The Process of Decision Making in Chess : Volume 2 - Goals and Plans. 9781483538822, 1483538826

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements and contact info
Process application chart
Introducing the practical application --
a motivational example
From the full process to shorter ones
Observation
Tactical observation
The nature of a position
The "Critical Squares" method
Classification of tactical opportunities
Threats analysis
The initiative
Positional observation
Survey of the positional criteria
Survey of the pawn structure
Types of structure
Pawn structure weaknesses
Endgame planning
Square weaknesses. Main illustration examples --
observation stage:Beginner:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Intermediate:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Advanced:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Expert:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Identification of goals
Defensive goals
Offensive goals
Main illustration examples --
goals stage:
Beginner:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Intermediate:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Advanced:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Expert:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Plans
Meeting the goals
Setting the priorities
The concrete solution
The final design
Move order
"Plan B." Safety checkMain illustration examples --
plans stage:
Beginner:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Intermediate:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Advanced:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Expert:
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Congratulations!
Appendix 1 --
Learning work-pages
Appendix 2 --
Application work-pages
Appendix 3 --
Meet the players
Appendix 4 --
FEN's of the main diagrams.

Citation preview

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review. Copyright © 2014 by Philip Ochman. First Edition, 2014 ISBN: 9781483538822

In the memory of my grandfather Shulem Keilis (1924-2001), forever a soldier and a true fighter for what is right, my first ever “chess student”, for teaching me that a teacher has a lot to learn from every one of his students.

Contents Foreword Acknowledgements and contact info Process application chart Introducing the practical application – a motivational example From the full process to shorter ones Observation Tactical observation The nature of a position The “Critical Squares” method Classification of tactical opportunities Threats analysis Our tactical resources The initiative Positional observation Survey of the positional criteria Survey of the pawn structure Types of structure Pawn structure weaknesses Endgame planning Square weaknesses Main illustration examples – observation stage: Beginner: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Intermediate: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame

Advanced: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Expert: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Identification of goals Defensive goals Offensive goals Main illustration examples – goals stage: Beginner: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Intermediate: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Advanced: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Expert: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Plans Meeting the goals Setting the priorities The concrete solution The final design Move order “Plan B” Safety check Main illustration examples – plans stage: Beginner: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Intermediate: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Advanced: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Expert: Opening | Middlegame | Endgame Congratulations!

Appendix 1 – Learning work-pages Appendix 2 – Application work-pages Appendix 3 – Meet the players Appendix 4 – FEN’s of the main diagrams

My dearest student,

This book was written especially for you, the improving chess player, to learn how to successfully apply the theory of decision making in chess. Together, we will study new ideas of how to approach a position, how to understand what we are playing for, and how to identify and achieve all of the goals arising from our observation. We will reinforce concepts learned from the first volume of the series, concentrating on their practical application. The practical thinking process described in this book will have the following structure:

Having already built your theoretical understanding of the chess concepts, we will now take them one step further and learn how this new knowledge, combined with additional ideas, can help us find the best plans, not only the best moves, in every position. For students who are new to the process of decision making in chess, this book will offer new insights and a full scale revolution to the whole thinking process in chess, making it much more effective and efficient. Having read this book, your ability to make decisions -- even in the toughest of chess positions -- will rise to new heights, and finding your way in a maze of strategies and tactics will become your second intuitive nature.

Philip Ochman, Sep 2014

Acknowledgement I would like to use this opportunity to thank my dear friend and student Mr. Michael Shpizner for his great help and contribution in making this book readable. This book wouldn’t exist without your help. A huge thank you goes to the readers of Volume 1 – your emails and feedback made my day each time, and I’m very happy to stay in touch with you! You make me feel like a useful person. To my students- thank you for helping me shape this teaching method by your comments and feedback in our lessons. You are the reason I originally decided to put what worked in the lessons into writing, and you deserve all the credit for making it possible!

Contact information You are always welcome to contact me by email: [email protected] or [email protected] , by message on my website (StrongerChess.com), or via Skype (find me: philip.ochman).

Introducing the practical application of the process- a motivational example Before we embark on our journey towards mastering the practical ways of applying the process of decision making in chess, it’s time for a quick demonstration. Perhaps you have just encountered the process for the first time, or you may already have read through volume 1- it doesn’t matter. Do your best to study this book (my intention was to make this task as easy as possible for you, the aspiring improving player), and you will be able to apply the thinking pattern described below independently and intuitively, as if it was your second nature. I put special emphasis on making the process accessible to any level, from beginner to expert, with the appropriate level of complexity and depth of ideas. My hope is that reading the book and understanding the depicted concepts and ideas will by itself help you move quickly through the levels. You already have the power to analyze a complex position and use that analysis to create a correct plan; my intention in this book is for you to bring out this hidden ability of yours, and use your potential to make it rather easy, as the following example shows. Bent Larsen- Mikhail Botvinnik, Moscow Olympiad 1956

For the introduction motivational example we shall look at a position from a game played between two of the world’s most legendary players of all time. Larsen was a six-time Danish champion, and a four-time world championship candidate. He was well known for his aggressive, innovative and very entertaining playing style. Botvinnik was the world champion three times, and the first world class player from the Soviet

Union. Regarded as the inventor of the Russian chess school, he will be remembered for his deep positional understanding and tendency to create favorable imbalances.

Throughout the book the side to move will be shown in the color of a circle at the bottom-left corner of each diagram. Three dots before a move will symbolize a move by black.

Well then, with no further delay let’s get a quick taste of how it will feel for you when you apply the process after reading this book:

Threats analysis No real immediate or long term threats by black in the given position. If …h3, g3 is ok for white.

Positional observation Black’s dark square bishop is bad (the light square bishop can be deployed on c6). Black’s king is still in the center, where white has long range pieces. White’s knights don’t have active roles.

Goals Take advantage of the passive dark square bishop on e7. See if it’s possible to prove black’s king is not safe. Find activity for the white knights.

Plans The given position is a classic example of a need to find activity fast, before the opponent solves his positional problems. Here, black wishes to castle queenside, to bring his king to safety and to coordinate his pieces on a kingside attack, bringing another rook there. Currently, by the way, though there is an open file on the kingside, black can’t really exploit that file because he doesn’t have enough pieces influencing the kingside to start a serious attack. We will therefore prioritize goals that involve making our position more active in this case; let’s see if we can activate our knights.

Plan 1 Na4!? We noticed a curious idea, based on the current pin of the d6 pawn to black’s light square bishop. Basically, we want to open the center to take advantage of the king still being there. Here, at least at first glance, it looks like we can prepare this (c4-c5 for example) with a tempo on black’s queen.

Now, if …Qa7 white has Nac5! and a much more active knight. Then if …dxc5, Qxd7+ is strong, taking advantage immediately of the still centralized king. In that scenario, white makes active progress while black permanently loses the option to get the king to safety on the queenside. In case black doesn’t capture on c5, we can then relocate the c5 knight to d3, a much more aggressive position that would support a central pawn storm. A second option for black after Na4 is …Qc7. In this case we can at the very least force black to play a concession; now that Nc5 no longer works, we notice possible coordination over the weak square b6. Therefore, Qe3! Preparing Nb6. This will either force …Bd8 or if not, white gets a great spot for his knight on b6 the very next move. After Qc7 another idea that looks good for white is the simple straight forward c4, with the intention of pushing c5 next and directly attacking the center. A third response for black to Na4 could be …Qb4. In that case let’s look at the most forcing line firstQxb4 …Nxb4, Nb6 …Rd8:

White continues with a3 to kick the black knight. If the knight retreats back to c6 we can continue attacking using our initiative, for example Na5 or Rf3 (defending the third rank while preparing doubling of the rooks), or even the immediate c4- played directly to open black’s center with the subsequent c5. However, if black decides to respond to a3 greedily with …Nxc2, after Rf3 the knight is trapped. To conclude, the suggested plan answers two of our goals, activates the knights and takes advantage of black’s king position. Now, having found one successful plan, it’s time to see if there are more ideas for us to consider.

Plan 2 Let’s look again at the initial position:

Is there another way to activate our knights? Nb1-Na3-Nc4; white wants to improve his knights, he can try to transfer the c3 knight to the more active c4 square, with a tempo on the black queen. Black can’t really fight against this sequence, since …d5 is out of the question because it just helps white with his goals. Then, from c4, the knight can possibly help support a future e5 push, and in case the white pawn stays on e5 there is also the d6 potential outpost to consider. However, one problem of this plan is that it’s a bit slow, which enables black in the meanwhile to castle queen side.

To sum up the second plan we have at our disposal, this plan attempts to achieve the same two goals as in plan 1, activating a knight and preparing an assault in the center aimed at taking advantage of black’s king position. The difference between the two plans is the initiative. In the first plan, white makes progress towards achieving the goals with tempos and with initiative. This enables him to achieve both goals, since black doesn’t have time to fight it. In the second approach, the execution of the plan doesn’t seize the initiative, and therefore black has time to prepare and the plan’s effectiveness is considerably reduced.

Finally, we evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of both plans, taking into account the goals we have found, and we choose plan 1!

What’s the big deal? We have seen that applying the process in a practical position can be natural and intuitive. The reasonsuch a “smooth” application can only be achieved by deeply understanding and considering features and concepts such as critical squares, tactical options, the initiative, positional observation, intuitively assessing the four positional criteria (space, development, quality of pieces, material), the pawn structure, square weaknesses. Then, we use all the gathered information to identify goals, prioritize them, develop solution plans, put them to the test of correct move order, consider possible refutations and safety checks, and arrive at the final design. In the following chapters I will try to give you, the now motivated student, the tools required for you to follow the same thinking pattern, and to easily apply the same tools, methods and concepts as we have just seen in this introduction example.

With the hope that this motivational example has achieved its goal, let us begin. Ready?

From the full process to shorter ones So you have developed a certain understanding of the theory behind the decision making process in chess. You may have read about it in the first volume of this series, or learned it by combining the acquired knowledge from reading other literature about the subject- this is not the point. What matters is how you apply it in a real (over-the-board or online) game, regardless of the time control. In the previous volume, you have read about the full process of decision making, the learning tool designed to build your deep understanding of all the concepts to take into account when making a decision in chess. Whether you have “mastered the theory”, as the title suggested you would, or just expanded your knowledge, it’s time to use these new skills and your new outlook on this form of art called chess, to bring something special to the board. Once you have the deeper knowledge and understanding, you can start using it to develop different shortcuts to the process. The reason for that, as for any other shortcut you take in life, is that it’s not always necessary to follow all the stages and to take everything into consideration. Once you understand what is important, which positions require which approaches, you can create your own shortcuts. Ideally, we will reach the point where we use the short process of decision making on a regular basis, regardless of the time control. The main part of that process is quickly identifying candidate moves and deciding between them based on their eventual positional effects, whether the effects are immediate in a purely positional move, or at the point of quiescence in moves that lead to tactical variations. The main purpose of this book is to expand on that process of quickly identifying candidate moves. We will use the knowledge gained by learning the deep theory of decision making to apply it in our attempt to find opportunities. We will first learn additional important points to think about when looking for a move, and then expand by improving our approach. In general, we will learn how to look for plans, not just moves. The moves will only be tools to execute the plans we find.

Let’s begin our journey to a full and practical application of the decision making process in the most compact and short form possible!

First in line- Tactical observation When approaching a position, whether it’s a critical position at the end of a tactical sequence (that is, the point of quiescence), an in-between position during a combination, or just a quiet purely strategic position with no apparent tactical nature at all, we must first identify the tactical nature of the position. What is the nature of a position? The nature of a position is the sum of all tactical motifs that both sides can generate, meaning the forcing lines that are available for each side. If the position includes tactical motifs that one side can play to improve his position relative to the opponent’s position, we will identify the position as having a tactical nature.

Diagram 1.1 – the multiple tactical shots available in this position classify it as being tactical. Challenge*: it’s black to play; can you solve the threat of Bxc6 and the catastrophe that follows?

If, on the other hand, the position has no useful tactical options for either side (that is, no options at all or options that don’t benefit the initiator), we will identify the position as purely strategic.

Diagram 1.2- Since there are no useful tactical motifs for either side, the position above is purely strategic. Challenge: in the position above, the move b3 is a tactical motif available for white, creating pressure. Is it true that this move isn’t useful for white? Why?

How to practically identify the nature of a given position To determine whether a position’s nature is tactical or strategic, we first will look for threats the opponent might have by analyzing all of his forcing options. Using vision, we will also explore long term sequences. Upon finishing this analysis for the opponent, we will then do the same for us. But before we look for tactical motifs, we need to study a constructive method to embed in our intuitive thinking, so that the search for tactics will not be a sporadic wild goose chase, but a carefully designed, focused approach. By learning and practicing the “Critical Squares” method to identify tactics, we will make the search much more intuitive in terms of where to focus our attention on the board. The Critical Squares method can also be used as a complimentary approach to chess that will help us find more detailed goals in our position. We will return to this advanced subject later in this book.

The Critical Squares Method Motivation There are number of critical squares approaches used in chess. We will now study an original “educational” approach that is designed to build your intuition through practice. Its use over the board is optional- the most important part of mastering this method is to save you time looking for tactics by training your “tactics radar.” You will see that after practicing this method on selected positions, you will start noticing previously missed tactical opportunities, and over the board you will be able to jump straight to identifying tactical options for both sides, occasionally using the method in some very complex positions when the full tactical map is not entirely clear.

Critical Squares 101 Some background: The “Pure Contest” We will name a square “purely contested” when the number of factors (pieces or pawns) contesting for it by both sides is equal. Contrary to a contested square when discussing space as part of

positional evaluation, here we don’t care whether it’s a pawn vs. a piece, only the number of contesting factors matters. This is the difference between a positional contest and a “pure” contest, and we will use this definition later as part of the application technique.

Diagram 2.1- Let’s try to identify all the critical squares in this example, going randomly from right to left: h7 (king vs. queen), h6 (bishop vs. g7 pawn) e5 (queen vs. queen), c6 (queen vs. knight), c4 (queen vs. knight), b7 (queen vs. queen), b6 (bishop vs. queen), b4 (queen vs. queen), a8 (queen and rook vs. queen and rook). Challenge: can white create useful tactics on any of the critical squares?

The “Usable Weakness” We refer to squares that are or can be occupied in a way that creates threats as “usable weaknesses.”

Diagram 2.2- looking at the position, we imagine our e6 knight on the weak unprotected f3 square with a fork. This makes f3 a “usable weakness”. Challenge: can white successfully deal with your attempts at taking advantage of the f3 weakness?

The “Attackable Factors” An attackable factor is a piece or pawn that pressure can be created on. If a factor can be attacked (not captured -- we are looking for possibilities of creating or adding pressure), we will call it an attackable factor.

Diagram 2.3- factors that black can attack: g5 pawn (with h6), knight (with Rf8 or Rd6), queen (with Qe3, Qe5, Qa3, Be1, f4; we also must be aware of options that are currently impractical since that can possibly change), king (with Bb6, Qc5, Qe3). We can continue similarly to other pawns and the opponent’s rooks. Challenge: it’s clear that black is under threat of Nxe8. Can you find the solution to this position using your findings of the attackable factors?

Putting it into practice In a given position, we will find all of the pure contests and usable weaknesses on the board. These would be the critical squares of the position. Then, we will proceed to finding all of the attackable factors.

Diagram 3.1 (Evgeni Vasiukov- Zoltan Ribli, Wijk aan Zee 1973) - critical squares for black’s use: f2. Pieces black can attack: both rooks via knight fork on f2, bishop on b3 via Bxa4, queen via Bb5. Challenge: identify critical squares and attackable factors for white to use!

The critical squares would be the points of concentration for us, leading our tactical eye to those spots on the board. We will look not only at the critical squares, but also at the squares adjacent to them. The attackable factors will provide us with ideas for possible tactics. Only at this stage will we start searching for immediate forcing options (checks, captures, pressure*), and later for longer term ideas using tactical vision (pawn storms, dangerous piece setups, preparations for tactics). This search is done both for the opponent (as part of threats analysis) and for us (as part of identifying our tactical options).

Diagram 3.2 (Evgeni Vasiukov- Zoltan Ribli, Wijk aan Zee 1973) – having identified f2 as a critical square, and white’s queen, b3 bishop and both his rooks as attackable factors, we look for tactical motifs: no checks, captures: Nxf2, and Bxa4. Pressure: Bb5. Notice how the motifs we found (but have not yet calculated) circulate around the findings from the identification stage. Concrete calculation (most forcing lines first): line 1 - …Bxa4, hxg4- even exchange, opens up white’s h1 rook. Line 2 - …Nxf2, Qxf2 …Bxa4 wins a pawn (at least temporarily, we can continue the calculation with Qc5! But it’s not necessary for this example) and exchanges the pieces without the added benefit for white of opening his rook. Line 3 – …Bb5, Qd2 (or e1, to keep connection to the f2 pawn) …Nxf2, Qxf2 …Bxa4 this line does the same as line 2, only with an extra benefit of improving the d7 bishop with initiative (by playing the forcing move Bb5).

Diagram 3.3- the final position of line 3. As a conclusion, it’s clear that line 3 has the most benefits, and this line was indeed selected by GM Ribli who eventually won the game. Notice how the whole variation revolved around the critical squares and the attackable factors; practicing this approach to tactical positions will significantly improve the student’s calculation ability and the sense of intuition in chess. Challenge: apply the same process to the original position in diagram 3.2 for white to play, based on your findings from the challenge in diagram 3.1!

Another use of the Critical Squares method is in planning or preventing an attack. Since all tactics are based on the principles of critical squares, we can concentrate on the balance of critical squares as an additional tool in our toolbox:

Diagram 4.1- white has a critical square in black’s camp, e4, which creates a significant discomfort for black, having to commit two pieces to defend the critical square’s occupant. Therefore, as a defensive application of the critical squares theory, black should consider pushing e3! in an attempt to eliminate the critical square’s burden. Challenge: calculate the e3 line and reach a conclusion regarding its viability.

