not doing anything which would allow black to freely develop. I was focused too much on preventing the g4 pin, which I later realized was far less powerful than I'd thought it would be. 

Had we we exchanged pieces, I was thinking the line of play would look something like this: 

9. Qd3 Nxc4
10. Qxc4 Be6
11. Qb5+ c6
12. Qh5 Qd7 (or perhaps Qf6?)
13. Ng5

if you have a strong position and a plan of attack, and if it breaks the position, then modify your plan in a way that neither you nor your opponent can get the position.

ChePlaSsYer has already mentioned preserving your WSB, rather than defending it with Qd3.

That Bishop applies a lot of pressure on f7 and you had the chance to open things up when he played Qd7 by taking with 13.Bxf7+. If he captures with Kxf7, you have Be5+ winning the rook and fixing his King in the centre. If he moves Kd8, you open up the centre with e5.

After getting an ideal center it's obviously time to botch the position by doing nothing and waiting for your opponents mistake that won't come, getting frustrated and blundering a piece  in the process and then accusing your opponent of #%&!#"? in the chat

Rd8 maybe?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I am maybe redundant, but here are some advice too quickely and efficiently crush someone out such a bad opening :

Control of the center is not an end but a mean. Control of the center helps you redeploy your pieces to wherever you need them. For example, at move 6, although your two bishop are symetrical and equivalent regarding the center, your light square one is actually much better, because he also eyes the critical f7 (but your doing fine with your DS bishop, since you developped it with a free tempo and while allowing castling queenside).

Now if we look at your queen on d3, yes she is centralized, but she is very poorly placed with regards to the needs of the position.

Now I'll go on to two critical squares to look for when you are doing an early attack. First is f7. If you look at this common patzer opening from white, you understand how to defend f7, especially from the queen :

One knight on f6 (resp. f3) is the best possible defensive piece you can have. His body blocks the f file, and he controls the h5 square, sometimes preventing a queen to jump or kicking her away. Even later, he makes a castled king immune to greek gifts (bishop sac on h7), and achieves a big work in defending against h file buildups. Some times, a bishop on kingside (fianchettoed on g7, on f6 or on g6) can also be a great defender. the other very important defender is the g pawn, that can be pushed to kick the queen back and prepare fianchetto. Actually, the three f, g and h pawns are all very important to defend, even though the example shows the g one is. So if these defensive conditions are not met by your opponent, there might be some attack to try.

In the game, Black's g pawn is gone very early, and black king knight stayed on f6 for no longer than one turn, so Qh5 was to consider and would have been very good. For example, instead of 6.Bxc4, 6Qh5 is a bit premature attack but can lead to a quick mate and should make white at least a pawn up.

Few moves later, after ...Nfd7, it works even better, although not for the reason fieldsofforce gave, Bg5, but because of Nd5 (possibly after Bg5 depending on the line) :

giving up a rook for a knight. Black can also try to sacrifice his d pawn with d5 to answer Qh5, in which case white can probably take with his knight and still threaten the c7 square, while having serious mating threat with the queen and the two bishops.

Now the second crucial square for an attack is g5, in many situation a knight on g5 is what you need to start a crushing attack. In your game, 9.Qd3, allowing Black to trade a knight for your best piece was bad, and you should have retreated to b3. Then, black is virtually forced to play a move that prevents Ng5 (Bg4 (funnily, Legal's mate would not work here), Rg8, h6, Be7). Illustration of how bad it can go if he does not :

Also, on f3, your knight blocks aggressive deployement of your queen, possible due to the lack of knight on f6. In the game, I don't think that could have been an option at some point, but that's a good thing to know.

Now, I think your Rxf3 is suboptimal, the f7 pawn is not as weak as it could have been, and the g file is already on black's side. A bishop on h6 and a rook trade should possibly allow invasion on g8. To that regard, Rdf1 is actually great because black should definitely not spend a tempo to trade his bishop for the worse of your pieces (now that a bishop guards g5), nor he should help you improve your position by opening lines toward his weak side. If black wanted to trade, he should obviously take your LS bishop and play Qe6, and possibly later push f6 and bring a knight to d7 if you double/triple on the f file. On your side, it's worth spending a tempo to keep your light square bishop. f6 is really bad from your opponent, he is logically lost after this move, he should have traded knight for good bishop first.

Qe8 is the move that leads to a forced mate, which you found, congratz!

