Help need understanding solution

In month 6, exercises 2 set, 5:th position question is:
How can White obtain a strong square in the centre?



And the solution is 13.f4 e4:



Now, White will regroup his pieces to bring his pieces on the new squares:

14.Qd2 Nf6  15.Nc2 Qe8  16.Nb5 Qf7  17.Bd4 Ne8  18.Ne3

Arriving at following position:




I have no idea what they talk about.
Could somebody explain this to me?

I'm not sure that I understand your question. Are you concerned with a tactic with the maneuvers?

Anyway, if you compare your first and last diagram you can see that in the initial position there are no secure squares for white's dark square bishop or the knight on e1 in the extended centre. As stated in the solution f4 prevents the advance for the black f5 pawn and the advance of  e5-e4 creates holes and the knight an bishop have secure positions in the centre.

The question was to create a strong square in the centre.
Which is the strong square?

Good question.

By definition a weak square is a square that is not defended by a pawn https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Strategy/Weak_and_strong_squares

I don't think I have ever seen a clear definition of a strong square, so I'll make one up... A strong square is one that is not defended the by an enemy pawn and can be safely occupied with a piece in an active position. (Essentially, a weak square and strong square is the same square depending of whether you are defending or attacking).

In the solution black in induced to advance the e-pawn creating a hole at d4, and the blocked pawns f4&f5 prevent black from ejecting the knight a e3. So, the strong square in the centre is d4.

You could reasonably conclude that e6 is a weak square in black's position, but it is not a weakness if it cannot exploited. Maybe there is a maneuver to post a knight there, but let's leave that aside for now.

Thanks for your thoughts, and you are probably correct that the strong square is d4.

But it should been mentioned in the answer. Maybe the author think it's oblivious. Which make me think that this course is maybe too advanced for me. And it's not the first exercise where I wonder if I really have learned anything.

MSiipola wrote:  Maybe the author think it's oblivious. Which make me think that this course is maybe too advanced for me.

Nope, I doubt the course is too advanced for you.

I have a pretty good library of chess books that I like to think are carefully chosen. It is common to find that each author has a slightly different characterization of chess elements and that can be quite confusing. The strong square, sometimes called a strong point, is a good example. The course did address the idea in the month 5 lesson, but it doesn't jump off the page that "this is a strong square".

Often it helps just to hear someone else say the same thing, that's why I've added the occasional link to other online sources. I hope it helps.

I begin to dislike these exercises: the proposed moves often are not the best. Many positions contain moves which could have negated the intentions of the author.

In this case even to me it was clear that ...e4 was the wrong move. I would have kept the tension. Stockfish either would keep the tension or trade with exf4. In any way, ...e4 is exactly the wrong move here.

I know it's not about the exercises, it's about "training the idea". But when the solutions depend on blunders or wrong moves, then doing these positions becomes pretty demotivating.

As frustrating as it is, the advice to stay away from computers as you work your way through the course is good advice.

When I run the solution with the current version of Komodo Dragon (which is their emulation of the AI programs now becoming available) e4 stays in the top three responses. It may change with longer search time, but even if it did I doubt anyone could figure out why other responses are any better.

For "industrial strength" analysis I used to use Aquarium to run multiple engines to evaluate positions and maneuvers. It is not unusual for engines to disagree, and you cannot depend on engine ratings to decide which is the best engine for a particular problem. For me the lesson learned from my exercises with Aquarium is that when it comes to positional analysis it is unusual to find one best move.

If you are interested in a deep dig into computer chess as a tool for analysis I suggest Modern Chess Analysis by Robin Smith. The book is dated, but the methods and recommendations are still valid.

I like to think of the situation as good news that we haven't been replaced by artificial intelligence "yet". Till then, the machines remain fallible.

Well I had enough of certain half baked "exercises". Not rewarding at all.

We must ask ourself what is the take away from an exercise? Is it general ideas or solutions of exercise, which you try to remember?
I'm not sure it so productive trying to find the correct/best move if it's suggested by an engine, but is not logical to human.

Probably we all have followed online GM tournaments where they the GM's don't play the best engine move. Maybe the best move was the objectively the best move, but very hard for humans to understand. And you also have the time constraint of games.

Turning off the engine is a very good idea for learning any chess course.

