If y'all are getting tired of my threads with random positions to analyze, just let me know.
I was looking over the game Topalov-Ponomariov from 1999 and came across the following position. Black just played 21...gxf6 to arrive at the diagram, with white to move. What is your move, plan, and why?
This position is really interesting to me because it's sharp and imbalanced, but not in a wild, sacrificial sort of way. I have a really hard time in positions like this one.
The entire game link is below so you can see how things finished and check yourself.
I looked at the position for about 20 minutes and had a hard time forming a plan. White has the two bishops, open c-file, and a nice looking square on c5 but I couldn't find a way to take advantage of it. Black's obvious weakness is the e6 pawn, but how to attack it? A slow buildup doesn't seem to work because it looks like black can defend. Eventually I landed on the correct idea of f5, but to be honest couldn't calculate all of the following variations. After much thought I just felt like it had to be right, but couldn't follow it correctly.
Question for the strong players here if y'all don't mind. When playing a move like 21.f5 here, how far do you calculate past that? For me it's very tough to calculate even 3-4 moves deep because I feel like black has so many reasonable looking replies. Maybe I'm just not strong enough and they actually aren't reasonable haha, that could be the problem. I actually got it right by playing 21.f5, but my thought process was pretty much "21.f5 feels right, I don't see an immediate way for black to win material or crush me, so I'm playing it and hoping the variations work out". Not a great way to play chess, to say the least.
"I don't see an obvious plan. I bet it's one of those master 'create a weakness' problems. Can I force him top give up any squares? f5 forces him to either give up the f5 or e6 squares. That must be it."
My first and last thought was 1.Nc5. If 1...Bxc5 then 2.dxc5 followed by c6. My second thought went to f5. It looks very nice too activating the rook. But I can not so far find a reply to Nc5. I calculate what I need to. Mostly annoying and interesting moves. Sometimes deep, sometimes not. I think it is better for beginners to look at a lof different possible moves. You avoid most blunders by doing that. I also fall way too easily to the mindset of looking at only one line very deep. Sometimes it is just nice to think that you know a lot about chess, and you do not need to think about any other possibilities.
the key is that the reason why you SHOULD play f5 is dictated by your understanding of the position, not because of calculation. Therefore, you only have to find a reason NOT to play f5 while calculating. If you don't see a way to lose after f5, you shall trust your understanding of the position and go for it even if you don't find a clear "win" in your calculations.
YKW, that's pretty much exactly what I was wondering, thanks for answering. It seems to me that in complicated positions you'd almost have to just trust your intuition, because there are just so many different ways the opponent could play. It would be impossible to calculate and react to them all. I don't know how else you'd play.
The wAy i find f5 is asking what pieces u have and in what environnement they like to play .
Here u have 2 bisbop and u know they like open position .
Second black have knight and u know they need support point ( like pawns) to stand on their ground on the center .
A lot of player calculate endless variation instead of just trying to find where and why the pieces should get there, once u know why than u can calculate.
Here imo it was pretty easy to find f5 imo
YKW, that's pretty much exactly what I was wondering, thanks for answering. It seems to me that in complicated positions you'd almost have to just trust your intuition, because there are just so many different ways the opponent could play. It would be impossible to calculate and react to them all. I don't know how else you'd play.
Well, I think intuition is just one part of it. The other part, and probably a bigger one, is just knowledge of the game. You know that bishops like open positions, that you should make your pieces active (and do the opposite towards your opponents pieces), that your rooks like open files, etc. There is nothing intuitive about that. The intuition kicks in when you, after thinking about all these factors that you understand about the position, need to make the actual decision. Then you might say to yourself: "well, even though I cannot calculate everything very deeply, this move seems to fit everything I need to do in this position and I don't see an easy way for it to lose, so it has to be correct way to proceed" and go for it.
I would also argue that even the famous intuitive sacrifices of Tal come from deep understanding of the position. I don't think he was just sitting there like "hmm, maybe I should just sac this knight here and see what comes of it, I feel I will win". I would argue that he understood the positions deeply, saw (either consciously, or, quite possibly, "felt" it subconsciously) the patterns and harmony of his pieces that will emerge after the sacrifice, and the only reason they are called intuitive is because it was so complex that he could not calculate it through to the end.
My instinct is to play Ba5, with all sorts of tactical malarkey going on around the c7 and e6 pawns, and it turns out that it maintains an advantage (black ends up with three isolated pawns and an exposed king), but doesn't win material as f5 does, however I think the follow up moves are much easier to find and more comprehensible.
Running an engine ahead a few moves after f5 I just go
I think f5 is a pretty easy move to find an an easy move to play, but extremely difficult to be certain it's the best move. what Montreal said, basically.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