Overall, you made this game a miniature (<25 moves), so I'd say that, even though you missed opportunities, you did a pretty good job at using your initiative. Castling long was a good move, and probably the best if highly tactical all out attacks with both king exposed is not your cup of thea. Rf1 and Bh6 shows you go the good ideas to improve your position, so it shows pretty solid play. Just don't allow your opponent to trade his bad/neutral pieces for your good ones (your LS Bishop for example) when you're on an attack. Your opponent spent 2 tempi to bring his knight from the very useful f6 to the dubious b6, so it's ok to not make a developing move and save your good piece.

Rat1960 wrote:  "After 7...Nfd7?? 8.Qh5!Qe7 9.Bg5! White wins."
Well winning: as either 8. ... Qf6 might be better than ... Qe7 and or then black has 9. ... Nf6

 After 7...Nfd7 I had the  position analyzed by the chess engine Stockfish.  It gave  8.Qg5  +2.15.

But it gave 8.Qf3 +2.80.  "Well winning"  is misleading given the Stockfish assessment.

In any case Bg5 is not enough to be well winning, one has to see the possible Qf6-g7 and Qe7 Nf6, and see that Nd5 kills it. Now, for the move order between Bg5 and Nd5 (depending on Black's response), I haven't checked.

Stockfish 2.80 is just a number and should not be relied on to say a position is well winning or not. A position can go from -3 to -6 following a short (10 moves) sequence of mainly forced moves, and a position at -3 can be complex and solid enough to allow the weak side to play and make the winning side have to prove he earned the win, after 30 moves and finishing in an endgame where he has to promote pawn using a knight.

I am sure that you are a well meaning poster.  But you are missing the point.  But it is understandable because I didn't tell you how many plies it analyzed.  It analyzed 30 plies deep.  So any question about the engine's  analytical horizon is not worth discussing. 

I only glanced at the position.  My tactical  visualization pattern recognition caused  the  combination I saw to jump up off the board at me.  Normally I double check  my visualization pattern with detailed calculation.  In this case I did not.  I also  am well meaning and didn't want to mislead.  My admission now should clear that point up.

#29. The English Language phrase "Winning" has been used in Chess for years pre-dating the creation of stockfish. You might like to study Fischer v Tal R27 26 Oct 1959 (Candidates). Fischer was winning ( ie, at least +2 to +3 in engine eval terms )

Anyway this thread is about RunsAmok see #22
"At the time, my focus was on preserving the center I'd just built up. (As has been noted, I was seeing the center more as an important goal in itself rather than as space to further secure an advantage.)"

Which tells me RunsAmok has read my posts and is revising his knowledge of the themes and principles of chess which is way more important than missing the odd strong move.
The former rather than the later will develop his chess playing strength.

#21 and earlier @ChePlaSsYer has chipped in his 10 cents worth, that RunsAmok does not quite grasp how the Bishop is a key element in a centre opening attack because it attacks e6, f7 etc which combined with an e5-pawn is crushing and therefore should be preserved (see #24). 
They both get it, I think slow down there, you will over load RunsAmok's brain.

Engines are great for linear depth calculations and they are relentless but they do not teach you the principles of turning a strong position into a win.
The entire game is weak v weak (I know I entered the moves btw) hence the shed load of principle posts.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

When you are dealing  with beginners you have to stick with the basics.  The list is the basics.  They need to personalize and memorize this list first.  Then they can discuss all the theory they want.

RunsAmok wrote:

"...Sounds like the reason..." is the correct conclusion.

In practice you make a written list titled:

            Things to do before I  make a move

1. Am I sitting on my hands  now t I am seated at the chess board table?

2. Is my written list in my possession?

3. What is my opponent  threatening to do?

4. What is the pawn structure  on the board and what are the pawn break points? 

     a. Are there any pawn majorities on either side board?

     b. Are there any open or half-open files on the board?  Who is in control of that file?

     c. Are there any pawn weaknesses on the board?  You will have to learn about (doubled pawns,

         isolated pawns, backward pawns, etc.) and how to exploit those weakenesses

     d. Is the center blocked.  Flank attacks succeed more often when the center is blocked

5. Are there any enemy undefended Pieces and/or Pawns?

   a. Beware of pieces and or pawns that are defended indirectly.

   b. Beware of pieces and or pawns that are defended backwards. 

6. Are there any weak square complexes in the position?   Learn what these are and how to exploit.  

7. Have I checked all of these items above 2x before I make a move? 

I beg to differ, tactic is a very important part of chess. In My tactical enthousiasm, I've probably been too specific, but Qh5, Bg5 and Nd5 are not odd move, they are very common moves to attack during the opening, and it's good to have them in mind and know what may make them good (no knigside knight, weak pawn structure, a queen on e7...).

