Supreme Chess Understanding – Statics & Dynamics

Statics and dynamics in chess are mostly contradictory phenomena – like Yin and Yang or the masculine and feminine elements. At first glance, they appear to be the antitheses of each other. However, this is only partially true as statics and dynamics are more intertwined than one might initially suspect.

To speak of things ‘static’ in chess means everything that is stable and subject to changes only under use of a considerable amount of force. Enjoying a static edge usually implies that – if nothing changes – this type of an advantage is going to allow us to bring the full point home without any undue adventures. Typical examples of static advantages involve a material edge, a healthy pawn-structure or the bishop- pair. One way of recognizing that you are doing really well in static terms is that you find yourself in control of the position with simple non-forcing play being fully sufficient to achieve further objectives.

By comparison, ‘dynamics’ take place when the balance on the board is disturbed. The nature of a dynamic edge tends to be more ephemeral – it can be raging at a given moment only to completely disappear two moves later if mishandled. Some classic signs of great dynamic standing include material imbalances in return for compensation, powerful pawn-levers, or a significant lead in development. Compared to static factors, dynamic ones tend to come to the fore mostly in open positions featuring stronger tendencies towards forced play.

However, the above distinctions are by no means exclusive. There are elements present in the game of chess that can be either static or dynamic in nature such as the initiative. Even more interesting is the opportunity to use static advantages to obtain a dynamic edge or vice-versa. In other words, these two elements complement each other more than one might first believe. Being exposed to positions rich in both strategic and tactical possibilities allows us to obtain a skill which I personally call ‘static/dynamic balance’, that is the ability to comprehend what kind of action does a position call for under the given set of circumstances. For example, if our opponent has a strategically superior position (due to a smaller number of pawn-weaknesses in his camp), you would usually be advised to ‘wiggle’, that is to destabilize the position by seeking tactical/dynamic opportunities. However, when finding yourself under dynamic pressure (under attack or when the opponent has the initiative), the best way of countering this will be to drain the activity out of the opponent’s position. If successful, whatever remains on the battlefield afterwards should favor us, especially if the situation was positionally advantageous for us from the start.

The ability to always know whether to attack or defend, to sharpen up play, or to carry on in a calmer fashion sound like an invaluable skill for any chess player. It is no wonder that many have already tried to work out some sort of universal formula in this regard, most often in the form of a checklist to go through as they analyze during the game. The problem with formulas is that the weighting of the ingredients comprising it varies depending on the situation on the board. And it is exactly the prowess in determining the gravity of the respective elements of the position in question that decides about our strength in this respect. Do not get me wrong, I do not wish to discredit anybody’s previous work on this topic. +

Over the course of your work with this book we will also be trying to establish some guidelines for handling double-edged positions. Then again, I do want to emphasize that any universal formula – however useful it might seem – needs to be applied with a grain of salt. As experience has taught me many times already, in the area of statics and dynamics there are at least as many rules as there are exceptions. Just for the sake of clarity before we move on: terms like ‘statics and dynamics’ as well as ‘strategy and tactics’ may be used interchangeably over the further course of this book.

This does not mean that these phrases cover each other perfectly. As much as static play will often be strategic (or positional) in nature, dynamic handling of the position might (but does not necessarily have to) imply the emergence of tactical motifs afterwards. In general, however, static/dynamic ac- tion shall most frequently represent the ‘framework’ for strategic/tactical events taking place on the board, and as such will therefore be often used in a similar con- text later on.

• Casa editrice Thinkers Publishing
• Codice 8149
• Anno 2023
• Pagine 256