A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Evaluating coordination



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 24th 03, 07:44 PM
Justin Sane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

The phrases "piece coordination" or "coordination
of forces" occur in annotations and discussions by
the chess learned.

1) During the course of a game how does one
evaluate (score) coordination of one's forces?

2) Can masters look at a position and spot which
side has better coordination?

3) How do chess programs go about this task?
Of course, this assumes that coordination can be
evaluated numerically using some guidelines.

4) Any book references?

No flames, please keep to the topic.

Thank you for educating me,

Justin


  #2  
Old July 24th 03, 10:44 PM
Mike Ogush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:44:09 -0400, "Justin Sane"
wrote:

The phrases "piece coordination" or "coordination
of forces" occur in annotations and discussions by
the chess learned.

1) During the course of a game how does one
evaluate (score) coordination of one's forces?

2) Can masters look at a position and spot which
side has better coordination?

3) How do chess programs go about this task?
Of course, this assumes that coordination can be
evaluated numerically using some guidelines.

4) Any book references?

No flames, please keep to the topic.

Thank you for educating me,

Justin



Justin,

You may want to look at Dan Heisman's book"The Elements of Positional
Evaluation" . It has been a while since so I don't remember of Hesman
specifically uses the term "ccordination". I think he does talk about
the number of squares that are threatened and the level of threat on
the squares, which I think is linked to piece coordination.

Mike Ogush
  #3  
Old July 24th 03, 11:47 PM
Justin Sané
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

Mike,

Thank you for the reference. I will check it.

The phrase in your response that these ideas
are "linked to piece coordination" allows me to
infer that there must be something else that
forms the core of this concept. It supports
my belief that counting "number of squares
threatened", "level of threat on the squares"
(Q: Is that the same as "number of squares
threatened by multiple pieces"?) viewed
from either side of the board is not quite
this "piece coordination" concept.

Cordially,

Justin


  #4  
Old July 25th 03, 04:00 AM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination


The phrase in your response that these ideas
are "linked to piece coordination" allows me to
infer that there must be something else that
forms the core of this concept. It supports
my belief that counting "number of squares
threatened", "level of threat on the squares"
(Q: Is that the same as "number of squares
threatened by multiple pieces"?) viewed
from either side of the board is not quite
this "piece coordination" concept.



I think the idea is you want to ask yourself if the pieces are all
working together to accomplish logical goals. In general, attacking more
squares is good, but it's not that simple.

Here's a straighforward example of piece co-ordination:


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
8. Qd2
Nc6 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. Kb1 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. a3 Rfd8 14.
Nb5 Qa4
15. c4 Bxc4 16. Nc3 Qb3 17. Bxc4 Qxc4

This is Boleslavky-Lissitzin, Moscow, 1956.

White has sacrifices a pawn to increase his control of d5. The question
is, what move can he make to improve this control?

..
..
..
..

18. Bg5!

A lot of weaker class players would play Bh6 here, hoping to be able to
trade bishops and attack on the dark squares. Boleslavsky has a better
idea: he's going to make the d5 square his forever, and then land a
knight on it.

Take a look at the position after 18.Bg5. Notice how white's queen,
queen rook, knight, and bishop are all fighting for control of d5. This
is a textbook example of piece co-ordination--all the pieces are working
towards one end: prevent the black d-pawns advance, and keep d5 a
critical weakness.

This is an example of good peice co-ordination doesn't neccesarily mean
attacking as many squares as possible--in this case, it means ganging up
on d5. White used his light-square bishop for this aim, too... to trade
off a defender of that square. Notice how the dark-square bishop, which
can never directly attack d5, finds a way to participate in controling
that square.

Compare this to black's co-ordination. His bishop isn't doing anything
to help his knight--whereas the white bishop and knight are functioning
together nicely.

The game continued:

18. -- Qe6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. Nd5 Qh4 21.
Qe2 Bf8 22. Qf1 Rac8 23. g3 Qg5 24. h4 Qh6

Another example of piece co-ordination. If black plays Qxg3 then 25.Rd2!
and black has no defense against the threat of Rg2.

