a source familiar with the matter on Nostr: #chess I've been studying chess for a few years I try to make chess simple for myself ...
#chess
I've been studying chess for a few years
I try to make chess simple for myself
I think many chess concepts can be collapsed into a fewer number of more general concepts without any injury to the player's capacity to understand
A common scheme is to divide a game into 3 possible phases: an opening, a middle-game, and an endgame
Instead I think it's more sensible to divide the game into only a middle-game (or main phase) and endgame.
The reason for this collapse of the opening into just a subset of the middle-game is that the same principles (in my view) govern both the opening and the middle-game.
In both opening and middle-game, players vie to increase the activity of their pieces and guard their king.
Players fight for the central squares and to preserve or win material as means of ensuring the greater activity of their pieces as compared to the opponent.
Already we see another layer of consolidated thinking: instead of the common three opening goals (activity, central influence, king safety) I see only two, with central control a mere means to the strategic goal of piece activity.
As material is removed from the board, eventually there is not enough for a direct checkmating assault. At this point more material must be brought in via pawn promotion, and in the meantime the king is safe to join the fray and it becomes a strategic necessity for him to do so. This marks the transition from the main phase of the game into the endgame.
The result of all this is that instead of a player learning some five-step checklist for the opening and then a further list of concepts for the middle-game, they instead have two related strategic goals (piece activity so I can checkmate the enemy king and king safety so he can't checkmate me).
Another area in which I have much consolidated my thinking is in tactics to win material.
A typical book on the subject may have dozens of different tactics, but I see only three.
To win material, a piece must be captured either for free or at the cost of a less-valuable piece.
This means that first something must be attacked which is insufficiently defended or more valuable than the attacker.
So why doesn't the opposing side simply move the attacked piece away?
Here I find three answers:
1) There is nowhere safe to move to, and the piece is trapped
2) There are multiple objects of attack, and a single move cannot save them all
3) The pieces are arranged in a line, so that moving away only reveals further targets
I think of each of these concepts as
1) Trapped piece
2) Multi-attack
3) Line attack
In contrast most textbooks would have a whole list of "distinct" concepts under these headings, such as
1) Trapped piece
2) Fork, discovery, removing the defender
3) Pin, skewer, x-ray, discovery, discovered check, double check, battery
In my experience, the textbook distinctions add no value.
There is no useful rule of thumb that says a pin works tactically if situation X occurs and a skewer works tactically if situation Y occurs.
At best, a few pins that can occur shortly after the game starts (eg a bishop pinning a knight to the king or queen) might have some rules of thumb (eg that it is acceptable to kick the bishop away with pawns prior to castling but not after).
However these rules of thumb do not extend to pins in general.
Instead, the player must notice the line attack and calculate what its results will be in that exact position.
This is true regardless of the exact ordering of pieces in a line and regardless of whether it is classified as a pin, skewer, or something else.
Consequently, I think it is better to develop an eye for pieces lined up generally, and to avoid training to notice only a certain ordering of pieces in a line.
Similarly, by training to see forks (where a single piece attacks multiple enemy pieces) we may be neglecting multi-attack situations in which multiple attackers assault different pieces (either at once with a discovery or over the course of multiple turns culminating in a "removing the defender" situation).
I think an overall course of chess study should look something like this:
1) Learn the rules - play dozens or hundreds of games focused on making & seeing legal moves (rather than worrying too much about brilliant strategy)
2) Learn basic checkmates, such as king+queen and king+rook
3) Learn the two strategic principles I've given
4) Train the three tactical concepts I've listed
5) Learn principles of common endgames, such as pawn endings or rook & pawn
6) (ongoing) Play many games to refine strategic/positional understanding
7) Train advanced endings
Step 4 is a big step, which consists of developing a real skill rather than merely memorizing a little bit of useful information, however this is probably the most important skill to refine for 99% of chess players. Only once both players are at something like a master level and are able to play with very few or no tactical blunders will other considerations have a big impact. Hopefully my thoughts will make this a little easier by focusing on the three methods of winning material rather than a bewildering taxonomy of positions.
