 |
View on ebay |
Has been a recurring theme among friends comment on the "rules" or general tips that are given to those who start in the game. Some believe that these tips are applicable to any type of player, experienced or not.
In my opinion, they are wrong. Chess is no longer as it was before 1980. Consider these factors: The combination of continuous development of the theory, with an increasingly large number of international tournaments quality, professionalisation of the GMs and the arrival of the scanning engines and end tables have completely transformed the game.
And not only in respect to the accuracy of opening lines but the way a particular position is conceived. I explain.
In the pre-computer time, general principles (patterns of behavior) sought to provide us navigate the various phases of the game, so that few employers recognized so far give us the most walkable path between the immense amount of possible moves. Advice as "rapid development", "play horses before bishops", "not move a piece twice at first," etc. They worked well against a chess-opposition not so educated and hurried us not to try a number of "dangerous" moves that had not been tested.
Upon arrival the computer, more and more plays that seemed weak at first, or who broke with certain pre-established rules, and saw that many of them were not only playable, but frankly promising tested.
Computers began to make "rare" plays and, supported by its powerful analysis, they found a way to win in positions that were thought to be inferior.
The number of plays that we would not have tried before is now huge, and not only that, but many of the principles that we were guided were, if not wrong, wrong evaluated.
In the era of hyper-modernism, in the twenties of the last century, a series of visionary players had already seen the stagnation of chess by excess stilted standards and developed ideas that were taboo at the time and that eventually proved as correct. In modern tournaments, many concepts of that time, especially based on the ideas of Nimzowitch were opening gap in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but now, a new revision from the above combination of factors has led to a way to play that is not based on general rules, but variants and specific knowledge, combining them with the concept of equality and dynamic new knowledge of variants and facilitate end computers.
What's more, given the huge number of possible moves that have not been analyzed, and knowing that with the help of precise analysis can pose unseen positions that appear to be lost but are perfectly playable, new players pose increasingly items that once we would have dismissed as absurd or break those general "rules" that are now seen as "inviolable".
Among many modern authors of chess books, which spread a more contemporary view of chess practice, stand authors like Dvoretsky, Suba, Tisdall and John Watson, who have made analysis of contemporary ways of dealing with a game of chess.
The famous Watson's book "Secrets of Modern Strategy Chess" shed light on the change occurred in the mentality of the players, as far as strategy and technique is concerned, doing analysis on the theoretical concepts and the old general rules from the appearance of miliary book "My system" Nimzowitch to contemporary concepts that govern the mentality of today's virtuosos. Much has happened since then and many rules prevail, though nuanced, but many of them have changed or have simply been abandoned.
Here are some of the ideas discussed mainly on concepts that our teachers (those who learned in pre computational era) taught us.
The book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" John Watson.
The rules and tips are not the same as the thematic strategic concepts developed from hipermodernismo, (and in some cases since the time of Steinitz and Tarrasch) .Observemos some examples of both, which have transformed the ideas and make us play a chess set very different from Tal, Fischer and Karpov yet.
We should not think that Watson made his ideas vuelapluma. They are mostly supported by statistics and a bibliography acuciosos as numerous as are the data.
The conclusions, speculations and opinions you have about each topic or "standard" are well armed in his book through chapters full of examples of items and diagrams. totally I recommend reading, although it is not intended to learn to play, or advice on how to raise a game, but to explain how it is that book has changed the way of understanding chess. It is definitely a "must to read".
The following are excerpts and quotations from Watson. I hope you understand, even outside the context that the author gave him to elaborate on the subject.
Exceptions to the rules and abstract principles
... There may be games where one should do only two pawn moves and develop a new piece with every move, but there are so many "exceptions" to take that as a guideline to heart would only limit to one force as player.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... The rule states that "a player with more space should avoid changes" for example, it is so riddled with exceptions that has outlived its usefulness.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... A standard, it has many exceptions and yet still useful to reflect on the board, is the idea of improving the position of the worst piece you have.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
abstract rules, principles and dogmas
Memorize openings, end techniques, combinations, ideas, even entire games if you can, but not rules and dogmas.
