Positional game lessons with J. Krayenbrink. Part 1: “When an attack is useless”

03.02.2025

At the moment there is not so much material about the 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. Krayenbrink about the problems of positional play with the analysis of system mistakes by most players and coaches. You can purchase all of J. Krayenbrink’s books in our store.

Very often novice players hear from their coaches: “Play actively and occupy the center!”. Therefore players try to occupy the center, using “the attack of the opponent’s pieces” as the main technique, but the attack is not always successful and constructive. Very often “an attack of an opponent’s pieces” leads to a deterioration of the position. And today we will show some examples in which “an attack of an opponent’s pieces” is erroneous.

We will point out the reasons that serve as a motive for the players to use “the attack of an opponent’s pieces”:

  1. Players use the attack as the simplest reason to justify their actions on the board.
  2. The players just want an action. Any action at all.
  3. Players use an attack to simplify the calculation of the position.
  4. The players are using a false thesis: “I’d rather attack than the opponent.”
  5. Most players develop an automatism of actions without a specific goal.

Let’s look at practical examples and try to figure it out.

H. Timmer – M. Hees, 2003

The game between the rivals was played in 2003. Here white played 1. 31-26?

Most players would have played the same way. Some of the reasons the players mentioned after this move were:
1.1 Freeing one’s long flank due to the “bad” disposition of pieces 41, 36 and 42.
1.2. The “fear” of a binding of own pieces on the flank.

So, to the conclusions:
Unfortunately, this attack is unsuccessful. When choosing a plan for white, it was necessary to choose the movement: 38-32, 43-38, 41-37. Such a formation would meet the requirement of strengthening the flank.

Mistakes of the move 1. 31-26:
2.1. White simply give his opponent two extra tempos in development.
2.2. By developing the opponent’s flank and weakening own flank, white put it under pressure and threatens to break through in the future.

H. van Hierden – J. Groeneweg, 2001

It was played 1. 33-28? in the game and once again we recall the reasons that make players attack the central piece.

In the game black made a mistake and responded with a move 1. … 14-19?, and white’s plan was not refuted. In fact, the move 1. 33-28 raises a lot of questions.:
1.1. After answering for black 1. … 7-11, black prepare a flank attack using a piece 27.
1.2. White again give up two development tempos and lose the initiative in the center.

We offer two educational examples that should help you in the fight against automatism during the game.
White attacked 1. 33-28.

Please, give an answer to the following questions:
1.1. How would you answer for black?
1.2. Variants of other moves (plans) for white.
1.3. Evaluate the position for both colours after the attack.

White attacked 1. 32-28.

Please, give an answer to the following questions:
1.1. How would you answer for black?
1.2. Variants of other moves (plans) for white.
1.3. Evaluate the position for both colours after the attack.

Telegram_logo Icons8