Originally posted by Paul LeggettThe conditions under which a game is played, and the state of the players at the time it is played, are hugely relevant factors- and also a huge part of what makes them interesting.
A superb point. GM Lars Bo Hansen makes the argument that the two factors neglected when people discuss strategic chess are people and the environmental factors.
He argues that, competitively speaking, it is a mistake to evaluate a position strategically without taking into consideration the players (not just styles, but current health, mental state ...[text shortened]... it is played, are hugely relevant factors- and also a huge part of what makes them interesting.
This is incredibly interesting topic for me, for i hold a diametrically opposite point of view that being that there is no I in chess. Its simply a personal philosophy which seeks to absolutely detach the individual from the game itself focusing solely on the juxtaposition of the chessmen. Its something that i gleaned from Buddhist philosophy, there is no opponent because there is no I ( I heard it first on Enter the dragon featuring Bruce Lee) anyhow the idea is that environmental factors, psychological factors, who ones opponent is, how they behave, how highly they are rated, under what conditions the match was played are all entirely inconsequential, for there is no I, meaning all that matters is the position of the chessmen.
Now I understand that you need not agree with this philosophy, which is fine, but in practical terms i think its of great benefit as we are somehow forced to be entirely objective.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI disagree that Black's pawn structure has no weaknesses, and Kasparov demonstrated it's weaknesses with admirable economy of means. First, Black's P at h6 is a target; Kasparov maneuvered his N into position to take advantage of that. Second, Black's P at f7 is weak, because pinned. So, of Black's 3 main K defenders, 2 are weak. Couple that with the fact that White has open lines for the Q and QR, and White stands better.
sure i understand this, its good! even so, black has absolutely no pawn weaknesses in comparison and yet white stands much better
Originally posted by moonbussure but not weakness as in static, doubled or trippled or isolated, in comparison to whites, what you are talking about is dynamic weakness, but if pedantry is your thing or taking a comment out of context, so be it. No one has denied that white stands better, it was the reason why that was of interest.
I disagree that Black's pawn structure has no weaknesses, and Kasparov demonstrated it's weaknesses with admirable economy of means. First, Black's P at h6 is a target; Kasparov maneuvered his N into position to take advantage of that. Second, Black's P at f7 is weak, because pinned. So, of Black's 3 main K defenders, 2 are weak. Couple that with the fact that White has open lines for the Q and QR, and White stands better.
"sure but not weakness as in static, doubled or trippled or isolated, in comparison to whites, what you are talking about is dynamic weakness."
Of course; "dynamic" is the only one worth talking about. In the game you supplied, Kasparov comes out of the opening with an isolani. Is an isolani weak? Are doubled pawns weak? The answer is, it depends... You can't judge that by looking only at the pawn, a snapshot in time.
The same goes for Black's K-side set up in that game. K on g8, R on f8, Ps at h6,g7,f7 is a fairly common arrangement. Is that strong or weak? You can't say just by looking at that corner of the board. Given that the h6 P came under fire by Kasparov's N and that the g7 pawn, after retaking on h6, opened a file to the Black K, AND that Kasparov's Q was ready to drop onto g6 with check once the g-pawn was off the g-file, I'd say that Black's K-side arrangement was fatally flawed. All that was potentially visible before move 20 in the game, and presumably was foreseen by Kasparov (and the reason for his maneuvering the N over to the K-side).
Was White's ostensibly ruptured K-side pawn structure weak? No. Why? Because Black was not in a position to exploit the rupture (i.e., to penetrate the g-file while it was open or the h-file later on).
Corollary to the principle that a weakness you can trade off is not a weakness: A weakness which cannot be exploited by your opponent is not a weakness. Lasker's games are full of such 'illusory' weaknesses. Which, presumably, is why Euwe once said that he learned nothing from Lasker's games--it seems that Euwe was playing only the board (objectively), whereas Lasker always played the man in the context of a tourney or a match.
Originally posted by moonbusNo its not the only one worth talking about. Chess positions have two elements, strategic and tactical. These may be further divided as static strategic element (pawn structures etc ) and dynamic strategic elements (controlling the center etc) what is important is the evaluation of strategic elements as to which one is more important constituting the dominating factor in the position. Tactical elements may be determined by strategic weakness, by piece dynamism or piece position, it depends.
"sure but not weakness as in static, doubled or trippled or isolated, in comparison to whites, what you are talking about is dynamic weakness."
Of course; "dynamic" is the only one worth talking about. In the game you supplied, Kasparov comes out of the opening with an isolani. Is an isolani weak? Are doubled pawns weak? The answer is, it depends... You c ...[text shortened]... oard (objectively), whereas Lasker always played the man in the context of a tourney or a match.
Again no one is saying that one should view these elements in isolation, its a straw man argument and no one is claiming that a weaknesses is anything other than a weakness unless it can be exploited, this is understood.
what is of interest is how these elements are synthesized so as to form an accurate evaluation of the position and thus a clear objective.
