Positional Play?
Pete Dawson
I am a 1300 ish rated player who has been playing at a club for a couple
of years. I've really just started studying the game in books etc. I've
read a lot recently about tactics being the main thing to study right up
to 1800 level. I have been trying to put this into practice and I'm
convinced it works in terms of seeing threats finding combinations etc.
However, often when I play a higher rated player 1700-1800 they are so
solid compared to me I reach a situation where I can't seem to find a
good move!! There are no threats I can see (maybe this is the problem!)
so I must play a 'positional' move ie one that improves my position
without any immediate tactical threat. I believe this to be the
definition of positional play. Please correct if wrong.
Often this is the point where I make an inferior move and commence the
descent into the abyss!!
The other area where I believe my chess skill is lacking is in the
opening (assuming I am not familiar with the particular opening ), often
I can be developing and countering tactical threats and somehow I end up
with my pieces awkwardly placed and not working well together. I believe
this skill also is a 'positional' thing.
Now...I spend about 5 hrs a week studying chess plus a tourney game one
night. Study is mixed, tactics, openings, master games.
Do people think I should just do tactics and this 'positional' sense
will come or should I read Reassess your Chess many times and see if
that helps??
I've also thought of investing in chess mentor or the chessbase strategy
CD's. Any opinions on whether these would help me at my level. I'm
basically trying to optimise improvement for the meagre time invested.
Any opinions greatly appreciated.
Pete
HaroldBuck
>Do people think I should just do tactics and this 'positional' sense
>will come or should I read Reassess your Chess many times and see if
>that helps??
>
I like to read up on positional chess. It's fascinating, and it helps you with
many of the situations you describe. Of course, I play just for fun, so my goal
is not to become a master or anything, but I don't see how reading some
positional chess books can hurt you if you still pay proper attention to
tactics.
It's kind of like fencing. I've heard that in Europe you must do a year's worth
of footwork before they put a weapon in your hand. This allows them to develop
some fine fencers, but it's got to be boring as hell for a lot of the fencers.
If we tried this in the U.S., everyone would quit out of boredom. So I think
studying some positional chess will keep you more interested and focused.
Personally, I think a nice, easy book to start with is "Weapons of Chess" by
Pandolfini. I've read it probably 7 or 8 times. I also like the Silman books
(HTRYC and TAM) and "Best Lessons of a Chess Coach."
If nothing else, when you get to those "I don't know what to do" stages of your
games you'll be able to make a move that has some positional point to it. It
may be the wrong reason--there may be *other* positional reasons that dictate
that the move is bad--but that's better than not having any reason!
Of course, my personal trap is to play the great postional move that loses the
game on tactical reasons.
-Harold
Thirunathan Sutharsan
1) The Amateur's Mind by Silman
This showed me how I should play chess, what moves to consider and what
not to consider by developing a proper plan which is very important.
2) Ideas behind the chess openings by Fine
This explains how to play the opening properly.
The only way I can learn an opening is by playing it and learning
from my mistakes.
Other than the above two theoretical books none of the other stategy books
are any good. Nimzos book is supposed to be good but its very difficult
for me to read due the language so I didnt attempt it.
Recently I realised that I need to study the endgame as well.
I dont know which is a good book for this yet but I heard from
Silman that hes planning to write an endgame book which will hopefully
solve my
problem.
Other than that I spend most of the time studying tactics since at my
level (1650) most games decided by simple tactics that either side may
miss.
My experience is most people at my level when presented with complex
position with lot of tactics will almost always go wrong. Ie. if you have
superior tactics
you will win but you need good endgame technique to convert the point.
Openings are less important as most at my level either play off beat
systems
or the games go away from theory pretty quickly.
Another thing that I have learnt so far is that pawn play is very
important.
There are typical pawn structures and typical plans and pawn breaks that
go with them. So far I have not found a single book explaining these
"secrets".
Another thing that is important is castling. When to castle and on which
side can quite
often determine the game.
In the opening do not blindly develop pieces and castle. Even in the
opening one needs to have
a plan. My approach is to treat it like a special type of middlegame and
apply all the
strategy one learns for the middlegame.
Finally remember that all general principles can and should be broken if
you can find
a very good reason for breaking them.
Tom
> solid compared to me I reach a situation where I can't seem to find a
> good move!! There are no threats I can see (maybe this is the problem!)
> so I must play a 'positional' move ie one that improves my position
> without any immediate tactical threat. I believe this to be the
> definition of positional play. Please correct if wrong.
