Spassky Quotes, and a Dash of Dvoretsky's Wisdom

Today I came across a memorable quote from Spassky. It contains easily remembered maxims about a certain kind of middle game, and I will return to it shortly.

The quote reminded my of the following. In the Introduction to Mikhail Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy, the author recounts the following:

Dvoryetsky considers it essential to know the classics, to analyze complicated practical rather than theoretical endings, and to find general rules and principles of play in complex endings. And in theoretical endings it is sufficient to know whether the ending is won or drawn, and to have a rough impression of the plan of play.

I find these sentences striking for their utility - they lay out a straightforward guide to endgame study. The very last sentence has been updated somewhat in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. In time he seemed to believe precise positions did need to be known, though hardly an endless amount. The reason why is obvious: adjournments disappeared in the computer era. One can no longer look at a reference manual after five hours of play, the knowledge has to be "at your mental finger tips" during the game or it's useless. However he still believed in knowing general rules, including such things as whether an ending is actually won or drawn, as a guide for approaching endings.

And the first sentence can almost be generalized to include Dvoretsky's methods of training in middle games as well, from what I have seen and understand of his work. (Dvoretsky adds substantial psychological work to his training methods as well.)

Which gets me back to Spassky's quote, which concerns hanging pawns.

The shortcoming of hanging pawns is that they present a convenient target for attack. As the exchange of men proceeds, their potential strength lessens and during the endgame they turn out, as a rule, to be weak.

The power of hanging pawns is based precisely in their mobility, in their ability to create acute situations instantly.*

To get the most out of this, one really needs to study examples, that much is clear. But the truth is that most of use don't really study that much, either because of time constraints or because we prefer play to study.

But knowing the maxims can still help! They guide thoughts and planning, providing a useful shortcut even if you haven't worked through dozens of examples. Knowing general rules and principles, including a "rough impression of play", helps. And Spassky's rules on hanging pawns are particularly good. Why? Because they give more explanation than the quotes I recall seeing in the past, which usually state that hanging pawns are strong when they are mobile and weak when they are pinned down.

Okay, but WHY are they strong when mobile? Here Spassky is helpful: Their mobility allows them "to create acute situations instantly" by advancing! So if the pawns can move, the side with the pawns can create a crisis at the time of his choosing. The opponent must step carefully to avoid getting blasted on every move. Now THAT makes sense. Better still, Spassky's quote is shorter than the explanation I just gave. Perfect!

And how do hanging pawns become weak? The long winded explanation is that first, hanging pawns provide an easily defined target for the enemy. "What should I do? Oh, I'll attack Those Hanging pawns Over There!"** Second, as pieces are exchanged, the ability of the pawns to create an immediate crisis goes down - fewer pieces reduces the chances of the pieces "tripping over each other" and means fewer calculations for the opponent. And finally, in an endgame the possession of hanging pawns likely means having one more pawn island than the opponent, and that is generally a bad thing. Spassky's quote is, again, pithier.

Implied in all of this is that positions with hanging pawns require a lot of calculation all the time, especially if you haven't studied them much beforehand. If you don't like endless calculations, perhaps avoid openings where hanging pawns may occur.

So these maxims, longer than the old advice about hanging pawns, aren't that much longer, are still easy to remember, and tell you why the hanging pawns are strong or weak in specific terms. Commit them to memory, and make use of them soon.

* I have broken the quote into two parts to be more easily remembered. More can be read about the source in the previous post.

** THOTs can kill, people. Avoid THOTs unless you want to live on the wild side.

Mark Dvoretsky, 1947 December 9 - 2016 September 24

It was reported today that Mark Dvoretsky has died. Rather than try to add anything about the man and his work, I will simply point the interested reader to Peter Dogger's obituary on Chess.com. A sad day for the chess world.

The article is worth reading on its human merits, but it also contains a problem worth considering on its own. (How could it be an article about Mark Dvoretsky without an instructive bit about the game of chess?) I've added a screen capture of the problem below. Look for that problem in the text of Dogger's column for the full solution. Pay particular attention to the alternate line 3...Kg6 and its solution.

MAXIMUM EFFORT!

Today was the final day of the 23rd Space Coast Open. I'll link to the full results when they become available, but I wanted to report that we had a pretty good turnout from club members. Club regulars included Garry Day (B), Todd Durham (B), Paul Leggett (A), Theo Slade (Open), and John Wolfe (D). (Letters after names denote the player's tournament section.) And Fernando Salvador (U1200), who has also started attending again, also played. Not bad!

I'll let the interested reader either look up the results for the others themselves, or better yet ask them when you see them at the club.

As for me... I've been working on my mental and physical approach to playing the game since the USATS in February. More on particulars later, after I have results and analysis from the tournament  written up, per Dvoretsky. My preparations proved completely successful through the first four rounds, and going into the final round I was on 3.5/4.0 points, a half-point behind the two leaders. As they were playing each other I could not win the tournament outright, but anything from a tie for first to a massive tie for third & fourth place were doable, as was the possibility of winning nothing. Unfortunately the game my opponent and I played was a total slop-fest. Fortunately, I managed to win it anyway, after 78 grueling moves. I wouldn't have been happy about losing, but I wouldn't have been upset either, as I simply ran out of mental energy in the fifth round.Physical training is something to add to future preparations!

But the final round win gave me clear second place, a nice check, and the satisfaction of having given maximum effort.

I've also got three or even four games of interest (I submitted one of them for the brilliancy prizes - because you can't win if you don't play), and one howler of a slop-fest guaranteed to make one scoff, if not laugh out loud, at the foibles of others.

Signing off.

Solution Time for "A problem courtesy of Sergey Karjakin"

Back at the end of February, I posted a problem Sergey Karjakin had tweeted:

White to play and win

Karjakin joked that this was a simple position. The first move is easy enough, at least!

Fun with Amazon

I just noticed on Amazon that Mark Dvoretsky's new book, Recognizing Your Opponent's Resources: Developing Preventive Thinking, is listed in the Humor & Entertainment section of the Kindle Store. Somehow that seems wrong!