| From | Message |
wschmidt
3/17/2008
12:06:51
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: Vukovic - The Art of the Attack in Chess
Message:
In my last OTB tournament game at my local chess club, I was paired against a much stronger player. I was White, playing the Closed Sicilian and had a bit of kingside pressure. I botched the attack and went down in flames.
After looking over the game I decided that the next book I'm going to study will be Vukovic's "The Art of the Attack in Chess". It's been sitting on my shelves for ages, unread. Now's the time. Anyone care to comment on their experiences with this book? Anyone care to read it with me?
|
bhidragon
3/17/2008
15:04:23
[ report abuse ] | Great Book
Message:
I started it about six months ago. It's going to take a while to get through, but I've already learned quite a bit. Solid theory backed up by some good examples of his ideas.
|
cascadejames
3/17/2008
19:54:47
[ report abuse ] | Count me in.
Message:
wschmidt,
Count me in if you are still looking for some study partners. I bought the book today, and will begin with the preface and introduction tonight.
|
marinvukusic
3/18/2008
02:52:16
[ report abuse ] | Great and important book
Message:
I don't understand the "Anyone care to read it with me?" part though (this is a book for individual study).
|
juanvaldezmyhero
3/18/2008
08:53:07
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
The one study partner you need is your chess set. I found I learned the most from this book by playing through each example very slowly. The chapter on the bishop sacrifice at h7 stands out as particularly well done, and I would give it special attention.
|
ganstaman
3/18/2008
10:34:57
[ report abuse ] | ?Useful? example
Message:
Bishop sacrifices at h7 -- I've got one of those!  game
But it's an ongoing game, so I think I may have to stay out of this thread until the dust settles just in case someone starts to talk about it. I don't claim that it's completely correct (my comment in the game at this time of this writing says that I still couldn't work out 15...Bf6), but I think the whole idea of attacking the kingside from 12. h4 could be instructive. If you want to have some fun, try working out 12. h4 h6 13. Ng5, or 12...f6 13. Ng5. At least at the time, that's what I was planning on moving.
|
juanvaldezmyhero
3/18/2008
10:55:34
[ report abuse ] | another example of Bxh7
Message:
Here is one I credit to studying Vukovic:
game
|
wschmidt
3/18/2008
13:25:43
[ report abuse ] | marin,
Message:
What I meant when I said, "Anyone care to read it with me?" was "I'm going to start it in a few days and if anyone else is going to do the same, we might share our comments in this thread as we do so."
|
cascadejames
3/18/2008
13:36:33
[ report abuse ] | Introduction- "focal point" - "chunk"
Message:
I have just begun my study of this book. Among other things, the introduction discusses the idea
of a "focal point", that is a square near your opponent's King, which when occupied by the
appropriate piece creates a checkmate. The idea is to plan a series of moves that will allow you
to position the appropriate piece on the focal point. Initially I thought this to be just another label
for something obvious. Then I realized that the focal point concept provided a convenient "chunk"
of chess information.
For those unfamiliar with the idea of "chunks"-- There is a theory that your brain deals more
efficiently with information when it is organized in moderate sized "chunks" instead of many
small bits or one large piece. For easy example, it is easier to remember and use a 10 digit
number if it is divided into 3 chunks. So instead of :
10 small bits 2 1 2 5 5 5 1 2 1 2
or one large piece 2125551212
we use 212-555-1212 as a telephone number.
Notice that the effect is even greater if the chunks contain familiar patterns. In this case, some of
you will recognize this as a telephone number in which 212 is the area code for New York and 555
is a prefix that is reserved for telephone company numbers.
In chess, each individual move is like a single small bit. The focal point is a convenient way of
organizing your thoughts about a series of moves leading to checkmate. The game as a whole
involves multiple possible focal points, and the focal points change from time to time as the
pieces move. If you try to keep track by looking at individual moves only, it is very difficult. If
you try to digest every possible attack, and hold them in all your mind together that is also very
difficult.
It is easier if you break the game down into a series chunks. Each chunk being a plan to use a
particular square as a focal point, and it is easier still if you can integrate familiar patterns into
the plans to take advantage of the focal points.
I look forward to studying more about focal points. Your mileage may vary. Some people find the
idea of chunks useful, others think it useless.
|
cascadejames
3/18/2008
22:44:24
[ report abuse ] | Attack on uncastled King pp.14-18
Message:
Attack on the e-file
Vukovic at p. 14 - "The first and most fundamental condition for an attack on the e-file is that the
opponent's King should be on that file, and that for some reason it is impossible or difficult for it
to move away."
Is he simply emphasizing the point that an attack on the e-file is particularly effective because
the King is there, or is he really saying that the presence of the King on the file is fundamental? I
have to confess that I will often attack down an open e-file whether or not the opposing King is on
it. Any time the e-file is open, it feels right to place a rook or two on it, where the rooks can play
a part in the struggle to control the middle. I think of it as getting the rooks into the game,
instead of allowing them to sit in the corner not doing much. Would Vukovic say I am wasting my
time when I move the rooks to the middle? Or maybe Vukovic would say that if your opponent's
King is not on the e-file, then moving your rook to the open e-file may be a good move, but it is
not an attack; instead it is merely an appropriate move to develop the piece.
|
ionadowman
3/19/2008
04:04:33
[ report abuse ] | cascadejames...
Message:
... perhaps
|
