|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
deeper_insight 07-Jan-17, 08:37 |
 Snapshot analysis thread for 2017The snapshot analysis has the chess theme based in chess theory and to test your abilities in how you perceive the "instant chess picture"(snapshot)of the specific diagram posted.This will give you an idea of your own strength/ability and how to improve the way you look at future games as a whole on GK or other chess sites. Just giving me an answer is NOT good enough!You must tell me and others WHY you chose the move you did and back it up in as much theory detail and explanations as possible for your own abilities.I expect wrong move answers and incorrect reasoning's quite often,but that is ok!This is all part of the learning process,especially for the lower rated players in my club. Most of the diagrams that I post are from my own past senior master/master games or self invented positions.A few others from time to time may be found on the internet in various instructional tutorials that I found interesting to share with the club,or in one of the many paperback books I have at home.But no cheating!No looking all over the internet for my diagram,or in books or using a chess program!The true test is in how QUICKLY you spot the immediate next best move!This will gauge your true chess abilities and rating strength! Difficulty levels: 1=Somewhat easy 2=Moderately difficult 3=Complex(master level or above) 4=Super complex(senior master or GM level) |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 07-Jan-17, 08:43 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 07-Jan-17, 08:56.
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 07-Jan-17, 08:56 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 07-Jan-17, 09:03.
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 07-Jan-17, 09:03 |
Level:1 Next best move and why?Technically,you should spot the answer in about 10 seconds or less. But this is new to many club members,so taking longer is ok! You are the black and black is to move next: |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 08-Jan-17, 06:01 |
I'm going to raise and modify the difficulty level on the diagram above to level 2,or moderately difficult.Perhaps I was a bit incorrect with the diagram being somewhat easy.And i'll give a hint at the answer:It has nothing to do with controlling the center of the board(which is important but can be delayed for the moment),but ONLY involves the theory of open and closed games,and what to look for and do under the circumstances for black to gain some advantage through some kind of capture in 2 moves.More than that,I cannot say for now! So nambam,any more thoughts with my hint?d5 was a good move indeed,but not the best! Anyone else? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Moving one of the rooks was another possibility. But there were cons or uncertainty there. On the other hand, I thought the knights were in reasonably decent locations and the rook on A8 had not been moved. Those were a few of the factors that had me considering the rooks. Also considered dsb and a few pawns. |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 08-Jan-17, 18:01 |
Well,I assume you mean Nb4 or as you would write...n-b4. n-b5,however, is not correct,look again at the coordinates. YES!That is the correct answer.Due to the open game where Bishops reign in supreme and the fact that whites Bishop on square d3 is locked or frozen in a bit... and it cannot move without being captured...its best to FORCE the exchange with your Knight and capture his Bishop.This way it does open up your light colored diagonal(very powerful for black)and you keep two Bishops vs whites Bishop and Knight.While d5 is "ok" it is not as good because it hems in your Bishop on b7.Moving to d5(pawn to d5)later,AFTER the Knight/Bishop exchange should be made after the exchange,not before,just in case white opens up a square for its Bishop on square d3.So you do not want that to happen! Note,that with the moves 1...Nb4 then white moves something.Then 2....Nxd3(whites problem Bishop captured).Black now has 2 good Bishops that are very powerful because they have much more open diagonal space.Whites single Bishop on b2 is still hemmed in. Now this does NOT give black(you)any significant big advantage,but any advantage with piece point value,no matter how small,is significant.And in an open game....2 good Bishops are worth much more than a Knight and a Bishop. Good job. |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 08-Jan-17, 18:20 |
Now on to another diagram which is in the same theme as the diagram above,keep that in mind! No hints unless absolutely necessary! Level 1.5 White to move next.Which would you say is the next BEST move understanding what you know about the theory in the above diagram?There are many moves in the diagram below,but only 1 stands out from ALL the others! |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 08-Jan-17, 18:56 |
|
||||||
|
same theme... |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 08-Jan-17, 21:13 |
