Conversion advice

"Push the pawns, sac the knights, bring the queen, and MATE MATE MATE!!!" ............is not typically how I play chess. I like to get two bishops, a space advantage, and reasonable pawns and wear my opponents down by accumulating small advantages that eventually pull them under. Which is great....in theory. The problem is that, while I often manage to attain very tangible advantages by force, I sometimes have great difficulty converting these advantages into a victory. 

So what's your best advice on converting exchanges, extra pawns, the bishop pair, space, and time from technical advantages to actual victories? 

The most useful axiom for me was when my friend who was teaching me kept saying "pawns and patience". At my level of playing, space isn't as much of a deciding factor. Being very careful is the deciding facor. You can try like I did and do, and get a single pawn and try to hold onto it. It worries your opponent as you carefully trade pieces throughout the game. It took me a lot of practice, but you can learn about winning chess games that way:) 

I know about liquidating material and getting to an endgame - I've done this more than a few times, but once you liquidate you have to prove that bishops really are superior to knights....which is tricky

Yes. I don't know that I've had much experience in favoring bishops over knights in practice. So much depends on the position that it's hard to remained married to the idea that bishops are better than knights. Usually, for me, it's better to take one knight over one bishop at the endgame, but it really depends on where your pawns are and where your king is at the endgame:)

So maybe a kernal to extract from this is: When liquidating, keep track of the resulting positions and liquidate to an acceptable pawn structure. This is actually a mistake I make often - considering the material balance as I facilitate the trades and neglecting the ugly pawns and passive king that result from a mad series of exchanges. 

Also: One knight > one bishop is a good seed to plant. Bishops dramatically flunctuate in endgame value based on whether your promotion square matches the the vicar's denomination

That's well said! Also, I think people don't like draws so much that they push too hard to win and get careless. I have found that if I can keep things even and always keep the draw in my sight, then it helps me in reducing the number of moves I have to consider. It's like chess games are going to have mistakes in them so playing carefully without rejecting the idea of a draw will probably allow your opponent to push too hard for a win and make the mistake you can take advantage of:)

Avoid exchanging pieces if it develops an opponents piece upon recapture or places an opponents piece on a better square. If you have the bishop pair look to exchange pawns and open the position up. If your a pawn up and each have rooks, avoid pawn exchanges and look to exchange pieces- rook and pawn end games are usually drawn, even a pawn up. If you have a space advantage, avoid trades. If you have a lead in development, try and attack- a lead in development is usually temporary and it's advantage disappears quickly many times. Those are a few tips in answer to your questions.

I think it's most important to just try to make the best move every single move. That means head toward the enemy king if it's the best move, or push for queenside space if it's that. If you're up at least a minor piece, exchange pieces at all cost!

Well, winning the won game is one of the hardest things to do in chess :)

In general exchanging into an endgame is good, but don't do it mindlessly. Don't give away positional advantages just for the purpose of trading. Favorable trades will come naturally -- when pieces come into contact with each other trades are inevitable, so feel free to pick only the best times to trade.

Really, though, the best advice I think I can give is to just keep playing chess. Play with the same inspiration that allowed you to accumulate those advantages in the first place -- hell, try to make your position even better! A great position can gradually turn quite bad if you keep making concessions you don't have to make -- allowing your opponent an outpost, better pawn structure, etc. If you just keep playing good moves, you have nothing else to worry about. I used to want to be able to win nice positions without calculating/planning, but that is totally the wrong mentality. Winning positions mean you will win with best play, not lazy, inaccurate play.

Oh, well, Stevie raised some similar points too now I just noticed :) I mean, you don't need to overcomplicate when you're winning, but you don't have to rush to simplify either -- just let it come naturally.

AlisonHart wrote:

So what's your best advice on converting exchanges, extra pawns, the bishop pair, space, and time from technical advantages to actual victories?

                                   _____________________ 

I will contribute one specific example.  Having to do with exchanges that result in your opponent having a loose double pawn complex.  There are some advantages but mostly disadvantages to being saddled with a doubled pawn. 

The way to exploit the doubled pawn weakness is to see it as a limp in a sitting man.  As long as the man remains seated the limp is undetectable.   But as soon as he stands up and begins to walk the limp is very apparent. 

As long as a doubled pawn complex is allowed to remain stationary the weakness is not exploitable.  But by makng  moves against your opponent's position that either force or strongly encourage the pawns  of the doubled pawn complex to advance the weaknesses become apparent and your opponent cannot pevent you from exploitng the weaknesses and gaining material, space, time, or any combination of the 3.

If you would like to know more please let me know.  

Umm, your playing strength could be 1000 rating points higher and this will still be difficult.  I find it hard to believe you only "sometimes" have difficulty converting advantages like two bishops, space, and pawn structure into a win.

What's more is, this kind of question is impossible to answer in general.  You need example positions with laborious annotation.

Oh, a material advantage.  That's more reasonable.  As said already, trading down is the stock solution.  Lose too much dynamism in the position though, and draws can appear for your opponent.  In the endgame more than anywhere you want to make use of all your pieces.  Rarely will pushing your extra pawn result in a queen and win you the game all by itself.  If all your opponent has to worry about is the extra pawn, then there are often fortresses to hold the draw.  I'm hitting on the so called principal of two weaknesses.  E.g. if your opponent commits to stopping the pawn, be ready to take advantage of his piece's absence on the other side of the board.

In the end though, when to trade, and how to convert an advantage, depends on the position and is a matter of experience and study.  I like Elubas' answer of play often and try your best even when you have the better position.

I guess time is reasonable too.  In the opening, if you're well ahead in development, then open the position.  If you're a few moves ahead you can even sacrifice for the sake of opening the position.  Converting this advantage tends to be of the sac sac mate variety, i.e. isn't your expressed style.

"Umm, your playing strength could be 1000 rating points higher and this will still be difficult."

Yes, a good point. A lot of converting small to moderate advantages (properly) is simply continuing to play lots of good moves, something that perhaps only titled players can do particularly consistently -- because it's not easy to play lots of good moves :) So don't overestimate your advantages -- even really nice looking positions can still take a lot of technique, and can be messed up in many ways. And don't beat yourself up too hard for failing to convert -- it can be a very hard task. One of the best things you can do is at least have the right mindset -- be willing to work for the win, don't get lazy.

The thing is I'm not sure it's really worth being specific -- the truth is, to convert advantages, you simply have to be pretty good at chess. And to tell someone how to do that, well, it can hardly be summarized in one post :)

If she is curious, she can look at certain endgame positions and see how they are converted, but again, it wouldn't be much use trying to present them here -- not enough space.

If it helps, I can say that a bishop is better than a knight in an endgame with pawns on both sides because it can simultaneously stop the enemy's pawns while escorting yours :)

Like I said, just having a good mindset is a fantastic first step. In fact, even I occasionally don't follow my own advice. We probably all get eager to win once in a while. The psychological aspect of this can't be overstated.

Elubas wrote:

If it helps, I can say that a bishop is better than a knight in an endgame with pawns on both sides because it can simultaneously stop the enemy's pawns while escorting yours :)

                                    ________________________

Something specific, thank you.

You might have added that the reasons the B is better than the N with pawns on both sides of the board:

1. The B can get across the board in 1 move, the N takes 4 to 5 moves to do the same.  An advantage in time for the B.

2. The B can gain or lose a tempo in zugswang positions (positions where you have achieved the ideal offensive/defensive position and you don't want to make a move that will change anything critical).  The N CANNOT EVER GAIN OR LOSE A TEMPO.  Being able to skip a turn when it is advantageous is a clear advantage to the B.

There are many more factors that together form a memory bank that becomes part of a strong player's endgame technique.

I don't know where you got your quote from but I would love to play chess like that. Sadly I lack the tactical nouse to conjure up winning combinations and I am rather slow to spot mating nets.

As a result I have always played strategically, or perhaps the better word is positionally. Anyway you are right to identify equal trades as a significant feature in the game. Trades which disturb your opponent's pawn structure while leaving yours intact are not equal at all - if they concede nothing tactically they are advantageous for you.

How to expand other positional advantages until a win appears? Well what I find is that you need experience. I have played for fifty years or more and have advanced rather slowly. But I have advanced. To-day I have some idea of why and when the bishop pair is an advantage and how to exploit that advantage - ten years ago I had no idea about that. To-day I win a proportion of my games because my opponent gets a backward pawn and I know how to make use of that feature and, often enough, turn the advantage into something concrete. I love to play closed positions and to-day I am quite good at seeing how the pawn structure allows manoevring and how I can arrange that I am the one who can make a pawn break while denying that option to my opponent.  If you can do that you gain the initiative and stiffle your opponent.  You still have to come up with the way to increase pressure so that the pawn break, when you decide to make it, confers benefit.  But if you get the pawn structure on your side in this way it is easy for you to keep up your interest and effort, hard for your stiffled opponent to do so.

I suppose what lies behind improvement is to have seen similar positions to those that appear over the board often enough before to give you some insight.

Anyway, my advice is to let this sort of thing come at its own pace. No doubt there are excellent ways to advance much more quickly than I have been able to do but I think they would involve work. Just playing and letting positional understanding emerge as it sees fit only involves enjoying yourself.

Good luck.

The quote is just me trying to write out an aggressive player's mindset.

There are a lot of great tips on this thread that I will definitely work on in my chess....really though, it sounds like what's actually frustrating me isn't a lack of knowledge, it's just the learning curve. When you go from 'beginner' to 'intermediate', you get much better much more quickly because you're playing reasonable opening moves, not falling for as many obvious tactics, using tactics yourself, and, in general, playing serious chess rather than casual chess (a *bad* version of serious chess, but modeled on Grandmaster play). 

The road from 'intermediate' to 'advanced' is not something that can be traversed by collecting tips and tidbits........I suppose I just have to relax and lose some more games, lol. 

Thanks all!