Prophylaxis and computer analysis...

NOTE: I understand that one normally shouldn't add any computer analysis to the comments until after discussion. However this question is specifically about moves I believed to be perfectly good prophylactic moves and the computer analysis after the game came down hard on. So I need human eyes and understanding here to help me improve.

One way of asking the problem is "if two 2400+ masters sat down to the board with the position shown, would it be 'technique' for white? Would the prophylaxis constipate the position enough to make any real progress by white problematic?  I look at the position and it's obvious that black (me) isn't going anywhere but I also don't see any great chinks in the armor. 

I just finished a game and afterward ran an analysis on it.  Not surprisingly I played many inexact moves.  But I got to a point in the game where I wonder if the computer analysis was...uhm...tactical and missing the point?  I know, the engine is much stronger than me so that isn't the question.

The engine considers the position before my next move to be about a .29 or so.  After b6!? it evaluates it as .75.  The only reason I don't annotate this as b6?! is I don't think it leads to a lost or ruinous position.

Two moves later and black has moved his pieces to the locations necessary to clamp down on e3-e4 and c4-c5 doesn't seem to go anywhere. At this point the engine analyzes white ahead by about 0.75.

Am I missing something important?

The most important factors to notice in the diagram you posted is the N at d4 and that the characteristic pawn structure is the Jump Formation analyzed from both (White and Black) sides by IM Hans Kmoch in his book, Pawn Power In Chess.   

The N is blockading the IQP at d5.  The restraining and blockading steps have already been carried out.

Also that blockading N at d4 is unassailable by any Black pawns to kick him from that outpost.

If you will recall the 3 steps in Nimzowitsch's My System are restrain, blockade and execute the enemy.

Because the blockading N at d4 is unassailable by Black pawns White can choose to execute the Black pawn at d5 at the most advantageous moment for White's purposes.  Or choose to convert to another advantage as a bridge to victory if it proves necessary to KILL COUNTERPLAY.

The above summary is the most accurate perspective of the diagrammed position you posted.  Based on the said summary please post a description of what you analyze to be Black's best way to  proceed given the characteristic Jump Formation pawn structure.  Also post some potential moves for Black that suggest themselves from analysis given the new perspective summarized above.

If you have any questions or would like to know more please let me know.  

Thanks! Very cogent reply. Of course those are all great points on how white should execute black but how should black keep his neck from the guillotine?

I'll definitely revisit the position and see what might be done based on your comments.  I'll post some thoughts back. At the time the only thing I could think of was restraining any white pawn breaks.

I did think my opponent had the better of me in the position and recognized the knight blockade.  The only upsides I could see were his bad dark square bishop and the backward pawn on c3. Those would get untangled eventually so my question became what to do?

In the post-game analysis the computer engine didn't like b6 at all and preferred Nbd7.  Probably a better move.  But given the IQP I wanted to get my dark squared bishop behind it and then get the rook to e8 to further prevent e4 by white.

But I don't know if I'm thinking about this right or not.  I'm thinking "prophylaxis" when I looked at the position but may have been thinking about it wrong.

Thanks a bunch for your reply.

I'd noticed that the move b6 created a hole at c6 before I made it but didn't think it was a problem.  Afterward I realized that both b5 and c6 are weak and the N is poised to take advantage of either at the right moment.  And it was then that I recognized the semi-open "a" file was essentially pinning my rook to the defense of the a7 pawn. After I'd made the move b6 I thought that perhaps a6 would have been better in order to keep his N out.

I'd thought about Qc7 putting his c3 pawn under direct attack but that looked like it helped white put his pieces on the right squares. His dark squared B would move to protect the pawn and probably his Rf1 would swing over behind the pawn. Then a push of it would create the exchange of advantages you mention.

The Nd4 was a monster but exchanging it would mean black's c3 pawn would become a d4 pawn supported by the e3 pawn and that looked positively ugly.

Putting my B on e6 and hopng white would swap it for his N seemed akin to trying some sort of swindle.  The B would sit there like a big pawn otherwise.

Two things suggest themselves to me after your comments.  Ne4 hits  the c3 pawn and forces white to protect it and I gain a tempo. If he swaps his light squared B for the Ne4 he loses the two B's and connects my pawns back up.  The other attempt is to try to get one of my N to the c4 square trying to return the favor of blockading a pawn.

While two B's are considered advantageous that may not be so especially with white's currently bad dark square B. With your mention of the jump formation, my two N's may have been at least equal.

I'm not sure there's much I can do about his monster Nd4 and have to look to create my own threats.

“In a jump formation …the side with the span plus [the more advanced center pawn] has a slight advantage in space. To maintain this edge and probably increase it, the attacker is usually better off if he (a) holds his pieces in a state of readiness  (b) avoids exchanges   (c) counteracts the forming of levers rather than striving for it  (d) works with occasional threats (e) generally bides his time for major action.”

So from Kmoch's thoughts here I was on the right track with the idea of prophylaxis and not trying to push things but the analysis would be that the tactics were wrong.

I did have the more advanced pawn even though it was an IQP and avoided trades for that reason.  Kmoch seems to indicate that that is a good idea in any jump formation.

