Positional Chess

edit

Just my .2 cents on the subject.

At at quick glance, I think 7...g6 is too slow. I would rather trade black's bad bishop on f5 for white's good bishop of d3.

White not fully devopling his dark bishop was his biggest problem. 

@ Zigwurst

I believe the moves you played and the idea you had contradict each other.

I am not expert but I would image the moves you played work better with the idea of 7...Bxd3

After 7...Bxd3  8.Qxd3 the idea I would of followed up with would of been.

8...dxc4 9.Qxc4 cxd4

The new focus would be targetting the backward d pawn. Is the route I would of taken.

If you wanted to focus on control of the e4 square.

Than I believe your move 2...c5 should of not been played.

In the game your idea was to play 5...Bxd1  getting rid of the knight. which would go to c3 attacking e4.

You have the right idea but you are using the wrong bishop.

The light square bishop wants to trade off the opponents light square bishop.

The bishop you need to get rid of is your dark bishop.

The move 2...c5 stops you from playing Bb4 which could try and pin the knight to exchange it off/get rid of it.

Minor piece wise only 3 pieces can control e4  2 knights  1 bishop. The other bishop is not able to help.

So you want to trade it off for one of your opponents pieces that can defend.

So 1 dark bishop takes out 1 knight the result would be:

2 knight 1 bishop vs 1 knight 2 bishops

When you start trading down for example

1 knight for 1 knight

1 bishop for 1 bishop

You end up with 1 knight vs 1 dark bishop which is a good knight vs bad bishop scenerio.

Your move 2...c5 prevents you from ever doing that. So you needed to do another idea/approach.

Or

next time don't play 2...c5

Your opponent is playing a some what stone wall position.

If your idea is Bg7.

Than I would approach your line different.

I in fact play Bg7 against this line as black.

The position ends up being almost like a catalan/g3 system vs a dutch.

With reverse colors.

Idea would be to play d5, c5, g6, Bg7.

You than would want to play Nh6 to try and trade off the light square bishop or hop a knight into f5 to target the center pawns.

So for example: Nh6  Bf5 some bishop trade than Nf5 hits the d4 and e3

Another approach would be:

Instead of going for the Nf5 idea your idea would be to play Bb7 with light square bishop than try for a Ne4. If they take you take with the pawn. An start pressuring the d4 and c5 pawns that way.

Here is a game I recently played.

This is one of the other approachs of handing the position. If you plan on playing g6 and Bg7 at any point.

This was a 15-10 game

my opponent ended up resigning.

Well maybe the problem was you was trying to mix both lines together in a hybrid sort of a way. When you should stick with just one approach.

I think either approach is very effective.

I prefer the fianchetto line only as a matter of personal taste.

I believe the line where black aims to control e4 does fairly well.

So yeah either line seperated works both lines mixed together doesn't work.

I think 2...Bf5 or 2...Nf6 would of not given you so much of the problem with your dark bishop. If your aim was control of e4.

I don't think that your moves were theorically wrong. Your moves attack the central squares e4 and d4 and give you the initiative. I really don't see how to not be worse for black after the clearly wrong c4 (c3 is the typical move un the stonewall). I'm seeing it in the phone, so I could be incorrect, but at first sight it seems a good game. Without pressure in d4 is difficult to achieve a good game as White wouldn't allow to exchange your minor pieces as is recommended above.

Your moves remain me some game of Schlechter that Silman puts in his books (also in an article here in chess.com). You saw that game?

(I don't know from who are the comments)

I don't think you played bad. Obviously your opponent play very bad (c4?, Nc3-a4-c3?), so your play looks really good.

The line of @Fiveofswords (7...Bxd3 8.Qxd3 dxc4 9.Qxc4 cxd4 10.exd4) is good, but I don't think it's better that the game. Mainteining the tension as you did is not always easy, but you do it great.

What I really don't like is when he says of 2..c5 "this move cant be a huge mistake or anything...but it just doesnt feel like a clear or direct response to whites pawn structure..." First of all, White didn't fixed his pawn structure yet. But, more important, ...c5 fits really well with this structure. It's a reverse Dutch! And everybody plays c2-c4 against the Dutch.

@Zigwurst, to evaluate your positional ideas it's better to analyse games with better players that you. For instance, games you lost are great.

There is A LOT of differencies in playing a very sharp opening (like the King's Gambit) and a positional line (like the Stonewall) with a tempo down. In the former losing a tempo would be a dissaster, in the last one it's not a major problem.

In the move order of the game, the problem with an early ...c5 and ...Nc6 is that White can play 4.Bb5xc6 and then b3-Bb2, to gain control of the e5-square (without weakening e4 like in the game). That's a kind of reverse Nimzo-Indian with the inclusion of f2-f4 (a well spend tempo). BUT, in the stonewall that arises in the game, c7-c5 is a perfect valid move, and good.