the next best move would still be Nb4 in the first diagram.My goal is to hope you guys will see the answers without any theme hints!Yes,it can be done!Even before trying to control the center,in the first example...that would actually be a weaker move and must be developed with delay.There is an immediate higher priority!Almost every GM would have made the same move(Nb4)!And if you DO run a top program like Stockfish or Komodo or Fritz 15...guess what?All 3 which were programmed by GM's... would ALSO agree to the move Nb4 in that first diagram above!I already checked,trust me!If you plug in anything else,the top programs will give a minus value to black above!So,its a matter of protocol in the timing and initiative.Rooks and other things must take a back stage to creating more value in light and dark square control via freer Bishops in a wide open game.Again,things like Rooks are more structured for endgame play(well most of the time)and need not,at least in that diagram be moved for a while due to protocol vs Bishop diagonal initiative/control. While I do not want you guys to use a program until after the snapshot test,I will mention it because program training has shown me positions like the 2 diagrams above and has given me a high degree of insight as to spotting a critical weakness almost immediately....or how to "amplify"the point value of a piece.Now,those Bishops in the first diagram have instant value of approx 3.2,not 3!That is one of the reasons I excel in blitz play.I looked at the first diagram above and immediately see a "hypermodern game"which means basically a delay in developing the center,if even for a move or two. Just my 2 cents worth! Yes,wait a bit for the second diagram.But remember,you need(or anyone)needs to give a full explanation of their response. |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 08-Jan-17, 21:25 |
But these tests are only based upon 1 move and 1 move only relative to that exact and immediate position.So make believe its kind of like a mate in 1!You must hit the nail on the head based upon that exact moment in time,not what you "think"the board could look like in 10 moves down the line!See the subtle difference?Think now on what you immediately grasp in concept and theory.Am I making any sense,or confusing everyone more?Ha ha! |
||||||
|
and thank you for the comments on rooks vs free bishops (and light/dark square control, ...which I need to review further). I have been operating on a comment by Dan Heisman that recommends moving all pieces once before moving a piece a second time, unless there is an opportunity or threat. I may or may not have been certain that NxB (in the first smapshot) was ENOUGH of an opportunity to not move the unmoved rook. Well, I think I would have in that case. But in other cases, I suspect I am weighting the "move the unmoved piece" part of his comment a bit too heavily. The topic of when to move and not move rooks, particularly in the opening, is one I wouldn't mind going into a bit more. I imagine it would tie in well with further discussion of central file control. |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 09-Jan-17, 06:45 |
Just making a quick note on Rook movements.GM games and other theory shows that Rooks tend to par much better in absolute/relative skewer situations(ex-rays basically) when the files open up...not at a point in time where the game is open in the center.And building up the game first with the Pawns,Bishops,Knights,ect(the smaller guys)tend to do those open file jobs(especially the pawns through exchange).This will THEN lay the BETTER foundation for Rook movements,especially on the first rank where it can NOW zip up to an open file and lay pressure on it.Remember my Sodium games with the Rook moving then to b1?Not a great example,but you get the idea. But deeper theory conflicts to a degree with..."moving all pieces once before moving a piece a second time, unless there is an opportunity or threat." There is a "third" scenario in GM theory where moving a piece a 2nd,3rd or even 4th time is a preferred move,even with what appears to be a loss of tempo!How? In some board situations,the pieces can be locked up so tight that neither side(or possibly your opponents side only)has no move that would give any positive value of development or may lead to a disadvantage in some way. By moving the Rook(s),say,on the first rank which is partially open(maybe only 1 to 3 squares are open)..this is a delay/stall move to push your opponent to move into a disadvantageous position!It may involve moving your Rook,for example,back and forth 2 or 3 time from b1 to d1,and vise versa. This may seem like wasted moves to your opponent,but there is a deep logic behind some delay moves like that.I will eventually show you a game in another post(if I can remember!)to illustrate just this same scenario. I know that many of you guys do not study deeply with a chess program like I have over the years.But one of the things I have noticed,starting with Rybka years ago set on "human"or later with better Shredder programs is that when the program sees no positive value move for itself or "see's" that the computers opponent(me or another program)has no "next" move that appears advantageous(even slightly)in tighter positions most of the time...the program tends to make that Rook move I just described!And these are programs rated at GM strength levels. So things like that will transcend the views of many books on the subject of piece development. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 09-Jan-17, 18:51 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 09-Jan-17, 18:59.