>
> Often this is the point where I make an inferior move and commence the
> descent into the abyss!!
Good question, as this seems to be my problem with higher rated
players lately. The board gets all wound up, I make it through the
opening without shedding any blood, and am left with a quiet
positional move rather than a tactic. That's when my game falls apart.
I can see tactics abounding for my opponents but not me...why? I guess
it's progress. Six months ago I wouldn't have made it through the
opening so cleanly.
I also am 1300-1400 on a great day, and study and play the same as
you. Maybe time will tell...
Curious to hear from the others on this one.
Tom
terry kelly
> solid compared to me I reach a situation where I can't seem to find a
> good move!! There are no threats I can see (maybe this is the problem!)
> so I must play a 'positional' move ie one that improves my position
> without any immediate tactical threat. I believe this to be the
> definition of positional play. Please correct if wrong.
I don't think the problem relates particularly to positional or tactical
issues. Your opponent is just plain stronger than you! If you were to play
say a 900-rated player they would be making moves which would seem weak to
you and giving you all sorts of developing and tactical opportunites, and
they would be saying that they could not see any useful moves or how to
threaten you etc. Cool how the rating system shows so accurately a player's
relative strength in such a rich and open-ended game.
> The other area where I believe my chess skill is lacking is in the
> opening (assuming I am not familiar with the particular opening ), often
> I can be developing and countering tactical threats and somehow I end up
> with my pieces awkwardly placed and not working well together. I believe
> this skill also is a 'positional' thing.
> Do people think I should just do tactics and this 'positional' sense
> will come or should I read Reassess your Chess many times and see if
> that helps??
Regarding positional as where to develop pieces I think this is a mixture of
(1) learning and understanding the important general principles such as pawn
structure, space, tempo etc, and (2) experience or "feel" or "vision" which
comes naturally over time if you are playng regularly.
Regarding positional as in opening theory IMO it is useful and interesting
to study the basic principles of the opening as above, and try to learn the
major openings so as not to be completely relying on one's wits from move
one. However there is definitely a lot of stuff out there about the opening
which is far too detailed and technical to be of any benefit to players like
you and me.
> I've also thought of investing in chess mentor or the chessbase strategy
> CD's. Any opinions on whether these would help me at my level. I'm
> basically trying to optimise improvement for the meagre time invested.
I presume you have tried the Chess Mentor demo? If not it's worth a look. I
have found after making a couple of mistake purchases that the most
important point for me with training materials is whether the book or
whatever is going to engage you and absorb your attention. If not you are
either not going to get through it or you are going to struggle through it
without learning much from it no matter who says on the back that it will
improve your rating. I am with you that you have to be careful how you spend
your time on these things unless you are prepared to devote the whole of
your time to chess study. I just started "Logical Chess: Move by Move" by
Irving Chernev, and first impressions are really positive. Every move is
explained and in an interesting thoughtful way, inspiring stuff, check it
out.
Bart Van Hoorebeeck
> your time to chess study. I just started "Logical Chess: Move by Move" by
> Irving Chernev, and first impressions are really positive. Every move is
> explained and in an interesting thoughtful way, inspiring stuff, check it
> out.
Yes, fine book. and as you say very move.
First I wondered "is he really gonna spend a paragraph on the opening
move in every game?", and then "will he really convince me to give up
1.e4?".
Bart
Niteawk
"Thirunathan Sutharsan" <sut...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message news:3B984E91...@speakeasy.org...
> Another thing that I have learnt so far is that pawn play is very
> important.
> There are typical pawn structures and typical plans and pawn breaks that
> go with them. So far I have not found a single book explaining these
> "secrets".
The book "Winning Pawn Structures" (Batsford pub) by Alexander Baburin covers this.
Andreas Walkenhorst
I'm rated 1937 currently and I think I am a positional player (ok, first of
all I'm a Patzer :-)). As I never paid too much attention to tactics, when I
play vs a tactical based player there is a really simple way to get an easy
win: Reach a position which seems to be boring to him (whatever that means)
and kill him. Ususally these guys sharpened their eyes for combinations, but
if there are none, they simply do not know what to do, as they do not
develop a strategy / plan for the game. Another thing is that these guys
tend to see kombinations well in "their" openings, but if you get them to a
different position ...
But that may be just the situation that you described from the "other side".
I 've always thought that there is too much emphasis on tactics. It is not
that you should forget about it, but it is not the most important thing.