Diagram 4.2- white has the g6 and e5 critical squares, while black has h2 and g2. White can create great attacking chances by increasing the number of his critical squares in black’s camp by playing Bb3, making f7 a new critical square and thus creating a double threat, after which black’s position is lost; he can’t defend against Qxg6 and defend the f7 pawn at the same time. Challenge: is there an immediate refutation of Bb3 …Rf6? Or is it only a positional advantage for white after Rxf6 in the form of black’s weak kingside pawn structure?

Classification of Tactical Opportunities Having applied the critical squares method, so you know where to look for tactics, we start finding tactical shots for both sides. The first thing we do is Threats Analysis, looking for the opponent’s tactical options as a second move for him in a row -- that is, we will see if there is something dangerous that he can do in the current position. If we find a move for the opponent that inevitably improves his position or makes ours worse, and there is no way to deal with these effects without making a concession, we will classify it as a threat. (We will discuss concessions in greater depth later in the book.)

When looking for the opponent’s threats, we will look at immediate tactical motifs (checks, captures, pressure) and longer term motifs using vision. There are also cases of vision that include forcing lines, a “hybrid” between immediate and long term threats.

Diagram 5.1- white has the move in what seems like a clearly won position; the rook is hanging, and after capturing it white is a full queen and pawn ahead. However, even in this obvious looking win he has to be accurate, and notice black’s threat of Bg6 in response, reaching a theoretical draw (Bxg8 …Bg6, followed by bishop and queen exchange and the h pawn will never queen; black’s king is going to the h8 corner and will not be moved, a case of having the wrong color bishop). Challenge: if black had a queen instead of the rook on the same square g8, how would it affect the assessment of this position?

Diagram 5.2- before black makes his own plans, he notices that white has pieces clustered on the kingside, ready to take action and use open files. Sadly for black, he has a target on g6, that can be used to create contact between pawns and open that part of the board to white’s benefit. In this position, a kingside pawn storm is a long term threat by white. Challenge: though it’s clear that white would benefit from pushing pawns on the kingside in an attempt to open the position, can you identify the right order for him to do it so that opening files on the kingside would be guaranteed?

Diagram 5.3- this is an example of a somewhat more complex, hybrid threat. In this position, black would like to use the fact that white’s king is in the center. He needs to open the center, which is possible with f6-e5. But to benefit from the open center, he needs his king to move away and the rooks to participate; therefore the steps are f6, 0-0-0, and then e5. The combination sequence includes both immediate and long term threats: f6 is a preparation for a tactic, 0-0-0 qualifies as a “dangerous piece setup”, and e5 is pressure. Challenge: is there a way for white to prevent the dangerous sequence in advance?

For the next step, whether or not we found any threats for our opponent, we will do the same observation, only this time for us. We will try to find immediate and long term threats that we can generate, whether as a solution to a threat, an intermezzo move before answering a threat, or as our

next move if we did not identify any threats against us.

Diagram 5.4- black is under a double threat- the fork on Qxc6, and Qg8 queening. Black finds a saving intermezzo move, …Ra1+! drawing: Kf2 (or e2) …Ra2+ and after the king moves the rook and queen exchange with a theoretical draw. Challenge: is it still a draw if after the rook captures the queen (…Ra1+, Kf2 …Ra2+, Kf3 …Rxg2) white didn’t take back on g2 but played h8=Q+?

If there are no threats against us, or if the position is purely strategic, it’s also ok to postpone the step of finding our tactical options and proceed to positional observation, performing the tactical observation for us afterwards.

The Initiative Another observation we can use to help us identify goals is the initiative. The initiative is defined as having a sequence of forcing moves or long term threats to which the opponent must respond. We can divide the initiative into two types: good initiative and bad initiative.

“Good” Initiative The sequence of moves results in an improvement of the initiator ’s position relative to the opponent (that is, either improving the initiator ’s position, or making his opponent’s position worse). This type of initiative by definition is a threat to the receiving side.

Diagram 6.1- white has a series of forcing moves that improves his position, while making black’s position worse: f5! …Nd8, e6! (Even Rc7 works here) with a big advantage to white. Regardless of being currently a pawn down, white’s killer initiative decides the game. Challenge: continue the variation after e6; is it really all lost for black?

“Bad” Initiative Sometimes there is a sequence of forcing moves that can be played by one of the parties that doesn’t improve the initiator ’s position, or even makes it worse. Examples include: A series of checks that brings the opponent’s king to a safer or better position;

Diagram 6.2.1- white has a series of checks: Bf5+ …Kc7, Bf4+ …Kb6, a5+ …Ka6 and black’s king is much safer now, while white didn’t improve his position:

Diagram 6.2.2- though black’s king looks awkward, he’s actually very safe, and the king’s strange position can’t be successfully exploited by white anymore. Challenge: was there a better idea for white in the original position from diagram 6.2.1?

Good initiative of the same type- a series of checks that takes advantage of the king’s position:

Diagram 6.3.1- this is a case of a good initiative under the same category; here, the series of checks leads to a winning position: Re6+ …Kb7, Qe4+ …Kb8, and Rxa6 threatening mate on a8:

Diagram 6.3.2- in this case the result of white’s initiative is a won position. Challenge: how would you proceed if the original variation from diagram 6.3.1 went slightly different: Re6+ …Kb7, Qe4+ …Ka7 (instead of Kb8)? Is it still an easy win for white?

Chasing an opponent’s piece to a better square;

Diagram 6.4.1- white has a forcing move h5, chasing black’s knight away. But if we look closer, the knight on g6 isn’t doing anything useful, with no current role. Chasing it away it can go to e5, improving. Even if white exchanges it, this would benefit black, as white’s knight is currently better than his counterpart (having a role of attacking the weak pawn d4). Challenge: why bother with h5? Can white just capture d4 instead? Is it better?

Good initiative of the same type- chasing a piece to a worse square:

Diagram 6.4.2- here black is the one with the possible initiative, with a series of moves to chase the c4 bishop from its good diagonal: …b5, axb5 …axb5, Bd3 (only move) …Nb4 with a much better position for black. Then if Be4, black has f5, costing white a pawn with Bd3 …Nxd3, cxd3 and …Rxd3. In this example, chasing a piece leads to a significant improvement of the initiator’s position. Challenge: if white is to play in the original position and not black, is there a way to deal with the b5 threat?

Chasing a piece while self-inflicting pawn structure weaknesses;

Diagram 6.5.1- black can chase white’s knight with e5, but at the cost of creating a permanent backward pawn d6 on an open file (that stays weak even if d5 is played in the future). The price for displacing white’s knight here is too high, in the form of both a worse pawn structure and a blocked g7 bishop. Challenge: is there a better way to approach this position for black?

Good initiative of the same type- chasing an opponent’s piece while improving the pawn structure:

Diagram 6.5.2- white’s d2 pawn is backward on an open file and looks weak. Pushing d4! …Bd6 and c5 kicks the bishop back while improving the pawn structure. Challenge: can black refute this sequence by taking en-passant exd3 once d4 is played?

Creating useless pressure (that doesn’t win material or seriously weaken the opponent’s position) while placing the initiator ’s pieces on inferior squares.

Diagram 6.6.1- black has a choice- exchange bishops or move the bishop away, to avoid pawn structure damage upon Bxf5. After the exchange Bxc2, the position is roughly equal. But if black wants to play tricky, he can try Be6!? Attacking the a2 pawn. Notice that the simple a3 doesn’t work, due to Bb2; a4 also doesn’t work, due to Bc3 and the b4 pawn is defenseless. In this tactical variation, if we keep looking for forcing responses by white, we would find Be4! And now it’s going to be just an exchange, but one in which white gets the upper hand: …Bxa2, Bxc6 with a passed c pawn. Challenge- is there a better way for black to respond to Be4 than taking on a2?

Good initiative of the same type- creating strong useful pressure:

Diagram 6.6.2- white has Nd5! Creating pressure on f6 and b6, with the new threat of Rxf6. Challenge: does the suggested pressure create a winning position for white? Is there an even stronger attempt?

Unprepared attacks -- such as unprepared pawn storms or attacks with insufficient factors - causing weaknesses or misplacement of the initiator ’s pieces with no positive results, or without achieving the attack’s objectives:

Diagram 6.7.1- white is under an inconvenient threat of Bxf3 ruining the kingside pawn structure. A possible tempting solution might be Ng5, with an attack on h7 while answering the threat. However, after the simple reply h6 the knight has no good squares to go and is forced to the h3 square, with limited options. This “attack” backfires against white because white wasn’t ready to attack on the kingside at all. Challenge: can you find a better answer to the Bxf3 threat?

Good initiative of the same type- using the initiative to keep an attack going:

Diagram 6.7.2- white has the initiative with a series of forcing moves and threats: Ne4 (threatening Nxd6 and Bxe5) …Be7, g4 (threatening g5-g6 opening the kingside) …f6, white keeps a strong initiative with the ideas Rh-g1 and f4 supporting a future g5. Challenge: continue calculating, and reach conclusions as to the results of this attack.

The captures spree- a series of captures or exchanges that help your opponent more than it helps you. These simplifications are usually a result of an inaccurate analysis of the point of quiescence, the moment when all the smoke settles;

Diagram 6.8.1- black has a strong pressure on the pinned e3 bishop, and more active pieces; that gives black the advantage. There is a possibility to initiate a series of exchanges with …Qxb3, axb3 …Bxe3, fxe3 …Rxe3+, leading to the following position:

Diagram 6.8.2- the arising position after the series of exchanges; after white’s Kf2 the position is a practical draw, with no real winning chances for either side: Kf2 …Re7, Rxa7= and black’s advantage has completely dissolved. Challenge: in the original position of diagram 6.8.1, what would have been a better idea for black rather than simplifying?

Good initiative of the same type- exchanging to improve our position:

Diagram 6.8.3- this is a typical case of simplifying to a winning endgame. If all pieces are removed from the board, white has a good chance to create an outside passed pawn on the h file because his kingside pawn trio is moved one file towards the outside- a big endgame plus. Bxc7 followed by Nxb5, g4-f4-g5-h5 is the general idea. If black’s king runs to the kingside to help, the white king can reach b6 in 4 moves.

To conclude our discussion of the types of initiative:

Diagram 6.9.1- Searching for threats by white, black sees no dangerous immediate threats (checks, captures, pressure). However, looking for longer term threats black noticed that white can get a very strong initiative with Ne4!, effectively winning a pawn by force and equalizing the position: Ne4 …Kg7 (or else Nf6 forks), Bg5 …Ra8 (for white’s idea in this position it doesn’t really matter where black moves the attacked rook), Bf6+ …Kg8:

Diagram 6.9.2- continuing with the variation- Nd6 …Reb8, Nxb7 …Rxb7, and Rxc6 equalizing material and reaching quiescence. This is a game changing initiative by white, that completely takes away any advantage black had and with it any real hope for a win in the equal opposite color bishops endgame. Therefore, white’s initiative is something black must regard as a threat and deal with in advance. Challenge- how could black prevent white’s powerful initiative in the original position of diagram 6.9.1?

To conclude the approach to initiative:

Positional Observation

Observation? Evaluation? -- What’s the difference? In Volume 1 we studied how to perform a complete positional evaluation for any given position. Now, having practiced that skill, we will continue to optimize it and to find shortcuts. The goal of studying positional evaluation is to build deep knowledge and understanding in this subject that will allow you to decide what is important in a position and what can be neglected, at least temporarily. This is of course for the reason that we don’t have all the time in the world to reach our decisions, even if it’s a correspondence game. So, we first study and practice the full theory, and now we will study the efficient application of these concepts over the board, to reach the practical best decisions. A suggestion from Volume 1 was to use the short process eventually on a regular basis, but other shortcuts were encouraged as well. If you feel secure in your understanding of positional evaluation, you can decide for yourself which shortcuts are appropriate for a given position. The positional observation method rests on the assumption that the student understands positional evaluation, and can use his trained positional eye (training that is based on solving 15-20 positions using the full process) to spot the “highlights” of a position. Basically, the difference between positional evaluation and positional observation is the basis upon which it relies. Evaluation is an active process, in which you study the position methodically with the given guidelines. Observation is a more passive review of the position to spot key positional highlights that will require your attention. Again, this transition from evaluation to observation is accomplished through the practice of evaluation that builds the knowledge necessary to adopt a quicker approach. Without sufficient understanding of the positional themes, the observation will not be correct, and the goals arising from the observation will not be accurate. We will combine the student’s existing knowledge with some new concepts to form a reliable method for identifying positional goals. Later on, we will see how these goals can be achieved.

What are we observing? When approaching the positional observation stage, as part of our attempt to identify our goals (for which we will later come up with plans), we will concentrate on three major subjects: Survey of the positional criteria Survey of the pawn structure Survey of square weaknesses

Positional observation- Surveying the Positional Criteria In this part of our observation we will look for significant and relevant advantages that one side might have in each of the four positional criteria:

Space Development Quality of Pieces Material We will also look for certain problems that can be identified for each side based on the positional criteria, such as having a bad piece (regardless of the opponent’s situation in the same criteria, just identifying the problem regardless of the advantage), being significantly behind in development, having an open king and many other cases of positional problems to solve.

Diagram 7.1- In this position the observation based on the four criteria survey is that white has a significant advantage in space and quality of pieces (based on the more active locations of the king and the rook). In the next chapters we will learn how to make other types of observations and how to put our observations to practical use. Challenge: is there a concrete way for white to use his advantages to create progress?

The relevance of the advantage is based on the “importance of criteria” filter that we studied in the first volume and the practical possibility that we can translate the advantage into a concrete goal.

Diagram 7.2- In this position black’s g7 bishop is bad (not immediately clear how to improve it), the f6 knight is restricted by the pin, and the e2 bishop is very passive. Notice that in this observation we identified two problems for black to solve, and a problem white has that black might be able to exploit. All the observations above are based on quality of pieces, and since we don’t have an advantage in quality of pieces the observations are very relevant. Also, the observations are relevant because we can use them as the basis for goals that will allow us to improve our position. Challenge: as a preview of what we will learn later (very soon!), we can say that by making this observation we have practically identified three goals: improve the g7 bishop, unpin the knight, and keep the opponent’s light square bishop passive. Can you suggest ideas (in the near future we will call them “plans”) to help us achieve the goals we found?

A quick summary of the importance (relevance) of criteria:

Diagram 7.3- doing positional observation we quickly see that white has much more space. In addition, the bishop on c8 is very bad. Challenge: which of the observations made are relevant based on the ways we can work with them? For example, a way to work with space advantage can be to avoid exchanges, a way to work with the opponent’s bad pieces can be to try and make them even worse.

Positional observation- Survey of the Pawn Structure Some positional goals can be identified by examining the features of the pawn structure -- the type of structure, weak pawns, and endgame suitability.

Let’s start with the basics -- what types of structure are we looking for and why?

Types of Pawn Structures In this part of our observation we will identify the characteristics of the current pawn structure, and we will determine whether the current structure suits our pieces more than it suits the opponent’s. From there we will identify the appropriate goals to extract the most out of the given position or to change it in our favor. The open position The” open” pawn structure is defined by having open diagonals and/or open files. The position can be open for one side and closed for the other, and it can also be open only on a certain color of diagonals and closed on the other. An open position favors Bishops and Rooks, as they have good global quality (the concept used to determine how good the piece can ever be in the given position).

Diagram 8.1- a classic case of an open position; the position is open on both color diagonals, and it contains open and semi- open files. This observation explains why all the pieces here have good global quality. Challenge: is there a realistic goal white can identify as a result of the observation we’ve made? Can this goal be achieved?

Diagram 8.2- this is a typical case of a position being practically open for one side, and closed to the other. Note that the open diagonals white has can’t be used by black’s bishops; of course the diagonals lead from white’s camp to black’s, and therefore theoretically they are open for both sides. We, however, approach open diagonals from a practical perspective, determined by the use possibilities available to both sides. The observation in this position therefore is that white’s bishops are much better than black’s low global quality bishops. This observation is a direct result of the first observation regarding the pawn structure. Challenge: does black have a plan to open diagonals for his bishops in the given position?

Diagram 8.3- this position which arises from the Maroczy bind in the Sicilian opening, is open only on the dark squares. The main light square diagonals are closed or useless. Therefore from this observation we can continue to another one: the light square bishops in this position are bad. Challenge: in this case where both sides “suffer” from the closed light square diagonals, can we say that one of black’s goals is to open a light square diagonal for his c6 bishop?

The closed position The “closed” pawn structure is defined by having relevant diagonals or files closed, meaning that

diagonals or files that could have been used are unavailable -- either because they are completely closed or because they end at a pawn chain. There might be open files or diagonals, but they will be irrelevant if no piece can use them. A closed position favors the side that has knights, since they do not depend on a particular pawn setup to have good global quality (except for some very rare cases of super-closed structures).

Diagram 8.4- a typical closed position. Notice that as a result of this observation we can immediately make the observation that all the bishops are bad, for both sides. Challenge: it’s white to play, and having noticed that the opponent’s bishops are bad he sees something he forgot to check in the threats analysis- does black have a freeing maneuver for his dark square bishop by playing a5, creating pressure and opening a dark square diagonal? Having made the observation above that black’s bishops are bad, one of the goals will therefore be to prevent them from improving. So, should white try to prepare for a5?

Diagram 8.5- believe it or not, this is actually a real position played by reasonably strong players (Malloni, 2261 – Bruned, 2035) from an open tournament in 2002. In this position, a key observation is the super-closed, tightly sealed pawn structure. Usually the knights can find their way through a maze of pawns, but this is a rare case where the e8 knight can never successfully become active. Therefore, it has a low global quality.

Challenge: since the bad black knight has no “normal” means of breaking out of his prison cell, should black go for the only option left to activate it (and with it maybe the rook on f8 as well) and move the c7 pawn out of the way? If yes, does it give black any real survival chances? If no, is there another plan to get any activity for black?