- Mihai Suba Dynamic Chess Strategy
... The mechanical application of the rules of chess could be disastrous.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... The rules and abstract principles are of limited utility.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... Any principles of chess must be learned in a realistic context, with concomitant ambiguities, and with plenty of counter-examples.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... As [Jonathan] Tisdall says absolutely correct, the rules "make more general relevance the more advanced the stage of starting to respect" and therefore recognize that certainly worth paying attention to early end. But even at that stage of the game, as any form of long association with great teachers will teach a concrete knowledge of a number of specific positions is essential for its proper implementation.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
About the game Modern chess players
... Modern players often neglect the development by the structure, allow pawns behind in the opening, move the pawns in front of his king, attacking the front of a chain of pawns and advance pawns flank when the central situation is still unresolved.
On the other hand, as often they do the traditional (develop quickly, avoid backward pawns, keep kingside pawns in their original boxes, etc.).
It was found that the bad bishops are often not bad at all, that horses can be strong on the edge of the board, and worst of all, that the pair of horses may exceed bishop in any position, very closed, semi-closed or open! You can take with pawns success flank opening with his queen when he is surprisingly behind in development; or you can do and quickly fall into matte. And so on when analyzing the sacrifices quality, prevention, etc.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
When the actual chess improvement takes place
Once we accept that the general rules are inadequate to raise our game to the next level, the question of what constitutes knowledge of chess can then be addressed.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
The experience and thoughtful study will provide a better and more delicate positional judgment than a set of rules can never. Good players looking for particular sequences of moves and evaluate positions resulting not agree with any artificial construction as to which part you would most like that kind of position, but according to his own judgment, refined by years of thinking in similar positions.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... We are looking for specific items and positions. This is the level at which the actual improvement is carried out; you have to develop your intuition and judgment by studying countless real situations. I think the frustrated player willing to attain mastery must face this reality before anything else.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Why should we follow the advice that do not follow themselves? ...
... In almost every book or magazine article or instruction that comes to light ... Have not you seen time and again written: "Do not memorize openings, only to learn the" principles behind them "..." should not try to memorize; "Understanding of ideas is what really counts" ... "Young players spend too much time learning starts when they should be dominating the fundamental principles of the game", and so on?
This advice is given by placing a straight face by strong grandmasters whose whole time is occupied (and whose education consisted mainly chess) study and memorize the entire opening variations and games!
And if this were a book late, you might say something less strong but similar: authors GM who for years were drilled and flooded with memorizing specific end, blithely inform their readers that they should not be learning a lot of specific late memory but absorbing fine principles on towers behind passed pawns, and carrying the king game!
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
About half the books on gambling in general,
books "How to improve" in chess
As [Mihail] Suba complains about half books game, in general, because they teach "only the art of playing against very weak opposition," that is, someone who has given us all the benefits we could want, without bothering to create counterplay .
So the first question for those looking to improve their game is: what existing training books help to show such unequivocal examples? My answer is that, above the 1800 level, these are, at best, only marginally useful. Good players will not give such as stereotypically advantage of lower part; and if you go by rules like "open the position when you have the bishops 'or" tries to close the position when you have the horses', you will be consistently killed by players who understand how little and badly worth those rules.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
The books of "improving" in chess may be able to raise the level of their practical skills or even their rating (although I'm skeptical of the extent to which they can do so beyond a certain level of play). But they will not do much, if anything, to increase their knowledge of the game itself. Such books can only deal with one side of the equation, for example, thinking skills, psychological approaches and sporting considerations (for example, time management, choice of repertoire, and the like). However, knowledge of the interaction of positional and tactical elements, and the paradoxical nuances of the initiative and the "momentum" for example, are an independent kingdom and ultimately more important.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
On the rejection of the rules
Always keep in mind the difference between a description of the game and the game itself. For all I'll say about the rejection of rules, the fact remains that you have to use as a tool when a game is scored
... There is no substitute for saying something like, "and Black is better thanks to his two bishops and delayed white open row in the d pawn." One simply has to keep in mind that this statement has an implicit subtext, for example:
"Black is better because, although there are many cases of two bishops that are lower, this is not one of those, because horses in this particular position, not have useful outposts and White can not play the break with the pawn force could force a transformation of the pawn structure leading to the creation of an outpost (or I could do it, but at the cost of allowing a strong attack against his king, as shown in this variation ... etc. .). also, although the pawns behind are perfectly acceptable in many positions, that of this exact position is really weak because it lacks the protection of a bishop on e2 and elnegro can not implement the d4 dynamic rupture or b4 normally justify having a pawn backward. for example, the 23 b4 could fail for ... "
and so on.