You can find bad moves in super GM games often by analysing their games with a strong engine. What shall you say then? "Bah, super GMs make mistakes so I won't learn from them then."? No. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this one. If you can't turn off the computer engine while studying, then you won't learn much at all.

The only time I engage an engine is if I am looking at a position presented and I don't understand why, after looking at the position for 15 minutes or so, move X wasn't played because it is what I would probably play. Now if I engage the engine, one of two things will happen. 1. I find out why my move was not good... which is a good thing... or 2. I find out that my move was actually good and so I give myself a pat on the back and move on. A win-win situation.

I feel these are excuses; Diversion to criticizing engines or otherwise "it's about the exercise, not solution". I don't buy it. It strongly resembles this failed American "Common Core" program, where the solution of 2+2 is less relevant.

This strategy chapter tries to overwhelm the student with a ton "excercises", where 4 or 5 examples would suffice.

Uh-Oh... I'm ready to go off the deep end. Get the flame-throwers out.

The AI engines are crushing the expert system engines.  I see that as a validation that at least for the present that the human mind is superior to computers. The AI engines mimic the human mind.

The game is unfair, expert system engines are able to look up opening books and even permitted to write down real-time notes in hash tables which humans are not allowed to do during games. Worst of all, they are dedicated to playing chess. We are at the juncture of generalized artificial intelligence and it is yet to be seen if a generalized AI systems can compete with humans. I think (and hope) we will prevail, at least for a while. For now, specialized AI has the edge, but as they become "distracted" with more and more generalized information it will be interesting to see who will be the ultimate winner.

I don't know about 2 +2. Quantum Computers has my head spinning - must be something to do with my age...

LOL quit diverting to engines. The main topic is that these exercises are not working.

"The main topic is that these exercises are not working".
I'm not sure they are not working. Many of the exercises are over my head, but even so, maybe I'm still learning something?

It's said the course is for broad rating range, from 1200-1400 (?) up to expert. So some of exercises will be hard for the lower rating pupils.

Just remember that the OP started this thread about a solution based on a future black's wrong response.

Not going to tell myself these are good exercises.

Ok, OK... The intent was not to divert to engines. But we all now turn to engines for assistance in search of the "best" move. Often the engines can help, but even they punt from time to time by offering multiple suggestions.

The ICS course is advertised to help us reach a high level, and that means being able to work our way through difficult positions - real chess.

The very first example in Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual shows what I call "real chess". You can find it in the look ahead on the Amazon website.

[Event "?"]
[Site "USSR"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lelchuk"]
[Black "Voronova"]
[Result "*"]
[EventDate "1983.??.??"]
[FEN "1b1qnr2/4p1kp/pp1rQpp1/2p1N1B1/P4P2/2P5/2P3PP/3R1R1K w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]

1.Bh6+ Kxh6 2.Qf7 Rh8 3.Ng4+ Kh5 4.Ne3 *

These first few moves are what is known as a "Box Canyon", a series of only moves. You can follow the analysis with your computer set to show the top 4 or 5 principle variations from here, and what you will see in the variations and comments is a blending of raw calculation and intuition. Real chess.

My only intent has been to show that looking at the examples and turning on an engine to look for the "best" move is futile.

"looking at the examples and turning on an engine to look for the "best" move is futile"
I agree. The engine is not a good teacher.

The best option is to get help from a strong player/coach. But if don't have neither, your only "coach" is the engine.

The alternative is trying to find the best move on your own. But you can't be sure you found the best move. Maybe this is still the best way of improving in the long run.

You also have the time constraint. How long will you try to solve an exercise? Hours? Days?! In a game you normally have only a few minutes. Shouldn't an exercise have the same time limit? Or maybe 15-20 minutes?

15-20 minutes is exactly how much time I would spend. More than a normal game because you are studying, but not so much time that it stifles progression.

As for things "not working", I would disagree. I was hovering around 1750 (ACF) at the start of ICS and after, with practice, made it to 1975. I haven't played rated games since hitting that. In rapid games, I went from around 1800 to just over 2000. Something worked.

I see those diagrams in the first post and they make sense to me... the idea of fighting for a strong central square is good... which is the point of the exercise... no matter what the engines say.

PawnCustodian wrote:...The very first example in Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual shows ...

That is one diabolically difficult position... scramble to draw!