Forums

Choosing how to try to gain an advantage

Sort:
TeraHammer
TeraHammer
Show your flair!
Mar 25, 2012
0
#41

On other the hand, if you wait for the maximum effect, wouldn't your opponent do it instead at an earlier time? Or do you have to make sure through your initiative that that is no option?

jpr1
jpr1
Show your flair!
Mar 25, 2012
0
#42

Paul,

that's a very helpful point about pawn tension, and "To take is a mistake".  helps me understand more why the tension remains for so long in some of the GM games I've been studying.  

and the many concomitant points about how taking too early can cause you to lose the strength of your position, even if it looks like you will be gaining something in the short term.  

very interesting that, in philosophy, a number of philosophers, especially Hegel, for example, thought that a kind of tension in thought, an idea or state of affairs which contains a contradiction is precisely powerful because it contains this contradiction.  The contradiction can lead to a new, "higher" state of affairs, if it is allowed to resolve itself, in the way that is "right" for it to do so.  that is, in the way that the contradiction itself leads to.  there are certainly some disanalogies here between chess and philosophy, but I found the analogies on this point intriguing.

theunsjb
theunsjb
Show your flair!
Mar 25, 2012
0
#43
paulgottlieb wrote:

I start to feel on shaky ground when the talk turns to philosophy, but it does seem true that really good players are comfortable with a higher level of tension in the position than I am.

To add to Paul's comment, I watched one of GM Sam Shankland's "best moves of all time" series videos: http://www.chess.com/video/player/the-10-best-moves-of-all-time-1)

It was the one of Gary Kasparov's final game against Anatoly Karpov.  Kasparov only needed a draw to become world champion.  But instead of playing for a draw, he went in with an all-out attack with black (he was playing the Najdorf) and went on to win the game.

I guess that kind of nerve and iron will to win is what separates a champion from the rest of us. Smile

jpr1
jpr1
Show your flair!
Mar 25, 2012
0
#44

I've been here for twenty years-- actually grew up in new york.  Started out in Hyde Park, but have been living in Rogers Park (far northern part of the city) for the last 12 years.  it's a great city--

I know what you mean about Fischer-- in the "game of the century", his queen sacrifice did exactly what you describe.  revealed an incredible position for himself.

I'll look up that Kasparov game that theunsjb mentioned.  recently was looking at a blitz game of Kasparov against Kramnik in which he sacrificed his queen, as black, and went on to win with a much superior position throughout the rest of the game.

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 28, 2012
0
#45

I considered posting games here that I end up losing when I didn't know what to do. I am curious if anyone else likes this idea.We could all do it and share ideas. I have decided I think I need to start looking at things like this more carefully, as well as, where I perhaps went wrong to get into either a zugzwang or a postion that is worse, that has no good moves.

AlCzervik
AlCzervik
Mar 28, 2012
0
#46
nameno1had wrote:

I considered posting games here that I end up losing when I didn't know what to do. I am curious if anyone else likes this idea.We could all do it and share ideas. I have decided I think I need to start looking at things like this more carefully, as well as, where I perhaps went wrong to get into either a zugzwang or a postion that is worse, that has no good moves.

Many have done exactly that. I have seen many games posted. Go for it. Expect to see feedback from highly rated players-even Masters. You'd be suprised how many times I've seen comments from 2000+ rated players in forum topics asking a simple question like, "where did I go wrong?"

OldHastonian
OldHastonian
Mar 28, 2012
0
#47
TMIMITW wrote:
nameno1had wrote:

I considered posting games here that I end up losing when I didn't know what to do. I am curious if anyone else likes this idea.We could all do it and share ideas. I have decided I think I need to start looking at things like this more carefully, as well as, where I perhaps went wrong to get into either a zugzwang or a postion that is worse, that has no good moves.

Many have done exactly that. I have seen many games posted. Go for it. Expect to see feedback from highly rated players-even Masters. You'd be suprised how many times I've seen comments from 2000+ rated players in forum topics asking a simple question like, "where did I go wrong?"

I second this...I've seen some really interesting analyses from the likes of Pfren, on fairly rudimentary games...

