Log In

PLAY
LEARN
Chess.com

SHARE

FORUMS

Sign Up - It's Free!

Search

MORE

Targets, Time Pressure, And Reaching

Expert
IM Silman

| Oct 20, 2015 | 329 views | 1 comment

SPOTTING THE ILLUSIVE TARGETS

Chess.com member speedyg2 asked:

I have been reading your book How to Reassess Your Chess
4th Edition and I was wondering if move 23 for White (Rfe1) is
following the imbalances. My imbalance breakdown was that
Black's e-pawn and the b-pawn were the main targets in this
position.

^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads! ^

Most Recent Articles

Mr. speedyg2:
You lost a pawn early but life (and the game) goes on. Before I
look at move 23, I have to point out an important error in the
following position. Black, a pawn up, decides to kick your queenside structure with the good
move 13...a5:
A serious positional error
8

13... a5 14. b5?

( 14. a3 , maintaining control
over c5, was better. )

7
6
5
4

Targets, Time Pressure, And Reaching

Expert
by IM Silman
56 minutes ago
Combinative Chess
by batgirl
13 hours ago
The Best Game Of Millionaire Chess Contest
Winner
by pete
25 hours ago
More Secrets Of The Soviet Chess School
by GM Gserper
2 days ago
The Positional Queen Sacrifice
by GM DanielNaroditsky
4 days ago

3
2
1
a

J # , . @

Why did you hand the c5-square to your opponent? Much better was 14.a3 making sure c5
doesnt fall into enemy hands. Remember: you should be striving to create weaknesses
(vulnerable pawns and holes) in the opponents camp. You do NOT want to inflict these
weaknesses in your own camp unless youre getting something just as good (or better) in trade.
After your 14.b5 Black can (whenever he wants) place his knight on c5 and/or he can pile up on
your backward c4-pawn.

^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads! ^

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Is 14...b6 reasonable?
8

At this point Black jumped

onto the c5-square with
14...Nc5. But is
14... b6 a reasonable
alternative? Take a moment to
figure out the plusses and
minuses.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a

J # , . @

If Black chose to play 14...b6 he would hope to place his bishop on b7 (taking control of the a8-h1
diagonal) and a rook on c8, eyeing the target on c4. HOWEVER, he should only play 14...b6 if he
understands that hes creating a hole on c6 and that White might try to make use of that by Nd4
followed by Bf3.
As it turns out, White cant really grab the c6-square: 15.Nd4 Bb7 16.Bf3 Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Qc7 18.Rac1
(18.Nc6 Ne5 19.Nxe5 dxe5 20.Rac1 Qc5 is pretty bad for White) 18...Rfd8 and Black should win
thanks to his pressure against c4 and his extra pawn. So 14...b6 was quite good, but you
shouldnt play a move like that without making sure the c6-hole wont be a curse.
White's plan failed
1
2
3

14... b6 15. Nd4 Dreaming

of "winning" the c6-square.
15... Bb7 16. Bf3 Bxf3
17. Qxf3 Qc7 18. Rac1
( 18. Nc6 Ne5 19. Nxe5
dxe5 20. Rac1 Qc5 is pretty
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

bad for White. )

18... Rac8 and Black's a
happy camper.

4
5
6
7
8
h

J # , . @

Lets return to your question: My imbalance breakdown was that Blacks e-pawn and the bpawn were the main targets in this position.
White missed something

Of course, I would be remiss if I ignored 23.Nxa8, winning the exchange and turning a pawn-down
inferior position into a material-up favorable position. Your 23.Rfe1 is certainly reasonable (if
23.Nxa8 wasnt possible), and b6 is certainly a weak spot in Blacks camp (you intend Nd5, hitting
both b6 and e7). Though you can, temporarily, put some heat on Blacks center you have to
realize that Black has his own central dreams (thanks to his central pawn majority). Lets see
how things went and what could have occurred:
Looking for the imbalances
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
h

23. Rfe1??
( 23. Nxa8 is the obvious
choice. In chess, greed is
good. )
23... Rc8 24. Nd5 e6
25. Nf4
( 25. Nxb6?? Rb8 traps
White's knight! )
25... Re8 26. Nd5 f5! In
the actual game Black played
the terrible
( 26... e5?? handing the
d5-square to his opponent
and allowing the b6-pawn to
be safely chewed
up: 27. Nxb6 Rb8
a
28. Nd5 and White was

J # , . @

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

All in all, you were worse (unless you ate the offered a8-rook) and you pretty much did the best
you could under the circumstances (targeting b6 and Blacks center). However, with best play
your threats could have been pushed back and you would have suffered for a long time. You
hanging a pawn in the opening put you in the doghouse, and you handing Black the c5-square
(14.b5?) made things even worse. Blacks blunder (26...e5??) saved you.
Please do your best to fully understand why 14.b5 was a bad move. Youll be stronger for it.
TIME PRESSURE
Chess.com member devansh123 asked:
I have severe problems in time control. I lose very often due to time pressure even in very
strong positions. I request you to provide a detailed article on time management.

Mr. devansh123:
You are asking a lifelong time pressure junkie to tell you how to avoid what I never could cure in
my own games! You can find time pressure addicts in every spectrum of the game (everyone gets
into time pressure now and then, but were talking about those that have an habitual time
pressure problem).
Sammy Reshevsky was always in time pressure. Pal Benko was another victim of this disease (he
was famous for hanging rooks when he got low on timenot pawns, not minor pieces, just
rooks!), Walter Browne lived in a permanent state of time pressure agony, and Alexander
Grischuk has a home on Time Pressure Boulevard. And on and on it goes. They never found a cure
and I didnt either.
Having said that, there are some obvious fixes:
If you use too much time in the opening, that means you havent mastered your opening
systems or the typical positions/situations/plans that occur during and after the opening.
If you gain a solid grasp on these things then you should be able to get through the
opening with minimal time spent.
If you understand the typical middlegames that occur in your games, youll be able to make
use of common plans and strategies without eating up the clock.
Of course you should also tighten up every other part of the game (endgames, tactics,
imbalances, etc.), but that takes devotion and endless work. Sadly, if you arent conversant with
these things (and most players arent) then youll either make sub-par moves quickly, or youll
agonize over whats going on and, even if you find reasonable moves, your clock will turn into
your worst enemy.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Having said all that, one is left wondering why great players like Reshevsky, Benko, Walter
Browne, Grischuk and others were/are always in time pressure. Im sure there are many reasons,
but the three that stand out are:
VIEWING CHESS AS ART: When someone views chess as art, that person doesnt want to
make a move unless he knows its clearly the best or clearly the most beautiful. Once
someone gets into that mindset, time pressure will be a permanent part of his life.
THE NEED TO CALCULATE EVERYTHING: Walter Browne had this disease. He would go
over one variation after another until he was sure he had everything worked out. As a
result, he was always fighting the clock.
A BAD MEMORY: Reshevsky studied his openings but was known to forget all his
preparations as soon as the game started. This forced him to spend huge amounts of time
trying to reinvent the wheel.
The only way to get rid of time pressure is to:
Toss out any move and lose most of your games (your terrified time pressured heart will
thank you but your rating wont).
Pick up as many opening, middlegame, endgame, and tactical patterns as possible. Doing
this will enable you to read a position quickly and save huge amounts of time on your
clock.
Be practical. You cant calculate everything. You most likely dont have all those patterns
in your memory bank. So, master basic tactics (which is easy to do), study basic strategic
ideas, make the moves you think the position needs as quickly as possible, and let the
fates do the rest.

THE VALUE OF BLITZ AND GETTING TO 2000+

Chess.com member simplyAGGRESIVE asked:
"Big fan of your books. Should I be playing 15- or 30-minute games instead of 5-minute games? I
find myself playing mostly all 5-minute games. Is there any value in that? Lastly, how many years
did it take you to hit the 2000 rating level?"