I've been studying chess for a few years
I try to make chess simple for myself
I think many chess concepts can be collapsed into a fewer number of more general concepts without any injury to the player's capacity to understand
A common scheme is to divide a game into 3 possible phases: an opening, a middle-game, and an endgame
Instead I think it's more sensible to divide the game into only a middle-game (or main phase) and endgame.
The reason for this collapse of the opening into just a subset of the middle-game is that the same principles (in my view) govern both the opening and the middle-game.
In both opening and middle-game, players vie to increase the activity of their pieces and guard their king.
Players fight for the central squares and to preserve or win material as means of ensuring the greater activity of their pieces as compared to the opponent.
Already we see another layer of consolidated thinking: instead of the common three opening goals (activity, central influence, king safety) I see only two, with central control a mere means to the strategic goal of piece activity.
As material is removed from the board, eventually there is not enough for a direct checkmating assault. At this point more material must be brought in via pawn promotion, and in the meantime the king is safe to join the fray and it becomes a strategic necessity for him to do so. This marks the transition from the main phase of the game into the endgame.
The result of all this is that instead of a player learning some five-step checklist for the opening and then a further list of concepts for the middle-game, they instead have two related strategic goals (piece activity so I can checkmate the enemy king and king safety so he can't checkmate me).
Another area in which I have much consolidated my thinking is in tactics to win material.
A typical book on the subject may have dozens of different tactics, but I see only three.
To win material, a piece must be captured either for free or at the cost of a less-valuable piece.
This means that first something must be attacked which is insufficiently defended or more valuable than the attacker.
So why doesn't the opposing side simply move the attacked piece away?
Here I find three answers:
1) There is nowhere safe to move to, and the piece is trapped
2) There are multiple objects of attack, and a single move cannot save them all
3) The pieces are arranged in a line, so that moving away only reveals further targets
I think of each of these concepts as
1) Trapped piece
2) Multi-attack
3) Line attack
In contrast most textbooks would have a whole list of "distinct" concepts under these headings, such as
1) Trapped piece
2) Fork, discovery, removing the defender
3) Pin, skewer, x-ray, discovery, discovered check, double check, battery
In my experience, the textbook distinctions add no value.
There is no useful rule of thumb that says a pin works tactically if situation X occurs and a skewer works tactically if situation Y occurs.
At best, a few pins that can occur shortly after the game starts (eg a bishop pinning a knight to the king or queen) might have some rules of thumb (eg that it is acceptable to kick the bishop away with pawns prior to castling but not after).
However these rules of thumb do not extend to pins in general.
Instead, the player must notice the line attack and calculate what its results will be in that exact position.
This is true regardless of the exact ordering of pieces in a line and regardless of whether it is classified as a pin, skewer, or something else.
Consequently, I think it is better to develop an eye for pieces lined up generally, and to avoid training to notice only a certain ordering of pieces in a line.
Similarly, by training to see forks (where a single piece attacks multiple enemy pieces) we may be neglecting multi-attack situations in which multiple attackers assault different pieces (either at once with a discovery or over the course of multiple turns culminating in a "removing the defender" situation).
I think an overall course of chess study should look something like this:
1) Learn the rules - play dozens or hundreds of games focused on making & seeing legal moves (rather than worrying too much about brilliant strategy)
2) Learn basic checkmates, such as king+queen and king+rook
3) Learn the two strategic principles I've given
4) Train the three tactical concepts I've listed
5) Learn principles of common endgames, such as pawn endings or rook & pawn
6) (ongoing) Play many games to refine strategic/positional understanding
7) Train advanced endings
Step 4 is a big step, which consists of developing a real skill rather than merely memorizing a little bit of useful information, however this is probably the most important skill to refine for 99% of chess players. Only once both players are at something like a master level and are able to play with very few or no tactical blunders will other considerations have a big impact. Hopefully my thoughts will make this a little easier by focusing on the three methods of winning material rather than a bewildering taxonomy of positions.