[usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice

From: "Karma Könchog Jungné" <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:42:12 -0400

On a further note, I am deaf-blind.  So it is not possible for me to listen to
the Skype tteachings.  I am however, perusing the annotated games when I see
them.

Konchog

From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Ross
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 6:56 PM
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice

Konchog/Patrick,

What Tyson and I have demonstratively illustrated to you, is that you, as a
player, have tactical vulnerabilities. That in itself is fine, but as a direct
consequence of that, you need to re-angle your focus. You have spoken of
motives and positional/strategic elements, but there is no-collective,
collaborative approach to put all of the elements into place. Your focus is on
seeking out tactical possibilities and when they occur, or indeed, if they can
occur. You need to take a more universal approach and take into account more of
a widely-appreciative approach, as you are being too narrow-minded in your play
and preparation.

We have advised you to keep motives and “common concepts” in mind at all times
and if opportunities arise, where these commonly-seen ideas can be implemented,
then, that is all and good. However, setting out to specifically to aim for
such a target, is often fraught with hindrances and can, more often than not,
be prevented. As Tyson wisely says, a strong player will always set up in
anticipation of such motives and commonly-seen threats and prevent them before
their concept or tactical possibility can be permitted.

Adaptability, versatility and the realization of when a specific plan has to be
adopted or strategy implemented, is a key element for development. Tyson has
also talked about the necessary to “mix-it-up” as certain times, to create
imbalances in position, whether it be sound or not. That approach will often
put a “weaker” player under pressure and allow a dynamic approach to enter to
the equation, possibly, making the game a more random encounter than the
stronger player wishes for.

Highlighting what support levels an individual has received, is actually not an
helpful approach. We can all name-drop, some of us massively. It is what we
have taken from that support, which is most important.

I didn’t want to bring this up, but I have also had coaching from some very
high-level players. I am close friends with a couple of International Masters
and have had coaching, concentrated support, from Grandmasters. I have that
privileged position, but it is important from what I have taken from that, and
not what I do with it. The IM’s I know, are authors, write 10 hours a days and
why should they spend any time with me, emailing or texting, But they do, for I
am selective, entertaining and provide food for thought for them too.

One specific Grandmaster, who I work with on a regular basis, has told me on
many an occasion, that, I, as a strong player, cannot rely on his support to
better my play. He can “facilitate” the means, he can give guidance and the
pathways, but the realization and conceptual development has to occur within
me, in my own reflection and thought-process. Which is a very profound thing to
consider and to fully grasp. His tutoring of me alone has developed me from a
the average chess player that I was, to my current strength and has given me
fuel to how I can move forwards. It is only indicative that when he supports me
in international events, that I score my best results. And that is because he
gives me room, time for thought, space and opportunity for consideration. He
does not sit with me and dictate, stand the higher ground and stipulate to what
I must do and how. He consults, guides, and facilitates. A remarkable
“resource” for me.

So, having access, as it were, to high-level ranked players, is not the be-all
and end-all to one’s improvement. The development starts and ends with oneself.
That comprehension has to start with you, as a person and it is only you,
whether it be an innate ability or a case of sheer industrious application,
that will only engender progress and development.

As I have said, collate “tools” for your development. Whether that be
engine-analysis, high-level support, literature, experience, practice,
world-wide knowledge, historical referencing – whatever you like. It is how you
put all of that together, make it into a cohesive collective, is the key and
only route, for future development. Focussing on one specific element will only
distract, or even, not enhance or nullify one of the other aspects. Striking
the balance is, possibly, one of the hardest things to do in chess to reach any
master level.

That is one of the main reasons and concepts, that allowed me to push through
and become a strong player. Thereafter, it becomes a matter of consistency. But
yet, still a level of acceptance that some learning is still required. I lost
recently to Grandmaster John Emms and I still reflect on that game now, and
still, think how much I have learnt from that. I annotated that on Paul
Benson’s Skype session a few weeks ago and that will be published shortly. I
would urge you to listen, re-listen, think, and re-think about what happened
and why it happened. That is one of the biggest failings in chess development.
Reflection, consideration and the study of all elements. Not one focus, not the
one area of the opening, middle-game or end-game, or the tactics. The whole
scope has to be taken into account.

This is why, I find it frustrating, that “weaker” players focus so heavily on
accessibility for databases and engines. The purpose of such tools have to be
reflected. Sure, accessibility is an issue, but there are means and ways around
getting what you want and what, essentially, is useful and of support to you.
So much time and energy is spent on seeking irrelevant and fundamentally, tools
of little usefulness.

I am lucky, in that my time is so limited with my job, stupidly frantic-life. I
can prioritise, see what is important what deserves focus and target it
specifically. That has taken years of training and many wasted an hour. But
now, I see what is useful, how to focus, how to concentrate on what I,
personally, need for my development. A player should develop that approach, I
think, if they want to develop themselves as players. Otherwise, they will only
flounder around, picking up certain things, focussing on selective elements and
not giving the bigger picture a directed focus.

Back to to the adaptability element. Tyson, as an attacking player, has played
some wonderful positional chess – I can bare witness to that. I as a positional
player, have at times – although I cringe at the thought of it – flung an
aggressive attack at my opponent and wiped them off the board, including some
very strong players. The realisation of when that is necessary and appropriate
is a key. A “strong” player can adapt according to the circumstances of the
opening, middle-game and current position. I highlight Carlsen as a current
practicianer. An usually positional player, but yet, he can launch an attack
when the positions dictates.