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 09-Jan-17, 18:59 |
Again,in that second diagram,we have the reverse of the first diagram.The key words are "CLOSED GAME".With those pawns locking up the center,it is of course,closed.So the theory holds that Knights have more value(most of the time but not always)in the early and middle stages of a midgame when the game is closed.So,that Knight of blacks on square d7 is froze for the time being with blacks Q on square e8.Seeing that Knights reign in supreme in a closed game,it would be best to take blacks Knight that will give white a better game with white having a more powerful minor piece(the Knight on square a2) and black is going to have a less powerful minor piece(blacks Bishop on g7 in this closed game).So that one move alone with Bb5 is the next best move and will give white a better game right from that point,MORE than any other move...and yes,there are other fairly good moves,but they are of a weaker nature in better theoretical development for white. So that was a basic level 1 difficulty level.But keep in mind that if I did not give you guys a hint,you may have possibly gave me a number of other responses before the correct one!Its something to look for and do in your GK games!On the higher levels of play I would have spotted those two diagram moves above with "no theme" and "no hint"!Make it your job now to see the same!Developing the center,moving Rooks around and some of the other "good moves"are not always the best moves in the "level of priority". I'll be posting much more in time.This is just the start!Hope you like it so far?Perhaps a level 2 difficulty next time,not sure yet. |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 10-Jan-17, 09:57 |
Advantage snapshot test Regardless of who is to move next,any move from either side(does not matter for this test)...who has the better advantage and more control of the board in the exact present position? And why?I'm seeking a specific method(and answer) that gives you the EXACT way to tell who has the immediate advantage.Extra points for the "phrase",methodology and precise way of telling me the degree or level of advantage!More specific than that,I do not want to say yet,else it will be too much of a hint! Level:2 I'll give you some small hint suggestions however with respect to your upcoming answers. Blacks Kings location,whites non castled position,blacks capability to capture whites Knight on d4 with a response of whites Q queen recapturing blacks Knight,possibly leaving white with a centrally exposed Q that may or may not be later attacked for any advantage to black or white has NOTHING at all to do with your proper response and analysis here!Also,whether the game is open,closed or semi open with respect to Knights and Bishops having advantages or disadvantages(like in the above two diagrams)has very little to do with your response here,for the most part,anyway.So this test is unlike the above two tests with open vs closed games. So...i'm seeking another style of answer!This is probably harder than you think for players rated south of 2000 in rating.Take your time anyone,no rush. |
||||||
|
2.white has no pawn influence on central or enemy squares, the two nitesinfluence 8 squares forward of themselves, and the black bishop has an open diagonal of 5 squares, total of 13. so black has a reasonable space advantage,but becauseof the open structure of the game, i dont think it is a decisive factor at this point. there are 2 half open files, the d file which looks promising for white, and the f file for black, which if he can get his king to safety, could be an integral part of a concerted attack on the white king side, which is pretty light on defence. all in all ifi had the choice i would like to play black |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 11-Jan-17, 18:02 |
Almost,well kind of....but not exactly! Your in the "ballpark"of the answer i'm seeking,but your answers are not accurate with: 1.Your math assessments and 2.The exact way to determine the advantage.Your explanations are reasonably sound,but lack the true answer and methodology of determining that advantage i'm seeking.Perhaps you can recheck things and elaborate in more precise detail? But since you gave me a reasonably accurate response in regards to black having the advantage,I will tell you that yes,you are correct.But the way of your explanations above could conceivably alter someone else's perception of the advantage by degree's and other levels. I will give the answer in a day or two,unless nambam or anyone else can be a bit more specific and produce a more precise "recipe"of determining blacks advantage(which I just confirmed with nambam)....but I am seeking a bit more in regards to explanatory input! |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 11-Jan-17, 23:23 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 11-Jan-17, 23:32.
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 11-Jan-17, 23:32 |
The true count system....GM accepted This system divides the board in two.You need to visualize the Board as being bisected into two halves - White's Half versus Black's Half, with each player controlling an area totaling 32 squares,respectively. 1.To Count White's territorial control: Count the squares - the individual units of Space - in Black's Half,with all pieces of whites that cover any squares ONLY in the 5th,6th,7th and 8th rank. 2.To Count Black's territorial control: Count the squares in White's Half,with all pieces of blacks that cover any squares ONLY in the 1st,2nd,3rd and 4th rank. So you are only counting the squares that are within legal attacking range in your OPPONENTS HALF,not your own 4 rank half. This is the more precise way to determine which side controls more territory and, thus, holds positional advantage. So the count is as follows: ***Black territory controlled by WHITE,in blacks half(5th,6th,7th,8th ranks): 3 of White's personnel control territory in Black's Half: *The Queenside Knight, at c3, controls 2 squares: b5 and d5, the latter of which attacks Black's central Pawn. *The Queenside Knight, at d4, controls 4 squares: b5, attacking Black Knight, c6, e6, and f5. *The Queenside Bishop, at c1, controls 2 squares: g5 and h7. So White Controls a Total of: 8 Squares, in Black's Territory. ***Whites territory controlled by BLACK,in whites half(1st,2nd,3rd,4th ranks): 5 of White's personnel control territory in White's Half: The Queenside Pawn, at d5, controls 2 squares: c4 and e4, from its position in the Small Center The Queenside Knight, at c6, controls 2 squares: b4 and d4, with the latter attacking White's Knight. The Kingside Knight, at f6, controls 2 squares: e4 and g4. The Kingside Bishop, at e7, controls 2 squares: a3 and b4. The Queen, on the Queenside, at c8, controls 2 squares: g4 and h3. So Black Controls a Total of: 10 Squares, in Whites Territory ... All of which means,Black holds positional advantage, by 2 squares, over White's 8 square control. So the precise final count to the space count system for positional advantage is: White-8 count Black-10 count Again not much of an advantage for black,but an advantage nonetheless.Very few players south of 2000 count any squares at all.Other style ways to count are not the GM accepted way.Counting any of your own squares in your own territory with your own pieces(anywhere within your own half of the board)is counting backwards and is not the accepted way and will lead other to confusion when they study the correct space count system and then see other systems with different count numbers. |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 12-Jan-17, 00:06 |
gameknot.com |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So, for example, in the diagram above, the white queen influences 2 central squares, d4 and d5. My count for white with this system would be 5. For black 7 (or 6 if the questionable 'd4 as influenced by the pawn on d5' is not counted). Re the accepted method, on the subject of of "influence," where a piece is POINTING toward the opponent's real estate, that must factor in as a complement to the space count. For example, the queen on D1 is pointed at the entire D file. What if that was a rook instead of a queen? How is that type of influence viewed in connection to the count. IS the count a solitary consideration? Or is it considered with other types of assessments? I assume the latter. Getting at where the count fits into an overall assessment. Also, once it is determined who controls the most squares and has a greater positional advantage, how do you then view THAT? How is that knowledge acted on? |
||||||
|
deeper_insight 12-Jan-17, 07:24 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 12-Jan-17, 07:39.
