Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Board Question Board Question

01-14-2014 , 12:13 AM
Ok so, a buddy of mine is kinda learning chess, and we used to play Risk together. When we played, i always referred to the country's, as squares. kinda like a chess board. So, he is learning, and at some point i say to try to think of the board in squares( as in weak, strong etc.). So he asks well, what is the most important square. My noob thought was F7, but then was like nah, its gota b E4-5 or D4-5. Or is there really an answer, as in game pending?. thx 4 trolls and serious replies


edit: i said E5
Board Question Quote
01-14-2014 , 12:37 AM
Hard question to give an unqualified answer to. It depends on the game state.

If I could write a program capable of quantifying each square's value at any given point of a game, I'd feed it a huge GM vs. GM database and have it spit out a "heat map" of average square importance. (I'd filter out endgames.)

I'd expect e4/e5 to be the hottest, followed by d4/d5. As far as the second rank goes, I think f2/f7 would be its most critical squares.
Board Question Quote
01-14-2014 , 12:57 AM
I guess it depends on how you define a square's "importance". Do we mean how important it is to occupy that square? Or to control it? Or do we mean the most vulnerable squares? One could perhaps even argue that the most important square is whatever square the king is on, if one squinted just right.
Board Question Quote
01-14-2014 , 03:34 PM
Kinda what i though, its really impossible to tell. His question was simply which is most important. Kind of like in risk, say the middle east or russia is most important.
Board Question Quote
01-15-2014 , 07:48 PM
e4/e5/d4/d5; that's why Informator-ese has a symbol for the centre.
Board Question Quote
01-16-2014 , 01:27 AM
Interesting question. I'd like to see a heat map of the squares, too.
Board Question Quote
02-15-2014 , 05:17 PM


(Preempting pedantry: Yes, we know, it's not the same thing.)
Board Question Quote
02-16-2014 , 12:06 PM
Ruy Lopez as white bias detected.

That's a nice chart, though, and a great idea for how to answer the question; thanks for creating. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be that terrible to try to recreate that with squares attacked rather than occupied (assuming one counts x-ray targeting)...
Board Question Quote
02-16-2014 , 06:47 PM
I didn't make it. My art style is sleeker and I wouldn't use the word "utilization."

So given that, recreating it that way would be very hard.
Board Question Quote
02-26-2014 , 01:56 AM
Same data (well, whatever RJF as White games I had, but including the moves by his opponent), both the occupied and targeted views.



Occupied doesn't count initial positions; targeted makes no effort to correct for anything and is basically the squares attacked on an empty board by the just-moved piece.
Board Question Quote

      
m