If you look at the chess servers, you'll find a lucky phenomenon: The
tactical guys are those with the low ratings. They play things like the
Englund, Morra Gambit, etc, and are wondering that their rating is low. And
remember, this is blitz, the results will be even more devastating in a
normal tournament game.
If you look at the "heavyweights" on those servers, You will usually find
positional play. Ok any good player has a solid tactical background, but
usually games are not decided by a sudden tactical blow.
I recommend you should study typical middlegame structures and - I stress
that - the endgame. Good commented GM games also help a lot. If you go for
openings, try to play system. Do not change from time to time. If you loose
games, and think the reason was the opening, analysze them carefully, very
carefully. You will get a deeper understanding for the resulting positions.
I think if you do not develop a sense for positional play when you're young,
you'll never develop it. In my opinion learning tactics is simple. Example:
Buy the Polar middle-game book, and do 10 of the diagramms a day. When you'
ve done the book you'll have a solid tactical basis.
Andreas
"Pete Dawson" <peter....@airways.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3B97EABD...@airways.co.nz...
Ingrid Voigt
> Hi,
>
> However, often when I play a higher rated player 1700-1800 they are so
> solid compared to me I reach a situation where I can't seem to find a
> good move!! There are no threats I can see (maybe this is the problem!)
> so I must play a 'positional' move ie one that improves my position
> without any immediate tactical threat. I believe this to be the
> definition of positional play. Please correct if wrong.
>
> Often this is the point where I make an inferior move and commence the
> descent into the abyss!!
One simple method: If you've convinced yourself that a positional
move is needed: Figure out which of your pieces is placed the worst.
Find a better place for it. If possible one that it can reach
within one move, if not... try to figure out a maneuver that would
help it. What about advancing a pawn to open a line for the rook
or a diagonal? If this way of thinking doesn't give you any ideas:
What is your opponent's best piece? Can you drive the knight
away or close the bishop's diagonal or...?
After you've found a move which you'd like to play:
Does it destroy your position in any way? (getting you
a backward pawn which won't ever advance or open
lines for your opponent instead of for you or rip open
the cover of your king - even if there are no immediate
threats). Does it work tactically?
After you've done all this... play it. It might not be the best move
but is almost certain to be a sensible one.
> Any opinions greatly appreciated.
Not exactly what you asked for but this principle might
save you a lot of positional troubles - stick to tactics
training for the time being.
And expect to lose against the 17xx guy anyway - when
playing 400 points uphill your winning percentage
should be very close to 0.
> Pete
Hope this helps
Ingrid
Ingrid Voigt
No it doesn't. It covers *one* typical pawn structure
(the Isolated Queen's Pawn).
Ingrid
Blunderman
"Tom" <rxtom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f3776124.0109...@posting.google.com...
> > However, often when I play a higher rated player 1700-1800 they are so
> > solid compared to me I reach a situation where I can't seem to find a
> > good move!! There are no threats I can see (maybe this is the problem!)
> > so I must play a 'positional' move ie one that improves my position
> > without any immediate tactical threat. I believe this to be the
> > definition of positional play. Please correct if wrong.
> >
> > Often this is the point where I make an inferior move and commence the
> > descent into the abyss!!
>
> Good question, as this seems to be my problem with higher rated
> players lately. The board gets all wound up, I make it through the
> opening without shedding any blood, and am left with a quiet
> positional move rather than a tactic. That's when my game falls apart.
> I can see tactics abounding for my opponents but not me...why? I guess
> it's progress. Six months ago I wouldn't have made it through the
> opening so cleanly.
>
One thing I've noticed is that lower-rated players (and I'm one as well)
that I play tend to start attacks after developing 2-3 pieces, while better
players develop all of their pieces before starting and attack. So it may
be the case that making it out of the opening with no blood is not a sign
you are doing well, rather the better player was just finishing development
before punishing the mistakes that had already been made.
I've found that I can often maintain material equality (if you just count
pieces) against players 700 points higher than myself for 20-25 moves, but I
rarely (never?) even seriously threaten to win the game. Sooner or later I
make a move that gives him a tactical win (sometimes a true blunder and
sometimes rather subtle) and then I get killed.
Blunderman
"Andreas Walkenhorst" <awalke...@dspace.de> wrote in message
news:9naggu$5mv3f$1...@ID-104565.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I'm rated 1937 currently and I think I am a positional player (ok, first
of
> all I'm a Patzer :-)).
Amazing... I'd die a happy man if I ever hit 1900! I wouldn't call that a
patzer... you might as well be a GM from where I sit. Perspective is
everything.
