Intro part III: Strategy in Motion, Maybe

Strategy in Motion

But what about strategic knowledge? This is more a matter of understanding various ideas and how to implement them into our plans. Strategy is what we do when there is nothing to do. In other words, when there are no tactics on the board. Nevertheless, the goal of implementing a strategic plan or maneuver is to achieve and secure some type of advantage. If we can accumulate enough advantages, this will result in the build up of a superior force, which in turn will ignite some type of a tactical explosion.

When there are no tactics, we are seeking to create them through positional domination.

According to Steinitz:

Lasker's version of point 7 is as follows:

So how to we train our positional knowledge? Unlike tactical exercises, there are no drills. No chesstempo.com. 

To use martial arts again as analogy: kicks, punches, knees and elbows are the tactics. Kata are the strategies. Kata are a series of movements that are not unlike meditation in motion. They can show many ways to deal with different types of attacks.

Heck, I’m not sure that’s a really great analogy. But okay. “I ain’t got nothin’ better!”

Some examples of strategic principles: knowing which side of the board to attack on, understanding the minority attack, controlling a file or diagonal, understanding when to sacrifice the exchange, how to play with a good knight versus a bad bishop, how to take advantage of advanced knight outposts, etc.

So how can we make sure that we really “get” these principles? That we deeply understand them and can apply them to our games?

Twofold, methinks: exposure and application. I think we need to study the ideas repeatedly and in the context of real games. Second, we need plenty of opportunity to apply these ideas to our own games. This is where studying Master games can help. But don’t most people just play through Master games arbitrarily? I think the answer is mostly yes, and they don’t really know what they’re looking for, so they often just focus on searching for aesthetically-pleasing combinations or brilliant sacrifices. I did say mostly, however, because there is also a subset of players who go over Master games that reflect their chosen openings. They want to see how the openings were handled. Ok, fair enough. But that doesn’t garner much positional insight. For that, you need to study the game and its nuances in-depth. It would also help if the games fit a theme. Say, for example, you were studying d5 knight outpost. It would serve you well, then, to examine master-level games wherein the d5 knight outpost was central to the game.

But how the heck do we even figure out which master games are best for that purpose? Fortunately, many tremendously talent chess authors have been kind enough to categorize such details for us. Irving Chernev’s Logical Chess, Move by Move gives details about the game’s positional themes in the table of contents. Sunil Weeramantry does the same thing in Best Lessons of a Chess Coach. Then of course there is My System and many others. Silman’s How to Reassess Your Chess is along the same lines, though he often just uses snippets from game to get his point across.

You could also proceed in reverse. Go through a master game and determine which strategies were used, and if they worked.

Sound like a lot of work? Yup, it is. And that’s also a key reason why you aren’t improving. Nothing worth achieving is ever easy, my friend.