Characteristics of pawn chains Having pawn chains as part of your pawn structure can be both a benefit and a drawback. It will help your position when: The chain helps secure an outpost for your pieces by protecting the head pawn.

Diagram 8.6- the long pawn chain g2- d5 not only gives white a significant space advantage, but also the head pawn enables the important c6 outpost for the white knight. Notice that the benefit of having the chain is mainly the sustainability of the c6 outpost. If black tries to fight against the d5 pawn with ideas like e6, after an exchange white still has a pawn on d5 and the outpost remains. Challenge: should white play Nc6 immediately? If so, is it good for black to then take on c3?

The chain helps keep a space advantage that can restrict the opponent’s pieces.

Diagram 8.7- clearly, black’s long pawn chain restricts white’s knight and bishop; however, white hasn’t said his final word yet in this position.

Challenge: how can white guarantee breaking black’s pawn chain?

Placing the pawns in a chain keeps all of them secure (except for the base pawn), removing the need for piece protection of pawns.

Diagram 8.8- black’s queen is very active, white’s passed pawn is attacked forcing the white rook to keep a defensive and rather passive position. The opposite colored bishops can be a clue to a possible draw… a closer look shows us that the pawn structure on the kingside favors white in pawn endings, since white is the one who can create an outside passed pawn (on the h file). Therefore, it would benefit white to simplify the position. Also, white has a problem to solve- the A file pawn requires constant piece protection; can he achieve these two goals based on his observation? Yes he can. Qb4! Forces black to exchange queens, and thus creating a b4-a5 pawn chain, making a5 an outside protected passed pawn. Challenge: having achieved all of his goals, did white secure a win in this opposite colored bishops and rooks endgame? Envision white’s plan to create progress and try to think of a maximum resistance plan for black.

It can be a strong benefit in endgames, creating a situation where there are fewer weaknesses for the opponent to attack, while unleashing a mass of pawns that can advance to create a passed pawn. A passed pawn at the head of a pawn chain is the best case scenario -- a protected passed pawn.

Diagram 8.9- in this position black is the only one who can ever create a passed pawn by advancing his queenside pawn chain, even though material is equal. (White’s kingside pawn majority can never create a passed pawn due to

this specific doubled-pawn structure -- in the given configuration, 4 vs. 3 is not enough.) Challenge: what is the move order black should choose for advancing his queenside pawns in order to secure a sustainable passed pawn?

But having a pawn chain is a drawback for the owner in cases where: The pawns are on the same color as the owner ’s bishop.

Diagram 8.10- black has a nice space advantage due to his dark square pawn chains. The problem is, however, that this also severely reduces the global quality of his bishop. Challenge: does the fact that black’s bishop is bad and the d5 knight is so beautifully placed mean that white has a real advantage (that can be used to create further progress)?

The pawns restrict the owner ’s pieces.

Diagram 8.11- black’s knight is very restricted by the f6-d4 pawn chain, and on top of this it is partially dominated by white’s bishop. Challenge: can black’s knight break free? Since it’s white to play, and the goal was already identified based on our

observation, try to find ideas to keep black’s piece bad while creating progress. Does black have a real advantage in this position?

The base of the pawn chain is on an upper rank (that is, the third rank or higher of your camp), making it possible for the opponent to attack it and undermine the head pawns.

Diagram 8.12- observation shows that since the chain d5-e4 is both short and starts far up the board, it can be contacted easily by white’s c pawn and therefore possibly get broken. Challenge: can the immediate c4 be regarded as a threat? Calculate the arising variation, and if it indeed makes black’s position worse suggest a solution.

We can conclude:

Pawn Structure Weaknesses An important part of observation is being aware of current weak pawns and recognizing weak pawns that we can create for the opponent or eliminate for us. Some openings are based on play with/against weak pawns, and many losing endgames are saved as a result of the opponent having weak pawns. Pawn weaknesses can also be the main strategic feature of a whole game, in all of its stages.

Diagram 9.1- going through positional observation, black notices white’s doubled c pawns, a typical structure in the Nimzo-Indian opening. The goal becomes to see if it’s possible to take advantage of the potential weakness, and it’s therefore not surprising that one of the main lines for black includes the plan of b6-Ba6-Na5-rc8 and at a later point cxd exposing the c4 weakness. Challenge: in the proposed plan, black centers his whole game on the potentially weak c pawns. Does this plan involve positional concessions?

Diagram 9.2- this is another typical opening position that incorporates a strong motive of pawn weaknesses, the Tarrasch variation

of the Queen’s Gambit. Black has a choice- he can maintain the tension in the center and keep developing, or initiate central pawn exchanges that will end up giving white the famous isolated queens pawn (…dxc, Bxc4 …cxd, and with or without piece exchanges on d4, eventually: exd4). Black’s idea would be to concentrate some fire power on that d4 pawn and try to blockade it, all in an attempt to create a game scenario where white is forced to defend. Challenge: are there any benefits to white for playing this type of line that enables black to create this pawn structure weakness? What is the compensation for white’s positional weakness?

Diagram 9.3- in this endgame black is up three full pawns. A closer look shows that two pawns are weak and will require constant protection by black’s pieces (g5 and b6), so black’s pieces are tied down. All that’s left for white to do is to blockade the central pawns’ advance, and there will be no progress for black and no chance for a win. Therefore, a practical draw arises after Kd5! Challenge: is this still a draw if it’s black’s move in the given position?

When discussing pawn structure weaknesses, we will mostly concentrate on two main thematic structures -- the isolated pawn and doubled pawns. We will only count these cases as real weaknesses if practically in the given position there is a way for one side to use the structure to its benefit. Otherwise, the pawn structure will not be regarded as a weakness. In some cases, isolated or doubled pawns can actually be a strength.

In the next diagrams we will see examples for each of the weaknesses mentioned in the table above.

Diagram 9.4- white’s isolated f4 pawn is on an open file, which makes it easy for black to attack it, thus putting white on the defensive with the passive f1 rook. Challenge: can you think of a plan that takes advantage of this weakness to create progress for black?

Diagram 9.5- white has an isolated pawn which is also blockaded from advancing. Generally this means that the weakness becomes long-lasting or even permanent. Going through threats analysis, white noticed that although the d4 pawn is attacked twice and defended twice, it can still be captured: …Nxd4, Bxd4 …Rxd4! And black’s rook is immune on d4 due to the mating threat Re1. If white could only get rid of this weak pawn, possibly by pushing it… But sadly the pawn is indeed blockaded, and white’s fantasy cannot come true in the given position. Challenge: if getting rid of the weakness is impossible, is there a solution to the threat we found that doesn’t involve concessions?

Diagram 9.6- black’s a6 pawn is currently overprotected, and looks safe for the moment. But having a scheming mind such as yours, this potential weakness didn’t go unnoticed; a quick glance and you found an idea to attack it- double rooks on the a file and bring the knight to c5, all the while the a6 pawn has to stay put in order for your conspiracy to succeed. Hence we determine the move order of our newly formed plan: first Ra1 to blockade the pawn, then double rooks, and finally Nd2-b3-c5 to reach our dream position as planned. In that scenario, we notice that black can never defend the pawn more than twice, while we are going to attack it three times-we are winning the pawn by force. Challenge: the moment the knight begins its journey to c5, black can go Bf8 and meet Nc5 with Bxc5. Does this save black’s position?

Diagram 9.7- white is the proud owner of a set of double isolated pawns on the c file. There is also an isolated pawn on the A file, and these two observations caught black’s tactical eye. If he could put a rook on d2, then the fate of the a2 pawn would look sealed. Therefore, Ne4! going to d2 forcing the exchange of knights followed by Rd2. Black is in fact using the current weakness of the c file pawns to attack another weakness, a common technique that usually means having a killer initiative. Challenge: does white have a decent reply to Ne4 and the plan that’s behind it? If yes, does it mean that white is doing ok here, or is there any way to create further progress for black from that point?

Diagram 9.8- in this position arising from the scotch gambit, observation shows that black has a set of backward double c pawns. Though currently it’s clear that white will not win any of them, at least in the imaginable future, their weakness and backward structure create great opportunities for white to fight for the advantage; the fact that they are backward (cannot potentially be supported with any other pawn) means that if blockaded, they stay blockaded. It also means that if they’re attacked they must be protected by pieces. From that observation we can formulate an idea. We will use the fact that the c pawns are blockaded to dominate the dark squares, and we will do so with initiative while attacking c6: Qc3! With tempo, followed by Bc5 and possibly a future Nd4. The backward double pawns structure allows us to dominate the dark squares with no possibility of contest by black, and we create progress with initiative while forcing black to respond with moves that only defend the weak pawns (such as Qd7 in response to Qc3). Challenge: part of the suggested plan was to play Bc5 after Qc3; can you find the reason why this is better than Nc5 after Qc3?

Diagram 9.9.1- doing threats analysis, we found Nd4 by black with a big follow up threat- …Bxf3, gxf3 …Qf6:

Diagram 9.9.2- after Qf6 white is losing material by force, since once the f4 bishop moves away, the f3 pawn hangs (instead of moving the bishop from harm’s way, white might respond with the only other reasonable option- Nd5. Black can continue: Qg6+, if Kh1 …Qh5 winning f3. If instead Bg3 …Rae8- black stands much better). This was another typical example of how creating a potential weakness in the form of doubled pawns can be leveraged into further initiative and improvements with tempos, thus making the doubled pawns in this specific case a real weakness. Eventually, it all comes down to practical use. Just having doubled pawns is not in itself a weakness; It becomes a weakness only if there is a practical way to take advantage of the pawn formation. Challenge: Our analysis of the position in diagram 9.9.1 was part of threats analysis, which means that in reality it’s our turn to play. Can we therefore prevent the depicted catastrophe?

Diagram 9.10- this time the isolated pawns are not a weakness; on the contrary- the c4 pawn is very strong, and practically impossible to blockade or threaten. In fact, white threatens to create a weak isolated pawn for black, by pushing c5! followed by cxd. Challenge: the threat by white is clear. Is there a solution for black?

Diagram 9.11- are the doubled c pawns a strength or a weakness? Let’s see- are they blockaded or potentially attacked? No. Do they give white any handicap, bind, or problem? No. Do they provide any benefits to white? A big yes! Thanks to this doubled pawn structure, white is able to fight for central control by exchanging on d5 once and coming back again with c4 to do the same again. Challenge: in many similar pawn structures, white aims to play e4 to fight for the center, gain more space, and mostly to activate the c1 bishop. How should this bishop be activated in the given position?

Using the pawn structure for endgame planning The pawn structure plays a major role in practically all endgames that include pawns, so before transforming into the endgame (for example, by initiating mass exchanges of pieces), it’s most important to decide which side the pawn structure would favor in an endgame.

The role of pawns in the endgame Depending on which pieces are left on the board, the role of the pawns may not change from the middle game to the endgame. But in many endgames, the additional role of promotion becomes very real. We will consider the following as the main role of pawns in the endgame: Promoting Creating outposts for our pieces Limiting the opponent’s pieces Specific tactical roles

Having understood the general role of pawns in the endgame, we will continue our observation in the given position to see which side’s pawns can play their roles more effectively, based on the pawn structure that will arise from the simplifications leading to the endgame. We will determine which of the general roles apply in our position, and which side’s pawns are better suited to playing these roles. This way, we will be able to decide whether going to the endgame suits us more than the opponent. If not, we may want to refrain from exchanges and keep the game in the middle game stage.

Diagram 10.1- black has a choice of exchanging rooks, keeping the tension while allowing the exchange, or moving the rook away. Performing an observation of pawn structure features, black notices that his opponent is very close to creating a passed pawn on the kingside. Also, observation shows that the quality of the knight is much better than that of the bishop. Therefore, exchanging rooks strongly favors white, practically winning the game, since after the rooks exchange nothing can successfully stop the kingside pawns. As a result, black decides to avoid the exchange. Challenge: how should black avoid the exchange of rooks? Suggest a solution and provide your assessment of the arising position based on the chances of each side to make further progress.

Another goal we can deduce from this observation, in addition to the goals of trying to reach the endgame or trying to stay in the middle game, is the preparation of a suitable pawn structure for the endgame. In this approach, we will identify the goals to make the pawn structure suit us best when going to the endgame.

Diagram 10.2- how can white fight for an advantage in the given position? One of the ideas he may employ is to prepare the position for mass exchanges on the d file. So, how can white extract the most out of these exchanges? The arising position will be a same color bishops ending. Therefore, we will try to restrict the opponent’s bishop and create targets for our bishop, creating the conditions for our bishop to shine at the expense of the opponent’s piece. We would like therefore to keep black’s pawns on dark squares, and this can be done in a number of ways- a4, c4, or even Kg4 to be

played first before going for the exchanges. This way we try to maximize our winning chances. Challenge: if white plays g4, clearly this fixes black’s pawns on dark squares on the kingside. Is this idea preferable to playing Kg4?

Examples of cases from the table above:

Diagram 10.3- observing the pawn structure features, white notices that he can create a solid queenside pawn majority by pushing c5. Challenge: Taking into account the pieces left on the board, does the creation of the pawn majority give white a practical advantage?

Diagram 10.4- black has the outside passed pawn, versus white’s more inside passed pawn. The outside passed pawn is in most cases harder to stop in more simplified endings (such as king and pawns), since it requires the stopping king to go to the flank and leave the rest of his pawns possibly vulnerable. Using the short observation we have just performed, we can say that one of black’s goals is to exchange as many pieces as possible since the more simplified endgame will suit him more than white. Challenge: can you find a concrete plan to promote this goal?

Diagram 10.5- being a pawn down but with a more active king (the conclusions from the observation stage), white decides to go for maximal activity by creating targets to attack in black’s camp: b5! This gives white a dynamically equal position, since now the king marches deeper into black’s queenside. Challenge: going through observation white also noticed the weak c6 pawn, should he go for it with Bd7 instead of the suggested idea?

Diagram 10.6- white has a choice, move the king away from the check or interfere with the queen, forcing a transition to king and pawn endgame. Quick calculation shows that black wins the arising pawn race, white will never be able to queen. Therefore, based on the pawn structure we are able to make a decision that keeps the position equal. Challenge: would the solution change if the b5 pawn were on d5 instead?

Diagram 10.7.1- black’s rook is trapped, and the endgame after Bxe3 …dxe3, Kxe3 doesn’t offer any survival chances for black playing a pawn down in this king and pawns endgame. Observing the pawn structure closely, black comes up with an idea: if he could just force the enemy king to stay in his camp, and not cross the third rank, there is no progress to be made for white. So, … Rxd3! and after the recapture we reach the following position:

Diagram 10.7.2- a piece for a pawn should be enough to win, right? Not in this case! …g4! and there is no way white’s king can ever advance beyond the second rank. Therefore, no progress can be made, and the position is another salvaged practical draw. In this example, by making a careful observation regarding the pawn structure, we managed to save a losing endgame. Challenge: would the assessment of the position (draw) change if black had no e5 pawn?

Positional observation- Survey of weak squares Weak squares are defined as squares that are not protected at all, squares that are controlled by one side, or contested squares whose use allows one side to achieve positional or tactical gains. In some cases, we will discuss “complexes” of such squares, very commonly weak squares of a certain color.

Example cases:

Diagram 11.1- typical for the Berlin defense, black has an unprotected weak square at f7.

Challenge: does white benefit from attacking this weakness?

Diagram 11.2- white has two “real” weak squares (that the opponent can successfully use to his favor), c4 and f3. Another weakness is the g4 square, also associated with a threat, however that threat is manageable. Challenge: what is the best way to deal with the threats related to white’s weak squares? Are there weaknesses that do not need attention in advance, before the opponent uses them?

Diagram 11.3- positional observation shows that white has a weak c3 square; it’s currently contested, but black has an easy way of not only fighting for it but possibly occupying it in the near future: …Nd5! and later possibly …Nc3 to force white to give up his strong b2 bishop. Challenge: after the suggested Nd5, is there a way for white to deal with black’s plan?

Diagram 11.4- searching for weak squares as part of our positional observation, we immediately see the “black holes” in our campall of black’s dark squares on the kingside and center are weak, due to the checkers-like pawn structure, with pawns on light squares. The problem for black is that our dark square bishop has been exchanged, leaving us with no easy way to compensate for our weaknesses. We call this type of position a “dark square weakness complex.” Notice that a similar situation happens for white too, though not as severely; his light squares are a bit weak (c4 mostly, and the a6-f1 diagonal is unavailable) with no useful way to compensate for those weaknesses since his light square bishop was also exchanged. Challenge: Can black fight back for the dark squares after all, or if not, is there a way to divert attention away from his weaknesses to those of white?

Again, the main feature we will look for here is not the existence of weak squares, but their usability by one side. For example, if you have a weak square in your camp that the opponent can never use to his benefit, it’s practically meaningless and it won’t be considered a real weakness.

We will then use the information gathered from the weak squares observation to identify the relevant goals, whether we are the owner or the potential exploiter of the weaknesses.

Diagram 11.5- black observed a big weakness on c6. That weakness can function as an outpost for the f3 knight in two moves or even for the c1 rook in some variations. Challenge: can black deal with the weakness (eliminating it or removing the opponent’s ability to take advantage of it)?

Diagram 11.6- white found the d5 weakness in black’s camp, but alas, it cannot be used! It is merely an “irrelevant weak square.” Challenge: if the d5 weakness can’t be used by white, should black try to eliminate it anyway?

Diagram 11.7- due to the nature of the pawn structure and the fact that black doesn’t have his dark square bishop, the dark squares in his camp (e5, d6, c7) are weak. The problem is the loss of options for developing the queen, such as d6 that’s no longer available. Black can’t occupy his weak squares, causing development and maneuverability problems. Challenge: is there a way for black to “walk around” the problem, for example by creating activity, to make the weakness irrelevant?

