|
|
|
Topic: Material vs. Quality vs. Time
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I just reviewed an interesting online video by "KingsCrusher". He introduced to me how all three of these, material, quality, and time are interlinked. Would love to hear some comments.
|
|
|
Love to know how to apply them in my games.
|
|
|
In chess everything is about material superiority.If you have material superiority, you win the game.But wait......sometimes the side that has less material wins the game......Actually that never happens , because material superiority has many dimensions and not only the numerical one.
Take a look at the following game:
[Event "Amsterdam"]
[Site "Amsterdam, NED"]
[Date "1889.08.26"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "Johann Hermann Bauer"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "1889.08.26"]
1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. b3 e6 4. Bb2 Be7 5. Bd3 b6 6. Nc3 Bb7 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. O-O
O-O 9. Ne2 c5 10. Ng3 Qc7 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12. Bxe5 Qc6 13. Qe2 a6
After 13...a6 the position is materially and positionally equal.Both sides have "well" developed pieces and "equal material".Surprisingly , white has already a practically won position.Why?
Because almost all white pieces (except Ra1)are very well placed for an attack on k-side.There is only one problem for white:The knight at f6.
White would gladly exchange his knight for Nf6.
White's next move is not a surprise.
[Event "Amsterdam"]
[Site "Amsterdam, NED"]
[Date "1889.08.26"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "Johann Hermann Bauer"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1b2bppp/ppq1pn2/2ppB3/5P2/1P1BP1N1/P1PPQ1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 14"]
[PlyCount "49"]
[EventDate "1889.08.26"]
14. Nh5 Nxh5 15.Qxh5
After 15.Qxh5 the material is equal but White has a huge material superiority on k-side.2 bishops , a queen and a rook(Rf1) ready to come(Rf3-Rg3 or Rh3) against just 2 pawns(g7 and h7).Still Black can defend with 15...f5 , blocking one bishop and ...Bf6-Rf7 follows when white "loses"(the exchange is forced) the second bishop and Black acquires a defender rook on his 7th rank, which is more than enough.
Lasker never played 15.Qxh5 because that gives Black time to breath.Instead a well known double bishop sacrifice followed.
[Event "Amsterdam"]
[Site "Amsterdam, NED"]
[Date "1889.08.26"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "Johann Hermann Bauer"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1b2bppp/ppq1pn2/2ppB3/5P2/1P1BP1N1/P1PPQ1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 14"]
[PlyCount "49"]
[EventDate "1889.08.26"]
14. Nh5 Nxh5 15. Bxh7+ Kxh7 16. Qxh5+ Kg8 17. Bxg7 Kxg7 18. Qg4+ Kh7 19. Rf3
Here is an interesting position.White is 2 bishops up but he has to give his queen to prevent checkmate because where it matters,on k-side , white has a decisive material superiority.Neither of the 2 Black rooks or the 2 bishops is well placed to defend the Black king and not only that.It will be soon obvious that Black's pieces are actually very badly placed and uncoordinated.
[Event "Amsterdam"]
[Site "Amsterdam, NED"]
[Date "1889.08.26"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "Johann Hermann Bauer"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4r2/1b2bp1k/ppq1p3/2pp4/5PQ1/1P2PR2/P1PP2PP/R5K1 b - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "6"]
[EventDate "1889.08.26"]
19... e5 20. Rh3+ Qh6 21. Rxh6+ Kxh6 22. Qd7
Black could hold with the the rook and 2 bishops for the queen and even win.But his badly placed pieces proved a liability and now he has to lose one of the 2 bishops and the game(Lasker easily won after some moves).
The game teaches us that material superiority is related to the position.A rook that can't defend worth nothing while a pawn that defends may worth a bishop and many times even more.
But the related material superiority has to do with the ability of the pieces to coordinate towards a common target and the timely correct exploitation of the coordination.At the above game if white didn't play 14.Nh5 Black could respond 14...g6 when White's material superiority on k-side becomes totally harmless and Black has time to re-organise.
|
|
|
|
|
