Look and Look and Look …

During a post-mortem game between two strong Grandmasters, there came a point in the game when one of their team, (who was kibitzing), said: “This is a position where you look and you look and you look”.

That statement made a big impression on me, and I have tried to apply it within my own chess play. Honestly, it’s not always a good thing, I am a natural analyst, and try to absorb positions as deeply as I can and examine many options. This can, and has, already led me to time problems. So, something which will encourage me to look even deeper can be quite a dangerous thing.

However, sometimes, there comes a point in certain games, where a chess player just feels instinctively that there is something there. That there must be something there, we are better, our pieces are co-ordinated, our opponent is on the back foot, vulnerable, exposed. I believe that this is that time, where we look and look and look. Of course, positional experience helps us find those quiet subtelties in order to zugzwang, just as thematical knowledge helps us to spot knock-out blows. However, sometimes we just have to find that move.

Infact, as Steinitz said, we have a responsibility, an obligation, to find that move. Otherwise, our moment to strike may (probably will) be lost.

At such times, it is our duty to examine as many possibilities as we can. These possibilities must be relevant and in context however. For example, if the action is going on on the Kingside and our build up is there, the probable result of looking at a Queenside pawn thrust will be wasted time. And time should always be used wisely in chess, so we invest it only towards the relevant in our position, and we try to examine its every nook and cranny, even the seemingly implausibe.

This open-mindedness, coupled with technique, experience, understanding, is what creates brilliances — possibly even immortals. As illustration, I’d like to present the following game, played by Russian master Stefan Levitsky and the well-known American great, Frank Marshall.

White tries to dictate play and force things right from the start, and seems to want to avoid positional tension. This is often a sign of a weaker player, or a player who feels intimidated. Their ‘bull at a gate’ approach tends to result in their opponent obtaining the advantage (often a large advantage) rather effortlessly. This is what happens in this game.

Marshall, with the Black pieces, takes his opponent’s play in his stride. Notice how he reacts calmly, with good developing moves, rather than trying to play bold refutations. This is how strong players tend to react to over-ambitious play.

The climax of the game comes in spectacular style, with Black playing a move that at first glance seems preposturous, suicidal even. However, it is without doubt one of the greatest chess moves ever played — and most likely one of the most satisfying.

John Lee Shaw

Share

Rare Footage of Alekhine

Here’s some rare footage of Alexander Alekhine. Needless to say modern research contradicts two of Alekhine’s main claims and has shown that the main factor in mastery in hard work and that memory is actually very important! Of course it is better to be thought of as a genius!

Nigel Davies

Share

General Ignorance

The same thing happens every year. I meet a new intake of Year 3s (7 year olds) at a primary school chess club. There are one or two who know nothing at all about chess: some parents sign little Johnny (or, less often, little Jenny) up for the chess club so that they can learn the moves. I’ll talk more about them another time. There may be one or two who come from a chess playing family and have some genuine knowledge about chess. But in the middle are the children who tell me they know how to play chess, or sometimes, that they’re really good at chess, but in fact know very little.

So I pick up one of the chunky pieces that starts in the corner. “Who can tell me what this piece is called”, I ask. A forest of hands goes up. I ask a child who seems particularly keen to answer. I know what’s coming next. “It’s a CASTLE”, he tells me. I explain that, while some people call it a castle it’s real name is a rook, so that’s what we call it here. (I’ve also seen strong players who know perfectly well what it’s called teach their children it’s a castle. No idea why.) His face falls. His implicit belief that everything his dad tells him is correct has been shattered. I might as well have told him that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

Then I get them to play some games. After a few minutes another child raises his hand. “I’ve won the game”, he tells me excitedly. “I’ve taken his king.” I try to break the bad news to him as gently as possible (not easy when there are several other children round the room waiting to ask me questions). He hasn’t actually won the game at all, and in fact he’s not allowed to capture his opponent’s king. But his dad told him you win by taking the other guy’s king so they don’t understand.

None of this would matter too much if parents were prepared to get up to speed on learning about chess so that they could provide more useful help for their children. In this school I don’t have contact details for parents and very rarely get a chance to speak to them at all. In another school a couple of years ago, though, I had email addresses for parents so I contacted them explaining the rules of check and checkmate so that they could help their children play legal moves. Did I receive any replies thanking me for going to the trouble of telling them how they could help their children? What do you think? Instead I got replies telling me they didn’t want to know, they didn’t have time to help their children, and they themselves hated chess anyway.

