In most books on chess strategy, authors explain why such and such a move was the best in the given position, or even, they ask you to find the best move in a position. Some do this by giving a multiple-choice question, where you have to choose the best plan (e.g., Alfonso Romero in Ultimate Chess Strategy Book); others give a diagram and simply ask you to find the best move (this is the case for Aagaard in Excelling at Positional Chess, which was the subject of an earlier article).
The underlying postulate is that given any (or most?) position exists an objective best move or plan, and using abstract thinking you are asked to find it.
I used to tell one of my friends – who doesn’t like chess at all so needless to say that she didn’t care – that one of the big differences between the middlegame and the endgame is that very often in the endgame, one and only one move wins (or draws), and all other moves lose. Whereas in the middlegame, you can play many moves that are just as good as the others: it’s much less exact.
So what’s the answer to that question anyway? Is positional chess an exact science, much like the endgame, as Aagaard sees it? Is it a multiple-choice decision, where some plans are good but not equally, so they are not awarded the same amount of points by the author when you choose them? Or are there some moves which are equally right?
I don’t have the definite answer to that question, but I recently ran into a book which brings the most interesting (and nuanced) answer so far. The book is written by GM Lars Bo Hansen and is called Foundations of Chess Strategy. I haven’t read the whole book – I actually found it on GambitBooks.com, looking at their list of books, which comes with a sample of each book in PDF format; the sample for Foundations of Chess Strategy is here.
The author says that the best move in one’s position depends on their playing style. In the chapter “The Opponents: The Role of the Human Factor in Chess”, Hansen describes his viewpoint as thus:
Hansen appropriately gives the example of a positional (“solid”) player versus an attacking (“sharp”) player. When discussing a line chosen in the Queen’s Gambit by Karpov (solid) and Kasparov (sharp) – who did not choose the same line –, Hansen writes: “according to the statistics in my database Karpov has an almost 80% score against top-level opposition in ‘his’ line, while Kasparov even displays 90% in ‘his’! Despite their magnificent talents I doubt they would achieve the same scores if we switched the variations [i.e., Karpov playing Kasparov’s line and vice-versa]. Obviously they would still score well, but I don’t believe it would be this high.”
The author does make an interesting point. As he accurately points out, we all have played in positions in which we knew we had an objective acceptable position, but we still didn’t feel comfortable playing it. I might even add that although opening theory is huge and provides us with a wide choice of openings, only a few truly fit our style.
I think the example of Karpov and Kasparov speaks for itself. But don’t get me wrong: I am not discrediting neither Aagaard’s nor Romero’s approach. I have Aagaard’s book, and I think it’s excellent, and it has helped me a great deal. I think that all in all, critical judgement is still essential, even when reading GM books (although let’s face it, they’re more right than I am hehe). More importantly, you should choose moves (and openings for that matter) that truly fit your style, and that give rise to positions in which you are comfortable. Don’t choose a line because your chess idol or favourite author (in his positional exercises!) praises it.
The underlying postulate is that given any (or most?) position exists an objective best move or plan, and using abstract thinking you are asked to find it.
I used to tell one of my friends – who doesn’t like chess at all so needless to say that she didn’t care – that one of the big differences between the middlegame and the endgame is that very often in the endgame, one and only one move wins (or draws), and all other moves lose. Whereas in the middlegame, you can play many moves that are just as good as the others: it’s much less exact.
So what’s the answer to that question anyway? Is positional chess an exact science, much like the endgame, as Aagaard sees it? Is it a multiple-choice decision, where some plans are good but not equally, so they are not awarded the same amount of points by the author when you choose them? Or are there some moves which are equally right?
I don’t have the definite answer to that question, but I recently ran into a book which brings the most interesting (and nuanced) answer so far. The book is written by GM Lars Bo Hansen and is called Foundations of Chess Strategy. I haven’t read the whole book – I actually found it on GambitBooks.com, looking at their list of books, which comes with a sample of each book in PDF format; the sample for Foundations of Chess Strategy is here.
The author says that the best move in one’s position depends on their playing style. In the chapter “The Opponents: The Role of the Human Factor in Chess”, Hansen describes his viewpoint as thus:
The players in a chess game are humans [...], and the choices they make are influenced by their background, experience, self-confidence, personality, etc. This means that what is the right choice in a given position for one player is not the right choice for another player with a completely different personality and chess style. Therefore there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position – no ‘one size fits all’ approach! The right choice of plan in a given strategic position should not only be determined by purely chess reasons. [...] This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board.
Hansen appropriately gives the example of a positional (“solid”) player versus an attacking (“sharp”) player. When discussing a line chosen in the Queen’s Gambit by Karpov (solid) and Kasparov (sharp) – who did not choose the same line –, Hansen writes: “according to the statistics in my database Karpov has an almost 80% score against top-level opposition in ‘his’ line, while Kasparov even displays 90% in ‘his’! Despite their magnificent talents I doubt they would achieve the same scores if we switched the variations [i.e., Karpov playing Kasparov’s line and vice-versa]. Obviously they would still score well, but I don’t believe it would be this high.”
The author does make an interesting point. As he accurately points out, we all have played in positions in which we knew we had an objective acceptable position, but we still didn’t feel comfortable playing it. I might even add that although opening theory is huge and provides us with a wide choice of openings, only a few truly fit our style.
I think the example of Karpov and Kasparov speaks for itself. But don’t get me wrong: I am not discrediting neither Aagaard’s nor Romero’s approach. I have Aagaard’s book, and I think it’s excellent, and it has helped me a great deal. I think that all in all, critical judgement is still essential, even when reading GM books (although let’s face it, they’re more right than I am hehe). More importantly, you should choose moves (and openings for that matter) that truly fit your style, and that give rise to positions in which you are comfortable. Don’t choose a line because your chess idol or favourite author (in his positional exercises!) praises it.
1 comment:
you might even want to consider playing a move that doesn't necessarily make you feel comfortable, but that you know will make your opponent uncomfortable!
Post a Comment