I also want to mention our mate Botvinnik, who I do not consider a “positional”
player in the slightest. Many an attack he went for. Most of which, was sound,
some not so. In comparison to Capablanca, he was a positional bunny-rabbit. I
find that rather curious to view him in such a manner. I presume the game
quoted is the one where he brought the knight from d1 around to the king-side
for the attack. In fairness, that was not a difficult concept to realise. That
is not the best example of his excellent ability.

As for Rowson. I’m unsure. I have read a few things by him, and indeed, spoken
to him and been in the audience at a lecture by him. Undoubtedly a strong
player, but I find his theories all a bit woolly and a bit far-fetched to
grasp. He is not a true “positional” player and has a psychological difficulty,
when he plays the other strong players within the UK. If you only look at some
of his recent games against the strong UK players. And that is not to say, that
he did not deserve his British titles, for he did.

In many ways, I think we need to keep an open-mind when considering such
things, but realise what is best for us, as personal players, and see what we
want, where we personally want to go and how, and what tools we will need, to
travel that journey.

Take it easy

Chris

From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 10:43 PM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice

Hello folks.

My tuppence worth.

13...a6 is a serious positional error. White should reply with 14 a5 preventing
Black's Queenside play. Black should be playing ...b7-b6 and then ...a7-a6 and
...b6-b5. This motif is common in the Modern Benoni and the first time I ever
saw it was Spassky-Fischer, World Championship 3rd match game 1972.

16 Bxf6 is a positional as well as a tactical error. Why exchange this
well-posted piece for a pinned Knight especially as there is a threat of e4-e5?
If the answer is to weaken Black's Kingside then the g6 Bishop is doing an
excellent defensive job.

My specific answer to the specific question is that I started considering back
rank mates at move 21 when the Black Queen got to f4. c1 is clearly a target
square for invasion. Incidentally Black needn't worry about back-rankers and
that's another consequence of the poor 16 Bxf6. Of course White can avoid the
mates by playing h2-h3(!?) especially at move 29 instead of the blunder 29
Rd1?? but he still has problems.

It's not necessarily important as to when you start thinking about possible
tactical motifs as long as you are aware they exist. One of the elements of
successful defence is to cover threats before they become really serious. It is
one of the arts of chess to be able to overcome a well-organised defence,
either be it by direct attack (my speciality) or by positional means (Chris's).
A strong all-rounder can do this either way and chess development should be
ultimately targetted at all-round ability.

Nevertheless, happy attacking!

Tyson

On 17 July 2016 at 22:03 Chris Ross <c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

OK, I have not spent any time looking at this in depth, nor have the time, but
white is simply better, if not positionally winning, before, 12... Bxc3?
The text-move is a very poor positional move, giving up the dark-squared bishop
for absolutely nothing at all. Black has so many other better moves and had to
keep this on the board, for control of some useful squares. Giving white the
bishop-pair is unforgivable. After this ill-advised exchange, white has total
control of the dark-squares. White has the centre and will eventually push
through in the centre. White has the better of it, and I would be disappointed
if white did not have a tremendous game in the middle-game, but after 12...
Bxc3, I would be very seriously annoyed if I did not beat black from there on.

12... Be7, 12... Ba5 or even 12... a5 are all perfectly acceptable moves for
black and should be played, without any doubt at all.

I have no clue at all what is going on on move 16. Bxf6 is a dreadful move too
and just loses tactically on the spot. Surprising that an attacking player did
not see the simple 16... bxc4 gaining tempo on the white queen. Black is just a
piece up and white should resign then. 16. Be3 keeps the advantage to white and
although it will take longer, white is still clearly better.

Of course, once white has foolishly taken on b5, then the game is simple enough
for black. The back-rank is always going to be weak and the a7-g1 diagonal will
be vulnerable to a check, forcing the white king into the corner. The back-rank
will be easy enough to collapse. That is not a complicated concept to see. As
soon as exchanges occurred on b5, the C-pawn becomes a target, which can be
undermined by b5-b4. I would know that tactics would be available for
back-rankers and have no doubt that black could win from there on.

White should not exchange on b5, but put his queen on b4 and seek queen
exchanges as much as possible.
Playing strange ideas like Rad1 and Rfe1 accomplish nothing at all for white.
After move 16, white went astray and never played a decent move thereafter.

OK, all said in a brief, brief glance.

Take it easy

Chris

From:  <mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [ <mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karma Könchog Jungné
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 9:36 PM
To:  <mailto:usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] The Art of the Sacrifice

See if you can figure out the move on which I first began envisioning and
plotting this sacrifice.

[Event "Walter Muir CC

[Site "ICCF"]

[Date "2008"]

[Round "-"]

[White "Tom Becker"]

[Black "Patrick Walsh"]

[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8.

Ne5 Nbd7 9. Nxd7 Qxd7 10. O-O O-O 11. f3 Rfd8 12. Qb3 Bxc3 13. bxc3 a6 14.

e4 Bg6 15. Bg5 b5 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. axb5 cxb5 18. Bd3 h5 19. Rad1 Rdc8 20.

Rfe1 Qc7 21. Rc1 Qf4 22. c4 bxc4 23. Bxc4 f5 24. d5 exd5 25. exd5 Rc5 26.

Rc3 Rac8 27. Rec1 Qd4+ 28. Kh1 f4 29. Rd1 Rxc4 30. Rxd4 Rxc3 31. Qd1 Rc1

32. d6 Rxd1+ 33. Rxd1 Bf5 34. g3 fxg3 35. hxg3 Bd7 36. Rd5 f5

*

  _____

<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

References:
- [usbca_chess] The Art of the Sacrifice
  - From: Karma Könchog Jungné
- [usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice
  - From: Chris Ross
- [usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice
  - From: mordue andrew
- [usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice
  - From: Chris Ross

[usbca_chess] Re: The Art of the Sacrifice

Other related posts: