| |
Main
Date: 26 Sep 2005 10:30:04
From: Richard
Subject: Counting tempi and development
|
In "My System" Nimzowitsch talks about tempi in terms of points. For
example, after:
e4 e5
d4 exd4
c3 Nf6
e5 Nd5
Qxd4 c6
Bc4 Nb6
Nf3 ...
He says "White has here six tempi as against two or one and a half, for
the Knight is not better placed at b6 than at f6, and the move ...c6
was really not a whole tempo, since no move of a central pawn is here
in question."
My question is, can tempi be counted from a fixed position? In other
words, can I look at the final position here without knowing the moves
leading to it and count the tempi, or are the tempi differences counted
as they occur?
This leads me to another question, what is considered the difference
between simply moving a piece as opposed to developing that piece?
Also, if a piece remains on its home square but is "cleared" by
removing a pawn (i.e. capturing with the a-pawn thus opening the a-file
for the rook), is that piece considered developed?
Sorry for the very basic questions, but I am trying to make better
sense of my chess books so I can learn from them better.
Thanks,
Richard
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 21:01:31
From:
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
I have seen two suggested methods for estimating tempi (in open games.)
Tarrasch suggested counting 1 tempo for each of the following:
Knight on third rank, Bishop off back rank, QP moved, KP moved,
Castling, Q off back rank, Castling, Rook on open file; 2 tempi for
Knight on 4th rank, 3 tempi for Knight on 5th or 6th rank.
This is useful for the opening and is dynamic; tempi can disappear and
forced moves must be taken into account.
A Pawn is worth approxmately 3 tempi in open positions.
Another method (complementary to the above, I don't remember who
suggested this) is to count the number of moves needed to Castle.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2005 09:32:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Another method (complementary to the above, I don't remember who
> suggested this) is to count the number of moves needed to Castle.
The problem with that is that, by this measure, after 1.e3 d4 2.Nf3 Bg4
3.Be2, White is `fully developed' and Black is no nearer to castling than
he was at the start of the game.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Technicolor Puzzle (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an intriguing conundrum but
it's in realistic colour and perfect
for your grandparents!
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Sep 2005 07:23:10
From: Harri Haanpaa
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
On 2005-09-27, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Another method (complementary to the above, I don't remember who
>> suggested this) is to count the number of moves needed to Castle.
>
> The problem with that is that, by this measure, after 1.e3 d4 2.Nf3 Bg4
> 3.Be2, White is `fully developed' and Black is no nearer to castling than
> he was at the start of the game.
I heard this in the form that you should count how many moves you
still need to connect your rooks. So black would need one move to
free the bishop, 4 moves for the pieces on back row, and 1 for
castling; a total of 6. White would need a pawn move to free the
bishop and queen, three for the pieces on the Q-side, and 1 for
castling; a total of 5.
Of course all these counts are just crutches for evaluating the
position and I am sure that in some position even this improved
count will give nonsensical results. And all of these counts emphasize
quantity of development over quality, but that is really something
beyond my current level of chess understanding.
Harri
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 11:57:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
Ron is correct, and especially if you are new to chess, you shouldn't
take My System too literally.
I found that going through it once and trying to understand what I
could, and then periodically returning to it after I gained more
experience was very useful in my development as a player. Nimzo is like
the college professor with deep ideas who doesn't always express them
well. But if you re-read it every so often, you will go, "Ah! That is
what he meant!"
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 23:31:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
> Ron is correct, and especially if you are new to chess, you shouldn't
> take My System too literally.
>
> I found that going through it once and trying to understand what I
> could, and then periodically returning to it after I gained more
> experience was very useful in my development as a player. Nimzo is like
> the college professor with deep ideas who doesn't always express them
> well. But if you re-read it every so often, you will go, "Ah! That is
> what he meant!"
Nimzovich is the father of modern chess theory. Okay, maybe its eccentric
uncle. A lot of what we consider "basic knowledge" was stuff he introduced.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 23:59:39
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
In article <Px%[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Nimzovich is the father of modern chess theory. Okay, maybe its eccentric
> uncle. A lot of what we consider "basic knowledge" was stuff he introduced.
Nonsense.
Nimzovich was very important in introducing some very critical and
advanced ideas to chess. But really, most hypermodern stuff is
irrelevant to beginners.
"Basic stuff" like development, control of the center, avoiding pawn
weaknesses, reacting to a wing attack with action in the center ...
that's Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch and Lasker, all of whom predate Nimzo.
Nimzo is one of the most important, radical thinkers in chess history.
But I don't think most of his contributions are "basic."
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2005 19:28:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
>> Nimzovich is the father of modern chess theory. Okay, maybe its
>> eccentric
>> uncle. A lot of what we consider "basic knowledge" was stuff he
>> introduced.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Nimzovich was very important in introducing some very critical and
> advanced ideas to chess. But really, most hypermodern stuff is
> irrelevant to beginners.
>
> "Basic stuff" like development, control of the center, avoiding pawn
> weaknesses, reacting to a wing attack with action in the center ...
> that's Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch and Lasker, all of whom predate Nimzo.
They taught players to OCCUPY the center and OCCUPY territory; Nimzo taught
us to CONTROL it.
His theory that one should open files, control a square in enemy territory,
and use it as the focal point for an invasion is definitely the basic theory
of today.
>
> Nimzo is one of the most important, radical thinkers in chess history.
> But I don't think most of his contributions are "basic."
"My System" is generally the knowledge which separates the tournament
players from everyone else.
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 17:58:24
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Counting tempi and development
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Richard" <[email protected] > wrote:
> e4 e5
> d4 exd4
> c3 Nf6
> e5 Nd5
> Qxd4 c6
> Bc4 Nb6
> Nf3 ...
>
> He says "White has here six tempi as against two or one and a half, for
> the Knight is not better placed at b6 than at f6, and the move ...c6
> was really not a whole tempo, since no move of a central pawn is here
> in question."
>
> My question is, can tempi be counted from a fixed position? In other
> words, can I look at the final position here without knowing the moves
> leading to it and count the tempi, or are the tempi differences counted
> as they occur?
>
> This leads me to another question, what is considered the difference
> between simply moving a piece as opposed to developing that piece?
> Also, if a piece remains on its home square but is "cleared" by
> removing a pawn (i.e. capturing with the a-pawn thus opening the a-file
> for the rook), is that piece considered developed?
I don't see how he gets six tempi for white. I see five. (e pawn, d
pawn, Q, KB, KN). I wouldn't count the c-pawn, which may prove to be a
valuable move.
Whereas I see two clear tempi for black - the epawn and the knight.
The point is that the second move of a piece doesn't count as a
developing move.
The way to think about development is to look at the number of pieces
involved in active play. If a piece is removed from the board, it is not
a developed piece. Usually, a piece sitting on its home square is not a
developed piece (although there are exceptions, for example if you lose
your h-pawn, and are attacking down the h-file, a rook on h1 is
certainly developed). So yes, you can look at the board and count
pieces.
Central pawn moves are considered developing moves (as can knight-pawn
moves) because these moves are neccesary to deploy your bishops. But,
importantly, only the first move of each of these pawns is a developing
move: in the exchange above, white's e5 is not a developing move. It
doesn't hurt white, since black has to move a piece twice in response.
-Ron
|
|
