We have played 18.Qd2 to reach this position (Black to play):

click for larger view

ajk68: <Wassily:> Your comments are precisely what I am looking for in regard to strategy. In black's position, I see the same general dark square weakness. So if people want to mount a dark square attack, then some plan must be made to eliminate the dark square bishop while keeping ours. Sacrificing the exchange may be necessary, but if unsuccessful would almost certainly spell a lost endgame. It's not clear to me how Qd2 really gains much more control of the dark squares (that diagonal looks fairly uncontested). If we need to rook lift the a-file rook, then it may be in order to take out the c6 bishop, which tends to justify Nd4 (when to do this is more a question). An exchange of pawns on g6 will merely serve to improve black's ability to move his pieces for defense. So that pawn needs to be held onto. To tear things open, we would need other pawns. This means exposing our king to more danger (probably another reason to remove the bishop on c6).

In general this strategy seems impractical and dangerous as a means to a win. Black would seem to be able to cover his bases. However, it may serve to liquidate the pawns on the king side.

This leaves me thinking that the strategy needs to be a strategy for getting into a winning endgame. Since we have pawns on both flanks, the bishops are likely going to dominate in the endgame. Since we are stuck with a dark-square bishop, our chances to win seem tied to getting his pawns on dark squares and leaving him with a dark-square bishop. This plan seems like wishful thinking - I don't think AN will comply. Note that this strategy entails vastly different exchanges than trying to win in the midgame.

However, if we successfully liquidate the pawns on the king side, our knights may be sufficient. Yet, there are no majorities on the queen side and with two pawns break-through combinations are almost non-existent.

Whack8888: <JointheArmy> I think it is easy to underestimate our position. Black does have advantages like better pawn structure and the bishop pair, but he doesnt really have any activity.

His Knight on f6 is somewhat of a liability thanks to his weakened dark squares. The dark squared bishop needs to defend the Knight until the Knight can move. Once the Knight does move, however, the long diagonal becomes much more attractive to us.

The bishop pair is almost a non issue, as Black's light squared bishop isnt going to become to powerful, thanks to our pawn on d3. An attack on g2 is going to be difficult, as the move g6 will make it difficult for Black to use the g file.

Black's dark squared bishop is his real weakness though, being blocked by the d6 pawn. This bishop is basically acting like a pawn in this position, which is very good for White. Also, if Black plays d5 to try and free his dark squared bishop, he will make his light squared bishop very bad.

As for our pawn structure, the d pawns cancel each other out, and we can trade the f pawn if there is ever a threat to capture it. That leaves the a pawn, which while it is a little weak, it is cramping Blacks position and can generally be defended easily. I dont think it will become a serious issue.

ajk68: <ganstaman:> <<What is the strategy of Qd2? It appears that people are saying that the computer says this is the best move therefore we should do it. That may be accurate play, but it's not very interesting chess.>> <Apparently you haven't read a thing posted on this forum. Lines of concrete analysis and also an explaination of the ideas is presented on nearly every page. Just above your post was the summary from the forum that analyzed 18. Qd2, and they showed how it is a winning move (or at least good). That you would then post something like this is insulting to all the work they've done.>

My point is that lines of concrete analysis do not form a strategy. Tactical calculations support the strategy, they are not the strategy. The explanations I have seen are generally limited to discussing the meritorious outcome of different lines, but are not related to a long-term plan.

I appreciate the analysis people have done and don't think saying we need a strategy detracts from their effort.

In your post you seemed to have concluded I am a proponent of Nd4. I am not necessarily. What would it accomplish ... we can take out his light square bishop? Why do we want to do that? Well, it does have some attacking potential and it does support the backward b pawn. Yet, in an endgame, if his pawns are all still on light squares, then that piece might be inferior. Of course taking it out on the next move (Nxc6), would only allow black to remove a backward pawn and connect his central pawn. Strategically, this does not seem like a good thing.

These ideas don't yet form part of concrete lines, but we need to consider them nonetheless. Our various pawn advances and exchanges have left several weak points in our position - not serious enough to be regarded as 'holes', but points that AN might be able to pressurize, attack or occupy.

The most obvious of these is the a5 pawn; it can be defended in the future by b4, but then the squares b4 and b5 are both weak. b5 is also vulnerable now, especially as we don't have a light-square bishop.

The point e3 - currently occupied by our Be3 and defended by the Qd2 - could also become a Black entry point. If we were to exchange dark-square bishops to exploit the holes around AN's King, he might be able to double rooks on the e-file and play ...Re3, or ...Ne3 supported by a Rook, or even ...Qe3.

It's a little worrying to have squares in the heart of our position, like b3 and e3, which can't be supported or defended by a pawn.