When he speaks of levers I guess he's talking about moves like e4 or c4 in the given position and that the one with advanced pawn should prevent the formation of those.

I also noted that Kmoch mentions that the dark squared B behind the pawn formation is a detriment and it obviously was in my game.

That is correct.

@Yaroslavl - why do you think that the computer rates ...b6 as much worse than ...Nbd7 ?

I'm wondering if it's because of the weaknesses this creates at a6 and c6, or maybe because it gets in the way of the Knight getting to c4 (perhaps in conjunction with ...a6 and ...b5) ? Or maybe just because it is not a developing move?

Those questions hit right at the heart of why I turned to the forum for help.  I think the computer is a tactical monster that simply doesn't see the game in the way human would.  That doesn't mean its worse by any means.  But if it calculates a move that gains .33 points it will make that move regardless of other long term factors.  And ultimately as a human I can't calculate or think about the game like a computer.

I think too your questions are holistic in that all of those are factors play into the evaluation.  Black is slightly more developed than white in the position and Nd7 brings out another piece furthering development with white still uncastled and the bad bishop sitting on c1 without immediate possibilities.  So rapid development is going to be important especially with the IQP.

Nc6 would allow white to exchange it and saddle black with a backward pawn or white could continue to develop and any attempt at Nxd4 once again gives white a nice center.

But the entire plan of Nbd7 avoiding exchange followed by Ne5 and Nc4 is one part of the whole.  The move a6 and b4 accomplishes the fiancheto without the weaknesses I created. It still creates the hole at c6 but a6 does prevent Nb5.  I'm going to look hard at those pawn moves though as that is very commital and likely weakening. "What would Capablanca do?" Probably wouldn't touch the pawns.

One move I made that the computer did agree with was Re8 getting it on the half open file and preventing an near term plans of e4.  Maybe more importantly if Bb2 then the rook prevents f3 and then e4 as white loses a pawn.

I need to do a bit more analysis and think about your questions.

I think b6 is bad because black is fianchettoing a bishop to a square, on which it shoots into its own pawn. (d5) The d5 pawn wasn't immediately attacked, so what was the need to defend it, and make your bishop bad?

The other things I liked about ...a6 and ...b5 is that

• the Bishop on b7 then protects the pawn on a6, releasing the a8 rook
• the b5 pawn would support a Knight on c4

I'm not convinced that b7 is such a bad square for the Bishop either, since it still makes its influence felt on e4 through the d5 pawn. 

But those are just my thoughts and I'm no expert at this chess thing.

Where's the strong players when you need them?! Where's phren gone?

@aman

I think IpswichMatt has the idea behind Bb7.  It isn't bad on that square as it supports the IQP and prevents the e4 break.  The move ..b6 is bad because it creates holes.

@IpswichMatt

I like your thoughts about ..a6 and ..b5.  I think that may be part of what Yaroslavl is getting at about the lever creation in the Jump Formation.  Without an "a" pawn white is now stuck for a pawn break at c4 and once the black N gets to c4 it is supported twice as you point out.

I have to look at this further on the board to make sure I'm not missing a tactical shot in there.

Sometimes I feel like a dyslexic cook who can perfectly slice and dice the vegetables and meat but then can't read the recipe.

Yes I know that feeling.

I also think that a strong player will come on here and tell us it's all simple and the correct plan is this-this-and-this.

I'll have another look tonight and have a play with Houdini.

A little background on the opening.  It came out of the Huebner variation of the Nimzo-Indian.

It turns out there was a game in 1968 between Pomar Salamanca and Damjanovic which followed this line up to b6 at which point Damjanovic played ..Nbd7

Please post the full game

My, my, my their pawn play is interesting.

At first I thought Pomar's push of 11. c4 was a mistake letting black liquidate his IQP.  But the IQP is always a double edge sword.  It is the most prominent pawn in the center, black's only presence there, and when it is gone white will dominate completely.

Additionally the two B's springs to life.  Whites' B's strafe the center of the board.

Finally, by playing 11..dxc4 black will be subject to a mini-minority attack. White will force black to swap off one of the Q-side pawns and black will then be stuck with a horrible isolani on the Q-side.

Bad all around.

So Damjanovic continues to keep his development pace up an get the Nd7 wheeled out to where it belongs.

11..Ne5

The IQP is protected by the queen and either Nxc4 or dxc4 really is threatened.

So white pushes on by with 12. c5

I'm not sure I like white's pawn play here and have to look at this further.

Pomar(white) likely believed that black would liquidate the pawns with 11..dxc4 and perhaps he was too concerned about his backward pawn.

The pawns weren't going anywhere and I think he should have gotten the rest of his pieces out of the box and castled.  He's still laging in development and pushing the c3 pawns doesn't make sense. It just releives pressure on black. If he plays c4 or e4 it has to be a forcing move getting rid of the IQP or as yaroslavl put it gaining some other advantage.

Pushing c4 here doesn't gain anything.

Hi Friends here you have an article about prophylaxis with some advices and examples http://www.chess.com/blog/JRgascon/profilactic-thinking-i