I Think I Finally Appreciate the Center

I'm still going through My System, among other things. I think I've finally achieved one breakthrough -- a better appreciation of the center.

Everybody reading this blog has probably heard this drum beaten again and again: control the center. Yet how many readers are constantly thinking about the center during their games? When you play a "book" move out of an opening repertoire that doesn't address central control, do you understand why it's good? Central control always seemed like a mundane, pedestrian topic that I didn't need to dwell on too much.

However, I had been noticing some common themes in my games. I didn't often think about central control directly, except with respect to tactics (dropping the e4 pawn in a Sicilian, for example) or general positional considerations (e.g. space advantage). It was also staggering to see in my Blitz games how often the best move that I missed was a simple push of a central pawn. This year, in order to improve my understanding, I finally put the French aside, and started playing 1...e5 as Black. I also abandoned the Spanish Exchange for something more main-line. This was a big deal...I played those lines exclusively for the last 13 years.

At some point, I am going to write a major blog entry about some of my discoveries, but I'll pass this along for now: it is surprising how much "opening theory" you can figure out yourself by just thinking about the center. Starting to play 1...e5 was uncomfortable because, if your opponent plays older stuff like the Four Knights, Vienna or Giuoco Piannisimo, transpositions abound and the maze of variations can get confusing. However, beginner's rules can guide you through the morass. For example, in the 1.e4 e5 openings:

• if White gets to push a pawn to d4 without concessions, they typically will have at least the slight edge White is "supposed" to get with correct play.
• if Black can get away with ...d5, they probably equalize or get the advantage.
• both sides try to retain their e-pawns
  

Similarly, a lot of 1.d4 theory boils down to: White tries to push a pawn to e4, and Black tries to prevent it. Black often tries to maintain a pawn at d5 as a strong point, in which case White often tries to assail it.

Further, if White attains a classic d4/e4 (or d5/e5, for Black) center, its mobility should be considered. Another weakness I've found in my games is a reluctance to push pawns because it changes the pawn structure. Sometimes the most powerful moves on the board involve throwing mobile pawns forward. My System's chapter on the Center was a great refresher, and really drove in the points of occupation of the center, and using a mobile center as a weapon.

Instinctively, I rebelled against the notion that the four central squares are more magical than other squares like c5 or f6, and thought "oh yeah, that's all well and good, but you always have to consider other factors like tactics and development". Which is true. But I was finding in my own games that I was too often passing over moves such as P-Q4 as candidates. I've already seen in my Blitz games that my handling of unfamiliar openings has improved because of this.(I may, at some point, provide specific examples). For example, as Black I'll ask: "White's last move seemed weak. Can I push my pawn to d5 safely? Do I like the looks of the resulting position? OK, I'll play it!" Later, I'll check with Fritz and, sure enough, it was Fritz's favorite move by a good margin.

I've also found such thinking helpful in choosing between possible repertoire moves...if it's a natural move that addresses the center, play it. That also fits in with my philosophy that it's better to play a move you're happy with than some move recommended by theory but mysterious to you. If the bulk of your repertoire moves are natural to you and follow basic principles of development and central control, you avoid both the chore and the trap of memorization. Concentrate on the exceptions, where the best move in a position is unnatural to you, and try to understand why the counter-intuitive move is best.

A few additional points:

1. You need to be aware of the Center Fork Trick, which is essentially a mechanism to force an advantageous d4 or ...d5. Currently I'm finding that I still miss these too often...they're often the key to finding the best move in some of these Old School openings. If you're not familiar with it, an example is here.

2. A lot of other features of these "old school" openings are covered in older books like My System and Pawn Power in Chess. Many instructors recommend that beginners start out playing 1.e4 e5 to get practice with basic chess knowledge, and my experience so far is that this is very, very good advice.

3. This post may seem to fly in the face of my advice not to dwell on studying openings. What I'm trying to show here is that studying general principles will greatly reduce the need to study opening theory. In other words, a grasp of chess basics allows you to be the master of your openings, and not a slave. I am not intentionally studying theory that is helping me play 1.e4 e5 better. I have chosen to play 1.e4 e5 because the games that result will be guided by general chess principles and will help me to understand basic chess concepts.

When Pawns Lie

I've been slowly reading through Chess Self-Improvement, by Zenon Franco. This is actually a fairly advanced quiz book, so I don't dwell too long on the questions. I'm reading it more as a collection of annotated games.

I was struck by the game Byrne-Vaganian, Moscow 1975. Look at this position:


Now, someone like me would look at this position and invoke the teachings of Silman: in closed positions, you want to play on the side that your pawns point towards. This is because this is the region of the board where you have a space advantage. So, it's pretty clear that in this game White is going to attack on the kingside, and Black is going to try and attack White's weak pawns on the queenside. Right? I mean, that's what the pawn structure is telling us.

However, after White played 16.Bxg6, Black responded 16...fxg6!, and doubled rooks on the half-open f-file. White later had his queen on the half-open b-file (trying to penetrate into d6 via b4) but to no avail. Black won this encounter through kingside play.

To me, it seems there were a couple key reasons for this violation. First, each side had half-open files on the sides where they didn't have their space advantage. Second, the weak white pawns on the queenside ended up being a diversion. Black could still keep a queen and bishop eying the queenside while he concentrated on the f-file invasion, and White's queen got stuck on the queenside trying to either hold the pieces together, threaten the b-pawn, or invade at d6.