Then you are misunderstanding what is "positional", "strategy", "positional play" and "positional game".

I will quote Aagaard in his book "Strategic Play":
"(...) a positional move is dealing with the position we have right in front of us. (...) Strategic thinking is somewhat more complex. What we try to do when we think strategically is to aim in a general direction and arrive there somewhere down the line."

And the sentence "basically positional play isnt in my mind about acculumating lots of small advantages it is about the realisation of a very long term strategy." is intriguing. The times when one elite player could create a plan in move 6 and win with this plan in move 60 are simply gone, noone can play like this with a similar stregth opponent, because now everybody defends better and wouldn't be so submissive.

Between masters of similar Elo it's very difficult, because the defending side will interrupt the other's plan and then he will have to adjust his plan to the new position. It's almost impossible to take in account all the possible defences and counterchances that your opponent will have in your plan. But the problem with your "basically positional play isnt in my mind about acculumating lots of small advantages it is about the realisation of a very long term strategy." is that you exclude all the "small advantages" games to not positional. So, what are they?

Take an example:

In this game, Dominguez knew that he will win a bishop ending (and how to win it) in move 5? In move 15? When he exchange queens? Or it's not a positional game?

You didn't say that.

I do not agree with everything FOS has said but I do believe his statement that the game was not very super positional is some what true.

I strongly believe Zigwurst idea/plan was positional based. He obviously wanted to try and control e4.He had positional motivation to control that square it is clear in his comments and in some of his moves.

However, It is also clear that he went about doing it in not the best fashion.

Ultimately it seems to me that Zigwurst ended up mixing idea's/plans. Which than caused the game to turn some what tactical.

Now I will say there was some positional aspects of this game. Obviously he did get a knight on e4 which he wanted to do. An it did help with some of his tactics which is what positional advantages often achieve.

Obviously in chess every game has positional and tactical aspects in them.

For us to say the game was not positional at all would be a mistake.

I think the only thing a person can do is measure how much of the game was positional or tactic etc.

I would say the beginning was some what positional.

In the middle game I see evidence of both positional and tactical features.

Zigwurst did get a knight to e4 in the middle game and he did try and pressure the backward d4 pawn.

After winning it it lead to some tactics.

What ended up winning was a nice tactical combo which ended up winning him an exchange. Giving him material advantage.

So while we can say the tactics helped win the game. We can not say the positional aspects didn't help. Obviously they did help. Usually when you do very well positionally in a game alot of tactics can stem from there.

As for the move 2...c5 I know several people have talked about it. This is my take on the issue.

Its not that this move is wrong. Its just this move fits better with another positional idea/approach.

Its like his move is not a blunder or mistake but if his plan is to control e4 than its not right.

2...c5 gains center control. It also gains space no one will ever agrue gaining space is wrong.

It has alot of attractive features this move c5.

However, 2...c5 has nothing to do with e4 and it also prevents black from gaining more control of e4. The dark bishop really wants to exchanges itself off for a knight on c3 to gain more control on e4.

So while 2...c5 is not a mistake or blunder from a computers eyes. I am only labeling it wrong because it goes against his plan. His plan is to control e4 so 2...c5 is a mistake.

If he his plan was to control d4 than the move 2...c5 is the best move on the board. Its rockin' and rollin' than.

2...c5  with Nc6  these moves are controlling dark squares. In this game the d4 square is being contested.

Look at the moves you made.

c5, Nc6, Bg7

They hit dark squares the d4 square. In the game you did finally pick up on that. Which is why you was able to win d4 some what easy. All your pieces were positioned in spots to attack it.

FOS mentioned the move Bg4 this idea is bascially same idea I was saying.

However, he is using the opposite bishop and controlling another square. The reason I did not like 2...c5 was because I wanted to trade the dark bishop for a knight on f3 to gain control of e4.

FOS idea with Bg4 is to control d4. He is getting rid of the LSB for a knight on f3 which will hit d4. Which will work in harmony with the moves c5,Nc6, Bg7.

A word of caution I will add to this story

Your opponent is playing the bird opening.

Which means he may very well be planning to control the dark squares as well.

He may have similar idea's of giving his light square bishop up for your knight on c6.

Than fianchettoing his dark bishop on b2.

Which will work in harmony with his first pawn move f2-f4

Be very careful when you play Nc6.

For white has dark intentions.

f4, e3, Bb2, Nf3, Bb5

An your are not the only one dancing in harmony

Here is a game I played where I tryed to aim for 1 square. I was determinded to control e5.

As you will see the game was won on e5 lol.

I was on a mission lol.

10-0 time control

Well since FOS brought up the Gruenfeld.

I might as well show a game I played.

It was against a staff member.

Poor fella hasn't been around lately.

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1226381855

I had to bring out the hurricane on him.

Very interesting. I'll give it a try for sure. It might confuse people