Move Selection: "forcing" moves
hadn't seen 30. ...Qc7.
Well I bet he might have seen it had a little more time passed. And maybe some other club
members would have as well (though without Pete's possible endorsement we might not have
given it the same consideration that we did).
A while back, I played a master player who goes by hityerclock. In the annotation of the
game, hityerclock emphasized the value of considering "forcing" moves when planning one's
next move, such moves having important benefits.
I expect this was a factor in Pete finding 30. ...Qc7 (as Joe noted: "white now HAS TO
address this attack," emphasis added. Paraphrasing: white is FORCED to address this attack).
I wonder if Pete and others would comment on how the concept of "forcing" moves plays into
identifying candidate moves and also how it might cause a candidate move to stand out as
the best move.
Combined, these reasons make forcing moves quite effective when used appropriately. Naturally you wouldn’t want to force a piece onto a better square, or break up your own position just to make your opponent move something if it didn’t serve a real purpose.
Consider the Sicilian:
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
About 95% of the time, White will play 4. Nxd4 rather than 4. Qxd4. Why? Because of 4. ... Nc6 and White is forced to deal with the attack on the Queen. Interestingly enough, 4. Qxd4 is quite playable (4. ... Nc6, 5. Bb5 etc.) but it so limits White’s options that it’s rarely seen on the board.
One key concept here is to strive to limit your opponent’s options and flexibility. If you can do that, you can drive the position rather than having to react to little surprises the other player tosses your way.
Don’t know if that was helpful.
not obvious to some of us, and have been tried and tested before, are
very interesting, and helpful to those of us who have not received
this kind of useful information. So thank you Joe, and I hope others
in our club would take initiative to share their knowledge and
experience with us.
Always with the proviso that you can do so without harming your own position.
However it should not be done 'just because you can' it should have a definite end plan in mind.
Sometimes just the effect of a move that forces your opponent to think is enough. as an example here is a position from my game with Joe. the 1st position shows a game developing nicely on the K-side
and then BANG the move Qa5 suddenly spreads the game across the whole board and Joe suddenly had to change his whole plan. Couple this with my previous post about tunnel vision and you can see that spreading the game across the board will heighten the chances of this happening and your opponent missing something.
A good subject for discussion Todd.
However i would caution the lower rated players against getting too deep into this kind of theory.
Know about it for sure but dont try and weave it into every move to the detriment of the basics of development.