Quote:
Originally Posted by slickpoppa
Dire, tactics I hear what you're saying, but one big thing holding me back is knowing what to do in even middle games. What usually happens at my level is that my opponent and I will crank out 12 or so standard opening moves, and then have no clue what to do next. Then one player will make a mistake, the other guy will jump on it, and usually win (though restealing is still common at my level). "Tactics, tactics, tactics" is important for jumping on those mistakes and putting myself into a situation to use tactics, but you can't always force tactics, and a move that potentially sets up a devastating tactic is not always the optimal move. I'm talking about positions like:
Obviously that's an extreme example, but I think you get the idea. Most tactics training sites put you in a position where a 2 or 3 move combo wins you a piece or mates. While being able to convert in those scenarios is very important, learning how to forcibly put yourself in those scenarios is not easy.
The whole point of tactics isn't learning a bunch of tricks to mate in 3 or whatever but to improve your board vision, particularly with regard to spotting weaknesses, and learn common themes. I mean all tactics come down to one of two things:
1. Double attack. You attack two weaknesses simultaneously and your opponent can only defend one, so you win.
2. Attack double. You attack one weakness with more material than your opponent can muster to guard it, so you win.
Like in that position you offered, it's obviously dead drawn with decent play. But that doesn't mean there aren't chances especially when there probably won't be decent play. The first thing you need to do is like in any tactics problem, figure out where the weaknesses are and target them. If there aren't any immediate weaknesses, then create them.
So here is how I look at that position. First off, white probably made some big mistakes in the opening. You don't get dead positions like this unless you allow them, but whatever. Okay so what's the "natural" plan? Well the rooks are inactive so the obvious idea would be to put rooks on the d and e files, but what's that accomplish? Not much. They can't really penetrate on the 7th unless black falls asleep. Ok, well if I'm going to think of doing anything but putting my rooks on those files, I better make sure black can't crush me by doing the exact same thing. Ok, if black puts a rook on the d file - no problem, my f3 knight covers d2 so it's not going anywhere. What if he puts one on e8? Oooo. Not so good, the e2 square is weak. We need to take care of that. Ok, we'll get to that, but first let's come up with some plan to create weaknesses too.
Hmmm that c6 pawn sure is pretty awkward. It's a weakness with no real purpose on the queenside. Can I take advantage of it? Yes I can! I can play a4 planning simply a5/a6. Black will have to deal with that somehow, and that will create more weaknesses I can attack. Awesome!
So let's shore up our position and then get to creating weaknesses. Since I'm planning to play a4/etc, I want to keep my a file rook stationary backing up my ambitious a pawn. So I'm going to move my f rook to guard the e2 square. The natural square is e1, but then black can play Re8 and that's annoying since I want to keep my a rook stationary and if I play 2. Rxe8 Rxe8 I still have to cover with e2 square with something like Kf1 and I want to get to creating weaknesses asap. So after thinking all of this through, I play 1. Rfd1!
So yes I still have to play Kf1 after Re8, but at least I keep more material on the board and if black plays the more likely Rad8, I can play 2. Rxd8 Rxd8 3. a4 and immediately get on with my plan.
So in many ways the way I get to the idea of 1. Rfd1 is purely tactical. I want to create weaknesses and I want to do it as fast as possible. No deep Steinitzian horse restriction, no classical endgame king centralization. Just a plain ole blunt force plan to attack. And it may not even be the best plan, but that doesn't really matter. Some plan is always a million times better than no plan.