Diagram 11.8- due to the queenside pawn structure, white has dark square weaknesses (c3, b2, and even a1). The weaknesses are emphasized by black’s dark square bishop on the same diagonal. Since some of the weak squares are occupied by white’s material, this opens the possibility of tactical combinations. In this case, Ne4! is threatened. Challenge: help white deal with the threat- what can he do to prevent it or make it less dangerous?

Diagram 11.9- the f5 knight fits into the g3 weakness like a glove, but it’s pretty much useless there; developing the rook away from h1 is on white’s to-do list anyway. Apart from making the rook relocate, the knight on g3 does nothing and has limited prospects. The weakness on g3 is therefore an irrelevant weakness. White doesn’t need to spend time and effort to deal with it- this goal is not necessary in this position. Challenge: does black have any weaknesses that white can dream (and plan) of using?

Diagram 11.10- black didn’t take the time to take care of his a6 and c6 weaknesses during the middle game, and now he suffers; being a full pawn ahead, black is completely lost. Ne5+! Forcing the exchange of pieces, after which black’s queenside is completely paralyzed and the king has to stay on the kingside to chase after the rolling g4 pawn. White’s king marches to the queenside to pick up all of black’s pawns, and then white has a clear path to queen. Challenge: if there were no g4 pawn, would black’s weaknesses save white from losing?

Illustration examples To conclude this stage of our analysis, we will now look at the illustration examples that will follow us throughout this manual at the end of each step. We will learn how the method can be applied in an over the board situation. All the illustration examples throughout the book are divided into levels, to accommodate the current strength of the student and to offer a glimpse into the next levels. I hope that you will find the examples for the levels above the one you currently consider yourself accessible and solveable, completely within your capabilities, once you get used to applying the suggested approach in this book. In this section we will perform only the observation stage. After every stage the illustration examples return with the appropriate analysis. Throughout the illustration examples, the observation part of “our tactical options” will be moved to the stage of plans, since it’s possible to do it either as part of observations or plans- choose your favorite. All the diagrams of a certain example are inter-connected; below the diagrams there are links enabling you to navigate to other stages of the analysis. During the first read try to follow the book’s natural structure, to avoid “spoilers” by jumping forward before you have finished studying the appropriate chapters. Some background on each example is available under the “Meet the players” link.

Beginner level Opening Ruslan Ponomariov- Alexander Grischuk, U12 world championship, Szeged 1994

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: White has a capture on d6 that will necessarily result in the creation of a weak blockaded isolated pawn on d6. Before moving on to solutions, we will first identify secondary goals by performing a positional observation. The reason- we want a solution that will take care of as many goals as possible, in addition to the threat. Positional observation: Our bishop on g7 is a great piece, with a very nice open diagonal (notice- the knight doesn’t act as a blocking factor since it can be moved very easily). The opponent’s king is still uncastled.

The e4 pawn is rather weak, placed on a contested square. The c5 pawn (the opponent’s extra pawn) is hanging.

Middlegame Maia Chiburdanidze- Elizbar Ubilava, Soviet Union team championship, Tbilisi 1976

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: no threats against white. Positional observation: The f7 square (a critical square in this position) is weak and being attacked, the knight on f6 hides the queen from attacking it one more time. The f6 knight is pinned to f7, and is being attacked and defended twice (f6 is also a critical square therefore). Black’s queen is quite irrelevant and plays no role in the position. White has an extra pawn.

Endgame Jose Raul Capablanca- Alexander Alekhine, New York 1924

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: no immediate tactical threats. Positional observation: White has an extra pawn. White’s pawns on the kingside are outside connected pawns, which means that he has the theoretical ability to create an outside passed pawn (g4-h5)

Intermediate level Opening Roman Dzindzichashvili- Andrew Soltis, Chicago open 1992

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: White threatens dxc6 and the collapse of black’s center with Qxd6 (dxc6 …bxc6, Qxd6). Positional observation: The pawn on d6 is weak (and accessible by white). Other observations such as a useless rook on a8 are going to be resolved once the development is complete, for example Nc5-Bg4-Qe7-Rad8. The observation itself would be correct, but it’s generic- based on the stage of development rather on any specific feature that characterizes this specific position. The g7 bishop is closed by the pawn structure, but there is nothing remotely imaginable for us to do about it so it won’t give rise to a goal.

Middlegame Efim Geller- Mikhail Tal, Candidates 1962

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: No good checks/captures by black; pressure- …Nc4 deserves a close look. …Nc4 (threatens to undermine the c3 knight with Nxb2), Rab1 …Nxb2, Rxb2 …Qxc3, Rxb7:

And there is no …Qxc2 due to Qxc2 …Rxc2 and Rb8+ winning. Therefore, …Nc4 is safe for white.

Overall, no threats for black in the given position. Positional observation: The a1 rook has no duty. d6 is weak. c2 is weak, and therefore the c3 knight is pinned to it. The black king is still in the center.

Endgame David Bronstein- Tigran Petrosian, Portoroz interzonal 1958

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: No immediate tactical threats by white; bxa7 is good for black and Ne5 is just not dangerous. Long term threats- we find a pawn storm on the queenside. White wants to push his pawn majority as much as he can, here a6! deserves close attention: a6 …axb6, a7! …Nc7 (black has to lose a piece to stop the a7 pawn.

White plays a8=Q next. Let’s look at another possible way for black to deal with a6. Is there a successful blockade black can arrange to stop the pawns onslaught? Let’s find out: a6 … Rd8?!, b7! And white has a permanently protected passed pawn.

And white wants to play Ne5-Nc6; the blockade fails. To conclude, the threat in the given position is a6 by white. But as usual, we don’t only want to answer the threat. We also want to answer as many of the positional goals as we can on the way, so let’s perform a quick positional observation for the given position: The e6 knight is out of duty. b7 is currently not influenced by white (a possible blockade square).

Advanced level Opening Viktor Kortschnoj- Anatoly Karpov, Cheliabinsk 1962

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis and positional observation- combined: Though everything is protected and there are no threats to material or any significant positional gains, this position holds another type of threat- the threat to equalize. Black is currently a little cramped, and behind in space. On top of that, there is no obvious way for him to fight for space in the given position. Therefore, plan B for black would be to reduce the effect of the space advantage to a minimum. This can be achieved by exchanging as many pieces as possible. Applying these ideas in the position above, Nxd4 becomes a serious threat; it triggers a series of piece exchanges after which white’s advantage dissipates. So, Nxd4 is a threat. We would like to avoid any piece exchanges if possible as long as black has a hard time fighting for space directly.

Middlegame Eugene Znosko-Borovsky- Max Euwe, London BCF congress 1922

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Even before we methodically approach the given position, at first glance things look pretty grim for white; pawn down, broken pawn structure, hanging piece on c3- they all lead to such a visual effect that would lead one to believe white is lost. This is, of course, without applying principles of objectivity in chess- base your assessments only on plans of improvement for both sides, nothing else matters! It’s hard to believe, but white actually managed to eventually win the game. Let’s take together the first steps towards that surprising result.

Threats analysis: The c3 knight is hanging: …Qxc3, Qxc3 …Rxc3, Bxf6- did we just equalize by regaining material?

…Ng6! Solves the threat on g7, the bishop now hangs and the c3 rook will pick up the queen side pawns. Therefore qxc3 is a threat. …Nf5! even stronger than the immediate capture on c3, first exchanging the h4 bishop and then simply winning the c3 knight. If white tries to answer with Qg5 black plays …Qxf3+ with a winning position:

To conclude, white faces two threats- Qxc3 and Nf5.

As always, before we suggest any solutions we will first do positional observation: 1. The c3 knight is a bad piece, without a role and vulnerable. 2. The white queen and bishop are badly placed, under the opponent’s knight’s potential fork as described in the second threat. 3. White is a pawn down. 4. The e5 pawn is weak. 5. All of white’s pawns are weak, and most practically weak are f3 and c2; Black is better

suited for playing a simplified endgame due to the pawn structure. 6. The g7 square is weak, plus the pawn that occupies it is pinned to the king.

Not every observation should be converted into a goal; only those which we can imagine at least a remotely possible way to achieve. This is even without going into specific concrete variations in which the goals are achieved- we do this at the plans stage. Here, we just try to imagine a possible idea, and if we can, then the observation passes to the goals stage. This is of course a shortcut suggestion, you can definitely make a goal of any observation you make and later see whether there is a possible solution- this way is ok too, especially for practicing this approach. Let’s see for which observations we can imagine possible ideas for solutions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

We can easily imagine a better location for the knight, for example e4. It’s possible to move one of these pieces away from the possible fork. Since there is a hanging pawn on e5, maybe we can handle this observation as well! Since there is a possible queen capture, we will keep it as a goal. Regarding the pawn structure, no imaginable way to un-isolate all these pawns. Therefore, this observation will not become a goal. 6. Possible captures are available, on f6 and g7, therefore we will keep this observation and make a goal out of it. Overall, this time we managed to filter out only a single observation. As you practice the suggested method, you will discover that in some cases most of the observations can be discarded.

Endgame Ilya Smirin- Mikhail Shereshevsky, Sokolsky memorial 1985

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: Bxg6

Positional observation: The black rook is not active. Black is a pawn up. The g6 pawn is weak (will not become a separate goal, included in the threat). The f3 pawn is weak. The b6 pawn is weak (will not become a goal, nothing we can do about it).

Expert level Opening Kurnosov Igor- Bartolomiej Macieja, Nakhchivan open 2013

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: No threats in the given position. In case of Ne5 we can play g4 and we’ll be doing fine.

Positional observation: The f3 knight is currently bad due to the pin. In the current pawn structure white’s queenside pieces can’t develop properly.

Middlegame Magnus Carlsen- Hikaru Nakamura, Biel 2012

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: White has no threats against black.

Positional observation: The g7 bishop is very passive. White has a long pawn chain on light squares and only a light squared bishop, leaving the dark squares in his camp weak. The d4 pawn is isolated and blockaded, possibly weak.

Endgame Vassily Smyslov- Lajos Portisch, Reggio-Emilia 1986

Meet the players | Jump to goals | Jump to plans

Threats analysis: …c3 forces white to sacrifice his bishop to stop black from queening.

Positional observation: Two pawns are hanging- h4 and a7. Black is up a pawn. *Most of the local examples in this book include a challenge for self-work. It’s an open question, designed for you to think deeper about the studied material and to experience applying it in “real world” scenarios you may encounter. Open discussion is highly encouraged at the online study group. For further discussion and online help, visit here. *In this volume of the series, the concept of “tension” is included in pressure. Every tension is also pressure (but not every pressure is also tension), so the sub-category of tension is covered when looking for pressure to save analysis time.

The identification of goals Now that we have completed our observation, we will identify goals by looking at the highlights of the position that we found. We can divide the possible goals into two main types: offensive goals and defensive goals.

Based on the observation, we might discover that we have some catching up to do in some areas. Consistent attempts to finish this catching up process should get us closer to equalizing; this is the main purpose of defensive goals.

Diagram 12.1- black is facing an immediate threat- the double capture on e5 costing him a pawn. Going through positional observation, black also noticed that he is way behind in development, almost critically, by three full tempos. This also causes a big difference in quality of pieces between the sides.

Therefore, there would be two main goals in this position for black- first, deal with the immediate threat. Second, catch up in development. This is an example of a set of defensive goals, designed to equalize the position. Challenge: is there a way to answer both goals with a single plan (one sequence of moves)?

In other cases, dynamic equality can be achieved with counter-play, if our positional observation concluded that it’s possible.

Diagram 12.2- white is under the immediate threat of Bxb1. On top of that, black has the better pieces- the bishop pair shines in this open position. Therefore, in this position there are two major goals: solve the immediate threat, and deal with the strong bishop pair. The “solve” and “deal with” type of goals are very common in this approach; we do not limit ourselves to intuitive responses we might have to certain problems; rather, we approach them with an open mind. For example, the first goal “solve the threat on the rook” could have been phrased “move the rook away from danger”. This is a very restrictive statement of the goal that has a partial plan embedded into it, which is not necessarily the best course of action. Maybe moving the rook is not best - maybe there is another solution, such as creating a deflection, or interposing between the attacking bishop and the rook, or another dynamic solution that doesn’t directly solve the initial problem but creates equal or greater problems for the opponent to solve. Always be careful not to restrict your solutions by a suggestive/restrictive phrasing of a goal. The same could be said about the second goal “deal with the strong bishop pair”. We have identified the problem, and created a goal that can possibly be achieved with more than one approach, such as exchanging one of the bishops, blocking their scope, creating counter play to improve our pieces so much that the bishop pair will not be so powerful, or just removing everything in their reach so that the practicality of their open diagonals will drop. These are just common general possibilities for such cases, and we need to see what fits this specific position best. The statement of the goal should not be suggestive, such as “try to exchange the bishops”, “block the dark square bishop” or any other phrasing that implies a certain path, because the solution must be tailored to the given position. Challenge: since there is a threat, the nature of the position is tactical. Optimally, we would like to combine both goals into one plan, one sequence of moves. This is instead of a possibly longer solution, a separate sequence of moves for each goal. Try to find a forcing solution (plan) that answers both goals, then try to see if there are less forcing solutions, and if they too can be combined into a single plan. Decide which of the two approaches would be best for the given position based on the positional effects at the end of your suggested sequence(s).

If our positional observation tells us that we are ahead in certain areas, or that the conditions are right, we can set offensive goals to take advantage of the imbalances we found in the position, translating them into challenges for the opponent to solve.

Diagram 12.3- going through the process we see no threats against white. Positional observation shows us that pretty much all of

black’s pieces are bad; the bishops are both blocked, the c6 knight has no good squares, both rooks are inactive and the queen is rather passive too. Regarding the pawn structure- the opponent weakened his kingside by pushing the pawns in front of his king, in a position where white’s king is not castled on the same side. This calls out for an attacks race, in which white will be ahead due to the quick connection that can be made with black’s pawns and the resulting open kingside. There is also a blockaded backward pawn on an open file (d6). There are weak squares in black’s camp- f7 (a critical square), d5, f5. This leads to the conclusion that white should have great attacking chances. Let’s try to identify specific goals: 1. Take advantage of the targets black has on the kingside and our better pieces by determining whether an attack (immediate tactics or long-term threats) is possible on the kingside. 2. See if it’s possible to take advantage of the weak d6 pawn. Notice that both goals in this position are offensive. We don’t have any defensive matters to attend to in the given position. Challenge: which plans can you suggest to answer the goals we’ve identified? Can you answer both goals with a single plan?

There can also be mixed situations that dictate both offensive and defensive goals. In these cases we will apply principles of prioritizing that we will discuss later, to determine which plans would be more suitable to achieve our goals and which are more urgent in the given position.

Diagram 12.4- observation shows that black has a rather bad g7 bishop (not entirely bad, since its scope extends to d4 because it’s supporting the e5 pawn), and a bad knight on e7. Also, as long as the current pawn structure stays as it is, or as long as the knight stays on e7, the black queen is passive. White has a misplaced knight on c4 (though it’s advanced and centralized, it’s not really doing anything and can be easily attacked). There is also a weak square on d4 that can be used by the c6 knight. The goals: 1. Find a way to improve the g7 bishop (either open it or make it more useful as it is). 2. Prepare for improvement of the e7 knight. 3. Check possible offensive options such as using the d4 weakness or kicking the c4 knight (can instead be done as part of tactical observation for us). In this case, there are both defensive goals (the first two) aimed at solving our positional problems, and offensive goals aimed at trying to exploit the tactical chances the position offers us. A plan to solve the first goal can be to open the center (starting with d5 or f5 or even both consecutively). If the opponent captures (on either f5 or e5), this would also solve the second goal. If d5 isn’t captured, this also solves part of the third goal.

A separate plan to solve the second goal, with part of the third goal can be Nd4 clearing the c6 square for the e knight. The solution to the third goal was already embedded in the first and second plans. Now, all that remains is to prioritize the plans (a subject that we will study in the next chapters), and complete the final design- the move order and concrete calculation including the safety check. Challenge: reach a conclusion as to which plan to choose- the central pawn storm or the knights’ maneuvers? Do they collide (one disables the other)?

Illustration Examples – Identification of Goals Beginner level Opening Ruslan Ponomariov- Alexander Grischuk, U12 world championship, Szeged 1994

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Main Solve the threat cxd6- defensive. Secondary Take advantage of the strong g7 bishop- offensive. Take advantage of the uncastled king- offensive. Take advantage of the weak e4 pawn- offensive. Take advantage of the hanging c5 pawn- offensive.

From the offensive nature of the secondary goals, it looks like the solution to the threat might be based on certain counter play.

Middlegame Maia Chiburdanidze- Elizbar Ubilava, Soviet Union team championship, Tbilisi 1976

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Take advantage of the f7 weakness- offensive. Take advantage of the f6 pinned knight- offensive. Take advantage of the bad black queen- offensive. Take advantage of the extra pawn- offensive. Since all the goals here are offensive, we can expect a plan for white that tries to capitalize on current positional advantages to convert into a winning position.

Endgame Jose Raul Capablanca- Alexander Alekhine, New York 1924

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Black is clearly the defender here, since white is a pawn up and black has no compensation in return. But still, all is not lost yet. We need to carefully understand based on our observation how white can create progress. Both rooks are about equally active, our king is active, so the only open door remaining for white to try and win here is the creation of a passed pawn. This can be done as described earlier, with g4-h5. Therefore, the only goal required for black to stop white from making progress (and thus to maintain equality) is to stop the creation of a passed pawn on the h file.

Intermediate level Opening Roman Dzindzichashvili- Andrew Soltis, Chicago open 1992

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Main Answer the threat dxc6. Secondary Solve the weakness of d6

Middlegame Efim Geller- Mikhail Tal, Candidates 1962

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Find a role for the a1 rook. Take advantage of the d6 weakness. Solve the c2 weakness. Search for ways to take advantage of the uncastled black king.