This is a very different type of piece co-ordination. Notice how, in
this variation, each white piece controls different squares that the
black queen might otherwise flee to-- so this is a case of good
co-ordination of the "attacking a lot of squares in a logical way"
variety.

And look at black's pieces. They're not working together toward any
logical end. Each is attacking or defending something different, so
there's no way to gang up on any target.

25. g4 (note the threat of 26.g5 Qg7 27.Nf6+ Kh8 28.h5--more piece
co-ordination: the knight forces the king to the h-file where it is
vulnerable to the rook.) h5 26.g5! (now the threat is in the coordinated
ability of the rook and knight to deliver mate: 27.Nf6+ and Rxh7)

26. ... h6 27.Rxh6

Simple tactics, based on the fact that black's peices are poorly
co-ordinated. Black wishes he had a rook guarding e7. Since he doesn't,
the bishop has to do double-duty, allowing this pretty move. Obviously,
Bxh6? Ne7+ wins the queen and a bishop for a rook and knight.

27. ... Qxg5 28.Rh5 1-0

Black resigned on the threat of 28. ... Qg6 29.Qh1 (threatens Rg1) Re6
30.Rh8+ Kg7 31.Qh7++ Again, note the role of the knight-- supporting the
attack by cutting off the king's escape squa a final example of good
piece co-ordination. Meanwhile, black's pieces waste away on the back
rank neitehr attacking nor defending anything useful.

You see a few different types of piece co-ordination in this game. I
think this game demonstrates the piece co-ordination, as an evaluation
criteria, is really about answering the question: "are my pieces working
together towards a logical goal or not?"

-Ron
  #5  
Old July 25th 03, 07:07 PM
Justin Sané
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

Ron,

Thank you for the example. I will play it out and
read your comments as I do.

I think you have some errors in your copied
moves. The game is pasted below.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1257953

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8.
Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. Kb1 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. a3 Rfd8 14.
Nb5 Qa4 15. c4 Bxc4 16. Nc3 Qb3 17. Bxc4 Qxc4 18. Bg5 Qe6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20.
Nd5 Qh4 21. Qe2 Bf8 22. Qf1 Rac8 23. g3 Qg5 24. h4 Qh6 25. g4 g5 26. hxg5
Qxg5 27. Rh5 Qg6 28. g5 h6 29. Rxh6 Qxg5 30. Rh5 Resigns


- Justin




  #6  
Old July 28th 03, 07:34 AM
FredH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination


"Justin Sane" wrote in message
...
The phrases "piece coordination" or "coordination
of forces" occur in annotations and discussions by
the chess learned.

1) During the course of a game how does one
evaluate (score) coordination of one's forces?

2) Can masters look at a position and spot which
side has better coordination?

3) How do chess programs go about this task?
Of course, this assumes that coordination can be
evaluated numerically using some guidelines.

4) Any book references?

No flames, please keep to the topic.

Thank you for educating me,

Justin


Have a look at the book "Chess Tactics for Advanced Players" by Yuri
Averbach. He doesn't specifically deal with Evaluation of Piece
Co-ordination, but he does discuss the concept of piece co-ordination as a
fundamental element of the Combination.

Fred.


  #7  
Old July 28th 03, 09:33 AM
Damir Ulovec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

Ron,
I liked your instructions, but I found some illogically things about all
this... NHF
1. 14. ... Qa4 seems to me like a weak move, because black queen jeopardize
to be stucked (14. ... Qa4 15. Nc7 Rac8? 16. Bb5)
2. Why they played 15. c4 instead of 15. Nc7
3. I agree that Qxg3 is a disaster for black, but what's so good in 25. Rd2
(if I may comment it: ?), when black can simple threat with Bh6, and after
26. Rg2 Rc1+ black maybe have better chances.
Cheers...


  #8  
Old July 28th 03, 07:59 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

In article ,
"Damir Ulovec" wrote:

Ron,
I liked your instructions, but I found some illogically things about all
this... NHF
1. 14. ... Qa4 seems to me like a weak move, because black queen jeopardize
to be stucked (14. ... Qa4 15. Nc7 Rac8? 16. Bb5)
2. Why they played 15. c4 instead of 15. Nc7
3. I agree that Qxg3 is a disaster for black, but what's so good in 25. Rd2
(if I may comment it: ?), when black can simple threat with Bh6, and after
26. Rg2 Rc1+ black maybe have better chances.



