Thx, Paddy! I did read a Dorfman book once, but I must have borrowed it from a friend. 

While his distinction between static and dynamic is important, I forgot that he also tied those concepts to a discussion of critical positions.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/09/11 at 22:23:48:


I once prepared a summary for a group I was working with, so here goes:

In chess literature, there is no shortage of advice on how to choose a move, the most famous being Kotov’s “candidate move” method in his book “Think like a grandmaster”.

More recently the former Soviet Champion GM Iossif Dorfman, Kasparov’s second (1984-7) and former coach of Bacrot and Topalov, has published his own formulation for aiding chess decision-making, based on evaluating "critical positions" according to "static" and "dynamic" criteria.

•      First decide who stands better statically

Use the following four criteria, in descending order of importance:

a)      King safety;
b)      Material balance (quantity and quality);
c)      Long-term prospects (ask yourself: who would stand better after an exchange of queens?);
d)      Pawn structure.

After this evaluation, apply the following linked principles:

The side which is worse statically MUST try to employ dynamic methods to try to change the course of the battle, otherwise little by little the situation will deteriorate.

Conversely, the side that stands better statically should proceed statically (e.g. improving the position, or taking prophylactic measures against the opponent’s possible dynamic attempts), since the tide of battle is running in his favour anyway. 

Dorman points out a common mistake: for the side with the static advantage, initiating dynamic action can actually endanger that advantage!

•      So, what is dynamism?
For Dorfman, dynamism in chess consists typically of:
- changing the pawn structure;
- exchanging material;
- taking the initiative.

•      What constitutes a "critical position"?
Dorfman advises that his method is for use in critical positions. He defines a critical position as one in which either:
a)      you have to decide about a possible piece exchange; 
or
b)      you have to decide about a possible change to the pawn structure; 
or
c)      you have reached the end of a series of forced moves and need to re-orientate yourself.

Similar ideas are expressed by GM Adrian Mikhalchishin in his DVD "Decision-making in Chess".

I should add that Dorfman's first book, called in English "The Method in Chess", was given some very unfavourable reviews e.g. by Dvoretsky and Watson, but I know that his ideas have received support from titled players. 

Ken Neat's usually reliable translation  from Russian was a bit clunky this time, which probably didn't help the first book's reception. There are also French and Spanish editions of "The Method in Chess".

Sylvester wrote on 10/10/11 at 11:49:00:


It depends a bit, but I think there are many opening books discussing key positions (I tend to think there are many even for a single opening variation), even though they are not main focus. Winning Pawn Structures, Mastering the French and Mastering the Spanish, to name just a few, all focus on particular structures and key positions rather than just variations.

Paddy, I don't have access to either of those. Please enlighten us.

I answered the question in reference to chess. If the topic weren't chess, I'd agree it should be "chit chat" but since it is chess related, I'll leave it here.

I wonder if this would belong more to chit-chat since it's really asking about the english language rather than chess, there's no meaning of the terms as far as I'm aware specific to chess.  

What's the difference between these terms?
What is the criteria for a key position?