In this type of positions in which there are both offensive and defensive goals, we will always try to find such solutions that “multi-task”; we want to solve our defensive goals with some kind of initiative that arises from addressing the offensive goals as well. Otherwise, solving the defensive goals might only give the initiative to the opponent. In the next stage we will see if this approach is possible here, and if it’s not we will choose to address a certain type of goal first, for example the offensive ones.

Endgame David Bronstein- Tigran Petrosian, Portoroz interzonal 1958

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Main Solve the a6 threat. Secondary Find a role for the e6 knight. Test the possibility to blockade the advancing pawn(s) on b7.

Advanced level Opening Viktor Kortschnoj- Anatoly Karpov, Cheliabinsk 1962

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Take advantage of black’s lack of space and lack of maneuverability. In this case, since there are no imaginable ways to actually use black’s lack of space in our favor, the concrete goal would be to disable black from solving his space problem.

Middlegame Eugene Znosko-Borovsky- Max Euwe, London BCF congress 1922

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Main Solve the Qxc3 threat. Solve the Nf5 threat. Secondary Find an improvement for the c3 knight. Solve the queen-bishop location problem. Examine possible options to regain material or get compensation. Take advantage of the e5 weakness Take advantage of the weak g7 square and the pinned g7 pawn.

Endgame Ilya Smirin- Mikhail Shereshevsky, Sokolsky memorial 1985

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Main Solve the threat of Bxg6. Secondary Activate the rook Keep the extra material or give it back with enough compensation. Take advantage of the f3 weakness.

Expert level Opening Kurnosov Igor- Bartolomiej Macieja, Nakhchivan open 2013

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Solve the problem of the knight’s pin. Prepare possible development for the queenside pieces.

Middlegame Magnus Carlsen- Hikaru Nakamura, Biel 2012

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Solve the g7 bishop’s problem. Try to take advantage of the dark square weaknesses in white’s camp. Regarding the d4 pawn- it can be attacked only once more with the queen, which would leave white’s queen side pawns unguarded. Therefore it’s not an immediate goal to deal with the d4 pawn’s potential weakness.

Endgame Vassily Smyslov- Lajos Portisch, Reggio-Emilia 1986

Back to observation | Jump to plans

Goals: Solve the c pawn’s queening threat. Take advantage of black’s weak pawns.

From goals to plans- meeting the goals Following the first two stages of the process, observation and goals identification, we obtained enough information about the given position to understand what we are playing for, and what we must achieve. Now, it’s time for us to design the means with which we are going to achieve the set goals; we will envision sequences of moves which will be our plan. When finding these solutions to the goals, we will try to fit as many goals as possible into a single plan, that is, a single sequence. In cases where we must create more than one plan to achieve the feasible goals, we will need to determine the order of application of our plans, and in some cases, where one plan conflicts with another, we will need to decide which plan(s) to discard.

Diagram 13.1- the main goal that arises from the observation is to prove the d4 pawn’s weakness, using the fact that it’s an isolated pawn. Possible plans: 1. Qd7 and Rad8, targeting the pawn with more firepower. 2. Rxe1+ (removing one of the defenders) and capture the d pawn. 3. Nxd4 immediately. Concrete calculation: …Nxd4, Nxd4 …Rxe1, Qxe1 and Qxd4 winning a pawn.

…Nxd4, Rxe8 …Nxe8 and the d4 knight is safe. …Nxd4, Ne5 …Re7 (defending f7) still wins a pawn with no real concessions. The choice for solutions has been narrowed down to the two last ones, two directly tactical solutions to our goal. Challenge: if the material result is the same, is there any reason to prefer one of the two plans over the other?

Setting the priorities Once we’ve made our list of goals, in order for us to design a sequence of moves to achieve them, we need to determine which goal is most important to us. Then, we will try to fit as many other goals as possible into this sequence. If the solutions to the goals involve more than one plan, then we will prioritize the plans by a scale of importance. Some words of importance… Basically, we prioritize our goals and plans in the same ways as we prioritized positional criteria in Volume 1 of the series. Urgency First, we check the urgency of the goal: a goal is considered urgent if, unless we achieve it right now, achieving it later would be impossible or much more difficult. Same for plans: a plan is urgent if, unless we play the sequence right now, the opponent can prevent us from playing it later. This means that we must first consider plans that answer goals of safety, solving threats, or achieving goals with initiative by playing tactical variations. We will advance these plans first unless they don’t meet the definition of being urgent – that is, unless they clearly can be played later. Naturally, both active types of plans mentioned above can also achieve positional goals as a side effect. If we have active plans, then purely positional plans that are not urgent will have to wait.

Diagram 13.2- from our observation we can identify two main goals for white: dealing with the long term threat Ng4- e3 (dangerous piece setup), and regrouping our pieces, since currently both knights and the queen are passively placed (improving the quality of these pieces). Before thinking of plans, we quickly recognize that the first goal is more urgent, since if the opponent carried through, our position would become worse. Therefore the first move of the solution (and the next move of the game for white) will have to be h3. Try to find other solutions and test them to see if they are refutable; the reason to do that is that h3 is a concession unless we can combine it with a plan to solve the second goal. Challenge: how to solve the second goal? Find a way to combine the solutions to both goals into a single sequence of moves (a single plan).

The relevance of affected criteria The second tool for prioritizing our goals and plans is the relevance of the positional criteria affected by them. Of all the positional goals we found from our positional observation, we will choose to first answer those goals that are more critical to the given position. This prioritizing criterion was widely covered in volume 1. Here is the method in brief:

Space -- Differences in space will be considered more relevant the more pieces are left on the board. This is because of the effects of space on piece maneuverability. More space allows easier movement of pieces, whereas a cramped position creates maneuverability problems. Also, space will become more relevant at the endgame stage, in cases when having more space in certain pawn structures will improve our chances of promoting a pawn. Development -- Differences in development will become more meaningful the greater the difference is. Quality of pieces: a. Local quality (how good a piece is right now and how quickly it can be improved) becomes relevant when the difference between the two sides’ overall local quality is significant, meaning more than just a minimal advantage. b. Global quality (how good the piece can become) – we will always give global quality top priority. Among all of the positional criteria, global quality is the most decisive factor in the game. Material-- If lack of material compared to the opponent is not balanced with advantages in other positional criteria, the relevance increases. Same happens if you are the leader in material, but the opponent has more than enough compensation. Often in these cases, returning the extra material can improve the positional balance. Pawn structure and square weaknesses -- The relevance is determined by the practical observation, i.e. if there is a practical benefit/drawback to the current pawn structure.

Diagram 13.3- black is in dire straits; though there are no immediate threats by white, observation shows that black is significantly behind in space, and his pieces (queen, d7 knight, bishop, and the a8 rook) are passive and have very little improvement prospects under the current circumstances. Notice that it’s impossible to prepare the bishop’s development at the moment, since if the d7 knight moves, then Bxf6 becomes very strong. As a result, black has to untie the bind preventing him from completing development. We can conclude observation with two major goals- fight for space and enable the completion of our development. (These two goals are not completely separate, as having more space will gain us additional possible squares for our pieces, which are currently very restricted in this cramped position.) A possible plan to fight for space could be single moves such as a5 or c6, attacking white’s pawn chain. Improving the pieces can be achieved by connecting rooks, improving the queen’s flexibility. This can be achieved by …b6, …Bb7 (the bishop isn’t really better, but it moved aside to enable the rooks to connect). Sure, b6 also fights for space, but only as a by-product. Since it doesn’t fundamentally change the space balance, the effect is minimal. Which plan to choose first? Space is important in the given position since most of the pieces are still on the board. Fighting to quickly improve the pieces and enable development is even more important, since black is not only two tempos behind in development, but also future development requires preparation and black’s pieces are much worse than white’s. As a result, we conclude that the second goal is more relevant to the position, and therefore it should be addressed first. Challenge: is it possible to combine both plans into a single consistent sequence?

The concrete solution Once our priorities are set, and we know which goals are most important and most urgent, it’s time to develop a sequence of moves that achieves the required solution. The solution can be a series of tactical moves, a series of purely strategic moves, or in some cases just a single move can answer a number of goals. Let’s discuss two cases: when a solution is found, and when no apparent solution exists. Eureka! We start with the most important goal and try to solve it with a sequence of moves. If we fail and can’t find a move sequence that answers the requirement, we don’t give up! Rather, we continue to our other goals, by order of importance as we prioritized them, trying to find solutions to each. Sometimes, the first attempt to find a solution to the main goal does not succeed, but eventually the solution is found by solving other goals. By searching for solutions to other goals, we more fully understand the challenges of the position, and this by itself can help us to look deeper and to discover solutions to the primary goal.

Diagram 13.4- black, being two pawns up in this endgame, has decided to simplify the position, thus trying to give more weight to his material advantage. …Qf6 has just been played (from e7) Black is willing to double the f pawn to achieve his goal of simplification- a minor price to pay in this case, since it will not be easy for white to take advantage of it before the three passed pawns start to roll. White observed a double immediate threat on the queen and rook. Apart from that, he sees that his pieces are much better than black’s, being more active and useful. Therefore, besides solving the threat, the second goal becomes to see if it’s possible to capitalize on this quality-of-pieces advantage. Since there is a threat, achieving the second goal must be combined with solving the threat. So, if there is a way to achieve the second goal, it will be a part of a plan that answers both goals. In a tactical position such as this, we look at our tactical options (most forcing lines first when under a threat). Being disciplined paid off this time- white found Rxa7! And only after black moves his rook (our rook is immune due to Qb8 mate), we can exchange queens.

Challenge: how would you assess the arising position after the suggested sequence?

Diagram 13.5- observation gives white four goals: 1. Solve the weakness of the isolated pawn (since it requires constant protection by pieces). 2. Activate the g2 bishop which is currently blocked by black’s pawn chain. 3. Activate the undeveloped a1 rook. 4. Prepare the ground to activate the b2 bishop. To answer the first goal, the isolated pawn has to either stop being isolated or stop being blockaded from advancing. The white player tried his best, he really did, but to no avail- no plan was found. So he decided to move on to other goals, and maybe later return to the first goal with new insights. To answer the second goal, white can try to break the b7-c6 pawn chain. He found b5! threatening bxc6, and if cxb5 he has Bxb7 achieving the second goal in any case. As to the third goal, this goal can be combined with the solution to the second goal, placing the A file rook on c1 having broken black’s pawn chain. Finally, the fourth goal can be achieved easily if the isolated pawn could move. Now, let’s return to the first goal- dealing with the weakness of the isolated pawn. We already have a plan to push b5; looking at the other implications of this move we see that as a result, either our pawn will no longer be blockaded, or a new weakness on c6 will be created for black in case he decides to protect the pawn with Rc8. The new weakness will enable us to create counter play and divert attention from our weakness, causing the same type of weakness for the opponent. Since cxb5 is the best response for black (the only one that doesn’t let white keep strong pressure on black’s weakness), the fourth goal will also be achieved. To conclude this example, the solution that wasn’t natural to the white player to spot immediately was eventually found through solving other goals. This scenario will be very common for the improving player as he addresses new positions he is less familiar with. Challenge: try to find plans for white to create progress after b5 …cxb5, Bxb7 …Rb8, Bg2 …a5. Base your plans on goals you identify as a result of your careful observation.

Not your day? In some cases, no matter how hard we look, we just can’t find the solution to our goals. Of course,

one reason can be human error, not looking deep enough, or failing to spot it. However, it is also possible that the position is “damaged beyond repair,” or that the goal was positional in nature (such as increasing positional advantages or exploiting current ones) and the sought-after improvement is just physically not there.

Diagram 13.6- black is facing the threat Nb5 (…c6, Na7! …c5, Nc8+ winning b6). Black’s king is powerless to help since he currently guards against the invasion of white’s king (Kf6-g7 and a double attack). Besides the threat, the g8 bishop is very passive. The extra pawn in this position is meaningless- black is in tough shape and has to solve very difficult problems. No matter how hard you try, in this position there simply is no working solution to black’s goals.

The biggest problem in these “dead end” cases is when the goal arises from threats analysis. If it’s just a specific type of improvement we are talking about, it may not be so bad that we can’t find a suitable plan -- we can always find other improvements to be made, by maximizing the four positional criteria. But if we found a threat, and we can’t solve the goal of dealing with it, then that’s a problem! And yet, we shouldn’t give up so fast; there are some practical tools that just might save our day:

1. Create complications – If nothing else is available to meet the threat, we will see if we can create tactical complications. Two cases are most common here: a. Sound complications -- creating tactical variations that even if played best by the opponent lead to a reasonable position for us. In other words, we don’t rely or depend on the opponent making a mistake; however the opponent plays, we are at least doing OK. These kinds of solutions to threats at first glance appear to be “miraculous saves”; but in reality, they prove that our initial assessment of the position wasn’t correct, and that we are actually doing OK once we realize that this plan exists.

Diagram 13.7.1- no hope to save the d6 pawn. And if this is not enough, and you think you can hold the position a pawn down, take into account that the capture on d6 is not the end of it; mass exchanges will follow on the d file, leading to a queens endgame with an extra pawn for black, and that looks very promising for him. However, some practical chances are possible by creating imbalances: Rc7! and now if …Rxd6, Qc4 threatening the deadly Qxf7+:

Diagram 13.7.2- black’s only salvation is to give his queen for the pair of rooks: …Qxc7, Qxc7 … Rxd1; we have reached a position with a material imbalance, and though theoretically black should have the upper hand in that endgame, white has counter play and good chances not to lose. Challenge: Since the final position of the described variation looks reasonable for white, should black play something else in response to Rc7 other than Rxd6?

b. Unsound complications -- the creation of variations that can work only if the opponent misses the correct solution. These are really the last resort in objectively lost positions. They can be traps, counterattacks, sacrifices, or other aggressive ideas for the longer term, such as desperate pawn storms and creation of pseudo-threats (” ghost threats”), both of which the opponent can deal with by accurate play.

Again, it is very important to understand that this is the last practical attempt to save a clearly and objectively lost position, and not a conventional tool to use. This should be seen as just one last shot before resigning -- there is always a chance that the opponent will miss part of the solution, regardless of the complexity of your final attempt. Naturally, these ideas work best when you are losing and the opponent is in time trouble. Resigning is never too late, so why not throw a last punch and hope it will be a knock-out?

Diagram 13.8- white is completely on the ropes; there is no real hope as the e5 pawn is going to be lost through zugzwang. White fires a last shot, g5; if black foolishly/instinctively captures hxg, thinking that he won already and there is no need to calculate carefully anymore, he will be the one who is lost, as white will be the one who queens. Note that if black doesn’t capture, there is no progress for white on the kingside regardless of what he does next since his king cannot get through. Still, it’s worth a shot. Challenge: if it were black to play, should he go after the a3 pawn? Is he winning this way?

2. Create a deflection -- Another way to deal with threats that seem to have no solution can be to play an in-between forcing move, trying not to allow the opponent enough time to carry out his threat. The deflection will attempt to do even more than this: it will try to harass the opponent on a different part of the board from the one where his threat occurs. For example, a threat in the center can be met with a deflection on one of the flanks, and vice versa. The reason for this is logical: if the opponent has a strong threat on a certain part of the board, it means that his pieces will be less coordinated or less available to meet aggression on the other part of the board chosen by you. For this reason, deflection is treated as a separate method, instead of just being included under complications.

Diagram 13.9- black has a strong pawn storm going on the queenside, and there is no way to stop the coming …b4 and the eventual opening up of white’s king position. Since this fate cannot be avoided, at least white can buy some time and get counter chances by attacking on another part of the board. White has to be very quick, as the contact on the queenside is ready to happen on the very next move. The center is closed, so the only remaining option is the kingside: h5, creating a counter deflective attack with the idea of combining Bh6 with doubled rooks on the open h file. Challenge: can you find a solution for black against white’s plan?

3. Change the game phase -- Sometimes the best or the only answer to a threat is to simplify the position to an endgame. Three possible outcomes can occur: a. The arising endgame after the simplifications is at least OK for us (meaning we are not worse; we expect at least a draw). This is a simple case, in which changing the game phase is a conventional solution to a threat and the assessment of the position hasn’t changed much as a result of this action.

Diagram 13.10- white suffers constant inconvenient pressure on f7; though it’s currently not a threat, it certainly restricts black’s queen. Black can solve this threat and transform into a queens endgame in which he has a better pawn structure: …Nd4, Qd3 …Nxb3 and whether white takes back with the queen or the pawn, black ends up in a better ending.

b. The arising endgame position is worse, but we have theoretical drawing chances. If nothing better can be found, this option will be our last resort. Here, we do not go down in flames hoping for the opponent to play a mistake like in the unsound complication method, but rather we transform to an inferior endgame which isn’t clearly lost. There are many examples, such as being a pawn down in a rook endgame, being more than a pawn down in an opposite-color-bishops endgame, or a minor piece endgame where your piece is passive and the opponent’s piece is active.

Diagram 13.11- black is under the threat of h5, and then further pushing of the h pawn. Also, after h5 the g5 pawn remains weak. Solution: black would like to transform into a rooks endgame where white has an extra knight’s pawn, a theoretical draw. …gxh4, Rxh4 …Ra3 (if Kxh4 …Rh8) secures the transition into the desired endgame. Black remains with an inferior position, but the practical assessment is draw. Challenge: in the arising endgame, is it enough for black to keep the king on g8 and shuffle his rook passively on the eighth rank in order to achieve the draw?

The mentioned cases are just a handful of examples, other variants exist, too many to count. Sure, some theoretical knowledge of endgames wouldn’t hurt to help decide whether or not to go into an inferior endgame, but applying the decision-making process described in this book will suffice in the vast majority of cases. c. The arising endgame position is theoretically lost, but (a) the opponent is required to play accurately, or (b) we have enough activity to create practical, yet unsound, complications. Well, dear student, what can we say about this option? Sadly, if this is the only lifeline you have left, you definitely have hit rock bottom. However, this doesn’t mean that you’ve already lost.