|
||||||
|
deeper_insight 12-Jan-17, 07:39 |
Todd Those reports may answer all your questions.And actually,page 2-5 of the "sublink"gets into more detail.I actually copied/pasted some of the info from that link!Notice that the board is also identical...makes my job easier!I wanted to use another report from "Chess Strategies" rather than my own made up board/pieces(this time)to prove,illustrate and define additional thoughts in this system.Otherwise,any disagreements or anyone thinking that it is only "my"system can simply click on the links and see for themselves! There is another theory however(and this is important)that spatial advantage does NOT always mean advantage!!!!!! Sound contradictory,right?Yes and no.No IF the spatial control of one or the other opponent becomes OVEREXTENDED!!!!This is a weak position,even though the overextended player may control more space!!!!See?But that is another post or thread,not just yet!!!It may,for example be the opponents pawn chain configurations are disconnected,doubled,overextended into a stronger fortress of his opponents side and weak in other ways.But i'm sure you can see what I mean!? For the most part,the count method is simply using math to determine any weakness in your opponents side of the board.But of course,you are to count your weakness's as well counting your opponents pieces into your own territory.The basic idea is to find ways to cramp or alter your opponents space advantage on you.In that diagram above you had a question regarding that Q...if it was a Rook?No change in space advantage,since it is not covering any squares on blacks side either.As the links will confirm,things like useless,hemmed in or froze pieces in midgame are better to be exchanged for a piece of equal or better value to gain much better spatial advantage which you should then recount per new position.However,if you WERE in control of OVERRALL spatial advantage(but to a larger degree,not necessarily like the diagram above),the key is to NOT trade down your pieces and maintain a more pronounced control/influence on your opponents side.Keep in mind that we are looking from the perspective of an "early midgame",not later,like in an endgame...where all the white and black forces are mixed together.The idea being that long before move 40(example),you have already defined your control(and his)through a better defined math count(like counting cards) and then act upon it accordingly(increase square control through a NOW recognized math and act accordingly).It may be a simple castle to move a Rook down an open file on your enemies side,a fianchetto and more. It gives a proximity analysis early on to create a better "positional strategy"overall.Just counting the center squares as you mentioned is good,but not nearly as supreme in formulating a more efficient positional strategy because many games are hypermodern and intentionally delay the center control(example),so observing weakness/strength of all of your enemies pieces are counting many more cards!Another example would be that the center is equally controlled by both sides(according to the math)and now you must look beyond the central proximity to adjust according to the spatial advantage through adjusted positional control,minimizing opponent control.A war game,but those who become adjusted to using the math constantly,and take the time to do this,will find it easier and "automatic"in future games...giving you a theoretical edge,many times in that one gem of a game to defeat a player higher rated than you,that may have gained those points playing more games,but have not met you yet when you are now ARMED with this system and others. And yes,you are correct...this count method must be blended in with all the other theory....light/dark square control,especially with Bishops,7th rank Rook control(or 2nd rank depending),closed game Knights...exchange or not depending upon the effectiveness....the Knight may be froze on a flank,thus reducing its value.Better to exchange in those cases if possible to open up spatial advantage,possibly for your Rook or Q when placed on that file. So,you must basically continue to increase(maximize)as the report says...your positional advantage through long term strategy.THEN tactics LATER in the endgame...which you should have an easier endgame,if your card counting and adjustments were utilized correctly! Your goal, then, would be to maintain and then maximize your positional advantages ... Then, seek to make your greater numbers pay out with advantage and victory. |
||||||
| |||||||
