The Principle of two weaknesses - one weakness or two?
One sick pawn can lose you the game, but you need two points of
attack to win. How does this add up?
Both are true. In order to win against one weakness you
need to attack the weak point, gain an advantage in space or
mobility through this, and use your mobility to force through on a
second front. Then one or other point will crack because your
opponent's pieces won't be able to cover both attacks.
Chekhover-Rudakowsky is a nice example of this.
Bishop endings are generally easier to win than rook endings
because there is no way for the defending side to exclude the
attacking King, and neither is there a perpetual check. But perhaps
because they are less common, they may be neglected in a player's
[Fixed 30 Apr 2020 - replaced PalView games with inline PGN]
Half a story
Some things in chess are very concrete and visible -- checkmate, or
knight fork, perhaps, or as we get better, we can also see superior
development or pawn weaknesses. There are more abstract features
of a chess game which are less easy to see, at least at a glance, and
you can appreciate best over a whole game or a part of a game.
Annotators often talk about a player's '
This session comes out of a remark by ex-World Champion Tigran
Petrosian, to be found in an excellent book, 'Opening
Preparation' by Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov. In the
middle of annotations to a game by Henrique Mecking in 1972 the
authors quote Petrosian:
"Mecking does not understand the significance of
weak and strong squares. I have played him three times. In 1969 he
lost to me owing to the weakness of his light squares. A year later
The King's-side attack is so exciting and pleasurable that it is
sometime hard to remember that games can be won on the other side
of the board. I can remember some youthful indignation when playing
against the French Defence, when my ambitions on the King's-side
came to nothing, while my opponent's pussyfooting manoeuvres snuck
in for a touchdown on the neglected Queen's-side.
What is there to aim for in a queen-side attack? The aim
is not mate, but to win or weaken the opponent's pawns on that
side. Queen's-side attacks are more modest but more safe than