This shows that rules have exceptions, and that control of a half-open file may compensate for a spacial disadvantage in that sector.

Silmanites vs. De La Maza "Knights": Don't Be Hatin'!

{from despair.com}

As I dip into the waters of Chess Blogs, I've been dismayed how so many people are divided between two camps: Silman "fanbois" and de la Maza "Knights".

For the uninitiated: Silman is a well-known chess author whose works on chess strategy (most notably How To Reassess Your Chess) have quite a following. Indeed, as I wrote earlier, this is one of two books that got me seriously interested in chess. Michael de la Maza is an amateur that dramatically increased his chess rating through an intense program of chess tactics. His method was first described in a series of articles and then in the book Rapid Chess Improvement. He also made Convekta a lot of money by touting its "CT-Art 3.0" program as being ideal for his system of tactics study. People that have put themselves through a rigorous de la Maza tactics regime refer to themselves as "Knights" or "Knights Errant".

First, a disclaimer. I am not trying to tar all the de la Maza fans with the same brush. I've seen lots of good, reasonable advice out there. However, I've been encountering snobbery and anti-Silman sneering in my travels, and I can't understand the polarization. Here are a few of the themes that I've been seeing, and my reactions:

-"Tactics are more important than positional understanding". Well, der. No one, including Silman, disagree that tactics should be the focus of study. However, I've seen people overstate their case and say that Silman's stuff is "garbage". The most important benefit of Silman's material is it aids you in finding good moves when tactics are not the sole factor. The concept of using the imbalances in a position to direct your strategic thinking is immensely useful. Even though tactical oversights will play a larger role in the outcome of your games, that does not mean that the strategy of accumulating small advantages is worthless. Other things being equal, the player with the worse position will tend to make the more serious errors.

Although, ultimately, chess is a game, and people should spend time doing what they find enjoyable, I'm taken aback by the cheeky conclusion to de la Maza's original articles:

I look forward to avoiding opening, middlegame, and endgame study for years to come.

This is akin to restricting your exercise to one-arm pushups in order to excel at fighting with one hand behind your back.

I don't think players have to read and re-read and re-re-read Silman's books as if they were the bible. Learn the basic concepts, then go on to study tactics and annotated games. That little bit of time taken to read a book or two on chess strategy is well worth it. I would strongly recommend any player interested in improving their game to also look at Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess. Oddball nomenclature aside, it's all very good stuff. It will help you arrive at middlegame plans by looking at the pawn structure.

-"If you give one of his positions to a computer, and try and play his plan, the computer will eventually play something Silman didn't mention and proceed to win." Computers now routinely beat the best players in the world, so this argument strikes me as silly. As Dan Heisman has said repeatedly, your goal in a game of chess is to find the best move possible given the time constraints. A thought process like Silman's helps guide you to finding good moves.

You want to talk tactics? Mikhail Tal, the great attacking player, was quoted as saying, "There are two kinds of sacrifices: correct ones, and mine.". The point being, maybe his tactics weren't perfectly sound, but it put his opponent on the ropes. Even if a Silmanesque thinking technique doesn't result in perfect strategy, it will help you find strong moves (provided you double check your moves for tactical flaws before you play them).

One final observation: it appears that de la Maza and many Knights have quit, or cut back on, chess after attaining their goal, be it completing the "Seven Circles" program or whatever. I've seen this phenomenon happen to myself and others, in many different areas of life. For example, someone quits their job and plays a MMORPG 140 hours a week in order to get the first top-level character in the game, or starts an intense diet or exercise program, or takes up golf or whatever. They put in an incredible amount of time, then burn out once they've reached their goal or gone as far as they feel they can. The "Seven Circles" method de la Maza proposes is not for the faint of heart. Towards the end, you're expected to do 1000 tactical problems, in one day, in under 9 hours. I'm not surprised after completing that ordeal that some people get a bit sick of chess.

In contrast, books like Silman's, or Best Lessons of a Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry and Ed Eusebi, don't just instruct, or make you a stronger player. They open your eyes to the richness of chess, and add to your appreciation of chess. When you play through annotated games, and the annotator says "obviously such-and-such a move would be bad because of such-and-such a positional factor", you'll see the truth in that assessment. I think Silman put it best in his review of de la Maza's book:

I get hundreds of letters from students worldwide that gain hundreds of points in a few months from reading my “strategically oriented” books. Others don’t improve drastically in tournament play, but simply enjoy the game more because they can suddenly understand ideas utilized by the chess greats. This is a VERY important point (I’m not pushing my books, I’m trying to make a point!): they enjoy the game more because, instead of looking for tricks while not having a clue about what’s happening on a broader scale, they are taught that chess has many hidden depths that ARE accessible to them with proper training.

If we set aside the issue of whether or not Silman's books can make you a better player, there's no denying that they can make the games you play more enjoyable. I have enjoyed accruing small advantages to reach a winning position. I have had knights on outposts dominate bad bishops. I have won games because of an outside passed pawn. I have counterattacked in the center after being attacked on the wing, and I have opened up the position for my bishop pair. I have taken advantage of a lead in development to open the position and launch an attack.

I'm sure these games abounded with tactical errors. But I feel I played more strongly for having been exposed to these positional ideas, and by thinking about the imbalances in the position.

Plus, I've been playing chess seriously for 13 years and I'm sure I'll be enjoying it for decades to come.