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 28, 2012
0
#48

He does seem to offer good information quite regularly. He seems really nice and genuinely interested in helping others get better. Sometimes I wish a good player like him had a forum, where you took the games and let them analyze... that would be da bomb!

waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Mar 28, 2012
0
#49
paulgottlieb wrote:

It's always tricky to try to lay down general rules; every position has its own tactical considerations. The best you can do is have some general guidelines, and to be aware that there are plenty of exceptions. In fact, if you could play chess just by applying a set of rules, it would be a much less interesting game.

The general idea is that if your opponent initiates a bunch of pawn trades, you will recapture, either with pawns or by bringing your pieces to the center. As a result, where there used to be pawn tension, your opponent now has no pawn presence, and your advanced pawns and pieces dominate. Once again, every position has to be calculated carefully, but that's the general idea.

The only way to really understand this--and I am far from fully understanding it--is probably to go over the games of strong grandmasters and try to figure out when they keep the tension in the position and when they release it. I think you will find that their games feature many more positions where the pieces and pawns remain in tension for a long time.

Yes, this is a big idea for any kind of trade (but very useful to apply to pawns).  Lets say in an "equal" trade you spend a move to capture, and your opponent spends a move to re-capture, and you tally those two moves.  The side the captured lost his piece but otherwise didn't change his position.  That side that recaptured has brought another piece closer to some action.  Looking at those two moves only, the side that re-captures has the better of the deal.

(Only in principal of course... removing the defender tactic is an obvious counter example).

When you apply it to pawns it's even more permanent... as you said they lose a pawn in that area while the opponent will not (and may even gain a pawn in that area).

Also right about this being a problem for not only beginners.  I read somewhere a master's quip about how the longest a non-master has ever been known to hold the tension is 3 moves Laughing  He was joking to make a point... in the game his opponent blundered by breaking the tension giving him a winning endgame.

waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Mar 28, 2012
0
#50
nameno1had wrote:

I was recently watching a video about choosing to find a move, to make your position more advantageous, instead of just capturing pieces, at the first opportunity to gain a small advantage or to simply trade. I noticed the narrator kept meantioning the idea of increasing the tension, once you have an advantage.

I often feel like one of my downfalls as a chess player is that I simply tend to look for moves to make that don't make my position any worse, if I don't see a way to make it better. I have surmised that I simply don't know how to choose a place to attack ,that either will be the domino that makes it all crash down or where to try to make a chink in my opponents armor, to then try to exploit.

Going for the most obvious of mating attempts against a worthy opponent, usually only results in defenses that are changed, that often only lead to the need to change your position so much, that it becomes your downfall. Trying to set a elaborate decoy usually seems to leave one needing to make twice as many moves in the same amount of time to pull off.

So how to do we choose or recognize when and where to try to create this tension in the first place? Obviously, certain small advantages that can be gained, won't always win a game, but certainly tipping the balance in one's favor, is ideal.

Does anyone have any insight into this realm I have found myself delving into, that they would like to share? Perhaps we could put our heads together and grow better as a result.

The fundamental value for the evaluation of any position is mobility... from that you can derive all other types of advantages.  So in the most fundamental way, you'll seek an advantage where you are more mobile (or are able to be more mobile in the future) than your opponent.

This can be found anywhere on the board depending on the specific position, but happens most often where you have more space, more pieces, or both.  Authors sometimes call this "looking to where you pawns point"  E.g. this structure "points" the kingside for white, and white can seek an advantage (attack) there:

This has the added positional rule of thumb to attack the opponent's pawn chain at it's base.  If all white does is, say, eleminate e5 with f4 and subsequent pressure on e5, then the "head" of black's pawn chain (d4) can become a juicy target well into the endgame.

In the diagram, black would not play for his pawn break at f5 because that would likely backfire as the space suggests white will gain more mobility.  Black will likely seek an advantage on the queenside with piece play.

Kasparov said he used to have a funny habbit as a kid, to divide the chessboard in two (down the middle) and compare how many pieces of black and white were on a side.  Sometimes you'll find an odd position as in the diagram where black has many more pieces ready to go into battle on the kingside than white, and will open the kingside to gain a nice advantage.  In positions like these white usually has a few misplaced pieces or is tied up in some way or another.