The main idea in going into this type of plan is that however bad the situation is, there is still some practical chance. Either you can retain activity, in which case the possible complications (even if unsound) require a high level of accuracy by the opponent to prove that your position is really lost, or of course another reason to execute this kind of plan can again be the opponent’s time trouble. It is important to stress that this method of playing isn’t appropriate in most positions. We are talking about desperate situations, but dealing with these situations in a planned and practical way that doesn’t lead to a straightforward loss. In other words, we are reluctant to resign, and we want to make it as hard as possible for the opponent to win, creating as many hurdles as possible for him to clear. Hopefully, reading this book you will help you avoid these situations altogether; take this as your final doomsday weapon.

Diagram 13.12- white was just about ready to reach his hand in resignation when he saw one last trick. He noticed his king is trapped if there is no e3 pawn, and imagined a stalemate. He calculated: Rf4+! …Rxf4, exf4 and black has to find the only move …Bg1! Winning the game. Though the variation is refuted, black has to solve this position correctly or else white will get his stalemate; definitely worth a shot, though keep in mind that this just a “cheap trick”, and under normal circumstances we would never design our game hoping for the opponent to miss something. Challenge: what would be the assessment of the position if there were no pawn on e3?

And to conclude the “Concrete Solution” chapter:

The Final Design Having found the plan, we have a general guideline of what its execution will look like on the board. Now it’s time to apply the final polish, perfecting the plan and making sure it’s fully applicable. Move Order Confirmation Basically, our plan consists of a list of moves we placed in a certain initial order when we came up with the solution. At this stage, we will confirm or change the move order based on urgency and priorities of importance. We will apply a final touch by double- checking the initial move order we thought about and making changes if necessary. When inspecting the move order, the basic ideas are for the plan to provide an answer to as many goals as possible, while being as compact as possible. In other words, we prefer shorter plans that reach our goals faster.

Diagram 13.13- among black’s goals is to activate the f8 bishop, deal with the d6 weakness, and see if it’s possible to take advantage of the c file pressure. Basically, these goals can be achieved if the d6 pawn could be pushed. Now we need to decide the best way to carry out this raw idea of pushing the pawn. Option 1: Red8 and push d5, with enough support for the advancing pawn. Option 2: black considered whether the Red8 preparatory move can be avoided, what if …d5 immediately? Let’s see if it passes the safety check: …d5, exd5 …Nxd5! using the fact that the b3 bishop is tied down to c2. All the goals are achieved as fast as possible without unnecessary delays or preparations. Challenge: does it work for white to respond to …d5 with g4 and a kingside pawn storm?

This final look also allows us a last chance to see if there are any improvements that can be made to the initial design -- maybe we can shorten the plan, include another goal, or just improve the effects

of each move on the positional criteria. “Plan B” Sometimes the opponent’s possible responses might obstruct our original move order. The opponent might have in- between tactical moves, he might create unsound threats, or he might just change the position so that the original plan will no longer apply as a solution to the goals.

Diagram 13.14.1- from the observation, it becomes clear that white’s main goal will be to activate his bishop pair, since currently the position is closed. The first idea that came to white’s mind was f3, forcing black to capture …exf3 (or else the e4 pawn is lost), Bxf3 with strong pressure on d5 that can’t be solved and a future possibility of e4 activating the dark square bishop. When analyzing his idea to make sure it withstands possible deviations by the opponent, white found that after Bxf3 black has Bh6:

Diagram 13.14.2- after Bh6 it’s not good for white to win the d5 pawn: Nxd5 …Rxc1+, Rxc1 …Nxd5, Bxd5 …Nxd4!

Diagram 13.14.3- the e3 pawn is pinned to the d2 bishop, therefore white’s whole idea was flawed, due to this Bh6 reply. Since after Bh6 the pressure white has in the center is practically not meaningful and the e3 pawn can’t advance, we can say that the plan was mostly refuted by black. The conclusion- this plan wasn’t robust enough. As a result, since all the moves were designed to achieve one main goal and most involved a concession (overall the greatest concession was weakening the central pawn structure, with a backward pawn on an open file- e3), the goal wasn’t reached and we ended up in a worse position. A robust plan, made of multi-purpose moves and advancing more than one goal, would have resulted in an improved position even if some of the goals weren’t met.

To deal with this possibility, we will try to find a robust plan with multi-purpose moves, instead of a narrow plan with a single purpose, or a plan in which every move has only a single purpose.

Diagram 13.14.4- back to the drawing board. In the original position, white now tries to find another solution to the goals mentioned. This time, he looks for a plan that would include more of his goals, a more robust plan. The new idea is to play Na4-Nb6, Bb4 and then prepare the ground for Bd1-Ba4 or Bb3. (The order is still to be determined, right now it’s more of a brainstorm to find robust ideas that will withstand black’s responses.) This plan is not vulnerable to black’s responses, because it creates more options for white to make progress, and it contains no concession moves that address only one specific goal. Challenge: decide upon an accurate move order for the suggested plan in diagram 13.14.4, and make sure it survives possible black

replies.

A calculation is also necessary; first to find the opponent’s possible obstructing ideas, and then to see how we can meet those obstructions with minimal changes to our plan. Remember: changing the moves that make up your plan will always be a concession, unless the alternatives shorten the plan or increase its effectiveness in achieving the goals. Therefore, if a change to our original design is necessary as a result of the opponent’s actions, we will first try to change only the move order. Only if this isn’t enough will we start looking for alternatives to the moves themselves.

Diagram 13.15- black’s original plan is to play …Nf6-Nh5, forcing Bh2 and continue with …f4-fxe3 and possibly Qc5 to put pressure on the created weakness on e3. …Nf6 was played, white responded with Nc3. Before continuing with his move order, black has to reassess the safety of his position and his intended move Nh5. Black noticed that Nd5 is threatened, with a double attack on c7 and an attack on the queen. This also makes it more difficult to push …f4. Having identified the threat, black decided to add an extra move to his plan, to play …c6 in response to Nc3, intending to proceed with the original plan right after. Challenge: was adding the extra move a concession? Could a solution to the threat be achieved using the moves that made up the original plan?

The Safety Check As always, the absolutely last stage is to make sure that we did not allow the opponent any new dangerous tactics. This is the “Safety Check” stage, a kind of update to threats analysis focusing on the move we are about to play. This stage must be carried out before playing any move in chess, just like threats analysis is done first thing when receiving a position.

Diagram 13.16.1- in this position reclaiming space in the center is one of white’s goals. White came up with a plan, to play e4. Before actually executing the plan, he must reach the point of quiescence of the arising variation and make sure that his plan, which can result in a tactical variation (a series of exchanges on e4), is safe to play. His calculation went like this: e4 …dxe4, Nxe4 …Nxe4, and Qxe4.

Diagram 13.16.2- however, when he recalculated just to be on the safe side, he noticed that the end point of his calculation wasn’t really quiescence; after Qxe4 black has …f5; this way black not only retains the space advantage but also gets initiative and kingside

attacking chances. Therefore, the e4 move simply doesn’t pass the safety check, because it enables black to improve his position at white’s expense. White has to find a way to change his plan to be safe or to come up with a different plan altogether to answer the goal. Challenge: can you help white find an improvement to his plan? How can his goal (reclaiming space in the center) be achieved in a safe way?

Summary of the final design:

And finally, we can describe the whole plan creation process:

Illustration Examples – Plans Beginner level Opening Ruslan Ponomariov- Alexander Grischuk, U12 world championship, Szeged 1994

Back to observation | Back to goals

Possible plans:

1. …dxc5 (beginning a tactical variation, we need to calculate until quiescence thus also performing a safety check), e5 (not the most forcing, but here the most forcing lines are not dangerous: Qxd8 …Rxd8) …Qxd1, Bxd1 …Ng4;

Overall looks reasonable for black, goals answered: it only solved the threat and took advantage of the hanging c5 pawn. Drawbacks: enabled white to close the g7 bishop’s diagonal with a tempo on the f6 knight. 2. We notice that the knight on c3 is the only defender of the weak e4 pawn. Based on that, let’s see if active tactical counterplay will work in this position: …Qa5!? , if white tries to win material: cxd6 …Nxe4! , dxe7 …Re8

White is two pawns up, but he is going to lose at least both of them; e7 is hanging and a double capture on c3 is threatened, after which white will also have a weak c2 pawnblack is doing better here. But what if white doesn’t try to win material? …Qa5, 0-0 …Qxc5+, Kh1;

This position is roughly equal, black is doing absolutely ok with no apparent drawbacks from playing the suggested line. And what about the benefits? Black answered the threat, and on top of that he satisfied all four of his secondary goals. The above two plans are all the possible options to answer the threat successfully, and based on the benefits and drawbacks of each plan we will chose the second plan, since even in the worst case scenario we are doing just fine and we answer our goals. What happened in the game? In the game the young Grischuk did play the second plan with Qa5, and achieved the equal position described in variation 2 of plan 2.

Middlegame

Maia Chiburdanidze- Elizbar Ubilava, Soviet Union team championship, Tbilisi 1976

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: For us to achieve the first goal, taking advantage of the f7 weakness, we need to make the f6 knight move or somehow eliminate it and create a connection to f7 at the same time. Just capturing on f6 doesn’t help, as the opponent takes back with the bishop and still no connection to f7. For the opponent to be able to move his f6 knight he needs to protect f7 one more time, let’s suppose …Rf8, but then Bxf6 …Bxf6 and Nd7 shatters black’s defenses (fork on f8 and f6). So, the opponent will not be able to unpin and move the knight successfully, therefore we suspect already that his position might be damaged beyond repair; that would mean a winning advantage to white. But still, how to convert these notions into real progress towards the win? So the knight can’t move, can we weaken it further in order to actually threaten winning it?

Well, we can’t do anything about the e7 bishop. But what about the g7 pawn? If it’s not on g7 the knight is lost. Nice! Push the h pawn all the way to h6 and capture on g7! This also seriously exposes black’s king. Going to h7 instead of hxg7 is also possible, drawing the king out into h7:

And finishing with Bxf6 and Qh5-Qxf7-Rh3:

Now, let’s confirm the final design. The most important question is “how can our opponent try to spoil our plan”? A close look shows us that there is nothing he can do. This is due to the fact that his position is tied down to f7 and f6. This plan answers the first two goals, taking advantage of the problems black has on f6 and f7. There are no drawbacks or risk factors to this plan. Therefore, h4! All the way to h6 as described above! hat happened in the game?

White did play h4 all the way to h7, and black resigned in a position as described in our plan of pushing to h7.

Endgame Jose Raul Capablanca- Alexander Alekhine, New York 1924

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plan: Black looks for a way to restrict white on the kingside, stopping him from gaining the outside passed pawn. Since we are trying to keep the position equal, let’s look at the most obvious (and in this case forcing) idea- …Rh8! , g3 is forced. Now, to keep our rook active and not just as a passive defender of the h file we can try activate it across the fifth rank: …Rh5! And we can even start threatening white’s weak pawns.

The arising position is equal, as white can’t make progress to try convert his extra pawn. For example, if Rh2 (threatening g4) we can use the active rook with …Ra5! And if then g4, …Ke5! And we are doing great, black is the one who is going to win material now with Ra3-Rxa2 or Ra3-Kxe4:

What happened in the game? Rh8 was indeed played, and the game ended eventually in a draw as white couldn’t’ make any progress to realize his material advantage.

Intermediate level Opening Roman Dzindzichashvili- Andrew Soltis, Chicago open 1992

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: First of all, for us to solve a threat we must dig deep to the root of the problem. Here, the source of the problem, what makes dxc6 dangerous is that d6 is undefended. Therefore, solving the secondary goal may also be the best solution for the threat itself. Not always though, since sometimes the best solution would be to create a threat of your own, if possible. Here it’s not the case, we can’t create any dangerous tactical motifs. In general, dealing with a weakness can be done through two main approaches: Directly reinforce the weakness. Deprive the opponent of any way to take advantage of the weakness. In this scenario, the weakness remains theoretically weak (an unprotected pawn, for example), but there is no access for the opponent to use our weakness. Therefore, practically it’s not weak anymore.

Let’s see which of these approaches can work in the given position.

Plan 1 Since there is a threat, let’s start with the most forcing attempts. …cxd5; if the opponent takes back with either pawn black is fine, since this will prevent any access by white to the d6 weakness along the previously open d file. Therefore, to test this line we need to look at continuations by white in which the d file stays open. Nxd5 is the only attempt white has to keep the file open. Continuing the most forcing lines- …Nxd5, Qxd5 …Nf6, Qd3 (or a similar retreat):

A roughly equal position arises, in which d6 is still weak but rather easy to defend. Plus, now there is counter play with …b5 (white’s attempt to win material on b5 will enable …Ba6). Therefore, if the most challenging line for this solution is fine for black we can conclude the solution is ok. Benefits- an active solution to the threat and the secondary goal (it’s easy to defend the pawn on d6 more times now). Drawbacks- pawn structure-wise, the d6 pawn can still come under heavy pressure. Though as mentioned, won’t be so easy for white to overcome possible defenders of d6 (and at the same time keep protecting the weak e4 pawn).

Plan 2 …Qe7, safety check- dxc6 …bxc6;

Black’s position is safe, with easy natural future development (Nc5-Bg4-Rb8). Same applies for … Qc7 as the first move. Benefits- Answered both the threat and the secondary goal. Drawbacks- no specific drawbacks besides not being a particularly active solution.

Plan 3 …c5!?

Closing the center completely, removing any possibility for white to access d6, thus solving the threat and the secondary goal. Benefits- solving the threat and secondary goal. Drawbacks- The position becomes cramped for black, as the d7 knight has no good improvement

square and the g7 bishop seems to be closed for good. Besides these drawbacks, the solution is also very passive, and it’s hard to imagine how black can create any activity in the game. Conclusion: We can discard plan 3 due to its multiple drawbacks. Basically both plans 1 and 2 achieve the same goals with practically no serious drawbacks- the difference is in the approach. Plan 1 is more active, and leads to a position in which black has concrete ideas to generate beneficial activity as described. Plan 2 is quieter, and enables natural completion of development. To conclude, objectively both are roughly equal in strength, it comes down to a matter of taste for the black player. My personal favorite is plan 1, because black attempts to take the initiative in that line. What happened in the game? Surprisingly, Soltis played c5, giving Dzindzi a very active game which he eventually managed to win.

Middlegame Efim Geller- Mikhail Tal, Candidates 1962

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: Let’s start with a single goal, and then see if we can apply the plan we find in such way that also answers other goals, for example by adding moves to the original sequence or altering the move order. Plan 1 Qd2- trying to put pressure on the weak d6 pawn; …Nc4! With a tempo on the queen looks good for black. Therefore, let’s put this plan aside at least for the moment, and we will get back to it only if we can’t find anything better or if we can find a good way to prepare it. Plan 2 Rac1- answering two defensive goals in one move, defending c2 and finding a role for the a1 rook, though a somewhat passive one. Safety check: Rac1 …Nc4, white is forced to go Rb1 (if b3 …Nb2!),

having just played Rc1- very awkward, plus it’s black who improves while white just shuffles his rook back and forth. The point of quiescence is ok for white though (having played Rb1). Plan 3 If Nc4 is so annoying in all the plans we checked so far, due to the threat on b2, why not Rab1 in the first place, getting rid of that problem first? Rab1; safety check: …Nc4 is the most challenging move black had so far, though now it’s clearly not a problem, white is not forced to respond in any way. However, keeping in mind our goal of solving the c2 weakness, Nc4 now actually allows white to execute a very clever though unnatural-looking idea. Before we look at it, remember: it’s never important how a move looks, we care only about what it achieves! This is the basic concept of objectivity in chess. Now let’s look at the position after Rb1 …Nc4:

How can we solve our most important (since it’s the most crippling) defensive goal of solving the c2 weakness? Prepare to push it! And here, …Nc4 came in very handy to white for that purpose. It enables Na2! After which either c3 or even b3-c4 can be played solving the main defensive goal. Therefore, we can conclude that …Nc4 after Rab1 is actually good for white, and so we managed to prepare the ground for the solution of the other goals. Following Rab1 white can then continue with Qd2, for example, in a position where …Nc4 is not so strong anymore.

Conclusion: Rab1 creates a prophylactic role for the A file rook, enabling white to easily answer the remaining goals. Though we couldn’t’ directly connect attacking and defensive goals into a single plan, we did so indirectly; solving the defensive goal of finding a role for the A file rook enabled an easier and more effective solution to the offensive goal. What happened in the game? Fima (Efim) Geller played Rdc1, a more passive approach, in which the benefit is clear- reinforcing c2. However the main drawback is shutting the door on the offensive goal of pressuring d6, therefore settling for a less active game.

Endgame David Bronstein- Tigran Petrosian, Portoroz interzonal 1958

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: Plan 1 We can prevent a6 by playing …a6 ourselves. In that case the opponent will have a permanently protected passed b6 pawn. Though it’s an advantage to white, it still must be proven that the b6 pawn will not be blockaded. Plan 2 Let’s see if we can create the same situation as in plan 1, but where the b6 pawn will be an isolated pawn instead of a protected one. …axb6, axb6 and now …Nc5 bringing the knight to influence b7 and blockading the b6 pawn:

The arising position is roughly equal; the b pawn is blockaded and black has his own passed pawn for white to blockade. And what if …axb6, Nxb6 instead? This is even easier for black to deal with, since the a pawn is more easily blockaded with …Ra7:

The same conclusion applies if white doesn’t recapture on b but pushes a6 immediately (…axb6, a6?! …Ra7). So we can conclude, based on the effects of the two suggested plans, that plan 2 keeps the position equal, since in that scenario white doesn’t have a clear advantage or progress, effectively solving the threat completely together with the secondary goals. What happened in the game? Very surprisingly, in the game Petrosian played …Nc5 immediately, without first capturing on b6. This is of course a big blunder as it doesn’t solve the a6 threat. After a6 black would have been completely lost since now he would need to sacrifice material to stop the pawn:

Even more surprisingly, and probably due to time pressure (it’s move 39 in the game, just before the second time control), a6 wasn’t played. Instead, after …Nc5 white played Ne5. And after …Rb7 the game was shortly drawn! What a narrow lucky escape for Petrosian!