One of the major problems for chess teachers here in the UK is that chess is not part of our national culture. Many people know, or think they know, how the pieces move, but they have no idea how to play properly. They use incorrect names for the pieces, they don’t know how to set the board up correctly, they don’t understand check, checkmate and stalemate, they are confused about pawn promotion, castling, and, in the unlikely event that they’ve heard of it, the en passant rule. They’ve never opened a chess book in their lives, never read a newspaper chess column, never watched a chess DVD, never visited a chess website, couldn’t give you the name of any famous chess players with the possible exception of that American guy who played the Russian guy, and they consider him to have been a nutter. Their father probably taught them the moves when they were young, he in turn was taught by his father and so on, like a Generation Game of Chinese Whispers, with less being understood each time round. They have no idea about the complexity of the game, the history, the heritage, the literature. No wonder they consider chess a simple game suitable for young children to play once a week at school without any parental support.

In the BBC TV quiz Only Connect, two teams of three compete to make connections between seemingly random things. The competitors on this programme are amongst the best in the country at problem solving, general knowledge, logic and creativity so you’d expect them to be reasonably well informed about chess, and indeed a few chess players have appeared on the show. In a recent episode one team was asked to find the next item in a sequence starting a1:R, b1:N, c1:B. They thought it might have something to do with cards and guessed that the answer was d1:Y. Their opponents were then given the chance of a bonus point by answering the question themselves. They correctly realised that it was to do with chess, but couldn’t remember which way round the big guys went, so went for d1:K as their answer.

General ignorance indeed. If we want to help young children become proficient players we have to start by educating the parents. But where do we start? My book Chess for Kids is selling very well: parents want to be able to buy a book to give to their kids so that they can teach themselves (not understanding that chess is far too hard for 7-year-olds to teach themselves). But no one is buying The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids because they have neither the time nor the inclination to help their kids. So far, at any rate, there is no interest at all in Chess for Heroes for the same reason. Unless we can break through this barrier chess as a serious adult game in this country will gradually fade away.

Share

What to Expect From Children

Inevitably, parents ask me how their children are doing with their chess playing at some point during the semester. Its a simple enough question. After all, the parent has signed their child up for one of my chess classes and wants a progress report. However, parents often feel that their child should be making greater progress than they actually are. This is because most parents have unrealistic expectations when it comes to their child’s ability to learn something outside of the normal school curriculum. Rather than comparing the study of chess to the study of music, which requires a great deal of dedication and practice, most parents think of chess as a mere board game akin to Monopoly. Thinking of chess as a simple game sets the parent up to think that it can be learned and mastered in a relatively short period of time. Therefore, a parent thinking in these terms will expect their child to quickly learn a game that in reality can take many lifetimes to master.

Parents enrolling their children in a chess class or club should do a little research regarding what to expect from both their children and the person(s) teaching the class or running the club. Of course, parents have the right to think that their child is exceptional. After all, we’re all proud of our offspring! However, we should always maintain realistic expectations when it comes to our children’s learning experiences for both their sake and ours!

A crucial idea to consider is that children learn slowly. While some youngsters learn subjects more quickly than others in their peer group, the majority of children learn at a slower pace. This means that both parents and instructors alike must exercise patience. I had one of my young instructors comment that his students were three weeks into their chess lessons and they still hadn’t fully grasped the idea of developing their pieces towards the board’s center. His students were 1st and 2nd graders, new to the the game, so it will take them a while to understand and employ basic opening principles, not to mention how the pieces move. Patience is key!

How do we, as chess instructors, help young students understand important concepts? Through repetition and reinforcement. In the opening phase of the game, students have to develop their pawns and pieces towards the center of the board. Children learn this concept of good development repetitively. Good opening moves are practiced over and and over again until the concept of centralized material development is etched into their thought process. However, I’m not talking about merely memorizing moves! When I say “repetitive,” I’m also talking about trial and error! Often, the most important lessons in chess are learned when beginners try to achieve their goal using one method (their method) only to eventually realize that their method doesn’t work. Once the beginner realizes that his or way of thinking doesn’t work, they try the method taught to them by their instructor. This is something children have to go through, trying their way first. During this cycle of repetitive learning, teachers have to reinforce the reasons for using, for example, correct opening principles. This is done by showing students how those opening principles make their game better. If we show our students that centrally developed pawns and pieces control important squares, making it difficult for their opponent to launch attacks, we’re able to visually reinforce the concepts being taught. You cannot simply say, “do these things during the first ten moves of the game because I say so!” You have to show children visually why specific principles work. Don’t assume, because they’re young children, that they don’t need a real explanation when asking them to do something. I don’t like someone answering my question with “because I said so,” and neither do my students! My students are taught to question everything!

