Understanding Imbalances

As an amateur player, I always struggled to comprehend lessons when chess teachers or commentators applied the word "imbalance". And by amateur, I mean I'm still an amateur. You know, who wouldn't want to rock that 767 USCF rating? 

What are "imbalances" and why should I care?

One of these teachers always told me that the "imbalances" would play the game for you. As a 767 rated player, you probably already know imbalances weren't in mind in this game three years ago.

Looking at this position two years ago, I would of said White's definitely toasting a space advantage and winning. If I hold on, I win this!

And now? I want to cry myself to sleep.

When I first started chess at the age of 7, I was one of the top players in my city, beating the tournament organizer a couple of times (that was always fun)! Today, I find myself at a standstill with my investment in chess. Struggling to improve from 767, I stopped playing USCF tournaments for a while and chess as a whole.

However, the breakthrough of a chess team at my school has inspired me to come back from my roots and return to the beautiful game. I started reading books, but none of them stuck in my head better than the imbalance books. For the past years of my life, I had been missing a major element of my play. 

Wait, so you can't say that "Hey! You're winning by 3 points!" anymore? Well, you can say that the Warriors are gonna blow another 3-1 lead. 

I try to be entertaining.

But my point is, as an amateur and representing other amateurs, I feel as if our vision of the chess board is limited to these points. We've always seen these brilliant grandmasters sacrifice after sacrifice win games with these "imbalances". How could we obtain these imbalances?

My fellow reader, if you've gotten this far, they're right in front of you.

Here's the first diagram for simple reference. To me, an imbalance is an advantage each piece of the board has over the opposing pieces. Let's compare white's dark-colored Bishop to black's d5 Knight.

They're both 3 points, right? Well, discard the points for a second. What I see is a white Bishop deprived of its potential, looking like a sitting duck on c3! It's not really eyeing anything except for protecting the pawns. On the other hand, the black d5 Knight presents an octopus-esque grasp for the board, eyeing all the squares that it potential can cover: c7, b6, b4, c3, e3, f4, e7, and f6!

That's 8/8 IGN if we had to review that black Knight. And that bishop? If you actually took the time to count, it would be 3/7 IGN. Man, what a flop.

What can white do to change the flop?

Well, the problem is that many pieces are experience the flop right now. White's h1 Rook is a bystander as is Black's h8 Rook. White's g1 Knight is enjoying the day off. So really, the question is which piece is more essential to improve? 

Let's say it's White to Move. What good moves do you see that improve a piece? 

6. Nxd5?? wastes a move an already developed Knight (don't move a piece twice). Why use a move on your knight when you can invest in something else?

6. Nf3? develops a knight. Natural, but loses potential play towards the weak f7 square.

6. Bc4! attacks the black Knight and develops the bishop! 

6. Qb3!! activates the queen, attacks the knight, and preserves the pawn chain on c3. (if ...Nxc3 then Qxc3, attacking the c5 pawn!)

And this is all from a pretty boring position. Imagine all the imbalances you can find on a more complicated game. They're fun to explore and it's great to find the move that can fulfill a piece's potential 

"What if I can't fulfill my piece's potential?" 

 White's Bishop. Absolutely dreadful. Its pawns are blocking its potential, which is absolutely 0 right now. So, 0/0 IGN huh. What can we do?

We can increase the piece's potential.

c4! activates the bishop and unleashes a laser-like beam onto the black King and its pawns. Man, I wish they made a chess movie.

Actually I don't.

So, what's my point of writing this article?

Once you grasp imbalances, you can truly play the way you want, where you want, when you want, how you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, whatever you want...

Simply, it'll help a lot. 

: )

You've got a good attitude about imbalances but when I look for them I don't just consider "an imbalance is an advantage each piece of the board has over the opposing pieces."

A good list is in Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess and I coached a very successful high school team using this list:

"The following list of the imbalances will be discussed all through this book:
IN A NUTSHELL An imbalance is any significant difference in the two respective positions.
Superior minor piece
Pawn structure
Space
Material
Control of a key file
Control of a hole/weak square
Lead in development
Initiative (though I'll usually refer to it as Pushing Your Own Agenda)
King safety
Statics vs. Dynamics"

So instead of looking at how the White Bishop on c1 compared to a Black Piece in the first board shown, I look at the fact that my Central Pawns, as placed, will make that c1-B inactive and I'll be weak on the dark squares on the K-side if the Pawns don't move soon - though it's to Black;s advantage to make them move.

The Center Pawns problem for White is that, as set up, Black can play ...cxd4 where White has to respond exd4 and White is stuck with an isolated pawn at d4 with a perfect N-outpost for Black at d5.

After the Center Pawn exchange, Black and White can contest control the c-file with a Rook and White can control much of the e-file with a Rook.  It's already looking like Black should be getting ready for a Q-side attack, perhaps led by pushing the a- and b-Pawns.

Also, Black has a lead in piece development and can easily complete it, moving his QB to f5 (aiming at the Q-side) or g4 before blocking it in with e6, which then frees his KB - or he can fiachetto the KB at g7 to add more pressure on d4.

