Things books / videos don't teach you...

I'm not getting on the forums very often. I may check this tomorrow. I hope it gets some views / comments.

I've been thinking about this lately... and maybe the knowledge is in some books... but just general logical things. It's like GMs expect it's obvious to everyone when I really only see players around 1800 or 2000 even thinking in the proper terms.

I've been thinking about making a youtube video explaining some simple logical shortcuts.

Anyway, for example, imagine that neither color complex around you 0-0 king matters. That is to say, if you play h3 and "weaken" g3 it doesn't matter. If you play g3 and "weaken" h3 and f3 and doesn't matter. Also it's not important to protect g4 (with h3) or f4 (with g3) or anything like this.

But it's time to create luft. Which is better? h3 or g3?

---
 

Example / question #2:

Imagine you have knights on c3 and f3. The center pawns are locked in some formation or another. Specifics don't really matter. It may be just the e and d files. It may be c, d, e, and f files. Or only 3 files.

In general though, which knight is better? The knight looking at your pawns, or the knight looking at the enemy pawns?

In this kind of situation, in general, would you prefer your knights on the c and f files? Or on the e and d files?

---
 

Example / question #3:

Imagine a rook and pawn endgame (one rook for each player). Both sides (for some reason) recently 0-0. The only open files are the b and e files. White to move. Which is better in general? Re1 or Rb1?

(my answers)

After g3 your king has a faster route to become active in an endgame. e.g. Kg2-f3-e4

---

Pieces that look at enemy pieces are more mobile by nature. You can't capture your own pieces. Bishops blocked by their own pawns are, in general, bad... but so are knights! (or any piece)

With a locked center, flank breaks are common, and so knights on c and f files will generally be in the way.

---

Open files farther away from your king are more important. A king on g1 is 1 move away from guarding the e2 infiltration square. A king on g1 is many moves from guarding the b2 infiltration square. So Rb1 is preferred.

Good observations!

"I've been thinking about this lately... and maybe the knowledge is in some books... but just general logical things. It's like GMs expect it's obvious to everyone when I really only see players around 1800 or 2000 even thinking in the proper terms.

I've been thinking about making a youtube video explaining some simple logical shortcuts."

I agree with the general premise. Stuff like this is the kind of stuff that I wish I knew when I was weaker, that I had to simply learn on my own. I think it's great. I also think that it's something that really strong players, like IMs plus, just take for granted, they assume you have that same kind of framework as them when they explain the moves. But since most players often don't, there is a miscommunication.

Maybe this would be too abstract for others? Not for me certainly -- I would have found this stuff really helpful. I'm just wondering if everyone likes to think like this. Although chess sometimes seems to demand this kind of thinking anyway.

Yeah, I had to just see this stuff on my own. No one ever pointed it out... not that it's always right or anything, but they seem to be useful observations at least for some positions.

And yeah, maybe not useful for everyone. Beginners and lesser players seem to absolutely love rules of thumb though. It does provide at least a framework to build off of, even if you discard some things later.

------

Anyway, another example.

In a different topic someone asked what coordination is. I broke it into two types:

1) pieces combine to attack a single square or line (like doubled rooks)

2) pieces complement each other to cover a complex of squares (like both your bishops side by side).

But I've never seen this said in a book. I picked up a close strategy book by a GM, and he says "pieces are coordinated when they're working together to achieve a goal." What a waste of words. He knows what coordination is, but it's too deep in his unconscious to teach the fundamentals of it.

And of course, you can do both at once.

In the dragon Bg7 and Rc8 combine on c3, but also complement each other to cover queenside squares.

I don't mean for any of this to be shortcuts.

Anyway, I partially agree. But you have to start somewhere. And playing the right move for the wrong reasons, or simply because you saw a better player play the same move, happens at every level.

But it's a start. Then, we'll put a knight on c6 when it's terrible there (for example) and that's when some of the best learning (through personal error) happens.

After the game, you do some analysis.

Or during the game, you run into major difficulties directly associated with the c6 knight.

Pretty good 7 word summary :)

(ignoring the word "the")

Yeah but I think that kind of stuff (before you experience it) is bound to happen regardless of how you learn. Competing ideas happen all the time, here a tactical one versus a positional one, and humans can err in those situations easily. Experience will reduce how often this happens. But you're right, understanding and controlling our biases is important.

The titled players are not really good at explaining all these things with words, simply because they are so good at seeing the patterns

So they don't need the verbal shortcuts. However, I agree with you that these verbal cues can be very helpful to recognize and internalize the patterns.

The funny part is that Romanishin was apparently coached by Tal, if it's true. They have nothing in common, other than the fact that they are both very aggressive players. 

Again, I'm not laughing. I'm not. It's just that I had a few beers early in the morning. Something out of the ordinary, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I think there is often a mistake made where the GM thinks because it's clear to them, it's too obvious for explanation. But what's (immediately) clear to a GM is not necessarily clear to who they're teaching.

Anyway, it is cool how any idea in chess can be broken down. And actually I think that's a good way to learn concepts if you're stuck. It's what got me into chess strategy (and soon after, chess itself). If some GM idea I saw looked too vague, I'd just keep breaking down the assumptions, and the assumptions of those assumptions, etc, until I could find something that made sense. It was a great feeling to be able to find some sense in an otherwise cryptic idea. In other words I would just keep asking why to everything. Why is the center good? Space. Why is that good? Pieces can move around better. Why is that good? Etc.