| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Help for a Grandmaster
a grandmaster friend taught me that if you find your game moving in a direction towards defeat,
it often makes sense to sacrifice a piece just to change the character of the position.
Now he is planning to write a book on positional chess,
and I wondered what players of all levels might like to see in such a book.
|
baronderkilt
28-Jan-12, 17:13
|
I like the Exceptions ...
When I can take a Silman Move and garbage can it, for a more eccentric plan/move choice. And games where you do not attack where the pawns point, or do attack where opponents space is. Games where the Natural plan is okay, but you can opt for a different idea that leaves no where else for the opponent to play, and winning in that region assures you the game.
I'd also like to see those openings where one side has a choice of playing either wing, or the center lines. And gets to pick. EG Samisch KI as WT. So, when to play where?
So of course, I also like games where a regional advantage in one sector is held, but can be shifted to another, such as wing to center. Or vice versa.
Also how and when is their inner-Tactical Monster made manifest in a Karpov or Petrosian? What brings on the decision to go from positional technician par excellance, to Dragon slayer in a particular game? etc. (or to stay in the mode of a crushing positional python?) In a Dragon when Karpov goes tactical with the Yugo and plays the Key Game of the Century vs Korchnoi, I guess we say it was destined as soon as ....g6 appeared. But what of his Samisch vs KI. An opening played by Karpov and Spassky alike. The positional technician like Karpov or the All Around (Fischer-like to Spassky-like, tho the latter might be called more Romantic for being the #1 KG player in the world) player.
|
|
shifting the region attacked. . .
regarding your:
<<"of course, I also like games where a regional advantage in one sector is held, but can be shifted to another,
such as wing to center. Or vice versa. ">>
GM Lars Bo Hansen cites as a great example of this Botvinnik's shift of attack from Queenside (move 11) to center (move 13) to Kingside (move 20) in Botvinnik-Keres USSR Ch (QGD D35 Moscow 1952) www.chessgames.com
|
|
Chess Poker Tactics
I have employed a psychological tactic in OTB many times relative to the issue of a pending defeat and sacrificing a piece on some other area of the board.I can remember many games over the years where I had employed imperfect positional play leading to what I finally observed as a mate in 6 or 7 for example...and I was on the losing end.But by the same token,my opponent did not announce a mate in 6,or he did not actually realize that there was a pending mate.On many occassions I could "sense"that my opponent simply did not realize that he had me in a mating net,so I employ a bit of "poker chess".What I do,is to examine the mating position which,for example,may be my opponents Bishop/Rook combination on my King.Then,I may sacrifice my Bishop or some other piece for uneven exchange on a piece NEAR his combinational mating net pieces,if possible.Sometimes,it may be at the opposite side of the board with my opponents piece not in the "position"yet for the mate,but it is his turn.Now at this point I act as if I made a major blunder,and hold my breath,get red in the face,shake my head no and say...."I can't believe I just made that move".If my opponent takes that piece(and many times they do)....then the mating net is extinquished!If my opponent does not take the piece,he can continue to mate me,but thats the gamble!You may ask,but you just lost a major piece and will lose anyway,right?Not necessarily!I have squeeked out a draw many times being a major piece down,or sometimes the sac places my opponents Knight on an end file,reducing its point value to a 2 or 2.5,thus rendering his advantage lower and compounding that with pawn attacks on his Knight,reducing his tempo.This again,leading to an increased probability of a drawn game....atleast on my level of play.In any case,I have little to lose by employing this tactic,since my 2200+opponent would have seen the mate later anyway,perhaps at a mate in 3 or 4,instead of the 6 or 7 like I mentioned.
|
Log in 
