Bautastein wrote on 02/14/21 at 18:40:53:


You might want to look into books of theory so that you don't waste time trying to figure out opening moves.

Well all those directions in which the white queen is attacking are also directions from which she can be attacked. So evaluation is how you know whether attacking or being attacked is the more important thing in any position.

Thank you!

I'm happy to see that the answer lies not in some deep theory, nor some long complex variation, but a simple principle that is easy to understand. So returning to the original position:



I propose a new line of reasoning I should have employed instead: We see that my bishop on g7 is pointing down a diagonal lane towards the pawn on b2. Also, the b file is clear, pointing at the same pawn. If only I could clear the a1-h8 diagonal, and get my queen to the b file, I could have a mating threat. While there is no forced mate, I could still make his king unsafe, and thus compensate for my slight material disadvantage. I can do that by attacking the pawn on d5. If he chooses not to recapture, we will be even on material instead.

It's a good point that I probably should start studying positional chess. To that end, I just started reading Yasser Seirawan's "Winning Chess Openings". This is the only chess book I have ever read. I had planned to move on to his other books, including "Winning Chess Strategies". I hope that is a good choice.

The difference between diagram 2 and diagram 3 is white's king safety.

• Diagram 2 - unsafe king - extra pawn doesn't matter.
• Diagram 3 - safe king - extra pawn matters.

Having studied tactics is a good foundation, but now you need to study positional play. In some of the literature attacking play is mistakenly equated with tactics, but actually, attacking the king is positional play with a large side order of tactics.

Edit: I see halbstark beat me to it.

I've been playing with chess-dot-com's tactics trainer for a while as a pasttime, and thought I'd like to start playing real chess. Through the TT I have become decent in tactical combinations where the outcome is obvious to give an advantage, such as a material advantage or checkmate, but I haven't got much clue about openings and strategy. So, apart from buying a few books I've been playing around with 365chess's chess openings trainer, without learning the underlying openings beforehand, to train my intuition on what might be good moves in specific opening situations. Sometimes I get it right, other times I choose a move that is not the book move but still OK, other times I make terrible mistakes I don't understand. So here is an example, arising from B76 according to 365chess, where I'm playing Black:



In this position, my clearly flawed intuition goes like this: White has three defenders on the d5 pawn, while I have three attackers. Furthermore, my c6 pawn is undefended. If I go into a confrontation on the d5 pawn now, White may end up with a powerful piece in the center of the board, and dominate the whole board. Clearly I don't want that, even if I get to open up the h8-a1 diagonal, where my g7 bishop has control. So, I might add another attacker to the d5 pawn. If I move my bishop to b7, I both protect the c6 pawn and add another attacker. Surely that must be a great move! I see the b7 bishop will block the b file which could otherwise be dominated by my a1 rook, but it still seemed better than other options.

But nobody in the database has ever played that move in that situation, and Stockfish thinks it's a terrible idea! He thinks I'm the biggest idiot on earth  , and evaluates the new position to around +3, while simply going right into confrontation on d5 is about even. So, I check Stockfish's best line, and the following few moves go like this:

1... cxd5 2. Nxd5 Nxd5 3. Qxd5 Qc7 4. Qc5 Qb7 5. b3



As we can see, White's queen dominates the board, like I thought. But this is clearly way better for Black than my alternative, according to Stockfish. Is it because the White Queen is brought into the board too early, and can be chased around?

If instead we choose my terrible move, the continuation goes like this:

1... Bb7 2. dxc6 Qxd2+ 3. Rxd2 Bxc6 4. Bb5 Bxb5 5. Nxb5 a5 6. a4 e6 7. c4 Rfc8 8. Rc2



In both scenarios White is up one pawn, so there is no immediate capture etc. to help me explain why this is such a horrible position for Black. So, I'm thinking one of three things may be true (or all of them):

1) I need to calculate a lot of moves forward in my head, far more than the 3-4 I'm currently capable of (6-7 in simple positions where my opponent has very few alternatives).

2) My strategic reasoning is fundamentally flawed, so I can learn to get those moves right if I only learn how to reason right (more general strategy/opening strategy).

3) This is a type of position which you should have studied in advance and have read previous analysis about it, and that's how you'd get the move right.

So, which one is it, or is it a fourth option, and if no. 2, can you explain to me how the position above should be reasoned about?