But White isn't in awful position. White will be able to point a lot of pieces at the what should become the Black K-side castled position. After the Center Pawn exchange, White has potential N-outposts on c5 and e5 - either one may help in a K-side attack.

That's how I look at imbalances.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095832/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review769.pdf

I don't know if this forum/post is still active but I'll add my two cents any way.   First of all if I were you,I wouldn't be worried about imbalances so much as as I would tactics,now before you or anyone says look at your rating blah blah,ratings on this site don't mean much if we're going to be completely honest with ourselves.  Anyhoo,I wouldn't worry about imbalances just yet,I'd focus most if not all of my attention on tactics,which will win you game at your level.  I think imbalances are probably going to be more important the more you go up the rating ladder so to speak.   

I think the idea is to come up with a plan based on your advantages in the position.   For example if you have a lead in development,then feed that,keep on developing your pieces,as you would have a significant advantage in the position,  How? or Why? ....How? Well your have MORE pieces developed,aka OFF the backrank and ready to get into the game.  Why? Why is this important? The more pieces you have mobilized,quite frankly the more you can DO in the position,likewise the less pieces you have developed,the less you can potentially do in the position.   

I'm not going to go over the positives of each imbalance,I'll leave that up to you,but I will say that the imbalances are more about Chess Strategy,in other words,the imbalances or differences in the two respective positions help one,or aid one in coming up with a plan. As I stated earlier,if you "feed" into one of your imbalances,you probably will have a significant if not downright decisive advantage over your opponent. Also tactics,which I mentioned you should study first,I stand by that premise,will open themselves up to you.

Chess in alot of ways is all about getting a better position then your opponent,the imbalances will in fact help you do that,and once you get a better position,the more "mistakes" your opponent makes (hopefully lol),you'll be better equpped to take advantage of the tactics that appear in the positions,but,that won't mean much if you don't know any tactics. (which is precisely why I said Study tactics first :-)...) . For example if you have a rook on a completely open file and your opponent makes a mistake and doesn't have a rook on an open file,you might be able to use that file (and the Rook) to your advantage.

So,the imbalances help you come up with a plan,which will ultimately help you get a better position then your opponent (hopefully lol) and then finally this may possibly create tactics which will win you the game. Now, a gentleman by the name of Richard Teichmann said that "Chess is 99% tactics", I disagreed with it when I first read it,and I still disagree with that now BUT Tactics are very important. I took his statement pretty literal,I guess that was my mistake and maybe he simply meant to emphasis the point or idea that Chess tactics is absolutely crucial in one's success in Chess,with that,I agree.

Chess,however isn't 99% tactics,if anything it's more strategy,especially at the beginning,what is e4 to you? Is that a tactic? No it's not,it's strategic move,there is meaning behind the move yes? We are,occupying the center with one of our pawns and in the process of doing that,we're making way for our King's Bishop and the Queen to come into the game,via the diagonals and we're controlling d5,one of the 4 crucial center squares,not bad for one move,that my friend is strategy.

So,I wouldn't totally ignore strategy but I'd study tactics first if I were you,now I know that may sound like a paradox but it's true. Trust me dude players at your level/rating (and mines) will make tons of mistake that you and I will be able to take advantage of tactically. So in conclusion,yeah I know I talk too much lol. I would study strategy maybe 10-20% of the time and the rest of my time would be devoted to tactics tactics tactics tactics tactics and tactics.

Oh and one more thing I need you to study and that's.............TACTICS! Thank me when you're rated 1500 :-),and we'll go from there.

Here is a tip from me: You want to learn how to plan in Chess,let me ask you something,what do you want to do? .....You: Oh I want to move my bishop here so it attacks so and so and I want to have my Knight come here and to this and that......

Me: Congrats,that's a plan,you just came up with a plan,now whether it's correct or not is not relevant,I'm just giving you a very loose basic idea of HOW TO PLAN in a game of Chess,it's based on what you want to do and as I just said,the imbalances help you with this,acting as a guide,a guide to what you should do.

"Jeremy Silman's HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms." - GM John Nunn (2006)

However:

"How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition was designed for players in the 1400 to 2100 range." - IM Jeremy Silman (2010)

Somewhere along the way, one could understandably prefer Aagaard, but, at what point? In connection with one of Aagaard's books, I saw, "... Players rated 2000 on up will benefit from this book. ..."

http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Grandmaster-Preparation-Calculation-77p3705.htm

In connection with the Kosikov book, IM John Donaldson indicated that it was "more Class-A and Expert level friendly" than PERFECT YOUR CHESS by Andrei Volikitin and Vladimir Grabinsky.

www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Elements-Of-Chess-Strategy-77p3868.htm

Silmans books either invoke love or hate.  

I like them, because they cater to lower rated players, and i have no ego problem with admitting that.  I do know that some players dont like Silmans books because they dont want to admit they are appropriate for their skill level, and instead bash Silmans books, and go buy books that are above them.  A also like Aagards books, but i prefer Silmans method of explanation.  Kind of like Cyrus Lakdawala's "Move By Move" books.  It seems people either enjoy, or hate how he writes.  

wait, you are stuck at 750?