Advanced level Opening Viktor Kortschnoj- Anatoly Karpov, Cheliabinsk 1962

Back to observation | Back to goals

A number of approaches could be used in such a situation as above, in which we want to prevent the opponent from solving his space problem. Plans:

1. We can completely avoid any exchanges by removing our knight from d4. This way white keeps the current space advantage, but at what cost? For example, Nf3 is actually a concession- the knight is worse. Plus, black can then try Ne5 with a double attack, practically refuting the basic idea behind the knight retreat. Other retreats of the d4 knight are even more passive and damaging to the quality of our pieces, such as Nb3 or Ne2. In conclusion, the plan to completely avoid exchanges fails here, and should therefore be discarded.

2. If avoiding exchanging any pieces at all is impossible, let’s see if we can minimize the number of exchanges. The analysis from plan 1 showed us that the d4 knight needs to stay on d4. In that case, we don’t want to enable any additional possible exchanges for black to force on us besides the knights exchange. As for the knights exchange itself, it’s not so bad for white since it develops white’s queen. We just need to make sure that black won’t have a follow up capture. If so, the b5 bishop has to move away; but where? First thing that comes to mind is Bc4, putting it on a nice open diagonal. What drawbacks could there be in that? Well, first let’s see if it passes the safety check: Bc4 …Nxd4, Qxd4 and let’s examine the straight forward improving move …Bc6:

Besides just improving the light squared bishop, black also keeps his sights on e4; here, actually, there is an immediate threat of another forced sequence of exchanges beginning with …Nxe4 and then …d5 to regain the piece. Therefore, white now has to prepare for this new threat. For that, let’s identify the source of the threat. It’s the bishop on c4because of its location, the future move …d5 is a fork. All that gives us second thoughts about placing the bishop on c4 in the first place; and if we think of it, what exactly does the bishop have to do there? Yes, it’s on an open diagonal, but the bishop has no activity on that diagonal or any real effect on the game, other than the positive effect for black that we found. So, we now see that the bishop doesn’t belong on c4 at all. Where should it go then in the original given position? d3 hangs the d4 knight, e2 blocks our e1 rook; what’s left is f1isn’t it just passive? Well, yes, Bf1 is passive. However, passivity in this case is exactly what achieves our goal! The piece is not placed well on any other square as we have proved above, therefore it should be “put in storage” for later activation, and for now it should not disturb other pieces or be a vulnerability. One of the main principles of objectivity in chess is that we don’t care how a move looks, whether it’s passive or active, as long as it achieves our goals in the best way. Keep this in mind, and you will not be distracted by visual effects and prejudice- your

only guide should be your goals when you consider a plan! What happened in the game? Viktor did play Bf1, retaining a small advantage over white.

Middlegame Eugene Znosko-Borovsky- Max Euwe, London BCF congress 1922

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: Since there is a threat, we will take a look at the most forcing candidate solutions first.

1. Rxg7+ …Kxg7, Qg5+ …Ng6;

Practical point of quiescence, we can see that we can’t get enough compensation for the sacrificed rook since none of the continuations has any successful attacking chances or any way to regain material. Conclusion- Rxg7+ can’t be played. 2. Qxe5 …Ng6, and …Qxc3 follows any of white’s responses. This plan is unplayable as well. 3. Bxf6 …Qxf6, and white has enough time to improve the c3 knight with a tempo, effectively solving all the threats: Ne4. Now the d6 square is an outpost for white, and after black’s queen moves away from harm, white will have a decision to make- occupy d6 with the knight or with the rook?

…Qc6, now let’s look at both options: a. Nd6 gives black an in-between tempo …Nd5!, Qh6!? …g6, Nxc8 …Rxc8:

Black is better at the practical point of quiescence above. Though material is roughly equal, black’s pieces are much more active. b. Rd6 with a clever idea in mind: …Qxc2, Nf6+!

…Kf8, Nxe8 …Rxe8; at this practical point of quiescence material is again roughly equal, only this time it’s white’s pieces that are more active. Therefore, we can confidently assess the arising position as a small advantage for white, taking into account the activity of black’s queen against white’s weak queenside pawns. Overall, plan 3 answers all the secondary goals, and of course it solves black’s threats. This would therefore be the solution to the given position. What happened in the game? Znosko-Borowsky did choose plan 3, however variation A. Nevertheless, black did not respond best as suggested with Nd5 but Ng6, reaching a roughly equal position which white eventually managed to win.

Endgame Ilya Smirin- Mikhail Shereshevsky, Sokolsky memorial 1985

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: As usual, since there is a threat we will start with the most forcing potential solutions first.

1. …Rh3, if Bxg6 …Rxf3+ therefore instead- Be4; the threat is stopped for now, however black is still rather passive and white will be able to activate his king. 2. …Rh5!?, Bxg6 …Rxb5, cxb5:

Black returns the extra material for compensation- a very active king and activation of the passive knight. …Kd5!, but is this enough compensation? Yes! Now black is active and white is defending. White has weaknesses on b5, b3, and f3all his pawns are weak! We can therefore imagine a “dream position” in which our knight reaches d4 and attacks all of white’s weaknesses; white can’t defend them all since he would need the bishop on c6 or e2 for that- impossible due to the knight on d4.

As a result of the vision given above, white is already strategically lost. In this plan, black also manages to answer all of his secondary goals. What happened in the game? The second plan was actually chosen by the endgame maestro Shereshevsky, using his activated pieces to win the game.

Expert level Opening Kurnosov Igor- Bartolomiej Macieja, Nakhchivan open 2013

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans:

1. Prepare Nbd2 and move the queen without risking a broken kingside pawn structure. For example d3-Nbd2-Qc2 setup, black can’t stop us from reaching it. This plan would achieve both goals but it is unambitious and not exactly active; these are “half-drawbacks”, since basically we are saying the plan achieves the goals but makes life easy for the opponent, not creating any practical problems for him to solve. We will take these half-drawbacks into account only if we find a competing plan which looks more active. 2. Perhaps we could create possible development for the queenside pieces while taking over the center with d4: …cxd4, cxd4 …Bxf3, and if we don’t want to ruin our kingside pawn structure- Qxf3 …Nxd4; we lose a pawn with no compensation, the plan doesn’t pass the safety check.

3. What if we choose the most direct way to solve the knight pin? Let’s look at g4: …Bg6 for now we have addressed the first goal, d4!? trying to address the second goal. Let’s look at two possibilities for black- capture on e4 (with the bishop or the knight) and cxd4:

a. …Nxe4, d5! …Nb8 (or anywhere else, it wouldn’t change the conclusion we are about to reach), Rxe4 …Bxe4, Qa4+ forking the king and the e4 bishop. Overall white gives a rook and a pawn for two minor pieces, and also gets a superior position at the point of quiescence. b. …Bxe4, Rxe4 …Nxe4, d5 trying to do the same as in variation A; but …Nxf2! If the knight is lost after the queen fork on a4 as in variation A, let it at least take another pawn:

And after Kxf2 …Nb8; this time white has given two pawns and a rook for black’s two minor pieces. However, in this case white’s development advantage is greater. So far, both variations favored white. Let’s look at the remaining option, cxd4.

c. …cxd4, cxd4:

From here, black can choose a similar variation as in lines A and B capturing on e4, and the conclusion will remain the same. If he doesn’t, we have reached quiescence with a good position. To conclude plan 3, it achieves both goals and keeps white very active and fighting hard for the initiative. For this reason, it should be preferred over plan 1. What happened in the game? Igor Kurnosov did choose plan 3, and black chose to follow variation “b”. White emerged after the variation as we calculated with a small but noticeable advantage, and proceeded eventually to win the game with the help of his active minor pieces while keeping his opponent’s rooks passive.

Middlegame Magnus Carlsen- Hikaru Nakamura, Biel 2012

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: Let’s try first to address the g7 bishop issue. f6 shouldn’t be pushed due to the pawn structure weaknesses it would create, the h6-c1 diagonal is already taken. We could try to fight for it going h5Kh7-Bh6; but this idea sadly fails to pass the safety check, because after …h5, e5! And the whole kingside opens for black since g6 hangs and then h5 hangs as well. As happens many times, while trying to find a solution to the existing goals, we identify another goal; white dominates the open c file, and here we notice that to contest for it we need another supporting factor for the c7 square, so we could put our rook there and have it defended twice. Can we combine this goal with the goal of activating our g7 bishop? What if we could put the bishop on d8? In that case, we would have the option to go Rc7 and equalize the position, getting rid of white’s major advantage- controlling the c file. Until the bishop reaches d8, any invasion of the white rook to c8 can be met easily with the help of our rook, or going Kg7.

This plan would answer all the goals apart from taking advantage of the dark square weaknesses in white’s camp, which anyway can’t be done until we activate the g7 bishop. So, let’s go! Bf8-e7-d8-Rc7; this way we would solve all of our positional problems. What happened in the game? Hikaru did play Bf8, and the bishop has travelled a long way reaching d8 as we had planned. Eventually this solution to black’s problem on the c file and the passivity of his pieces held the draw, dissolving white’s advantage.

Endgame Vassily Smyslov- Lajos Portisch, Reggio-Emilia 1986

Back to observation | Back to goals

Plans: White fights for survival; the c pawn is unstoppable, therefore it’s clear already that the d2 bishop will have to be sacrificed at some point. Therefore, it all comes down to creating the best counter chances for white. If white captured black’s hanging pawns on a7 AND h4, he gets two passed pawns. On top of that, white’s king is very active in supporting the g pawn’s future queening effort. To conclude this line of thought, white wants to get three pawns for the d2 bishop (c3 which is currently the c4 pawn, h4 and a7). This will give black two problems to deal with, queening of two pawns A and g. Since white can rush the g pawn very quickly forward, and the A pawn is already almost there as it is, this plan should be at least enough to draw. This is mainly since black’s remaining pawn on d5 is going to be very slow to move towards any progress. The question that remains is which move order to choose- what to capture first, a7 or h4? Again, white has to be certain that his choice will enable him to quickly capture both h4 and a7. White

should put his selected move order to the test by searching for ways black can at least significantly delay the capture of the second pawn, whichever pawn white chooses to capture first. Plan 1 Let’s start with a7: Rxa7, looking at forcing lines first we find …Nf2+! And white can’t capture on h4Kxh4 …Rh8+! And whichever square the king chooses next move black wins white’s bishop for free with Ne4+.

Therefore, the only response to Nf2+ is Kh2, severely delaying the h4 capture and ruining the counter play planned with the g pawn.

Plan 2 What about taking on h4 first then? The a7 pawn can wait, since to protect it black has to let go of the c3 idea. Therefore, we can say the a7 pawn is ours anyway. Consequently, Kxh4 immediately keeps white’s hopes for activity of the two passed pawns alive, and results in a practically drawn position: Kxh4 …c3 (other options such as …Rg8 are also possible, however the greatest challenge to this system we chose is losing the bishop. Otherwise the position is just dynamically equal anyway with equal material and activity for both sides), Bxc3 (there is actually another interesting option hereRb3 and if …cxd2, Rxd3 stopping the pawn from queening, looks equal, therefore) …Rxc3, Rxa7:

Black’s rook will now be tied down to hold the A pawn from queening, and the king and knight will be trying to stop the g pawn. But the king alone will not suffice due to the activity of the white rook, and the knight alone will be attacked and repeatedly forced to move away. This will leave black no time to create progress of his own eliminating d4 and pushing his remaining pawn. However, since this scenario requires a bit more calculation, we can prefer the previously suggested Rb3 instead of Bxc3, resulting in an equal position immediately: Kxh4 …c3, Rb3!

White threatens to get an advantage with Rxc3, so …cxd2, Rxd3 …Rc2 with an equal position. In summary, we can safely conclude that plan 2 saves white and is the best choice. What happened in the game?

Smyslov also considered the two possibilities, plans 1 and 2, but reached a wrong decision; Rxa7 was played! But to his fortune, black didn’t punish him with Nf2+ which as we have seen refutes plan 1. Instead Portisch played …c3 immediately and this enabled white to eventually transpose to the drawing lines of plan 2.

Congratulations! Well, that’s it- you’ve made it! Now you know how to apply the process of decision making in chess on your own, in an independent and practical way. Now, it’s time to practice it- extensively, until it sinks in fully and your chess brain rewires to incorporate the thinking method presented in this book. The more aspects of this book that you take into account in your games (whether at first consciously or eventually intuitively and sub-consciously), the greater your edge will be over your opponents. And, the more you practice it, more and more parts of it will become intuitive to you, without requiring your conscious effort. The suggested process application is designed to be used in ANY situation- over the board, in standard or blitz time controls, in online live or correspondence games, any form of chess you can imagine. The reason for that is that you decide how to use it- take each aspect into account separately at first, while practicing, base some conclusions and observations on experience you have gained practicing the application, eventually reaching the point where most of the process is already completed with your quick first look at a position, following well-trodden paths carved into that graymatter up there. The final destination to be reached in applying the decision-making process is leaving only the tactical calculation parts to the conscious mind. The rest, as if you have Iron Man’s helmet on, is done for you- just like changing gears while driving in a manual car, or even simply walking- you only calculate, the brain does the rest for you automatically. The next chapters of the book provide printable work pages, divided into learning work sheets for getting fully acquainted with the decision-making process, and sheets for more experienced users to keep up their practice. I suggest that you solve at least 30 positions (any positions of your choice) using the learning sheets, then keep using the practice sheets until you feel completely comfortable with the method- no less than 20 positions. Naturally, the more positions you solve using the new method you studied, the more capable you will become in doing it independently, in real situations such as OTB. This way you will also study which shortcuts you can afford to make, within your current comprehension of the studied material, and which parts you will need to reinforce. I wish you great success with your new chess skills- go out there and show them what you’ve got, Tiger!

Appendix Learning Work Pages Stage 1- observation: The position is more tactical/strategic (circle the correct type). Critical squares ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. ____- usability: _____________________________________________________. Threats analysis Immediate candidate threats by the opponent (checks, captures, pressure): ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses after it happens: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is it a real threat that requires preparation in advance, or can we handle it after it happens? Threat/ not a threat (circle the correct classification). ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses after it happens: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is it a real threat that requires preparation in advance, or can we handle it after it happens? Threat/ not a threat (circle the correct classification). ____________________________________________________________;

Possible responses after it happens: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is it a real threat that requires preparation in advance, or can we handle it after it happens? Threat/ not a threat (circle the correct classification). ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses after it happens: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is it a real threat that requires preparation in advance, or can we handle it after it happens? Threat/ not a threat (circle the correct classification). ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses after it happens: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is it a real threat that requires preparation in advance, or can we handle it after it happens? Threat/ not a threat (circle the correct classification). Long term candidate threats by the opponent (pawn storms, dangerous piece-setups, preparations for tactics) - we will imagine a number of moves in a row for the opponent based on the three categories mentioned above in brackets, and then we shall see in case the outcome is bad for us whether we can refute them, or, in case we can’t, whether we should prepare for them in advance.

___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; has the suggested sequence, played only by the opponent, improved his position considerably? Yes/No (circle the correct answer) If yes, this time taking into account our possible counter-ideas, can we refute the opponent’s long term threat? ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Did your refutation succeed? Yes/No therefore, is the threat real? Yes/No (circle) ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; has the suggested sequence, played only by the opponent, improved his position considerably? Yes/No (circle the correct answer) If yes, this time taking into account our possible counter-ideas, can we refute the opponent’s long

term threat? ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Did your refutation succeed? Yes/No therefore, is the threat real? Yes/No (circle) ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; has the suggested sequence, played only by the opponent, improved his position considerably? Yes/No (circle the correct answer). If yes, this time taking into account our possible counter-ideas, can we refute the opponent’s long term threat? ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Did your refutation succeed? Yes/No therefore, is the threat real? Yes/No (circle) ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; has the suggested sequence, played only by the opponent, improved his position considerably? Yes/No (circle the correct answer). If yes, this time taking into account our possible counter-ideas, can we refute the opponent’s long term threat? ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Did your refutation succeed? Yes/No therefore, is the threat real? Yes/No (circle) ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; has the suggested sequence, played only by the opponent, improved his position considerably? Yes/No (circle the correct answer). If yes, this time taking into account our possible counter-ideas, can we refute the opponent’s long term threat? ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Did your refutation succeed? Yes/No therefore, is the threat real? Yes/No (circle) To conclude threats analysis, there are __ (number of) real threats in the given position: ____________________________________________________________. ____________________________________________________________. ____________________________________________________________. ____________________________________________________________. ____________________________________________________________.

Remember, whether we did or did not find threats, we will continue anyway to the positional observation stage (later on, as discussed in the next sheets). The reason, as we studied, is in case of a threat we want to identify our secondary goals, and in case we are safe we want to establish our goals in the position.

Our tactical opportunities Regardless of the observations made so far, sometimes there is an obvious tactical shot available for us, based on a hanging piece, a weak square, possible forks, etc. Let’s take a look to make sure we are on the right track, not missing any obvious winning shots that can save us the need to go through most of the rest of the process. We will look only at immediate tactics, since long term tactics involve having a plan based on goals. Immediate tactical opportunities: ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses available to the opponent: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Considering the opponent’s best response, how did our position improve (if at all)? ____________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is this possible threat we can generate easy/difficult/impossible (circle the correct classification) for the opponent to deal with? ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses available to the opponent: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Considering the opponent’s best response, how did our position improve (if at all)? _____________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is this possible threat we can generate easy/difficult/impossible (circle the correct classification) for the opponent to deal with? ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses available to the opponent: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________.