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Mr. simplyAGGRESIVE:
Theres value in every kind of game, be it bullet or long tournament games. The main value is to
play a time control that gives you the most pleasure. For those that want to justify bullet, they
can say that the muscles they get from moving so fast eclipses what they get at the gym. If that
doesnt work for bullet fans, tell everyone (after winning 1,000 bullet games that you start with
1.f3, 2.Kf2, etc.) that you are a chess master (dont tell them that you won most of the games on
time while being five pieces down, or that your rating in 2-minute or more is 900).
If it makes these guys happy, they should embrace delusion-central and have a great time! (I play
online bullet sometimes, and I can assure you that delusion-central can be a very relaxing place.)
Of course, you made it clear that you would like to play real chess (5-minute up to 30-minute).
The 5-minute to 30-minute crowd gets to play real openings and theres even time enough to
spot some nifty combinations or some powerful positional ideas. This means you can actually
improve over time (and you mentioned to me that you are studying books, which is good).
Personally I used to like all the time controls, but when I wanted to be serious I would always go
for the longest time controls possible so I could actually ponder the positions in front of me and
see if I could solve their secrets.
The real answer(s) to your questions can only be addressed if I knew your goals, your
weaknesses, and various other unknowns. However, since you seem to favor 5-minute chess,
then study, improve, become a 5-minute monster, and have a blast.
Regarding how long it took me to reach the expert level...hmmm. I didnt learn how to play chess
until I was 12. I goofed around with it, played a few tournaments (with horrible results), and
ended up falling in love with the game (my first rating was something like 1050, and I was much
worse than that rating!). I think I made 1400 by the time I turned 14.
At that point I got a lot of chess books and studied really hard (every day, seven days a week,
two to eight hours a day). Like most kids, I was into tactics (Alekhine was my hero).
This was my first published game. The write-up said this: ONE piece sacrifice is neat. TWO
pieces sacrificed is spectacular. THREE pieces sacrificed is dashing, undaunted, bravado. When
one of them is a rook, its breathtaking. And add another fourth piece, even though its for
three pawns -- though giving one back to boot -- ending up with Q and R vs. Q, R, R, B, N, N is
practically illegal.
The 15-year-old me was thrilled to read this. However, the whole game is filled with errors. I was
probably around 1900-strength at this point.

Silman vs. R. Flacco

San Bernardino Open | 1970 | ECO: B98 | 1-0
8
7
6
5
4
3

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6
7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Nbd7
9. Bc4 b5 10. Bxe6!
fxe6 11. Nxe6 Qb6
12. Nxg7+ Kf7 13. Nh5?
( 13. Nd5!
wins: 13... Nxd5?
14. Qh5+ Kxg7 15. Bh6+
Kg8 16. Qxd5# )
13... Bb7 14. O-O-O
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

13... Bb7 14. O-O-O

Rac8 15. Rhe1 Qc5
16. Qe2 b4 17. Nd5?
( 17. e5!
wins: 17... bxc3
h 18. exf6 cxb2+ 19. Kb1

2
1
a

J # , . @

So, what was wrong with 26.Rf4+? Take a look at the following puzzle:
Black saves the day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
h

g: (

Black to Move

I made a massive leap in strength when I was 16. I had master-strength tactics but poor
positional understanding and miserable technique.

Liddell (2150) vs. Silman

San Diego Open | 1971
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
h

g: (

Black to Move

Heres another example (against an experienced master) of my great dynamics and tactics being
balanced by my pathetic technique.

Ron Gross vs. Silman

Los Angeles | 1971 | ECO: E70
1
2
3

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6
5. Bg5 c5 6. d5 h6
7. Bh4 O-O 8. Bd3 e6
9. Nge2 Gross, already an
experienced master at that
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

experienced master at that

time, played this system
often. I, on the other hand,
didn't know the variation at
all.
9... exd5 10. exd5 g5
11. Bg3 Nh5 Black really
isn't playing for ...Nxg3
since that might give the f5square to White in many
lines. Instead, I wanted to
play ...f7-f5 and create a bit
a of excitement!

4
5
6
7
8
h

J # , . @

I think that I was around 2100-strength at this time. In a years span I gained 200 points (1900 to
2100). After the Gross game I added some endgame and positional skills and that immediately
took me to master strength.
This final example (age 17) shows me in the 2200-range (my opponent was a very strong and
revered master).

Silman vs. Mondragon

La Mesa vs. Mexico Match | 1972 | ECO: C75
8

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6
5. O-O Bd7 6. c3 Nge7
7. d4 Ng6 8. Be3 Be7
9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Bc2
Kh8 11. d5 Nb8
12. Qb1 All through my
career I have had a love
affair with playing my Queen
to b1 (in any opening!). This
might have been the first
time I ever did it.
12... Qc8 13. c4 c6
14. c5! dxc5 15. Nc4
Qc7 16. Rd1 cxd5
17. exd5 Bd6 18. Ng5!
f5 19. Ne6 Bxe6
h 20. dxe6 Be7 21. Bxf5 I

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a

J # , . @

The formula is simple: Study hard, play as often as possible against players who are a bit better
than you, take serious (and honest!) note of your shortcomings, fix them, and the skys the
limit!
Comments
Nietsoj
17 minutes ago
"The formula is simple: Study hard, play as often as possible against players who are a
bit better than you, take serious (and honest!) note of your shortcomings, fix them,
and the skys the limit!"
I like this quote. Thanks Silman!
Back to Top

Post your reply:

Log In

or

Join

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Home | Why Join | Chess Topics | About | FAQs | Help & Support | Site Map
Privacy Policy | Legal | 2015 Chess.com Chess - English

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com