Perhaps i can best illustrate it this way, with no disrespect intended, a wait and see approach I am sure is very desirable but i suspect that among weak players like myself, its not very helpful because we shall simply play aimless chess.
If one is practising a martial art by way of example, one learns a kata, a pattern if you like. Now naturally when one is engaged in hand to hand combat this is of some value, but one shall not repeat the same moves against an opponent because we must react to what our opponent is doing, if we simply practice the kata (the pattern) with no regard for our opponent its likely that he may think we are mad and leave us to fight ourselves and yet it serves the purpose of providing an ideal that we can aim for, to think in a general way but to act in concrete terms during a melee I think is the course of wisdom :D
Theory of piece exchange
Your theory takes a far too deterministic view of how a chess game develops in real life. No good player simply commits himself to play on the kingside or the queenside and then never waivers in that commitment. Things change during a game and opportunities arise that weren't there in the original position. Good players are flexible and opportunistic. If you look at actual grandmaster games, you will find many examples of a player pursuing a "queenside" strategy and then suddenly making a 90 degree turn to finish off his opponent on the kingside. You will also see examples of a kingside attacker suddenly shifting over to win material on the queenside and transpose into a winning endgame.
Did you read the illustration that i gave about martial arts? What is it about it that illustration that you have failed to comprehend because if you had understood it you would not have made the statements that you have. I have already explained the difference between a theoretical approach and a practical one and how they relate to each other.
I would also like to point out that many players already know what their respective plans and ideas are before they move a single pawn, that's the entire concept of having an opening repertoire. That ones opponent may deviate in some way does not negate the value of having this knowledge, a minority attack is still a minority attack whether its played with an exchange queens gambit or as the black side of a Caro khan exchange. To insist or at very least imply that there is somehow a flaw with knowing these respective plans and ideas because we have not yet taken into account what our opponent will do is a simple logical fallacy, because of course we will take into account what our opponent does, NO ONE is suggesting that we simply ignore their moves and do what we like, irrespective. I therefore reject the premise that its too deterministic.
Another flaw in your theory is the failure to understand that some pieces are much better that others, so swapping pieces of the same nominal value can be a mistake. I remember a video where some grandmaster--it might have been Gregory Kaidanov--said that there was no such thing as an equal exchange. Every trade of pieces favors one side or another. It's not at all rare to see someone try and get a draw from a stronger opponent by constantly offering to exchange pieces. After a few exchanges, the stronger player has a positionally won game; each of his pieces is better than it's counterpart. If you exchange your active pieces for your opponent's passive ones, your strategy will be unsuccessful, whether you are attacking on the queenside or the kingside
Again i have not claimed that exchanges are equal nor that pieces have no intrinsic value which depending upon the dynamics may favour one side over the other, what i have actually done is to produce a very general theory which forms a loose strategic conceptual basis for implementing a particular strategy.
If one plays the Sicilian by way of example, its pretty certain that if you castle king side as black you will face an attack against the kings position, this is white strategy because he has voluntarily given you a central pawn majority, so theoretically the ending is better for black, so either white kills you or he gets killed in the end. It therefore makes sense as black to go for an ending, does it not? Does black know this before he has moved a single pawn, you bet! Does it mean that he is too deterministic, that he cannot change his play depending on the dynamics of the position, no, it simply forms a general strategic conceptual basis for governing play.
Therefore in general terms we can say that in the Sicilian white is going for a kingside attack and will try to keep pieces on the board whereas black is going for an ending and will try to exchange pieces accentuating his pawns.
Whether Grandmasters go for the minority attack or not is entirely irrelevant, it was provided as a simple illustration and not intended to be a discussion of any opening theory of any kind, past or present. Nothing you have said so far has dissuaded me that my theory is flawed but i thank you for your comments nevertheless it was good to get these kinds of objections out of the way prior to tackling actual specifics. And as a passing point of interest, I do not ape the openings of Grandmasters, in fact its a matter of controversy whether club players should even play the same kinds of openings as grandmasters for many times they require a degree of sophistication which the club player has simply has not acquired.
Thanks ill need it :D
I have no idea where you found something like this, but it is totally untrue. Playing for an endgame or a tactical middlegame is NOT RELATED to which side you attack on.
I have no idea where you found something like this, but it is totally untrue. Playing for an endgame or a tactical middlegame is NOT RELATED to which side you attack on.
http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/B79_Sicilian_Defense_Dragon_Variation_Yugoslav_Attack_Soltis_Variation
On the contrary plans regarding opposite side castling are almost entirely dependent upon what side you have castled upon and what side you will attack upon. Infact the dragon and the Yugoslav is a perfect example, because prior to moving a single pawn both players would be well versed on the respective plans for both players, white will castle long and go in for a pawn storm against the castled king and black will castle short and try to attack on the queenside and in the centre, sometimes exchanging a rook for a knight on c3 to weaken the queenside and the centre. I should really thank you for highlighting the point at hand. White will almost certainly try to keep pieces on the board and go in for a kingside attack, black will try to exchange pieces and create weakness on the queenside and the center. Solved.
Good theory, it can be better, but overall I agree.
How would you improve upon it?
Great ones! a thousand salutations!
I have a very general theory with regard to the exchange of chess pieces and i require that it be subject to falsification. Its a general theory at this stage but hopefully will become more specific as concrete positions are looked at.
It relies on the basic premise that one should know before hand, whether we are going for a queenside attack or a kingside attack. This should be discernible from the opening that we employ and its pawn formation, for example if we play the exchange variation of the Queens gambit, well its more than likely that we shall utilise the open c file, go for a minority attack, etc etc. On the other hand of we are playing as black against this formation then we shall need to create pressure elsewhere, on the kingside and go for a king side attack, is it not so?
Now here is where my theory comes in. It appears to me to be rational and logical that if we are attempting a queenside attack, then we should want to exchange pieces because pawns in an ending are more important than pieces, especially if they are passed, protected passed etc etc and our opponents pieces can blockade and capture them. If on the other hand, we are going for a kingside attack, we will try to keep pieces on the board, because we can use them for sacrifice and to open up lines against the king and we shall obviously need them to mate the opponents king, is it not so.
Now i did not originate this theory, i am sure that i read it somewhere, can someone subject the theory to falsification and tell me if its sound or otherwise - regards Robbie.
P.S at this stage its simply a very general theory, a foundation of whether to exchange pieces or not.