Good Positional Chess, Planning & Strategy Books for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/introduction-to-positional-chess-planning-strategy
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
How do you find a good move in calm positions where there are no "obvious" moves to play?
Sort:
Feb 26, 2020
0
#23
RussBell: Thanks for the links, your blog post about positional chess & planning/strategy feels very relevant to me. Being able to create tactical opportunities and weaknesses in opponents position is essential to win against players who are strong enough to not make any obvious mistakes.
You recommend quite many books, have you personally gone through them all? I like your avatar, btw.
Analysis aside, game well played. You lasted 50 moves against a much higher rated opponent, and you kept your pieces.
kaukasar wrote:
The reason i didn't move the rooks was because there were no obvious files to put them on and i couldn't predict where they would be more useful. A very general idea is to put them on d & e files to centralize, but i rather play with a concrete idea in mind.
I don't mean to labour the point but there's no concrete idea required for naturally developing any pieces. While rook moves are harder to choose and less important than knight ones for development, they are still worth something.
Did you ever hear of the concept of the "mysterious rook move"? It's the phenomenon of a rook move that seems to have no point and sometimes looks quite bizarre. Gradually and especially after a lot of analysis the point of the mysterious rook move is revealed. Rooks are notorious for being apparently simplistic but masking incredible complications. Moving to the files c/d/e in quiet positions are fine moves and part of development, unless of course your rooks are needed on their home squares.
kaukasar wrote:
RussBell: Thanks for the links, your blog post about positional chess & planning/strategy feels very relevant to me. Being able to create tactical opportunities and weaknesses in opponents position is essential to win against players who are strong enough to not make any obvious mistakes.
You recommend quite many books, have you personally gone through them all? I like your avatar, btw.
Yes. I own every book mentioned in all of my blog articles. (I've collected lots of chess books - hundreds - over three decades) I go to lengths to choose what I consider to be the better chess books. I spend time with each recommended book, becoming familiar with its contents and its suitability in terms of instructively covering its respective topic(s), be it opening, middlegame, endgame, positional chess, pawn play, etc. Glad you like the avatar!
By the way, you might check out the posts by @blueemu in the following forum thread. He presents instructive commentary on the four major principles of chess - force, time, space and pawn structure. These principles are the subject of two of the books I recommend in my blog article on positional concepts - "Play Winning Chess" by Yasser Seirawan and "New Ideas In Chess" by Larry Evans.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gm-larry-evans-method-of-static-analysis
Optimissed wrote:
Btw good rook moves aren't mysterious. In an otb game with plenty of time to think, it's often worth thinking for at least 20 minutes about where to place the rooks, based on an analysis of which files are likely to open, how they will open and what targets are on them. And then, if you have placed your rooks well and your opponent doesn't do the same analysis and maybe gets his rook placement wrong, that will create the pressure you use to win with.
Shut up. As I already explained the "mysterious rook move" concept is a well-known phenomenon in chess. Nimzowitsch was the first to coin the term. Take a look at one of Bronstein's mysterious rook moves and tell me you saw it coming:
https://www.chess.com/blog/kamalakanta/bronsteins-mysterious-rook-move
There is plenty of mystery to it. Good rook moves are mysterious regularly. The rook moves are some of the most complicated and mysterious moves of all. I was trying to explain why developing the rooks more towards the centre is a good idea despite there being no obvious and clear point. It's not just me that's saying it, it's hundreds of years of theory and practice. Nunn, Emms and Korchnoi have written books about rooks and it is incredible how complicated they are and how yes mysterious many of the rook moves are. So again shut up. Even 69AlphaMale109 knows better than you.
Here Carlsen makes the move Re8 from the f8 square and it's considered an excellent and "very deep move" and a good idea that is suggested by natural development. Then he makes the move Rc8 and it's not that mysterious but it's still not obvious in a concrete way why to make it, it's prophylactic.
https://chessbase.in/news/wcc-2016-game-2/
Feb 26, 2020
0
#28
kaukasar wrote:
i came up with these candidate moves: xd4, d5 and e5. Each one of them would modify my own and my opponents pawn structure in a different way but how can i tell which of those would be most beneficial to my position
A structure with e5, d6, c5 is usually bad when your knights are like that. So after e5 if white plays d5 you're going to be pretty miserable for the next 20 moves.