Children also learn by mimicking what they see and this can be a double edged sword. When showing young children a game by Paul Morphy in which he makes a seemingly wild sacrifice of his Queen, don’t be surprised if a few students sacrifice their Queens with disastrous results. A child might think, “Morphy sacrificed his Queen and won the game, so I’ll do the same thing and I’ll win my game!” Children learn by example, so if you present a game in which important pieces are sacrificed to win the game, don’t be surprised if your young students try to emulate what they’ve just seen on the demonstration board. It is best to use very simplified examples that demonstrate sound game principles rather than daring gambits and sacrifices, at least until your student’s knowledge of the game improves.

Parents should talk to the parents of other students in the chess class or club to get a better idea of where their children are in relation to other class or club members. More often than not, they’ll see that the majority of the class is on the same page. Parents should also take an active role in their child’s chess education. They should encourage their children by playing chess with them. If a parent doesn’t play chess or is too busy to play, that parent might consider investing in a chess playing program so their child always has an opponent. A fair portion of a child’s chess education lies in the hands of their parents. I offer free chess lessons to parents who want to play with their children but don’t know how!

Learning chess takes a long time. While adults can learn the game’s rules in a few hours, children are another matter altogether. In a perfect world, children would spend about nine months just learning how the pieces move. However, most chess classes have to condense that nine months into eight to ten classes per semester. Sometimes, a parent will say to me “my child is still making illegal moves, so I don’t think their learning the game correctly.” This translates to, “you’re not doing your job because my child is not playing as well as he or she should be playing, in my non chess playing opinion.” Rather than explain to the parent that young children can take up to 12 months to adequately learn the basic rules of the game and taking an 8-10 week class is too short a time frame for proper instruction, I ask them if they play chess with their children or, if they don’t play would they be willing to learn how to play. Sadly, many parents say that they’re too busy. Then there are the parents who are convinced that their child is the next Magnus Carlsen. This brings me to my final thought: Pressure

We’ve all witnessed the horror that is the all out sports parent. You know the type. They mentally brow beat their children into thinking that the game must be won at all costs and if the game was lost it was because their child wasn’t giving one hundred percent of themselves. Every game is a dire do or die situation. Life for adults is filled with too much pressure as it is. Let your child enjoy childhood. There will be plenty of time for them to stress out later on in life. One of my best students has parents who gently nurtured his interest in chess. They followed my instructional advice and didn’t put him under any pressure to perform. He is now one of the top players in his age group here in California and the Northwest. His parents met with me, took notes at all our meetings regarding their son’s improvement and played chess with him. His mother, who hadn’t played before, took lessons from me so she could help her son. Incidentally, his mother, two years later is a regular player on the local chess club scene here. They did all the right things and made a point to not put pressure on their son. Pressure can drain the passion for chess right out of even the most enthusiastic young player. So, remember what to realistically expect from your children when you enroll them in their first chess class or club. Be gentle and nurture their budding love for the game. Here’s game to enjoy until next week.

Hugh Patterson

Share

The Temptation To Play Safe Can Prevent Improvement

A student of mine lost a game almost straight out of the opening as a result of facing Alekhine’s Defense as White and overextending and losing the advanced e5 Pawn; there may have been drawing chances later in the game, but losing the e5 Pawn at move 13 was not fun:

Avoid overreacting to the loss

This kind of thing happens to all of us: we can play too aggressively or carelessly, and end up losing. That’s natural. But how we respond to our failure can determine whether we improve or simply get demoralized. In his disappointment, he suggested that maybe he should meet Alekhine’s Defense with the cautious d3, protecting the e4 Pawn and refusing to play into Black’s provocative idea of causing White to advance with e5.

OK, d3 is objectively not horrible, so why not play this? There are a couple of reasons:

  • If Black plays …e5, then you as White are playing a Philidor reversed with an extra move. Now, if you already play the Philidor as Black, this might well be just fine for you.

    But if you don’t play the Philidor as Black because you don’t like the cramped positions, then why would you want to play it in reverse as White? From a psychological point of view, it makes no sense to open the game with e4 if you don’t have a clear plan on taking on the Alekhine.