Black also has weaknesses, of course, but our pawn advances have left us slightly more vulnerable. And I don't think the 'flexible squeeze' or 'bind' idea which was advocated earlier will work anymore - we don't have enough pawns left. Those ideas work best in middlegames where each side has 6 or 7 pawns, the position is largely closed, and a gradual pawn front/advance is possible.

monad: The pawn on =a5= has been sitting there and will remain there, like money in an old sock under the mattress:not gaining a penny of interest and not doing anything other than preventing the black b-pawn from advancing. Until we finally unlock our b-pawn, it has to be defended by a piece no less, in this case the Knight on =b3=. That seems unbalanced for a start. And with the black Knight on =d5=, our b-pawn on =b4= will only be of use as long as we keep the Queen on =d2=. (one of the reasons I wanted her there in the first place.) But she has other fish to fry and we will have to deal with the queenside before we can start work on the kingside.

This is the trouble with a hollow center: you need two operational headquarters, one for each side. Nowhere near as economical as a central attack. In fact, I think a split board, or an almost open game, is not very suitable for correspondence chess, where the surprise factor does not exist.

However, we (and I use the word 'we' advisedly, as it doesn't include me) played it and have to live with it

Nd4 last move was weaker , imo, than other options for a number of reasons. Again, just because it looks pretty is just like passing a move unless it was within the context of an objective. Arno's previous move, Qd7, virtually told us that he is happy to trade his LSB for this knight so this leads to two questions. 1) Why? and 2) Why do it now if we wish to do so at all? He'll be just as happy this move or next. Also, the knight would be sitting on a dark square, similar to it's brother, and marking some same squares. It is covering more squares in the middle of the board by not being there. As well as that stated, exchanging the knight for the lsb potentially leads to a position where there is a half open b file with our backward pawn on it as well as Arno having regained connected central pawns.

If, for example, the idea of Nd4 was to, say, exchange with the LSB allowing an easier route through the centre of the board for Ne4 and hitting f6/g5/d6 then that at least is an objective worth, imo, considering. But just to sit in the middle because it feels good or to swap off a piece that can just as easily be done on another turn (and one that Arno has indicated he is happy to trade anyway) is the same as passing a move. So we put a piece on a better square, removed it from an open file, reinforced king side dark square superiority, indirectly further supported a weak pawn that is potentially tying pieces down, cleared a route for the other knight to the king side via e2 if need be, etc.

Once again, AN has played a solid developing move rather than a risky tactical one. We shouldn't be surprised - he said as much by playing the Kan, and repeated it in his message explaining why he chose 7...g6 rather than 7...Nf6.

A lot of good strategical points have been made here over the last few moves, but we need a way of refining them. What happens now is that people make overall positional assessments, with ideas for strategy and planning. Then somebody else comes along and gives their take. There's no real debate of the kind you get with lines of analysis.

We could start by putting each other's ideas to test. If I say something like 'we can attack his dark square weaknesses' and you disagree, say so. How much should we worry about his bishop pair? Enough to exchange one off with Nd4 and Nxc6 - even though that gives him reconnected pawns and the half-open b-file?

It's been said we can exchange off his dark-squared bishop while keeping ours. Good. How do we achieve that? Are there other ways to exploit the weaknesses?

How about pawn moves? What kinds of pawn moves will emphasize Black's dark square weaknesses? Pushing pawns in front of our king? Doing something with the d-pawn once our pieces have been attended to?

I haven't seen any analysis where that kind of pawn-storm works, though. At the moment we're better off seeing what we can achieve with our pieces, rather than making yet more pawn moves.

RookFile also pointed out that h3 would stop us playing Rh3 as part of a kingside/h-file attack. But this looks unlikely anyway with f3 under observation by the bishop.

Since AN didn't play ...Ng4 last move, it's unlikely that he'll do so now - unless some tactical sequence emerges. So unless we have a compelling reason to prevent the invasion of g4, I don't see any necessity for 19.h3 (although, like <GufeldStudent> I gave it an early tactical vote just to make it visible).

I'd rather avoid exchanges the next few moves, AN has less space than we have and the d-pawns will become more vulnerable the less pieces on the board. I find it interesting that both sides have islated d-pawns, making the c and e file important.Maybe we should use our rooks somewhere in the near future.

We should also watch out for his bishop pair since this is an open position, we cannot bare his knight from moving and he will probably find some better square than e7 for his bishop. So we could be forced to exchange a knight for a bishop if they become too mighty.

It's partly because of lines like 19.Bg5 Nd5 20.Bxe7 Qxe7, when we might just have a strong kingside attack, with the threat of f6 and Qh6 etc. But if this fails, then it's black who penetrates the white position with ...Qe3+ or ...Qe2.

My Fritz suggests that either 21.Ne4 or 21.Rae1 are good for White there, but I'm not fully convinced yet. But it does seem that depriving AN of his DSB would be a good thing.