Good post, Rat1960. Principles beget an understanding of a position's strengths, from which the ensuing tactics then spring.

I started to look at this from white's perspective to see if I could shine any light on the position. However, as I played it through I noted that you won quite easily anyway. So I don't really know what the problem is. You played well. You got a better position and a lead in development as consequently crushed black. My few comments (below) may help anyway.

(4xel, Fieldsofforce, and Corum, I've bolded your names below to show where my replies begin.)

In my OP, I said "One of the things I considered at the point which the picture shows was attempting to smash through black's middle. But it seemed like the trades required would have ended with a weaker position and less options." My takeaway from some of the general discussion going around is that trading away center pawns and perhaps a few minor pieces in order to open my opponent's middle would have been perfectly acceptable. In fact, it would have been the best plan in a game where black hadn't severely weakened its king side. Should I be looking to go up the middle as a general rule of thumb in games where my opponent has not castled?

4xel, I worked through the lines of play given in your post. Great stuff! I understand the lesson about the importance of a knight on f6 from your first posted board.

In the second board you posted, you demonstrated why 1. Qh5 Qf6 was a bad move. (Btw, 5.Be6+!! In that line really set me back on my heels. I went through a few unlisted alternatives and everything ended in a mate for white.). A lot of the 1...Qf6 line is predicated on 2...Qxd5. I would have played 2...Bh6. Best response I could find for white was 3. e5. Is there a reason black shouldn't play 2...Bh6 ?

I found it interesting that black gets destroyed in 2...Qf6, but with 2...Qe7 they get the e4 pawn for free. It underlines the risk of the 1. Qh5 attack at that point of the game.

Just to make sure I understand your discussion of Rxf3, you're advising 1. gxf3 Rg8 2. Rf1g1 Rxg1 3.Rxg1 (perhaps following with 4. e5) would have been a better line?

As I played through your lines, I slowed down to decide my moves as both sides before checking your next move. I found myself missing some key moves. It's clear that I need to improve my tactical thinking after covering the fundamentals. In his book, Jeremy Silman advises to get a book of master or grandmaster games and thoroughly analyze each move before checking what was actually played, then comparing the annotations with your own analysis. I intend to try that after working through the rest of the Silman books I picked up. Are there any exercises I can do in the meantime?

Fieldsofforce, I'm writing out that list.  I haven't gotten to the parts of Silman's book that discusses pawn structures and stuff like passed pawns, but I'm getting there. I'll be sure to have a list ready for my next serious game.

Corum, the main reason I posted was that found myself paralyzed on turn 10. I'd secured a massive advantage, and I knew there were plenty of ways to proceed. I wanted to attack blacks kingside without inviting him to fight for the center or get any easy developments. I spent half an hour in thought before making my move. It was obvious to me that I had a conceptual problem, so I wanted to check the game with more experienced players afterwards. (Which is how I found this wonderful website.) Had the game been timed (or anything other than correspondence really) I would have felt rushed to make a move and the game may have been quite different.

Looking at your commentary, you have some good thoughts. The reason I made 11. Rdf1 was that I'd been looking to attack f7 as my key square of attack. As far as the execution of that plan, I made some mistakes. I shouldn't have offered the trade of my white square bishop, and I probably should have developed my Queen's knight earlier. As to the g file, I didn't see that as more than an entryway for my queen or bishop at the time. I only realized that it had serious potential of its own during my review of 4xel's comments. So thanks for your thoughts! I haven't quite figured out what the optimal kingside attack in this game would have been after 10. 0-0-0.

RunsAmok wrote:

Fieldsofforce, I'm writing out that list.  I haven't gotten to the parts of Silman's book that discusses pawn structures and stuff like passed pawns, but I'm getting there. I'll be sure to have a list ready for my next serious game.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

With your list in hand you will progressively become a disciplined rigorous thinker  and analyzer of the position in front of you.

With your list you will  become what strong players call themselves, a Professional Gunslinger.

I don't think Qf6 is necessarilly a bad move, Qxd5 is the bad move I just wanted to illustrate that no line could safely save a pawn. I actually prefer Qf6 to Qe7, the position is a bit less cramped for black. Qf6 blocks f6 for the knight, and on f6 or e7, Black queen will likeley get kicked by a bishop (on g5) or a knight (on d5) and on f6, have to retreat to g7 or h8, so you're right, Bh6 looks like a good continuation for black after Qf6, holding the position a bit and getting this bishop to play while still possible. My first candidate response would then be e5, claiming the control of the f6 square.