  • If you do not play e5, you are passing up a great opportunity to learn how to try to use a space advantage in chess. This is an important skill to work on. In less “unusual” openings the the Alekhine, White has to fight hard to get an undisputed space advantage, so it is a shame not to take up the challenge immediately when it is presented on move 2.

Take a middle path

In the game, White played the ambitious Four Pawns Attack against the Alekhine, trying to support the e5 Pawn with the f-Pawn, etc. Another wrong lesson to learn would be that White should not play the Four Pawns Attack. It is quite playable, if one is tactically precise. So I could advise studying all the various tricky lines Black has against the Four Pawns Attack.

But for an improver, I advise taking a middle path. Instead of either cowering in fear with d3 or going all out with the Four Pawns Attack, there are two other possible variations for White that are positionally quite sound and should ensure White a pleasant game with a space advantage, and completely avoid the problem of a possibly overextended e5 Pawn.

The Modern Variation with 4 Nf3 is quite sound, intending to recapture on e5 with the Knight if necessary. The Exchange Variation with 4 exd6 is also sound, dissolving the e5 Pawn entirely. So I advise learning the ideas behind one of these variations before embarking on other possible variations against the Alekhine.

The advantages of taking a middle path:

  • The solid positional approach is always useful to learn and understand, even if later on one chooses the sharper approach.
  • If is not yet prepared for tactical trickery, it is quite justifiable for an improver to step back from it and save exploration of sharp lines for later.
  • It can sometimes be useful to build up confidence after an annoying loss by avoiding an awkward line in any case.

Franklin Chen

Share

Masters of the Board: Rubinstein

Akiba Rubinstein (1880-1961) was a Polish Grandmaster, and a pioneer of his time when it came to opening play. He was one of the first strong Grandmasters to bear the endgame in mind when it came to selecting his openings. This is what I have read in various biographies around the internet, and it is certainly evident when playing through his games — which I advise anyone to do who wishes to learn how to play the opening. I find his placement of pieces very helpful, and the timing of certain crucial moves nothing less than exciting.

Unfortunately, Rubinstein’s later life was plagued by mental illness, he suffered ‘anthropophobia’ (fear of people) and schizophrenia amongst other things. He was known to hide between moves at tournaments. This condition, eventually (and I suppose inevitably), led to his withrdrawral from chess and public life.

Luckily for us, it was not before leaving behind many fine examples of chess play, and a few brilliances. The one below, labeled by some as his ‘evergreen’, is just one among them.

Right from the start, you will notice Rubinstein’s considered and constructive moves. He has a plan, he has wishes, and every move he plays is with that in mind. This, in contrast to his opponent, who does not really seem to have a firm plan of what he wishes to achieve. His position soon resembles a very disorganised camp of troops and comes undone. You will especially notice the mis-placement of his queen with 10.Qd2? and how this seems to be the beginning of his troubles.

Rubinstein’s 15…Ne5! marks a definate shift in his mentality as he switches to attack. Georg Rotlewi, a rising star of the time who had defeated Rubinstein on occasion, seems both unprepared and oblivious to the Black threats. Notice the complete harmony of the Black pieces, the bishops cutting across the board, the rooks firing along the open files, and the queen ideally placed on e7, ready to hop in any direction she wishes. 22.Rxc3!! highlights the precarious position that practically each White piece was in, and the game is over.

When playing through this game myself, I was prompted to remember some advice given to me by a rather aged chess player against whom I competed in local league events. After giving me a rather painful drubbing, he told me, “it only takes one bad piece to cause catastrophe”. I think that’s rather over-generalising things, but in this example, it can certainly said to be true. Mind you, Rotlewi gave himself more than one it has to be said.

If there is a lesson in this game, it is that each move a chess player makes must be utterly understood, (not only where a piece should go, but why, and what the consequences are), and in the opening it is perhaps even more crucial, because it will affect our whole game thereafter. Players who merely place a certain piece on a certain square may (should) find themselves in big trouble in the not too distant future. Furthermore, one doesn’t have to force things in chess in order to pay powerfully. Playing the right moves, and having an understanding of the position, deeper than that of one’s opponent, often results in opportunities presenting themselves naturally.

Enjoy this game, it is very instructive.

John Lee Shaw

Share

Inspiration From Another Field

Although published ten years ago and is actually about squash, this article reveals many of the qualities required to succeed in any field.