As someone else has point out, I made some errors transcribing the end
of the game. The entire gamescore is:


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
8. Qd2
Nc6 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. Kb1 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. a3 Rfd8 14.
Nb5 Qa4
15. c4 Bxc4 16. Nc3 Qb3 17. Bxc4 Qxc4 18. Bg5 Qe6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. Nd5
Qh4 21.
Qe2 Bf8 22. Qf1 Rac8 23. g3 Qg5 24. h4 Qh6 25. g4 g5 26. hxg5 Qxg5 27.
Rh5 Qg6
28. g5 h6 29. Rxh6 Qxg5 30. Rh5 1-0

That being said. None of these errors affect your notes let's look at
yor moves one at a time:

14. ... Qa4 I don't know if this is the wisest move, but generally if
black starts making defensive retreats in the dragon he's in trouble. I
suspect that if 15.Nc7 Nxe4 where that central pawn mass will start
moving. White picks up two pawns and a cental pawn roller for the piece.

The idea of c4, as well-demonstrated by the game, is to induce white to
give up his light-square bishop. The point is that black gets a huge
positional advantage here with no risk. I can only assume Boleslavsky
saw the Nc7 and thought this was the more logical course of action.

25. Rd2 Bh6 26.Rh3 wins for white pretty easily. Relatively best for
black is 26. ... Bxd2 when the simple 27.Rxg3 Rc1+ 28.Qxc1 Bxc1 29. Kxc1
leaves white a piece up.

No better for black in that line is 26. ... Qxh3 27.Qxh3 Bxd2 28.Ne7+
and black will have a queen and knight for a bishop and rook.

The obvious question, however, is why not 25.Rh3, which seems to win
directly. For this I don't have a good answer.
  #9  
Old July 28th 03, 10:23 PM
Damir Ulovec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

"Ron" wrote in message
...
OK, txnks...
Just one thing... It's played in Leningrad, not Moscow. )

[Event "URS-ch23"]
[Site "Leningrad"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Boleslavsky, Isaak"]
[Black "Lisitsin, Georgy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B76"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2
Nc6 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. Kb1 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. a3 Rfd8 14. Nb5 Qa4
15. c4 Bxc4 16. Nc3 Qb3 17. Bxc4 Qxc4 18. Bg5 Qe6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. Nd5 Qh4 21.
Qe2 Bf8 22. Qf1 Rac8 23. g3 Qg5 24. h4 Qh6 25. g4 g5 26. hxg5 Qxg5 27. Rh5 Qg6
28. g5 h6 29. Rxh6 Qxg5 30. Rh5 1-0


  #10  
Old July 29th 03, 12:52 AM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Evaluating coordination

In article ,
"Justin Sané" wrote:

Ron:

You wrote "25. Rd2 Bh6 26.Rh3 wins for white
pretty easily." How can 25. ... Bh6 follow 24. ... Qh6 ?


That's a variation. On 24. ... Qxg3 Rd2. I apologize for not making
this clear in the post. I was responding to Damir's comments about the
position after 24. ... Qxg3

Alos, you write "25. Rh3, which seems to win directly."
What is the continuation here?


Also, this is assuming 24. ... Qxg3. Instead of 25.Rd2, 25.Rh3 attacks
the queen, which has no flight squares. White wins a queen for a rook.


| 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
| 8. Qd2
| Nc6 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. Kb1 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. a3 Rfd8 14.
| Nb5 Qa4
| 15. c4 Bxc4 16. Nc3 Qb3 17. Bxc4 Qxc4 18. Bg5 Qe6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. Nd5
| Qh4 21.
| Qe2 Bf8 22. Qf1 Rac8 23. g3 Qg5 24. h4 Qh6 25. g4 g5 26. hxg5 Qxg5 27.
| Rh5 Qg6
| 28. g5 h6 29. Rxh6 Qxg5 30. Rh5 1-0

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.