Naturally, we do not kill trees for the sake of those explanations, which actually tend to be even more complicated and skilled than I have given.
Instead, we use abbreviated as indicators declarations of principles to guide the reader's thoughts in the direction of ours.
It is very important to realize that the use of such descriptions of notes written by a player in any way imply that had well thought during the game.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Standards for treatment of a central mass of ordinary pawns with two main pawns
If our pieces can not follow and support the attack, the central pawn advances tend (with exceptions, of course) to be premature.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... Advancing the pawn ... derives its strength from the arrangement of the pieces behind them to occupy central squares.
- Aron Nimzowitsch
Majority rules of pawns on the queenside
... Steinitz who first drew attention to the issue of the majority of pawns as a separate element of the game. For years thereafter, teachers and theorists put big bet on those majorities and, in particular, the most flank lady, who is supposed to be a significant advantage.
How many times have we read a scorer saying that either side has an advantage because most queenside? But as chess has evolved, the value of the most flank lady has become controversial.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Most laborers rules / minority laborers
... Just we saw positions where a minority is more effective than most. Moreover, advancing most often simply exposes weaknesses behind them laborers who have advanced.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Majorities of pawns that are only useful if they are mobile
One of the contributions of Nimzowitsch was to focus on the mobility of pawn majorities, ie, noting that the majority are only useful to the extent that they are mobile. He also worked systematically to restrict the mobility of the majority in their own games.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Queenside majority still win ...
However, one can still find examples of effective majorities flank lady.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Rules on the weak doubled pawns
Nimzowitsch developed a theory about blocking doubled pawns, considering them as pawns past, that is, full of dynamic potential if they were allowed to remain mobile.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
... Nimzowitsch did much to modernize the treatment of doubled pawns.
... ... He developed the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4) and French Winawer (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4), in which the move .. . Bxc3 tended to create doubled pawns in a large number of variations.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Nimzowitsch's work sets the standard for the modern view of the doubled pawns, and still see their ideas used in the opening that bears his name.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Today, players allow doubled pawns in all kinds of positions, simply because they know that weaknesses can not be exploited, or because the laborers are useful for covering seats or even useful in the attack.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Needless to say that in most cases the doubled pawns are still a disadvantage to its possessor. But today, we have come farther from the dogma that used to dominate the theory, and the decision to accept doubled pawns has become a pragmatic, based on potentially offsetting factors.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Rules on the isolated queen pawn ( 'Isolani') ( 'IQP') d4 white / black d5
... In the absence of a second weakness, it is often impossible for the side to play against the isolated pawn convert their advantage in the endgame to win. The presence of a defendable position as plan b (when things go wrong) is a reason lasposiciones lady isolated pawns are still quite respectable in certain openings.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
The plan
There is a popular opinion that the greatest strategic art is the ability to engulf almost the entire game in a deep plan, and that this is precisely how teachers think leaders. This is a hoax. It is absurd to draw a plan too long - the next move could completely change the situation on the board and give it a completely different direction.
- Marck Dvoretsky
statistically
... The bishop pair is statistically superior in all distributions above materials.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
While it is worth repeating that the force of the bishops or horses depends on the particular characteristics of the position, it is also true that in most positions that arise in reality, the two bishops win either the pair of horses or a bishop and a horse.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
About overvalued horses,
Overvalued outposts horse,
game around the outpost
There have been some interesting developments in the evaluation and use of the outposts of horses.
