brilliant lecture

Just something I want to add. I played my first real game in a while last week and using this concept I managed to crush my 1900 opponent in 22 moves, where my opponent just played quite blunderfree chess. I'll try to explain what I did.

In the middlegame I was unsure how to proceed and then I noticed I still had two obvious rookmoves. So, my position wasn't critical yet! I made the most logical one and immediately my opponent made a (logical) move which meant I could play a central break with an added advantage (thanks to my non-critical move). A few moves later again I couldn't see a real plan, but I still had one obvious rookmove and I played that first. I took time from my opponent's clock to look for a plan, cause now my position had turned into a critical one. Well, I came up with a plan (which the computer regretfully doesn't like that much) and it worked big time, when my opponent made a logical move which failed to a tactical shot. In the end those rookmoves proved extremely important (as usual when you are attacking, you want to have all pieces included).

The point is: one of my weaknesses (and I'm sure a lot of other people have this aswell, but perhaps not everyone reckognises it) is forcing matters too quickly. Using this concept I managed to play better chess and delay important decisions to critical positions or positions where there were bigger advantages to be gained by playing a forcing move. I guess I'm interpreting this a little bit freely, as I used it in the way as 'you have critical positions, which are the most important positions in chess and which are deciding for the game' and my interpretation 'you want to have the best possible position to play a critical position'.

In short: with this concept I won one of my cleanest victories ever, which I wouldn't have won if I hadn't viewed this video (the rookmoves wouldn't have come up in me, as strange as it may sound).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3uBzv8ElEI i think these two videos have a lot to do with your lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlpQqPJe ... re=related

I have to admit that I am not a big fan of this theory as I find it too subjective. I have read both Dorfman books. I even had GM Keith Arkell trying to convince me of this theory while he was staying at my house a few years ago.
I think you have done a very good job of explaining this theory in such a short time. Regardless of my own views on this topic, I still felt compelled to award you five stars.

Thank you. I have played Arkell online many times and had the privilege of meeting him in person this summer in a tournament.

thanks!

I am glad this worked for you. There are many ways to use the theory. You chose a very practical approach, and got positive results doing so!

if you send me the pgn or the moves of the game I will be happy to look over it for you and make a video. your annotations are welcome, they will be insightful and I could commentate accordingly.

That's a very generous offer of you. I feel however that the game itself doesn't deserve that much attention. The most important thing for me is that the evaluation of the computer doesn't peak the other way every few moves. In that way it was one of my cleanest victories, albeit in no way great by any standard.

Let me not withold the game however, as it might make my explanation earlier somewhat clearer.



Important for the theory are moves 10, 14 and 16/17. (However, especially move 10 is doubtfull if it's even the best move, as e4 directly manages to stop the bishop from developing at all. After all, after 10... b6, even though the c6-pawn is a weakness, in the end black might be able to play ...c5 (without allowing white to play d5) and solve his bishop-problems. And on move 10 black also has the possibility to play 10 ...e5 instead of ...b6 (though I feel it can't be right and after 11. e4; for ex. 11... dxc4 12. dxe5, Nxe5 13. Nxe5, Qxe5 14. Nxc4, Qe7 15. e5, Nd5 16. Nd6 and white should have a little plus I think). But anyway, that's totally irrelevant to the discussion, as there are plenty of positions where it does matter a lot if you play a quiet move first).

Even though move 14 and 16 are pretty obvious, normally I'd tend to look at more direct approaches, as my opening advantage is starting to slip away from me. In that way this theory 'solved' my problems concerning that. And in analysis, move 16 is important as if black had played 16... Rad8, white could have played 17. b4 when black can't play 17...a5 anymore, which could have been possible after something rash like 16. b4. As white still has a logical move (Ne5) I think however that move 17 is the critical middlegame position and therefore, considering this theory, I felt it would be illogical to play something else, as there are no moves giving white an immediate big advantage.

So, thanks for the very generous offer, but I don't think the game really warrants it.

In the end I'd like to congratulate you on your first appearance in the USCL league. I hope you'll perform well and make your supporters proud.

Your video was a very good topical discussion of what I call "key moments". Training with a strong player is the only way to improve upon your recognition of "key moments" as Charles said. Quite universal was Zibbit's video of pattern recognition, With the aid of software and books you can develop this on your own. But amateur players may look at GM games and just fail to recognize the key moments, so therefore assistance is very valuable in this aspect. I thought you could improve upon presentation though Charles, using arrows and highlight of squares in the positions presented as well as maybe an improvement in clarity of explanation. But this was a short video contest, and with that in mind this is the first one ive watched ill move on to the others and not rate any of them till after Ive watched them all but ill keep notes on paper.

Good Job Charles

Jimmie Beatty
Smearinov on ICC

Thank you Smearinov.

Awesome lecture.