Considering the opponent’s best response, how did our position improve (if at all)? _________________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is this possible threat we can generate easy/difficult/impossible (circle the correct classification) for the opponent to deal with? ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses available to the opponent: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Considering the opponent’s best response, how did our position improve (if at all)? _________________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is this possible threat we can generate easy/difficult/impossible (circle the correct classification) for the opponent to deal with? ____________________________________________________________; Possible responses available to the opponent: ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________________________. Considering the opponent’s best response, how did our position improve (if at all)? ________________________________________________________________. Conclusion- is this possible threat we can generate easy/difficult/impossible (circle the correct classification) for the opponent to deal with? If you’ve found a successful tactical resource, keep it in mind to compare with the plans you will develop later. The initiative As a final conclusion to the tactical observation part, and in case we have missed a resource for either side so far, does either player have a sequence of moves that can be played with a tempo? White: ____________________________________________________________; Is this a Good/Bad initiative? (circle)

____________________________________________________________; Is this a Good/Bad initiative? (circle) ____________________________________________________________; Is this a Good/Bad initiative? (circle) Black: ____________________________________________________________; Is this a Good/Bad initiative? (circle) ____________________________________________________________; Is this a Good/Bad initiative? (circle) ____________________________________________________________; Is this a Good/Bad initiative? (circle) According to the new findings, if there were any, these are the additional threats or tactical opportunities for us we have just found: Threats: ____________________________________________________________; ____________________________________________________________; ____________________________________________________________; Tactics at our disposal: ____________________________________________________________; ____________________________________________________________; ____________________________________________________________; Positional observation and goals Here we will look for characteristics of the position that we can “work with”, meaning taking advantage of benefits we have or of problems the opponent has, or dealing with our problems or the opponent’s benefits. Once an observation is made, we will ask if there is any way we can imagine we could work with it. No need to find complex plans at this stage, just to decide whether the observation should become a realistic goal or, if there is no imaginable way to work with this particular characteristic of the

position, it will not become a goal. Survey of the four positional criteria Does any side have a noticeable advantage that has a real effect on the game in any of the criteria (space, development, quality of pieces, material)? What specifically? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Solve the problem of:

_____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Now, let’s focus on certain specific observations that have a good chance to produce goals: Space Does either side have a considerable space advantage? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If yes, continue. If not, skip to the next positional criterion. Does it influence the opponent’s pieces’ mobility? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Does it create relevant better chances in the endgame, especially if we are close to the endgame stage? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Does it create useful outposts for the opponent’s pieces? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Is there any other aspect of the space advantage, that can be taken advantage of practically by the owner or that causes a real practical problem for the other side? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If you have circled “Yes” at least twice so far in this criterion, can you imagine any idea that will help you work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal.

Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Solve the problem of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Development Does either side have a development advantage of at least two tempos (i.e., two pieces developed more than the other player)? Yes/No. If yes, continue. If not, skip to the next positional criterion. Is the nature of the position tactical? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Does the side with the development advantage have the initiative? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Are there any pieces that will be hard to develop for either side? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Is there any other aspect of the development advantage, that can be taken advantage of practically by the owner or that causes a real practical problem for the other side? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If you have circled “Yes” at least twice so far in this criterion, can you imagine any idea that will help you work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal.

Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Solve the problem of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Quality of pieces Does either side have an especially bad (with no role or very vulnerable) or an especially strong piece? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Does either side have better influence of pieces on a certain part of the board (kingside, center, queenside)? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Does the side with the better pieces have the initiative? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Are there any pieces that will be hard to improve for either side? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Is there any other aspect of the quality of pieces advantage that can be taken advantage of practically by the owner, or that causes a real practical problem for the other side? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If you have circled “Yes” at least twice so far in this criterion, can you imagine any idea that will help you work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal.

Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Solve the problem of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Material Does either side have a material advantage? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If you’re behind in material, can you create more compensation? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If you’re ahead in material, can you decrease the opponent’s compensation? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ Are we close to or in the endgame? Yes/No. Is there any other aspect of the quality of pieces advantage that can be taken advantage of practically by the owner, or that causes a real practical problem for the other side? Yes/No. Detailed observation: _____________________________________________________________ If you have circled “Yes” at least twice so far in this criterion, can you imagine any idea that will help you work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal.

Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Solve the problem of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Features of the pawn structure Does either side have a noticeable pawn structure feature (weak pawns, weak pawn chains, powerful pawns, strong pawn chains, suitability of the structure to the type of pieces on the board, endgame planning features) that has a real effect on the game? What specifically? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals.

Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Solve the problem of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

Square weaknesses Does either side have a noticeable square weakness (single weak square, possible outpost, weak square complex, back rank weakness, tactical features of weaknesses) that has a real effect on the game? What specifically? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

Can we work with this observation? Yes/No (circle). If yes, add it to the list of goals.

Goals in total so far (in any position expect to have no more than four feasible goals in total. If you have more than that- though possible, double check yourself): Take advantage of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Solve the problem of: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

The plan Prioritizing goals Based on relevance and urgency, determine the priorities of your goals: _____________________________________________________________. _____________________________________________________________. _____________________________________________________________. _____________________________________________________________. _____________________________________________________________. The concrete solution Vision for us (a sequence of moves only played by us- if tactical, consider reasonable responses by the opponent) to solve goal 1 (you don’t necessarily have to use all seven moves): ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Vision for goal 2 (plan 2 outline): ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Vision for goal 3: ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Vision for goal 4: ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Vision for goal 5: ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Alternative solution for any of the goals: ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; In case no plan was found to solve any of our goals, can we apply practical methods (complications, deflections, game phase change)? Details: ________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ The final design Now let’s put the solution visions to the test of reality, taking into account possible refuting ideas by the opponent: Plan 1: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Can the opponent successfully refute our plan? Yes/No. if yes, let’s see if we can change the move order or change some of the moves to avoid the refuting ideas: Plan B: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Safety check: __________________________________________________________________; Passed/Failed Plan 2: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Can the opponent successfully refute our plan? Yes/No. if yes, let’s see if we can change the move order or change some of the moves to avoid the refuting ideas: Plan B: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Safety check: __________________________________________________________________; Passed/Failed Plan 3: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Can the opponent successfully refute our plan? Yes/No. if yes, let’s see if we can change the move order or change some of the moves to avoid the refuting ideas:

Plan B: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Safety check: __________________________________________________________________; Passed/Failed Plan 4: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Can the opponent successfully refute our plan? Yes/No. if yes, let’s see if we can change the move order or change some of the moves to avoid the refuting ideas: Plan B: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Safety check: __________________________________________________________________; Passed/Failed Plan 5: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Can the opponent successfully refute our plan? Yes/No. if yes, let’s see if we can change the move order or change some of the moves to avoid the refuting ideas: Plan B: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___; Safety check: __________________________________________________________________; Passed/Failed Alternative/additional plans: ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___; ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___;

Finally, the plan to be played immediately is: Vision - ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Concrete - ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___;

Practical Application Work Pages Use the following sheets to practice applying the decision making process in a real game. Observation Threats analysis: ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for us after the threat move is played? Yes/No. If not, regard as a real threat. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for us after the threat move is played? Yes/No. If not, regard as a real threat. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for us after the threat move is played? Yes/No. If not, regard as a real threat. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for us after the threat move is played? Yes/No. If not, regard as a real threat. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for us after the threat move is played? Yes/No. If not, regard as a real threat. Our tactical options: ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for the opponent after the tactical move is played? Yes/No. If not, add to our tactical options. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for the opponent after the tactical move is played? Yes/No. If not, add to our tactical options. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for the opponent after the tactical move is played? Yes/No. If not, add to our tactical options.

____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for the opponent after the tactical move is played? Yes/No. If not, add to our tactical options. ____________________________________________________________; Is there a successful response for the opponent after the tactical move is played? Yes/No. If not, add to our tactical options.

Positional observation

Workable features of the position:

Highlights of the four positional criteria ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. Pawn structure features ____________________________________________________________.

Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. Square weaknesses ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. ____________________________________________________________. Can you imagine a remotely possible way to work with the observation? Yes/No. If yes, the observation becomes a goal. Goals found so far (double check yourself in case you found more than four feasible goals- though it’s possible it would be very rare): Take advantage of: 1. _______________________________________________________.

2. 3. 4. 5.

_______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________.

Solve the problem of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

_______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________.

Other: 1. _______________________________________________________. 2. _______________________________________________________. 3. _______________________________________________________. Plans Solution to goal No.1: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Does it pass the safety check? Yes/No. (If not, or in case it can be refuted, try the plan B approach). Plan B: _________________________________________________________________ Solution to goal No.2: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Does it pass the safety check? Yes/No. (If not, or in case it can be refuted, try the plan B approach). Plan B:

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Solution to goal No.3: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Does it pass the safety check? Yes/No. (If not, or in case it can be refuted, try the plan B approach). Plan B: _________________________________________________________________ Solution to goal No.4: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Does it pass the safety check? Yes/No. (If not, or in case it can be refuted, try the plan B approach). Plan B: _________________________________________________________________ Solution to goal No.5: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Does it pass the safety check? Yes/No. (If not, or in case it can be refuted, try the plan B approach). Plan B: _________________________________________________________________ In case the goals can’t be achieved, and there is still no need to apply practical methods (complications, deflections, phase change), are any general improvement moves available? ___.

___. ___.

Finally, based on our OTB practical application of the decision making process, the chosen plan to be played immediately is: Vision - ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___; Concrete - ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___, ___ …___;

Meet the players – some background

Beginner level Opening Ruslan Ponomariov- Alexander Grischuk, U12 world championship, Szeged 1994

|Back to observation|

Ruslan is the youngest ever FIDE world champion; he earned the title at the age of 18, in 2002. His trophy showcase features (among many others) first place in Tal Memorial, Sparkassen Dortmund, and the Ukrainian championship. Ponomariov’s peak rating is 2764 FIDE elo points. His opponent Sasha (Alex) was the champion of Russia in 2009. He also won the prestigious Linares tournament that same year. On top of that, Grischuk is the 2-time world blitz champion, in 2006 and 2012. His top rating is 2786.

Middlegame Maia Chiburdanidze- Elizbar Ubilava, Soviet Union team championship, Tbilisi 1976

|Back to observation|

Maia is a legendary female player from Georgia, having reigned as the women’s world chess champion for 14 years in a row (1978-1991). At her best in the late 1980’s, she reached a 2560 rating. GM Ubilava, also from Georgia, is a world famous chess trainer and former champion of Georgia in 1974 and 1986. He trained Anand between 1994 and 2005. His top rating reached 2561, similarly to his opponent, although he reached his peak in chess ten years later.

Endgame Jose Raul Capablanca- Alexander Alekhine, New York 1924

|Back to observation|

These two chess legends don’t really need any introduction; Capa was world champion in the years 1921-1927, known especially for his accurate yet simple-looking universal style and his endgame capabilities. Alekhine won the world title from Capablanca in 1927 and held it until 1935, regaining it again in 1937, this time until 1946. He is known mostly for his attacking style, which incorporates great positional understanding and superb endgame skills.

Intermediate level Opening Roman Dzindzichashvili- Andrew Soltis, Chicago open 1992

|Back to observation|

GM Roman Dzindzichashvili is a world renowned chess coach and theoretician, and twice the US champion- in 1983 and again in 1989. Reaching a peak rating of 2595 in 1978, he won the prestigious Hastings chess festival against the most prominent players of the time. Andrew Soltis has authored more than 25 chess books from19 75 until today. He is also a columnist in a number of well-known papers and chess magazines. Winner of Reggio-Emilia in 1971, he became a chess grandmaster in 1980.

Middlegame Efim Geller- Mikhail Tal, Candidates 1962

|Back to observation|

Efim Geller was the champion of the Soviet Union twice (1955 and 1979), and was a world championship candidate six times. He earned a doctorate in chess education, and coached Spassky and Karpov. Remembered for his sharp tactical style, his peak rating was 2620 in 1976. Misha Tal became world champion in 1960, and was known mostly for his ultra-aggressive attacking style and his highly entertaining chess. Tal actually holds the world record for a winning streak- 95 games straight without a loss for a full year, between 1973and 1974.

Endgame David Bronstein- Tigran Petrosian, Portoroz interzonal 1958

|Back to observation|

Bronstein was the champion of the USSR twice, narrowly missing the world title against Botvinnik in 1951 by a tie. Author of some of the best chess books ever written, he believed in a romantic approach to chess and chess teaching- a true inspiration for everyone in this field! Tigran Petrosian was world champion in the years 1963-1969, and a four time champion of the USSR. He was known best for his python-like playing style, squeezing his opponents until they ran out of air while defending tenaciously. Regarded as the toughest player in history to beat, he lost only a single game out of 129 in all of the chess Olympiads he participated in.

Advanced level Opening Viktor Kortschnoj- Anatoly Karpov, Cheliabinsk 1962

|Back to observation|

Viktor is best known for not being a world champion; he is regarded as the strongest player ever not to hold the title. Four times the Soviet champion, he came second in two world title matches. Due to an open lack of support from the government before his first title match with Karpov, he eventually defected to the West in 1976. Anatoly Karpov was world champion from 1975 to 1985, then FIDE champion in the years 19931999. His common winning method was to outplay his opponents positionally and to convert small advantages into big wins.

Middlegame Eugene Znosko-Borovsky- Max Euwe, London BCF congress 1922

|Back to observation|

Znosko-Borovsky is a well-known writer of some of the most instructive chess books ever written. A Russian master who later moved to Paris, his professional chess life was repeatedly distracted by his participation in Russia’s wars. Dr. Max Euwe was world champion in the years 1935-1937. He was also the Dutch champion for 32 years, from 1921 to 1952. Euwe’s style was very technical, employing very precise calculations.

Endgame Ilya Smirin- Mikhail Shereshevsky, Sokolsky memorial 1985

|Back to observation|

GM Ilya Smirin started his chess career in Belorussia, immigrating to Israel in the early 90’s. He won the Israeli championship in 1992, and many other tournaments including the New York Open and the Dos Hermanas. Misha Shereshevsly, also a Belorussian, is one of the best chess coaches in the world. He is known as an endgame specialist and theoretician, having written some of the best endgame manuals. Shereshevsky’s playing and teaching styles are known for being very practical and pragmatic.

Expert level Opening Kurnosov Igor- Bartolomiej Macieja, Nakhchivan open 2013

|Back to observation|

Igor Kurnosov showed great skill and promise throughout his short chess career, sadly ending in a road accident in August 2013 at age 28. Igor won the prestigious Hastings Masters in 2008; he won the Abu-Dhabi Masters just one month prior to his tragic death. Igor ’s memory will forever live on in the young generation of chess fans and players he has inspired. Macieja is a Polish GM, twice national champion and European champion in 2002. He played in six chess Olympiads, reaching a rating of 2653 at his best.

Middlegame Magnus Carlsen- Hikaru Nakamura, Biel 2012

|Back to observation|

These two players are arch rivals on the chess board; Carlsen was the 2013 world champion, aged only 23. His short yet fruitful chess career so far requires no introduction, this human chess computer ’s best is still ahead! Hikaru is the three-times US champion, and the youngest American ever to have received the master title. Winner of countless prestigious tournaments, he is mostly known for his ultra-aggressive, risktaking style and super-fast play. So far he reached a peak international rating of 2789.

Endgame Vassily Smyslov- Lajos Portisch, Reggio-Emilia 1986

|Back to observation|

Vassily Smyslov was the world champion in 1957 and 1958, and twice the Soviet champion. He will be remembered in the chess community for his educational positional masterpieces, legendary endgame skills, and sharp eye for tactics. Portisch is a Hungarian GM, who qualified eight times for the world championship candidates tournaments, the same number of times he won the Hungarian championship. Regarded as one of the strongest non-Soviet players of all time, his favorite hobby is performing as an opera singer!

FEN’s of main diagrams Copy the FEN string and paste onto a supporting chess analysis board or GUI:

Motivational example r3k2r/1p1bbp2/pqnppp2/8/4PP1p/1NN5/PPPQB1PP/3R1R1K w kq - 0 15

Illustration examples Beginner- opening: rnbq1rk1/pp2ppbp/3p1np1/2P5/4PP2/2N2N2/PPP1B1PP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 0 7

Beginner- middlegame: r3r1k1/1p2bpp1/2p1pn2/4N1B1/1qPP4/1P1R1Q1P/5PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 26

Beginner- Endgame: 1r6/p4p2/2p1k1p1/8/2P1P2P/4K3/P2R2P1/8 b - - 0 39

Intermediate- opening: r1bq1rk1/1p1n1pbp/p1pp1np1/3Pp3/2P1P3/2N2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQRBK1 b - - 0 10

Intermediate- middlegame: 2r1k2r/1p3ppp/p2pp3/2q1n3/P3P3/2N5/1PP1QPPP/R2R2K1 w k - 0 16

Intermediate- endgame: 6k1/p2r1pp1/1P2n2p/P7/2N5/3p2P1/5P1P/R5K1 b - - 0 38

Advanced- opening: r2q1rk1/pppbbppp/2np1n2/1B6/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 9

Advanced- middlegame: 2r1r1k1/1p2nppp/p1q2n2/4p3/7B/P1N1QP2/P1P4P/3R2RK w - - 0 26

Advanced- endgame: 8/3n4/1p2k1p1/pR6/2P2p1r/1PKB1P2/8/8 b - - 0 44

Expert- opening: r2qkb1r/1p2pppp/p1np1n2/2p4b/4P3/2P2N1P/PP1P1PP1/RNBQRBK1 w kq - 0 9

Expert- middlegame: 6k1/1p3rbp/pq1p1pp1/3P4/2RpP3/3B1P2/PP4PP/2Q4K b - - 0 28

Expert- endgame: 2r5/pR6/P3k3/3p4/2pP3p/3n3K/3B2P1/8 w - - 0 44