But Qe7 Qf6 and Qd7 all leave black with issues to solve, so it's hard to find which is the best.

The thought process to find Be6+ was checking checks, I did not find it right away. However with a bit of practice, you immediately see that the move is at least neutral, since if king takes, white can always take a bishop back with a tempo and then defend e4 the way you want. Sacrifice in early attacks against undevellopped opponent are usually easier to prove they aren't bad since in the worse case, there are hanging bishops for you to get the material back. The second idea behind this move is fishing, that is dragging the ennemy king away from his basement.

> Just to make sure I understand your discussion of Rxf3, you're advising 1. gxf3 Rg8 2. Rf1g1 Rxg1 3.Rxg1 (perhaps following with 4. e5) would have been a better line?

Yeah I was advising gxf3, but the more I think about it, the stronger I think Rxf3 is. You got a crushing attack and there is no reason to delay it. If gxf3, black should certainly not go Rg8 and should trade his knight for your LS bishop and hope to be quick enough to castle queenside. If Rxf3, I think black should still trade knight for bishop although maybe not right away, but due to his poor choice of trading away his LS bishop, the f7 square and more generally light squares are weak, and white queen is a deadly replacement of your bishop. I have made some few tactical checks, I think black should still be able to castle queenside, but White rooks should be able to invade the seventh rank, possibly through doubling on the h or g file, which is handily made possible by Rxf3. So I think I was wrong, Rxf3 was the best

> As I played through your lines, I slowed down to decide my moves as both sides before checking your next move. I found myself missing some key moves.

It's a very good thing to do. Tactic can be tough there is no upper level of tactic a game can reach, so if you missed some moves, it's ok, and the lines I gave are probably not the best either as I did not computer checked them. I wanted to write annotations but board analysis was a bit buggy. I find that defensive moves are the hardest to find, and I am pretty sure the line I gave are inaccurate.

>In his book, Jeremy Silman advises to get a book of master or grandmaster games and thoroughly analyze each move before checking what was actually played, then comparing the annotations with your own analysis. I intend to try that after working through the rest of the Silman books I picked up. Are there any exercises I can do in the meantime?

You should make use of the tactic trainer, it won't teach you thought process, but it gives good practice and vision. I've skipped through the few games, you hang pieces, and you often fall for pawn forks. You do pull up some really nice tactics and mating attack, which is very promising, but consistency is what will take your chess to the next level.

There are also lessons here on chess.com that go through master games and have you guessed the moves, and comment on the move you attempt, so you can see if it is irrelevant, suboptimal, interesting but tactically busted...

Still reguarding the 5+5 games you played here, it looks like you do a well principled opening, then don't know what to do. If your opponent make forcing move, you respond to them and generally end up being in a very superior as a logical consequence of better developpement, but otherwise, you just flag out. I think Silman's book will make you the greatest good about it. In the meantime you can play correspondence chess, you will have all the time you need to analyse position. I think this blog post will also help you, it's about making a plan : https://www.chess.com/blog/JMurakami/beginner-level-game-analysis-what-s-a-plan. In short, identify and target weaknesses, and deny your opponent the ability to do the same.

• You should try to prevent castling to leave his king stuck in the center. Since you are the one who controls the center, it is going to be very dangerous for his king, close to the squares you have conquered.
• Since it is hard for Black to strike back at the center, you should proceed with a kingside attack (it is much harder for a successful kingside attack if Black can strike in the center) if he castles kingside.
• Since you have a very strong lead in development, try and open up some lines in the center (especially if his king cannot castle and is stuck in the center) and proceed to occupy the center with your knights, bishops and queen(s).

Oh! I did not realize game logs were viewable. Heh.

For the sake of my pride, I'll mention that those were quick games I played to relax before bed. I didn't care if I won or not. Which was why I resigned halfway through the early games. But it also nicely underlines your points. I was aware of my struggle to come up with plans (middle game is my weakest area) but I wasn't fully conscious of my weakness for pawn forks and hanging pieces. Sometimes it takes someone pointing things out even if it's somewhere in the back of your mind, I think.

I'll definitely  check out the chess.com lessons. Thanks in particular for the blog article. Learning how to develop a plan was the exact reason I recently became interested in chess again.