Increasingly, players allow horses nest in position, for those horses achieve little and / or concessions allowing only established elsewhere.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
The English Opening and the Sicilian Defense provide some well-known outposts of horses that appear to be stronger than they are examples.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 3.Nc3 e5 7.d3 d6 6.0 to 0 Nge7 9.Rb1 0-0 8.a3 a5 11.Ne1 Be6 10.Bd2 Rb8 12. 13.Nxe7 + Nd5 b5 16.axb4 axb4 Nxe7 Rxb5 14.cxb5 15.b4 c4! ... And Black was better (top center) in Csom - Hartoch, Skopje 1972 Olympics.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
The main line of the Sveshnikov Sicilian provides a good example of an outpost on d5 White Horse vis-à-vis a pawn behind in an open row.
Again, the Black often just "playing around" the horse and gets activity of his two bishops and rooks.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
A final point on the issue of overvalued horses has to do with outposts in the sixth row. Traditionally, horse outposts in the sixth row are considered watchtowers power, unless an immediate change of the infiltrate steed, it was assumed that the defense would collapse in the short term. To be fair a horse in the sixth, well supported, it can be very powerful. But players and annotators today are aware that this is only a probability advantage, not a hard and fast rule to learn.
A number of players have made their notes to see that sometimes, these advanced horses are merely espectadors while the action takes place elsewhere. It has also been commented on that CWhile more advanced the riding center (assuming it is not right before the enemy king), is likely to be less effective.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Horse stalls superfluous advanced,
Avoiding unnecessary change horses opponent
... Horses can be superfluous, because two of them may be competing for the only position available, so you'll end up being relatively less effective.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
The pair of horses is never happy protecting each other. Then, tread helmets each other, and reduces its own scope. When they are protecting each other, often they paralyze in this configuration. They are best when used with other when they can influence a virtual barrier square.
- Jonathan Tisdall, improve your chess Now
On the idea of quality (= sacrifice a rook for a bishop or horse)
The increasingly large frequency of the sacrifice of quality is probably the biggest change accepted by the vast majority in modern art.
When we look at the analysis of the old masters in books tournament game collections and opening books, again and again openings are rated lower because either side can win the quality, but the other side may have a pawn , active play and a game "obviously" better if that quality is captured
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Strategy Ajedpturadrez
The sacrifices quality are played in order to establish long-term, long-term initiative or long-term advantages attack.
Prophylaxis
Taken from the Greek, it means prophylaktikos protect or prevent in advance ...
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Dynamism
In the context of the game today, we see that more and more players today are employing strategies opening in which the dynamic considerations predominate.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
On the actual positional understanding that one has
... GM does not spend much of their time (in case something happens) in a position thinking "is that strong position for my horse?" or even "How I can improve the position of my worst part?". Rather, he already knows how good or bad the horse still there, and automatically takes into account the misplaced piece. simultaneously weigh these factors with a few hundred other considerations, most of which are familiar with them because they have faced similar positions before. Sure, he could occasionally give "a step back" to see the board and discuss general issues, but anyone who has analyzed extensively with strong players know that the concrete possibilities in the analysis dominate with such positional factors being simply imbued in itself game ... the actual positional understanding increases nonverbally when the trial itself is refined.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Intuition
When players must calculate to a certain depth at one position and when simply create an intuitive judgment on whether the resulting situation will be favorable or not.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Rules on rook endings
... Rook endings are not automatically tables.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Tables - the result of a perfectly played chess game
... What is the correct outcome of a perfectly played chess?
As you probably already know, they are a draw.
Of course, I can not prove it, but I doubt you can find a single strong player who does not agree.
- John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Well, chess is a draw.
- Garry Kasparov
conclusion
With the panoramic view on the subject of general rules we have outlined above, without being exhaustive (that everyone analyze lists tips that in some cases claim to be 50), I dare to venture a corollary:
General "rules" that are taught to beginners in the game, serve only to a very low level of understanding of chess, and do not help to rise to a level where it really begins to understand correctly. On the other hand, its true "against" is to give the false impression that it has a knowledge of the game and this prevents true when practical work, that is, the concrete analysis of each situation on the board on every play.