> But that may be just the situation that you described from the "other
side".
> I 've always thought that there is too much emphasis on tactics. It is not
> If you look at the "heavyweights" on those servers, You will usually find
> positional play. Ok any good player has a solid tactical background, but
> usually games are not decided by a sudden tactical blow.
>
I think that the advice on tactics is usually aimed at those of us still
trying to become middleweights, not for the middleweights trying to become
heavyweights.
Of course, it seems like players rated above 2200 (on ICC) don't play
anything but three minute games anyway!
Niteawk
"Ingrid Voigt" <vo...@instmath.rwth-aachen.de> wrote in message news:3B98C675...@instmath.rwth-aachen.de...
Yes it covers the isolani in depth, the point is, its a book that covers positional play
and in my view what better way to learn, using the isolated pawn, which can be weak
or strong, not much point rattling on about locked or symmetrical paws, is there.
The author did also mention that to cover all pawn structures the book would run to
several hundred pages, so this work is merely an introduction to pawn play.
The book deals with all 3 phases of the game giving a few typical structures to
illustrate the endless possible strategies within them, get yourself a copy.
Peter Bouwkamp
> Yes it covers the isolani in depth, the point is, its a book that covers
positional play
> and in my view what better way to learn, using the isolated pawn, which
can be weak
> or strong, not much point rattling on about locked or symmetrical paws, is
there.
> The author did also mention that to cover all pawn structures the book
would run to
> several hundred pages, so this work is merely an introduction to pawn
play.
> The book deals with all 3 phases of the game giving a few typical
structures to
> illustrate the endless possible strategies within them, get yourself a
copy.
but if you want to start doing some work on typical pawnformations, it's
better to take a book which deals with a lot of them, maybe not as profound
and heavy, but alas, that's not what you need for breakfast. (unless you're
english and start with scrambled eggs and bacon).
so e.g. "pawn structure chess" by soltis, or a more general middlegame book.
The Barburin book is pretty good, but not, i think, the right book for
players below say 1700/1800.
(btw it also does deal with some related structures like the isolated pawn
couple; but quite marginally)
Peter Bouwkamp
of the best ways to improve your play. It works even better if you get
someone to do it with you (not necessarely a much better player), to get
some interaction going.
"Pete Dawson" <peter....@airways.co.nz> schreef in bericht
news:3B97EABD...@airways.co.nz...
Pete Dawson
>
> One thing I've noticed is that lower-rated players (and I'm one as well)
> that I play tend to start attacks after developing 2-3 pieces, while better
> players develop all of their pieces before starting and attack. So it may
> be the case that making it out of the opening with no blood is not a sign
> you are doing well, rather the better player was just finishing development
> before punishing the mistakes that had already been made.
>
> I've found that I can often maintain material equality (if you just count
> pieces) against players 700 points higher than myself for 20-25 moves, but I
> rarely (never?) even seriously threaten to win the game. Sooner or later I
> make a move that gives him a tactical win (sometimes a true blunder and
> sometimes rather subtle) and then I get killed.
That's it exactly....seems I am not alone in this and as someone else pointed
out a 1300 player looks like this to a 900 player. Finding the right area to
study for the individual concerned seems to be the tricky bit.
Pete
Pete Dawson
Pete
Pete Dawson
missed tactics. This can be scary in itself!! I very rarely get to look at it
with a stronger player.
Pete
Ed Seedhouse
<peter....@airways.co.nz> wrote:
>Blunderman wrote:
>>
>> I've found that I can often maintain material equality (if you just count
>> pieces) against players 700 points higher than myself for 20-25 moves, but I
>> rarely (never?) even seriously threaten to win the game. Sooner or later I
>> make a move that gives him a tactical win (sometimes a true blunder and
>> sometimes rather subtle) and then I get killed.
>
>That's it exactly....seems I am not alone in this and as someone else pointed
>out a 1300 player looks like this to a 900 player. Finding the right area to
>study for the individual concerned seems to be the tricky bit.
And a 2400 player looks like this to a 2000 player, believe me.
Miguel Angelo Hemzo
vo...@instmath.rwth-aachen.de says...
The book you should be looking for is Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess,
divided as:
1. caro-slav family
2. slav formation
3. open sicilian - english
4. chain reactions
5. e5 chain
6. king's indian complex
7. queen's gambit family and relatives
8. panov formation
9. stonewalls and other prisons
10.closed sicilian - english