It's all the same principal that causes you to castle early in the game, before things open up... you want your pieces to be in a good position before things open up.  If you're more prepared in an area than your opponent, then open it up fast!

Other factors more specific than mobility, but still fundamental factors include pawn weaknesses and a loose (attack-able) king.

nameno1had
nameno1had
Mar 29, 2012
0
#51
waffllemaster wrote:
nameno1had wrote:

I was recently watching a video about choosing to find a move, to make your position more advantageous, instead of just capturing pieces, at the first opportunity to gain a small advantage or to simply trade. I noticed the narrator kept meantioning the idea of increasing the tension, once you have an advantage.

I often feel like one of my downfalls as a chess player is that I simply tend to look for moves to make that don't make my position any worse, if I don't see a way to make it better. I have surmised that I simply don't know how to choose a place to attack ,that either will be the domino that makes it all crash down or where to try to make a chink in my opponents armor, to then try to exploit.

Going for the most obvious of mating attempts against a worthy opponent, usually only results in defenses that are changed, that often only lead to the need to change your position so much, that it becomes your downfall. Trying to set a elaborate decoy usually seems to leave one needing to make twice as many moves in the same amount of time to pull off.

So how to do we choose or recognize when and where to try to create this tension in the first place? Obviously, certain small advantages that can be gained, won't always win a game, but certainly tipping the balance in one's favor, is ideal.

Does anyone have any insight into this realm I have found myself delving into, that they would like to share? Perhaps we could put our heads together and grow better as a result.

The fundamental value for the evaluation of any position is mobility... from that you can derive all other types of advantages.  So in the most fundamental way, you'll seek an advantage where you are more mobile (or are able to be more mobile in the future) than your opponent.

This can be found anywhere on the board depending on the specific position, but happens most often where you have more space, more pieces, or both.  Authors sometimes call this "looking to where you pawns point"  E.g. this structure "points" the kingside for white, and white can seek an advantage (attack) there:

 

This has the added positional rule of thumb to attack the opponent's pawn chain at it's base.  If all white does is, say, eleminate e5 with f4 and subsequent pressure on e5, then the "head" of black's pawn chain (d4) can become a juicy target well into the endgame.

In the diagram, black would not play for his pawn break at f5 because that would likely backfire as the space suggests white will gain more mobility.  Black will likely seek an advantage on the queenside with piece play.

Kasparov said he used to have a funny habbit as a kid, to divide the chessboard in two (down the middle) and compare how many pieces of black and white were on a side.  Sometimes you'll find an odd position as in the diagram where black has many more pieces ready to go into battle on the kingside than white, and will open the kingside to gain a nice advantage.  In positions like these white usually has a few misplaced pieces or is tied up in some way or another.

It's all the same principal that causes you to castle early in the game, before things open up... you want your pieces to be in a good position before things open up.  If you're more prepared in an area than your opponent, then open it up fast!

Other factors more specific than mobility, but still fundamental factors include pawn weaknesses and a loose (attack-able) king.

I will admit that I usually have trouble finding a good series of moves to attack with against better opponents. I think this is partly due to their prowess of opening theory, that puts them into position to take control of as much space while maximizing their chances for tactical exchanges that work out into their favor.

jpr1
jpr1
Show your flair!
Mar 30, 2012
0
#52

I third that-- I've also gotten excellent comments from masters like pfren, and some other players rated 1900+

waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Mar 30, 2012
0
#53

@nameno1had

Well, at least when I attack, it's only after my opponant has given me enough of an edge there to initiate an attack... or the position otherwise allows it.  You can't plan on attacking unless certain elements are present (so that may be a problem other than your opponent's's opening knowledge for example).

Some opening's don't gear you up for an attack against the king at all, but have you work to exploit other positional elements... a very well known one is the white side of the KID white will throw most everything at the queenside while black's king is on the kingisde.

In the french, black can often go to work on d4, even holding it as a liability against white in certain endgames (black won't do a kingside attack at all).  (Obviously some variations he will, just giving some general examples).