In the mid-Sixties, in a sport where his peers could be both cavalier and rotund yet still successful, his attitude caused its own revolution. ‘I won through fitness rather than through talent,’ he says, and this stemmed from an unprecedented training schedule and his infallible application to the cause. In 1966, after winning his first British Open championship, he did some press- ups and then, as the champagne was passed round, discussed his plans for Christmas training runs along his home cliffs of Morwenstow in Cornwall.

Such dedication fired an unquenchable desire to win. Michael Corby, for many years No 2 to him in Britain, remembers how Barrington cried after defeat in the quarter-finals of the world championship in Australia in 1967. ‘He cried because he cared so much,’ Corby said. ‘I used to say to him that of life’s many facets, he only had one and he should lighten up. But who is to say that I was right?’

Squash players seem to be exceptional role models in this regard, getting to know Victor Niederhoffer was helpful in learning that my own single mindedness and determination could actually be perceived as qualities. All too often you meet the attitude that it’s better to ‘have fun’ with an activity or be ‘well balanced’, which subtly implies that the pursuit of mastery of a field shows you are in some way defective!

My take on this is that normally people lack the motivation to do what it takes to succeed whilst at the same time wanting to be really good at something. Unfortunately the two don’t go together.

Nigel Davies

Share

Fishing Pole

We have a new member in our chess club. A 12-year-old beginner, he’s really enthusiastic and seems to have some talent. His parents, although knowing little about the game, are very keen to do everything they can to help him.

Half a century or more ago, I myself was in very much the same position. I was really enthusiastic about chess. My parents, wanting to support my enthusiasm but knowing very little about the game, bought me a book (The Game of Chess by Harry Golombek since you asked) so that I could teach myself. “If we try to teach you ourselves”, they said, “we might get it wrong and put you off.” I didn’t understand everything in it and got confused by the chapters on the openings when HG said that there were two moves you could play in this position, while it seemed to me, correctly, that there were many moves you could play. But it still stood me in good stead by giving me well-structured and accurate information about chess.

These days, though, children don’t learn through books, they learn through the Internet. And the Internet is, for all sorts of reasons, a dangerous place.

I like to give new members a game, so on his first visit to the club I took the black pieces against him. His first moves were, in order, e3, g3, Bg2, a3, b4, c3, d4. I asked him what he was trying to achieve in the opening. He explained that he was combining the ideas of his two favourite openings, the King’s Indian Defence and the Stonewall. It seemed that he’d come across online lessons on both openings (probably chosen because he liked the names) but completely misunderstood them.

A couple of weeks later he was very much into gambits. He wanted to play the Wing Gambit, the Halloween Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5) and, his new favourite opening, the Fishing Pole. Now I’m reasonably knowledgeable about chess history and literature, and one of my colleagues even more so, but none of us had heard of the Fishing Pole. When I arrived home I searched on Google and found this.

So what do we have? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0-0 Ng4. It’s obvious to any experienced player that this move is nonsense. It may not be losing but it’s just a waste of time. 5. h3 h5. Now if White just plays a sensible developing move like d3 he’s going to be slightly better. Black’s just wasted time playing two fairly useless moves and broken a couple of basic opening tenets into the bargain. He’ll only lose if he takes the knight and gets mated.

We’re told this is a common trap in the Ruy Lopez. Is it? There are 14 examples of 4.. Ng4 out of almost 5.8 million games on BigBase2014. The position after 5.. h5 occurred only 8 times. So hardly common. And none of those 8 people fell for the trap by taking the knight (although Black’s percentage score after 4.. Ng4 is actually fairly respectable). Perhaps it has an extremely high success rate if you play it in online bullet games against weak opponents, but not in real games. Note also some of the comments, none of which are critical. “I will definitely try it every chance I get. Chess is wonderful and you don’t have to sweat!!” enthuses bsharpchess. KWash01 also approves: “All and all I like it and will most certainly try to use it.”

I’m disappointed that a very popular and reputable site such as chess.com should publish such misinformation, and that its users should be so uncritical. Of course if you play online blitz or bullet you’ll come across opponents who play junk like this extremely quickly and win games on time or through a cheap tactic, but it’s not real chess and not how we should be encouraging our pupils to play.

There are, I think, two issues. First of all, in chess, as in everything else, there’s a lot of ill-informed and dangerous rubbish out there. There are any number of videos, articles and e-books written by weak amateurs peddling their favourite eccentric opening or theory about chess. So if you’re trying to teach yourself you need to ensure that your sources are reliable. Asking an experienced chess teacher would be a good place to start.

