Positional game lessons with J. Krajenbrink. Part 2: “When an attack is justified”
At the moment, there is very little material on positional play on a large board. We decided to fill this empty niche. We are starting a series of publications on the books of J. Krajenbrinka about the problems of positional play with the analysis of system errors by most players and coaches. You can purchase all of J. Krajenbrink’s books in our store.
Last time, we talked about the futility of attacking, which most players are sometimes passionate about. We talked about the fact that attacking for the sake of attacking speaks more about “automatism” and is associated with a “false” idea of active play. Today we will return to the two positions of the homework of the first lesson.
After that, we’ll talk about the next topic, which is no less important when organizing your positional game.
Topic: “When an attack is justified.”
Let’s list several reasons and factors for which an attack would be justified.:
- After the attack, the opponent is thrown away from the center.
- The structure of the position changes and the enemy’s attack is destroyed.
- The attack causes complex and difficult decisions to be made by the opponent
- The attack promotes the development of your own draughts.
- The attack develops the attack of its own draughts.
Today we will go through some examples from a new topic and again provide positions for an independent solution.
 |
The assignment for this position last time was as follows:
The Whites attacked 1. 33-28. Please give an answer to the following questions: Let’s move on to the correct answer: White’s move is erroneous. After answering for black 1. … 9-14, black develops at two rates. In the future, with an in-depth analysis, it can be seen that white may lose control of field 28 if he continues to attack draughts 23 through the formation: 38-33, 43-38, 33-28. The correct and active move in this position is move 34-29, followed by the occupation of field 28 (33-28). |
 |
The assignment for this position last time was as follows:
The Whites attacked 1. 32-28. Please give an answer to the following questions: Let’s move on to the correct answer: The chosen move is erroneous and stereotypical. Black can respond 1. … 12-17 and, threatening to undermine the field of 33, regroup his own forces, limiting the possibilities of white. The haste of the white attack is obvious here. The exchange on field 27 (32-27!) looks more effective. |
 |
Today’s position on a new topic: “When an attack is justified.”
Van Oosterom – K. van der Laam, 2006 In the game, white played 1. 29-23. What do you think the Whites used out of the above factors or reasons for the attack? With a quick glance at the position, we can see that the black draughts are separated and white owns the center. But with a possible exchange of black 20-24, they will be able to try to equalize the position. Attacking 1. 29-23 is a good and timely move. He has two goals at once.:
|
 |
Now try to find the factors and reasons for the following actions on the board yourself. Also, evaluate in which positions the attack is justified and in which it is useless.
Black attacked 1. … 17-22 Please give an answer to the following questions: |
 |
Now try to find the factors and reasons for the following actions on the board yourself. Also, evaluate in which positions the attack is justified and in which it is useless.
The Whites attacked 1. 30-25. Please give an answer to the following questions: |
 |
Now try to find the factors and reasons for the following actions on the board yourself. Also, evaluate in which positions the attack is justified and in which it is useless.
The Whites attacked 1. 34-30. Please give an answer to the following questions: |