First of all I would resolve the structure into something I'm more familiar with... a hedgehog. So I'd capture on d4. After that your pawn breaks are on d5 and b5. In a hedgehog your queen rook belongs on c8 and your other rook d8 or e8.
You call this a quiet position, but if you did get a hedgehog, that calm is deceiving. It usually explodes with a huge mess of tactics meshed with positional and endgame ideas all at once. Very technically demanding to play this position well for the next 20-40 moves.
Feb 26, 2020
0
#29
kaukasar wrote:
In case you are curious how the rest of the game went, here it is:
I'm surprised there's a 400 point gap. I thought you play just as well as him. Good job 
Feb 26, 2020
0
#30
Unlike optimissed I noticed your username, avatar, and account creation date, so good luck baiting me 
Holy shi.t how dumb are you Optimissed? You're even causing 69AlphaMale109 to break character is how bad you are.
You're arguing with super gms and some of the greatest names to have ever played chess. You're arguing with Carlsen's Re8 and Rc8 and the writer of the chessbase article.
I laid it out so clear for you. I expected you to come back with some half-baked reluctant concessions and apologies, and instead of that you're really going to say that as a response to all of what I gave you? You're a joke.
Feb 26, 2020
0
#32
Optimissed wrote:
He even told me I was arguing with Carlsen, so now he's claiming to be Carlsen? He has the logical ability of a demented octopus.
Hmm, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because I've seen you on the forums for a long time, but now I can't tell if you're being stupid purposefully or accidentally... which mean it's time to say goodbye.
Please stop this childishness...
Feb 27, 2020
0
#35
What i have learned since starting this thread is that i need to increase my knowledge in strategy & positional play to know what to do next time i end up in a similar situation. I've downloaded the Play Winning Chess & Weapons Of Chess books. On my future to-do list is going through Amateurs Mind book. I'll take another look at possible plans for both sides that some of you provided earlier in the thread.
WSama wrote:
Analysis aside, game well played. You lasted 50 moves against a much higher rated opponent, and you kept your pieces.
llamonade2 wrote:
I'm surprised there's a 400 point gap. I thought you play just as well as him. Good job
Thanks, but playing well is not enough, i want to win also!
@kaukasar -
As for mysterious rook moves, perhaps check out the endgame section in the following blog article containing resources specific to rook endgames...
Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
also lots of chess book recommendations in the following article, including a couple of books on rook endings....
Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond
I'm sure you'll improve fast with how hard your willing to work. Books are great. My suggestion would be to find a club with humans to play with. Getting your butt whooped by a stronger human willing to go over the game afterwards is a key way to improve.
Feb 27, 2020
0
#38
ArtNJ wrote:
I'm sure you'll improve fast with how hard your willing to work. Books are great. My suggestion would be to find a club with humans to play with. Getting your butt whooped by a stronger human willing to go over the game afterwards is a key way to improve.
Advance pieces, set up strategy. Keep control of the center squares.
Feb 27, 2020
0
#40
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
69AlphaMale109 wrote:
If you can decide on a best square for your rooks then your opponent will likely play something else and your "better square" became worse.
You decide on the best square for the first rook and this takes into account that your opponent will try to "play something else" and that's the whole idea. Sometimes it takes three rook moves to place your rooks on the best squares. Always have something lined up, if possible. That's the beauty of slow otb chess. Use the time well and outplay the opponent. It's only mysterious to people who think that everybody but them is a fool. And it's clear that you three cowboys think that.
If you peaked at 2200 this is a topic that you still need to learn a lot about, my friend.
Well, my friend, I can assure you I would have done a fair bit better if it wasn't for the fact that I learned chess at the age of 36. Before that, I only knew the moves. I had never studied the game or played competitively. Given your response to my perfectly intelligible post, in which I politely gave my opinion, I'm left wondering if you will ever achieve the ability to behave well in polite society. Doesn't look like it.
You started playing chess at 36 and peaked at 2200 elo?? That is mightily impressive!! You must be a mega talent. I've started playing chess at an age of 36 too, and now, 2.5 years later i am still struggling to make it to 1400 despite putting lots of effort into improving...
In case you are curious how the rest of the game went, here it is: