Improving strategy, middle game - Chess Forums

Eric_T

Jul 2, 2010

0

#1

I'm relatively new to this game. I used to push pieces around with my friends as a kid, but we never really understood the game beyond the basic rules. So a few weeks ago, I decided to take a more serious stab at it and try to learn how to play well.

I feel I'm doing OK so far for a beginner. I still make the occasional blunder (just got beat with a smothered mate recently and didn't see it coming), but that is happening less and less. But I'm starting to get frustrated with my middle game and I'm not quite sure what would be the best way to work on it.

I think that my openings, while perhaps not stellar, are at least good enough to stay even with players at or even a few hundred points above my level (about 1500 online) for the first 8 moves or so. However, in some of my games I reach a point where I just don't see any moves I can make that will get me any kind of advantage. I just see loss of material and have no sense of what I need to do. In some games I even perceive that I have a developmental and/or positional advantage, and then proceed to give it away with a series of poorly planned moves.

I have done a lot of work with Tactics Trainer and Chess Mentor and watched some videos, but I still feel that something big escapes me. For example, in one of the Chess Mentor exercises, there was a 3 or 4 move sequence designed to get a knight on d4. I failed the exercise horribly, because although I could figure out a way to put my knight there, I completely missed the impetus to do so. I know d4 is generally a good square to be on, but what would make me decide in a certain game at a certain point that I should endeavour to work a knight around the board to occupy d4?

I expect that it is game strategy that I need to work on, not necessarily tactics, but I could be wrong. Any suggestions on resources to study or things to practice?

QueenB4u

Jul 2, 2010

0

#2

[COMMENT DELETED]

trigs

Jul 2, 2010

0

#3

well, your question is huge and requires a very lengthy answer. i will try to answer the specific knight reference in general terms.

you want to try to look for your opponent's weak squares. those are squares that he/she cannot adequately defend. normally you want to take advantage of the weaker squares in the middle of the board more so than the ones on the outer edges. weak squares that you can defend with a pawn are excellent spots for your knights. weak squares tend to come about from too many pawn moves since the pushed pawns can't defend all the squares in between.

bishops like to be on the long diagonals where they can have the most influence. diagonals that are not blocked up are also very good for your bishops. the general rule is you want your pawns on the opposite color of your bishop. this makes for a strong bishop (as opposed to a weak bishop that can't move around well because your pawns block the diagonals it can travel on).

rooks like open and half open files. open files are the files with no pawns on them. half open files are the files with only one pawn on them. placing rooks in the open (or half open) d and e files are very strong (especially if your opponent has not castled yet).

Bur_Oak

Jul 2, 2010

0

#4

I glanced quickly at a couple of your games, and my impression is that strategy, while important, should not be your first concern at this point. It seems that you are having some difficulty seeing your opponents' threats (especially in 15 minute games). You are falling victim to forks, discovered attacks, and other tactics which would derail any middlegame strategy. Add to that, the occasional piece left hanging or outright blunder, and it's making for a hard time.

You seem to do a little better with longer time controls. I'd suggest playing nothing shorter than about 30 minutes per side, and preferably longer. Take the time to look through a position, and see if you are in danger before making your move. Guard your pieces. Try not to give up material for no adequate reason.

Once you can see well enough to guard against your opponents' threats and begin to make your own, there will be more of a foundation on which to build strategic thinking.

Eric_T

Jul 2, 2010

0

#5

Trigs,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand the concept of weak squares, but I guess I don't always see what the value is in threatening them. Is the value in doing this that it allows you to park your pieces closer to the opponent's king, for example? I suppose a weak square with little strategic or tactical value would just be considered a vacant square? Sometimes I see weak squares in a position, and I think OK I can get piece X in that position, but so what, it will give me control over a weak area but his king is still over there in that strong area. This is what confused me about the knight exercise. Am I right in saying that taking control of that weak area gives me more control of the board, and in doing so increases the strength of my position, even if the enemy is not concentrated in that area?

Bur_Oak,
You are spot-on with your statements about my short games. I am not very good with quick games, and am still rather poor with the Tactics Trainer for that same reason. My Online rating is close to double my Live rating. Up until now I have been mainly focusing on Online games where I can take plenty of time to consider my moves and use the Analysis tool to try different scenarios. I hope that with more experience I will be able to evaluate positions more quickly and improve in the quicker live games, because I do enjoy the live games a bit more.

trigs

Jul 2, 2010

0

#6

Eric_T wrote:

Trigs,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand the concept of weak squares, but I guess I don't always see what the value is in threatening them. Is the value in doing this that it allows you to park your pieces closer to the opponent's king, for example? I suppose a weak square with little strategic or tactical value would just be considered a vacant square? Sometimes I see weak squares in a position, and I think OK I can get piece X in that position, but so what, it will give me control over a weak area but his king is still over there in that strong area. This is what confused me about the knight exercise. Am I right in saying that taking control of that weak area gives me more control of the board, and in doing so increases the strength of my position, even if the enemy is not concentrated in that area?

you are exactly correct that taking control of weak squares gives you more control over the board and increases the strength of your overall position. sometimes the weak squares won't be near where your opponent's king is, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be occupied by your pieces.

your overall plan is to mate the opponent's king, but that shouldn't necessarily be your immediate plan. it's very circular in that the stronger your position compared to your opponent's, the easier your attack will come about. strengthening your position comes with taking advantage of weaker squares (well, that is one way at least). then once you have an advantageous position, it most likely requires good knowledge of tactics to follow through with a strong attack.

again, one could easily write a very long book trying to answer your question. my overall advice to you would be to practice tactics as that is very important at this level. secondly, practice endgames. endgames are great for beginners to learn from. learning the pieces on their own and with an open board really helps one to learn the power of the pieces and how to manuveur and position them in strong spaces. practicing endgames as a beginner will definitely improve your overall game.

it is