Originally posted by moonbushttp://www.amazon.com/Test-Positional-Macmillan-Library-Chess/dp/0020280904
"what is of interest is how these elements are synthesized so as to form an accurate evaluation of the position and thus a clear objective."
http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Strategy-Players-Herman-Grooten/dp/9056912682
Grooten's book lists the strategic principles: 1. is the K in safety, 2. is there a material advantage, 3. is there a passer (connected or not connected), 4. does one side have a B pair, 5. is there a good/bad B, ... It is a short list which can be easily committed to memory. He then shows how to work through the list systematically from any given position, just like working through pre-flight for an airplane pilot. You find that for any given position, some small number of the items on the list holds true. He then shows how to weigh the items that hold (i.e., to prioritize). From this, he shows how to assess the potential of the position (i.e., which other items on the list to MAKE hold, though they don't just yet) and to formulate a plan forwards. GMs do this unconsciously/automatically; we duffers have to consciously follow a 'recipe' until it becomes automatic. The book is clearly written, with good example games, and the commentary consists not of lists of alternative variations (useless), but the check-list-of-principles method.
So, how do Bellin and Ponzetto present their work?
Originally posted by moonbusthere is an introduction with examples on how to evaluate and synthesize a position and formulate a plan according to the strategic/tactical elements and then there is a series of tests, thirty in all, but rather interestingly you are given three scenarios, plan A, plan, B and plan C and asked to pick one which you think is correct and cite any tactical reasons why, I am too scared to do the exercises in case i find out that I am so duff that i should just give up chess altogether.
Grooten's book lists the strategic principles: 1. is the K in safety, 2. is there a material advantage, 3. is there a passer (connected or not connected), 4. does one side have a B pair, 5. is there a good/bad B, ... It is a short list which can be easily committed to memory. He then shows how to work through the list systematically from any given position, ...[text shortened]... , but the check-list-of-principles method.
So, how do Bellin and Ponzetto present their work?
Originally posted by moonbusplanning only works when the situation is stable, if its volatile there is too much hand to hand fighting for it to be of much use. I play regularly against the computer, its fairly easy to inflict positional and strategic weaknesses on it, for it has no concept of these elements, but, it always beats me up in the end, because of dynamic and tactical factors.
Grooten's book lists the strategic principles: 1. is the K in safety, 2. is there a material advantage, 3. is there a passer (connected or not connected), 4. does one side have a B pair, 5. is there a good/bad B, ... It is a short list which can be easily committed to memory. He then shows how to work through the list systematically from any given position, ...[text shortened]... , but the check-list-of-principles method.
So, how do Bellin and Ponzetto present their work?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI learn nothing playing against computers, except to be damned careful of tactical traps!
planning only works when the situation is stable, if its volatile there is too much hand to hand fighting for it to be of much use. I play regularly against the computer, its fairly easy to inflict positional and strategic weaknesses on it, for it has no concept of these elements, but, it always beats me up in the end, because of dynamic and tactical factors.
I wish you guys would use diagrams and the pgn thingy for variations.
Robbie after move 15 in the Kapsparov game you wrote.
"and look at whites pawns now in comparison to blacks, black has no
weaknesses and whites are all over the place, gulp, yet the commentator
mentioned that white stands better, why? "
OK first of all look at:
"yet the commentator mentioned that white stands better."
In some cases, espcially in the past, the commentator would see who
won and then tart up his notes in favour of the victor.
Not the case here but get used to looking at everything you read with scepticism.
Yes if the game went into an ending....
..then White's task of holding this would be very difficult.
But drop the bits back on.
The note also said:
"and Kasperov has an IQP, which may or may not prove to be a weakness, in theory."
Kapsparov did not go here by luck, he knew what he was doing.
The dreaded IQP cannot be blocked.
(remember your Nimzovitch, first lockup the criminal so it cannot move, then hit it.)
Indeed when Kasparove pushes it his position is alive with threats both
positional and tactical.
Black could not handle all the threats, some he gave more creedence to than
others and made a few wrong decisions perhaps guided by logic or through
seeing ghosts, the longer he left his Queen on d8 facing the Rook on d1
the more difficult and utimately lost his position became.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Kaspers quiet move Bg3 was brilliance, your annotations were not bad as well great and illustrious GP 😛
I wish you guys would use diagrams and the pgn thingy for variations.
Robbie after move 15 in the Kapsparov game you wrote.
[fen]r2q1rk1/p2nbpp1/1p2pn1p/8/2BP4/2N2PB1/PPQ2P1P/3R1RK1 b - - 0 15[/fen]
"and look at whites pawns now in comparison to blacks, black has no
weaknesses and whites are all over the place, gulp, yet the commentator
mentio ...[text shortened]... } 24. Qg6+ Kh8 25. Qh5+ Kg7 26. Qg4+ Kh6 27. Rxd7 Qe8 28. Kg2 {Enough and Black resigned.}[/pgn]
Ok here is a travesty of justice, or is it? a sidewinding sidewinder attack up the flanks gets deservedly thwarted , but then. . . .
Ivanchuk v Bacrot (2013)
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSThe more of Fischers games I suck up into my mind, the more i appreciate that simplicity has a beauty all of its own, i cannot think of anyone, even Capablanca, who made the game look so simple, easy and natural. Its astonishing, it really is.
Pawn structure/healthy pawns are just one idea in a vast ocean. You need to master every one to be as good as Kasparov.