This is last part of the series.
Here i ll continue with my games from Rounds 6 to 9 in the Open Qualifier of FRWC. Again, in the first part, i ll be analyzing my thought process in decision making. In the second part of this article i ll talk more about the reoccurring themes, notions and concepts and general ideas as well as conclusion. In the third part "Connecting the dots " i ll try to sum up most important observations and also i ll also talk about my general conclusion about the decision making and the nature of game.
All those games from the Qualifier are played in time control 10+2 and i have not checked anything of them with engines, so my evaluations and move suggestions are solely based on my own ideas.
Part One: Games
Round 6:
Round 7:
Round 8:
Round 9:
Part Two: Observations and Conclusions
Knights:
Knights usually work better on b3(b6),c3(c6) and f3(f6),g3(g6) than in the center d3(d6),e3,(e6) or on the edge a3(a6),h3(h6). If knight(s) is gonna be developed in the center, it should be considered if advancement of the center pawns first would be better.
Paying attention to the color of knight pairs. Are they on same color in the starting position, if yes, do i want to use them complementary by putting one knight on different color. Lets say initially it is Nb1,Nf1. Do i want Nc3-Ne3 and use strong force on d5 or do i want Nc3-Nd2-Nf3 and cover more squares.
c4, Nc3 or f4,Nf4 types of setups work usually well.
General:
Controling center from early on is important. For that, it is beneficial not only to think about how my pieces can control the center, but also think about in which way my opponent could try to control or challenge the center and if there is a way to prevent it. (For example in the game, where i controlled d5 with g5, King on d5. ..)
Connecting the dots
First two games are good example of messing it up an advantage. Game 6 and Game 7 highlight one of the hardest aspects of chess game, be it 960 or standard: Winning won positions. Converting an advantage, transforming an advantage into decisive one are not just a technical matter but also psychological and pragmatical one.
A chess game, from start to finish, from the very first move to until the last one, involves decisions. Every move happens with a decision based on some kind of judgement, be it conscious or intuitive. So during the game we constantly judge positions and lines, asses our winning chances in those possible lines. Then we choose our way and make a move. Some lines offer more counter-chances to the side who is exchange down or in some kind of disadvantage. These two games examplify a failure of the correct estimation about the counter-play.
There might be plently reasons of failure of such estimation. One can easily overestimate ones advantage, get too relaxed, overlook possibilities and chances of opponent, lose focus and concentration or even losing fighting spirit, since we are "already" winning.. Therefore choosing safest way is not just a technical matter but also matter of thinking pragmatically as well as lots of psychological factors.
This brings us to the core notion of the game of chess that i mainly wanted to talk about: decision making. But what can we say about the difference in the decision making in 960 and standard chess based on these games? Of course 9 examples are definitely not enough to come up with some universal truth or uncover the nature of 960. But we can still see that many of the games have quickly reached to unbalanced positions. I believe, in 960, due to the unusual initial arrangement of the pieces, positions tend to develope into unbalanced positions much more easily in comparison to standard chess.
One reason for that might be that we are much less familiar with the starting positions of 960 and the typical set ups of that partical starting position. From the very beginning it can be for us like quite unexplored territory. Since we are not that familiar with the set ups or typical opening plans like in openings of standard chess that are much intensively and exhaustively studied, we are kind of forced to come up with our own plans, unique to the starting position. This is where every individual chess player starts to show his characteristics of his approach. For example, in standard chess, a game after 10 moves can still follow an opening book, and one cannot tell if the player who has made those moves is a 1600 player or 2600 player, as it is still theory. It does say little to none about the characteristic of the player as they are not playing on their own yet. But in 960 the stage of "playing on our own" comes much more earlier than standard chess. "Playing on our own" creates much more room for the expression of the subject and the differences in the players approaches become much more visible.
Therefore it occurs much more frequently that the construction we come up with in 960 is some kind of unique and not that typical. Something much more individual. And this situation leads very easily to unbalanced positions as a result.
So one can say that in 960 it often boils down to the question of decision making in unbalanced positions.
But how?
Considering all those games i ve played in 960 so far, including these 9 i ve examined here and many more, my answer to that question would be: It is all about the priorities. I believe one of the biggest difference between strong and less stronger players often lies in the way they choose the priorities that a position requires. In the process of decision making, we often judge many elements of the position: weaknesses of both sides, tactical lines, place placement, the direction of game etc. After we have somehow scanned and assessed the urgency and importance of these elements, we decide that some of these elements and our plans based on the assessment of these elements are have more priority than other. Finally we decide to go with the move with the highest priority, at least ideally. How we value our priorities in positions is probably one of the biggest decisive factor that create the difference between players strength and understanding of the game.
The notion of priorities might be key element in the positional play of standard chess. But in 960, this notion is also quite relevant in the opening stage of the game due to our unfamiliarity of the starting position. From very early on we need to consider more in depth about our priorities like which piece develop first and how to set up pawns in harmony with the pieces. The internal time of positions works usually bit faster than standard chess. For example, just with one g3, your bishop on h1 can pin the queen on a8. If the opponent is insensitive to this pin, you can even play c4 Nc3 and control d5 and center etc. Considerations about g3 and what chances it might create later is definitely a case where priorities play a role, just as they do, when we consider which pawn to push first with the fastest way to create problems for our opponents, which piece has worst placement in the beginning position and which one develop fastest and so on.
I believe more one player has experience with the starting positions of 960 and unbalanced positions, one's judgement of his priorities will be more in depth and precise. Playing 960 games as much as possible, considering more often about the priorities of the strategical and tactical elements in unbalanced positions as well as from the very beginning of the game seems to be great way to improve in Fischer Random Chess.