MNb wrote on 07/11/12 at 11:26:11:
sloughter wrote on 07/11/12 at 06:39:57:
trying to get you to understand universal positions exactly as Steinitz and Karpov play them is apparently a hopeless task.
If you are a chess coach and I am your "student", would you show me specific examples of why I am wrong?
First of all you'll have to explain why the position after Vass' 13...f6 is "universal" and what you mean with it. In the second place I am pretty sure Karpov wouldn't play that position as White. He was one of the strongest sacrificial players ever - Kortsnoj, Timman, Sax 'and Kasparov belong to his victims. In the third place you should consider the position after 13...f6 objectively - Karpov always did.
White is a pawn up.
White has inactive pieces on a1, c1 and h3, while Bishop d3 is vulnerable.
Black can play ...Nxd3 anytime he/she likes. That results in Black having the Pair of Bishops in an open position plus a wrecked pawn structure for White - the pawns on d2 and d3 will be eternal weaknesses.
Black's Knight on a5 is not well placed, but it will take only two moves to redirect it to a better square, eg c5 or d6.
So Black's compensation is fine.
As the master of attack Rudolf Spielmann wrote: if you don't have the confidence to play such positions as Black you'll never get far as an attacking player. He knew a few things about this and his famous work on sacs was rapidly translated in Russian - Spassky studied it.
And all strong players since WW-2 are dangerous attacking players, including Karpov. Once he gambited a pawn against Kasparov (who declined) and won an impressive attacking game. Karpov was Black against the solid English Opening.
Steinitz was also an excellent attacking player in his young years.
Karpov's nickname is the "boa constrictor". He knew better than anyone else the concept of controlled space. If you look at all the great openings in chess one of the best is the King's Indian when Karpov would play d4/c4/Nc3/e4/f3. This is the only opening I am aware of where White plays a universal position in the opening. Not surprisingly when White carves out that much interior space, it poses real problems for Black to equalize. That is why an early c5 by Black is critical hope to equalize.
You will also notice in the King's Indian that Black, to implement a Kingside attack, will often play the maneuver Nf6/Nd7/f5/Nf6 to get his pawns in front of his pieces. That is why I don't understand why more effort hasn't been made to place the King on f2 rather than castle. Since you know that Black is going to try to get a pawn roller on the Kingside, wouldn't it make sense to avoid castling as long as possible to see what Black's intent is, play in the center, or launch a Kingside attack?
I can't recall the game's site but if you check out the game Karpov-Ivanchuk both players played universal chess the entire game. In my book I describe five different kinds of space:
1)Interior space---the space behind your pawn wall inaccessible to intrusion by your opponent's piecs.
2)Exterior space---the squares controlled by your pawn wall ahead of your pawns
3)Controlled space---the squares your pawns inhabit that prohibit access to your interior space
4)Uncontrolled space---overextended pawns
5)Future space---the unstoppable ability of certain pawns to advance and carve out additional interior space.
If you want to know the secret of how GM's often play, you will note that they often start out with White with a Classical or Hypermodern layout, then, gradually they return to a universal position.
A universal position just means you have a pawn wall with only one open or two half open files, no pieces in front of you pawns and no pieces ahead of your pawns. i.e. you have controlled interior space.
If you want to see what a typical universal position looks like, just check out the World Championship between Kasparov and Short where, Kasparov, on the Black side of the Sicilian Defense, on several occasions, played universal structures. I can do no better than point out those games.
The reason the "chop" position is so tricky is that one concept I developed 20 years ago is that while doubled pawns are undesirable to create a passed pawn, they may be perfectly acceptable to stop the advance of an opponent's pawns who is trying to create a passed pawn. Thus a player should ask himself a simple question when allowing your pawns to be doubled is what I intend to do with it?
A Classic example of relying on this is the game Fischer-Bisguier when Bobby played the Steinitz Defense (In his My 60 Memorable Games). There he encouraged Bisquier to double and isolate his Rook pawn because he knew that the Bishop pair would be useful long term compensation to assist in creating a passed pawn on the Queenside.
In none of the Vass variations I looked at was Black able to create a passed pawn on the Kingside, the center or Queenside except by allowing the White Rook to penetrate to the seventh.
It is difficult to believe that Black can create a passed pawn on the Kingside, the Queenside, or the center. Think of it this way---in those position when White is two pawns up, Black has to win the equivalent of at least three pawns to have any winning chances. That is a tall order.
Pages: 
C58: New try main line Two Knights Defense (Read 21177 times)
