REASSESSING HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS

Both of the upcoming questions concern positions in HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS that, in my view, were not explained properly in the book, and one even featured a small typo. It was this kind of error, a lack of computer checking (strong chess engines didn't exist when I wrote this book), and the availability of a wealth of new examples (thanks to the wonders of databases, another thing that didn't exist when this book was written) that has convinced me to totally rewrite HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS (yes, a 4^th Edition due out at the end of 2007).

My intention is to gut dozens (as much as 80%!) of the existing examples, and even toss a whole chapter or two into the rubbish bin! There are several reasons for doing this: the endgame chapter is useless and never belonged in HTRYC in the first place. It's also redundant since my new (upcoming) book, SILMAN'S COMPLETE ENDGAME COURSE, will give you everything you need to know about the endgame, and much, much more. The enormous amount of new examples I intend to make use of in the 4^th Edition of HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS gives fans of the 3^rd Edition more study material, and allows me to make the many key points about imbalances fresh and compelling.

Most importantly, I have changed many of my views over the years and now have new theories and ideas that I would like to present, making REASSESS (4^th Edition) the teaching tool that I always wanted it to be.

I'll keep the readers of jeremysilman.com informed about the 4^th Edition of HTRYC as time goes by

I am struggling to correctly assess when a lead in            development is the main imbalance in certain positions. As an  example of the type of position I mean, diagram 167 from     the "Solve These Problems" sections of your excellent HOW TO  REASSESS YOUR CHESS, is described in the solutions as being    one where a lead in development is the key imbalance.

Now, to my eyes, both White and Black are castled and all their pieces have moved from their original squares with the exception of the h1-Rook for White and the a8-Rook and c8-Bishop for Black. This, to me, at the simplest level, only means Black is behind in development by a single move of his c8-Bishop.

Is this an over simplification or is this actually how the lead in development is manifest in the position for White? If not, can you highlight any other key features of the position (such as better coordinated piece placement) that demonstrates this development lead?

WHAT FACTORS IS WHITE GOING TO MAKE USE OF?

Silman replies:

I didn't do a very good job at explaining the imbalances in this position, did I? The position isn't really about a lead in development at all (what was I smoking when I wrote that?). Instead, two things stand out:

1)    Both sides are castled on opposite wings. This often leads to attacks against each other's Kings. Here Black has very little going on the queenside, but most of White's pieces are taking aim at the kingside.

2)    Neither side is making use of their Rooks. The solution -- 1.h3 intending g2-g4 -- strives to create a position where both the White Rooks are powering down the open h- and g-files.

So this is really an initiative problem, but I didn't make that clear until the very end of my notes. 1.h3! caters to the two points above, while also taking the initiative (forcing Black to react to White) once g2-g4 is played. For those that don't have the book but are curious about the subsequent play: 1.h3! Nf6 2.g3 Qh5 3.fxe5 dxe5 4.g4 Qh4 5.Bxc5 dxc5 6.gxf5 Kh8 7.Rdg1 Nh5 8.Rg6 Rxf5 9.Rxh6+ Kg8 10.Rg1 Bxc2 11.Kxc2 Rad8 12.Rg5 (A mistake! 12.Rg4 was even stronger. I think I went for 12.Rg5 because I fell in love with the very odd pile up of major pieces along the c1-h6 diagonal!), 1-0.

As far as your query about a lead in development vs. other imbalances, this strikes at the very heart of such things as dynamics vs. statics, and initiative. Pondering whether a lead in development or the initiative (both dynamic imbalances) are worth more than a long-term edge (such as superior pawn structure or even material -- both static advantages) is anything but easy. All you can do is be aware of these things, note the possibility of creating such a fight, and then trust your judgment as to which imbalance is more valuable in that particular position. Keep in mind that even grandmasters screw this kind of thing up, so don't get down on yourself if you make the wrong choice. Making the wrong choice is how one learns.

I was studying diagram #37 in HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS and the combination had me puzzled for a while. I hate looking up the solutions before I've figured it out since I feel I've swindled myself by paying for the book and then just looking up the answers. Besides, when I do figure it out, for a brief moment I feel like I'm Tal and, since it's probably the only moment in my life when I shall feel like him, I figure why not enjoy it?

The reason it had me so puzzled was that White, being uncooperative and refusing to let me pull off my amazing Tal-like combination, kept castling and removing the pin. Thus, if 1...0-0 or 1...0-0-0 or 1...Rd8 are too slow, Black clearly must strike while the iron is hot and so the immediate 1...d4 presents itself, despite walking straight into a check. After all, Tal never feared a check or two or, for that matter, sacrificing material so

The solution analysis in your book runs thus:
 
1...d4 and if 2.Bxc6+ then 2...Kf8 3.Bxa8 Bxc3+ followed by ...Bxa1 picking up a piece.
 
Probably as a hangover from the analysis of other candidate moves where White kept castling, I was stuck with this castling idea and asked myself what if:
 
1...d4 2.Bxc6+ Kf8 3.0-0
 
Then there doesn't appear to be anything else for Black except 3...Bxc3 4.Bxa8 Bxa1 then perhaps 5.Bg5 Bc3
 
White has two pawns for the piece. Black has three pawn islands (one of which is an isolated pawn), the Black king is in the middle of the board, the rook is temporarily trapped on h8 and Black's white-squared bishop is biting on granite. Can White generate enough threats against Black s weak pawns and exposed king?
 

You are quite right that White, after 1...d4, can put up a much tougher resistance with 2.Bxc6+ Kf8 (2...Kf7! is far stronger, but we'll settle for 2...Kf8, which was the move/typo in the book) 3.0-0! Bxc3 4.Bxa8 Bxa1 5.Bg5 (5.Bd2 seems better) 5...Bc3 and here you end your analysis. I agree that White now has quite a bit of play (though he's still worse). In many lines White will even get a third pawn, but though point-count might claim material parity, the owner of the extra piece usually has all the winning chances in such positions. Here is a quick example that shows the superiority of the piece in relation to the pawns:

6.Qf5 (6.e3 gives White better chances of saving the game -- White should try to exchange as many pawns as possible) 6...Qd7 7.Qc5+ Kf7 8.Qxa7 Bc8 9.Qc5 Rf8 (9...Qe7 might be stronger, but we're trying to make a point here so we'll stick with 9...Rf8) 10.Bf4 Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.Bxc7

Here White has FOUR pawns for the Knight, but Black retains excellent winning chances because the pawns aren't doing anything: 12...Bg4 13.Bf3 Bxf3 14.exf3 Nd7 15.Kg2 Ra8 16.a4 Ra7 17.Bf4 Nc5 and Black wins since White's queenside pawns are doomed.

However, all this is academic since 2...Kf7! would have given Black a winning position..