You also need to learn chess in a structured way. If you’re learning openings you start with basic principles, then you learn the major openings before you look at less popular openings. If you want to emulate Abraham Neviazsky and spend the next 50 years of your life opening 1. b4 that’s fine, but I’d advise you to gain experience with mainstream openings first. I’d also suggest that practising tactics, learning about strategy and familiarising yourself with endings is, unless you want to play very sharp lines, more important than studying opening theory.

So we in the chess community need to promote structured chess courses for learners of all ages. We need to promote them actively and aggressively so that newcomers to the game learn correctly right from the start. Once you get the wrong idea about something or get into a bad habit it’s difficult to get out of it.

Richard James

Share

Space Point Count

You’re playing a game of chess, well into the opening, and you compare your position to that of your opponent. It appears that you both are equal, developmentally speaking. Your pawns and pieces are on active squares, yet your opponent quickly becomes the aggressor which leaves you having to defend rather than attack. You quickly lose the game wondering where you went wrong. If this has happened to you, let me ask you a question, did you tally up your space points (space point count) when considering a move? If you’re wondering what a space point count is, read further!

How much territory you control on the board is critical during all phases of the game. However, nowhere is it more important than in the opening. If you control a greater number of squares than your opponent, your opponent is going to be hard pressed to safely get his or her pawns and pieces into the game. After my students learn the games rules, we move on to the opening principles. We often start with the Italian Opening because it clearly demonstrates these basic principles in action. With any opening, you want to get your pawns and pieces to their most active squares before launching into any attacks. Often, one player will develop their pawns and pieces actively while their opponent develops their pawns and pieces more defensively. While a well seasoned player can develop defensively in such a way that makes it difficult for their opponent to whip up a strong attack, the beginner playing defensively tends to create a traffic jam of pawns and pieces that trap their King on it’s starting square.

If you’re attacking, your opponent is defending and if you’re defending your opponent is attacking. Eventually, you become one or the other during the course of the game! Two players can have somewhat equal positions and suddenly, one of those players gains greater control of the board! In fact, you can take a quick glance at a given board position and it can appear as if both players have equal control of the board. However, if you apply a space point count to the position, you’ll see that one player has a slight edge or greater control of the situation.

A space point count is simply a way to calculate who has greater territorial control of the board. To employ this idea, count the number of opposition squares your pawns and pieces control. Opposition squares are those squares on your opponent’s side of the board. If you’re playing the white pieces, the squares you’re going to count are those squares on the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ranks (squares on your opponent’s side of the board). If you’re playing the black pieces, you’re looking at opposition squares on the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st ranks. In essence, you’re calculating the opposition space you control, thus the term space point count.

In the above example, the space count points for white are 23 while the space point counts for black are a mere 5. White has a much greater control of black’s side of the board while black is barely attacking anything on white’s side of the board. This is a spatial advantage and spatial advantages lead to winning games!

Beginners have a difficult time with the concept of overall spatial control. This occurs because beginners tend to focus on a specific area on the board, such as the center during the game’s opening. During the opening, the beginner will focus on d4, d5, e4 and e5, moving their pawns and pieces on or towards those squares. Of course, this is what we’ve learned to do during the opening. However, this essentially mechanical way of thinking can leave the beginner ill equipped, transitionally speaking, to enter into the middle game.

By moving pawns and pieces to squares that control the maximum number of opposition squares during the opening, you’ll be setting yourself up for a better middle game. Employing a space count can also help you decide on a specific move. Let’s say you’ve come up with three good moves you can make and now have the task of narrowing it down to the one move you’re going to make. How do you determine which move is best? I suggest doing a space point count for each of the three moves and see which one controls the greatest number of squares on the opposition’s side of the board. Of course, there are exceptions to this but the beginner should stick to the basics and keep it simple!

By counting the number of opposition squares a piece will control after it is moved, the beginner will see the entire board rather than an isolated area such as the center. Many of my beginning students have had major problems with hanging pieces, losing them because they weren’t looking at the entire board. After using the space point count system, those students greatly reduced the number of hung pieces because their board vision was better. Those same students were also able to start making a smoother transition into the middle game.

Try using the space point count method when considering a specific move. It comes in handy when you have a few moves to chose from that are close in their advantages. More often than not, you’ll find that one move garners you a bit more control of the position. However, you have to count those squares to truly know! Here’s a game to enjoy until next week. Try using the space point count system while playing through this game.

Hugh Patterson

Share