Chess terminology and its exact meaning is notoriously tricky to agree on. In the thread on the Exchange French Zebano posted:
"Dynamics refers simply to short term imbalances. The QGD has them in spades, the only one offered by the french exchange is half a move.
Edit: Dynamics != Tactics."
I instantly thought: no, that's not what dynamics are. Then I started to ponder if I could actually define 'dynamics' exactly myself. I decided I couldn't so turned to google.
Kramnik:
-[Alekhine] had a strategic talent and was the first player who had a conscious feel for dynamics. Lasker began to realise that dynamics played an important role but it did not form the basis of his games, he just kept it in mind and sometimes used it. But Alekhine placed a bet on dynamics and truly discovered that area of chess. He proved that it was possible to take advantage of dynamics by following main positional principles: to start weaving a kind of net from the very first moves, threatening and attacking at every step without looking for a long-term advantage.
From this http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review471.pdf book review:
-What are 'dynamics'? The author answers: "The capacity of pieces and pawns to move around the board." How to exploit the dynamic advantage? "It requires resolute action without delay."
What does everyone else think?
Originally posted by TommyCI can agree with this definition. However my previous statement holds if you change dynamics to imbalances. The french exchange has none, the QGD has them in spades. Hence QGD = is not as drawish as the french exchange.
-What are 'dynamics'? The author answers: "The capacity of pieces and pawns to move around the board." How to exploit the dynamic advantage? "It requires resolute action without delay."
What does everyone else think?
Originally posted by zebano"Imbalances refers simply to short term imbalances," you mean?
I can agree with this definition. However my previous statement holds if you change dynamics to imbalances.
I don't really like Beim's definition. Is a rook v rook endgame the must dynamic position in chess?
And we think of openings like the Modern Benoni as 'dynamic'. But this non-dynamic sequence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 d5 4. exd5 exd4 5. Nxd4 Nxd5 would be thought of as more dynamic than the Modern Benoni according to Beim's definition. But it's clearly not.
Originally posted by TommyCNo I don't. Imbalances means any imbalance, short or long term. The french exchange lacks them. By playing it, you declare I that 1. you are simply a superior player than your opponent or 2. you are content with a draw.
"Imbalances refers simply to short term imbalances," you mean?
I don't really like Beim's definition. Is a rook v rook endgame the must dynamic position in chess?
And we think of openings like the Modern Benoni as 'dynamic'. But this non-dynamic sequence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 d5 4. exd5 exd4 5. Nxd4 Nxd5 would be thought of as more dynamic than the Modern Benoni according to Beim's definition. But it's clearly not.
Rook vrs. Rook is very dynamic but note that once again Dynamics != tactics, just the potential for them.
As a side note, this definition is basically the same as mobility which is an imbalance that can be short or long term. That is why I have thought of a dynamic position as one that contains many short term imbalances (which does imply that immediate action is needed or those imbalances may be lost).
Originally posted by TommyCyou forgot to read a later post in the exchanged thread...
Chess terminology and its exact meaning is notoriously tricky to agree on. In the thread on the Exchange French Zebano posted:
"Dynamics refers simply to short term imbalances. The QGD has them in spades, the only one offered by the french exchange is half a move.
Edit: Dynamics != Tactics."
I instantly thought: no, that's not what dynamics are. The ...[text shortened]... tage? "It requires resolute action without delay."
What does everyone else think?
!=
that notation means not equal to
he was saying that dynamics does not equal to tactics...
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Wrong. & I replied to it.
you forgot to read a later post in the exchanged thread...
!=
that notation means not equal to
he was saying that dynamics does not equal to tactics...
I could have curtailed the quote before that part, but I figured I'd quote Zebano in full for convenience and that most people would be able to work that out.
I take it you too think dynamics are short term imbalances then, like Zebano used to?
Originally posted by TommyCLets be clear. I said I could accept that definition. However since no one seems to agree, I think I will avoid the use of the term for now, or at least clarify it when I do use it.
Wrong. & I replied to it.
I could have curtailed the quote before that part, but I figured I'd quote Zebano in full for convenience and that most people would be able to work that out.
I take it you too think dynamics are short term imbalances then, like Zebano used to?
Hmmm, I always though of dynamic elements as being defined primarily by being short-term and/or changing, the very fact that they typically do not last a long time, as opposed to static elements which tend to persist.
Thus a dynamic imbalance is one you either claim quickly, then attempt to convert into something more lasting, or decline in favor of other advantages or strategies. Something like initiative or some kinds of mobility come to mind, as your opponent tends to equalize those in time.
Also included might be tension in a certain location which could lock pieces to a particular area else the battle there be lost.
However, the concept is still a little vague with me.
I may be confusing similar terms as well. Are dynamics and dynamic elements/imbalances the same thing?
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
Originally posted by zebanoCan you show any example of a dynamics in action. preferably from a game?
Lets be clear. I said I could accept that definition. However since no one seems to agree, I think I will avoid the use of the term for now, or at least clarify it when I do use it.
Originally posted by bikingvikingGame 2504043
Can you show any example of a dynamics in action. preferably from a game?
after move 12 black has lost a rook in order to keep whites king exposed. He must naturally act very quickly if he wants to do anything other than lose.
Originally posted by zebanoAt least I like that you did not pretend that you have sacrificed thaht Rook 🙂. Probably you missed the mate threat and you thought you can pick up his Rook in exchange.
Game 2504043
after move 12 black has lost a rook in order to keep whites king exposed. He must naturally act very quickly if he wants to do anything other than lose.
It happened to me a couple of times OTB too. My opponent attacks on one side of the board and when i realise I can not stop him to break my position I start disperately to lunch a counterattack that sometimes works 🙂
(example: when once I saw he is winning a pawn with clear more active position I just went and sacrificed a piece-sacrifice that the computer said it was not sound but that gave me practical chances OTB- and I won. when you see you are loosing it is good to complicate the position as much as possible)