LQQking at Squares
In a recent post I made a comment about GM's and looking at squares. J' adoube made this comment:
As for GM's looking at squares, what they are doing is looking at combinations of moves - they are looking at where pieces will end up.
I believe this is exactly the opposite of what was meant. It is surely the opposite of what I meant. Everybody calculates and we are not talking absolutes. What I was talking about and what I believe the saying was talking about was looking at squares.
There are 3 ways I look at squares. The first way is the obvious way that all tactical players look at. That is piling pieces on weak squares, creating focal points for attack and all that.
The second way is pretty obvious also when you look at mating nets.
The third way is more subtle and a different way of thinking. It is related to improving the position of your worst piece and other strategic themes.
This is how I look at it. There are 64 squares. When I do not see a tactical combination I start looking focal points for attack, the center and the empty squares. I look at which ones I control and which ones he controls. I try to pile on the focal points or the center squares. Then I start looking at uncontrolled squares. Can I put a piece on there or take control over it. Where can his pieces move and how many of those squares can I take away. One square I keep an eye on is the g6 square. When I play white Bc4 is usually move 2 (oh how I love the Itialian diagonal). h6 frees this square for occupation or if Black moves his g pawn there look out.
When I first started thinking about it I was trying to come up with an algorithm or study plan to figure out best piece placement to cover a majority of squares. Now I just run with the Idea.
---------------
Blue Devil, the bike analogy is a great one and that is what has started happening to me. I am not concentrating on pedaling and steering anymore I am now planning the route to where I want to go. My subconscious is doing the pedaling now.
As for GM's looking at squares, what they are doing is looking at combinations of moves - they are looking at where pieces will end up.
I believe this is exactly the opposite of what was meant. It is surely the opposite of what I meant. Everybody calculates and we are not talking absolutes. What I was talking about and what I believe the saying was talking about was looking at squares.
There are 3 ways I look at squares. The first way is the obvious way that all tactical players look at. That is piling pieces on weak squares, creating focal points for attack and all that.
The second way is pretty obvious also when you look at mating nets.
The third way is more subtle and a different way of thinking. It is related to improving the position of your worst piece and other strategic themes.
This is how I look at it. There are 64 squares. When I do not see a tactical combination I start looking focal points for attack, the center and the empty squares. I look at which ones I control and which ones he controls. I try to pile on the focal points or the center squares. Then I start looking at uncontrolled squares. Can I put a piece on there or take control over it. Where can his pieces move and how many of those squares can I take away. One square I keep an eye on is the g6 square. When I play white Bc4 is usually move 2 (oh how I love the Itialian diagonal). h6 frees this square for occupation or if Black moves his g pawn there look out.
When I first started thinking about it I was trying to come up with an algorithm or study plan to figure out best piece placement to cover a majority of squares. Now I just run with the Idea.
---------------
Blue Devil, the bike analogy is a great one and that is what has started happening to me. I am not concentrating on pedaling and steering anymore I am now planning the route to where I want to go. My subconscious is doing the pedaling now.
posted by phorku at
9:00 PM
2 Comments:
Well, you don't have to take my word for it. I was quoting a GM who was asked about this :)
By
Unknown, at 3:07 AM
What author discusses this 'try to develop or improve your weakest piece' idea? I have started to see it mentioned more lately, but don't remember running into it more than a month ago.
By
Blue Devil Knight, at 3:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home