Modern Morals of Chess

"Chess is less strategic and more tactical than Shogi" is a very interesting statement to discuss because I generally disagree but I see the point being made having played both games and going through a phase of seriously trying (and making very limited progress) to learn and improve at Shogi fundamentals. There is no doubt that Shogi tactics gets far more complicated than Chess tactics because of all of the sacrifice possibilities introduced by the drop piece rule, and tactics are even more strictly required to win in Shogi than in Chess because the game does not simplify to a chess-like endgame, both sides HAVE to attack the castled kings and it's really a simultaneous marathon race to checkmate first. Imo the Shogi endgame is not unlike a closed middlegame of chess in which the kings castled on opposite sides and are now simultaneously attacking the enemy king. That said, although Shogi has far more tactical skill practically necessary to learn, I do also get the impression that Shogi strategy is also highly complex but I never got far enough with the game to even really begin to understand practical strategy. Shogi is just more of everything pretty much.

It might be smarter to consider the "ratio" of tactics to strategy in the 2 games rather than which is simply "more" tactical/strategic (For example, the checkers games have less strategy and tactics than chess but the tactics dominate the game). From my perspective I think that chess arguably has a marginally higher ratio of strategy to tactics although it varies enormously on openings and playing style, but Toadofsky can probably form a better informed opinion than mine. My reasoning is that drop piece rule makes any chess-like game far too chaotic for long term strategy to be reliable or practical as is the case in Crazyhouse/Bughouse, but if the pieces are weak enough like in Shogi then it becomes just about possible to start thinking in terms of very advanced strategy. But really to me, simplification is very elegant and a chess-like game without that is just much less satisfying. For players interested in taking up an asian chess game which is similar enough to chess for most of your chess skills to be transferable but different enough to give a whole new playing experience, I thoroughly recommend Xiangqi/Chinese Chess as the games are very open, tactical, and aggressive.

Personally, I think the most fun chess-like game with drop-piece rule is Hive. It's truly a unique game and unlike chess and other classic games which survived thanks primarily to being both fun (at least on some level to start off with) and intellectually challenging (so we can feed our egos and prove ourselves lol), Hive was designed with the specific goal of being fun to play and intellectually stimulating on a fairly casual level. I think the key to enjoying games more is to not take them so bloody seriously and avoiding getting too sucked into the studying arms race ("The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life" Paul Morphy, but you've probably heard this a million times by now)

(P.S: I did find it quite ironic that the very first point on the list on how to return to the philosophical values of the game and save chess from becoming a "memory contest powered by razor-sharp tactics", was to learn trap openings XD like srsly?? The cognitive dissonance is real lmao. Your answer was straight up "Don't like getting caught out by opening traps? Welp can't do anything about it so may as well be the one with the traps ;P ")

@coffeebeans said in #37:

You do need to study and understand opening ideas. But I rarely bother to memorize lines.

Maybe it is a personal nuance, but I have rather good memory so it is easier to me to memorize some moves, especially when they are frequent and counter-intuitive.

For instance, when facing how to re-capture as Black in the event of 4 Bxc6 in the Ruy López, exchange variation. Normally I would capture towards the center, keeping the d-pawn to support e-pawn without weakening the Kingside pawns, and immediately freeing the b-file for the a-rook.

So I just remember the best reply is dxc6 and learned a few usual continuations, which in this particular case are sometimes very weird looking (like not retreating the g4 Bishop after h3). Again, this is my personal choice, maybe because I memorize things almost effortlessly and learn better going from concrete examples to general principles than the other way around.

"I have taught many chess classes and I have read many chess books, yet to date chess lacks such prescriptive advice. "

NM Dan Heisman has quite a few sayings/principles on his page for free sorted by area of the game:
https://www.danheisman.com/principles.html

But I don't know if that is the kind of advice you had in mind.
Shogi is awesome by the way as is Yoshiharu Habu who was active in both games and reached approx. 2400 Elo in chess.

Rooks and bishops need open lines.

That has been formulated more precise. Rooks and queens need open lines, queens and bishops need open diagonals. Rooks should be placed as far away as possible from other pieces, e.g. from the king in the endgame. Bishops and queens potentially too, however they control more squares in the center.

Chess has the concept of a bad bishop, which is a bishop which has not enough open diagonals, due to own pawns blocking them or opponents pieces/pawns controlling them.

One can generalize this to bad pieces. A knight in the corner, controlled by a bishop is a bad knight, a king cut off by a rook in the endgame is a bad king. There is also the saying "one bad piece worsens the whole position" and, positively formulated "talk with your pieces", speak, improve your worst piece.

Rowson has refined the concept of a bad bishop: "bad bishops protect good pawns", to denote cases where one side has a bad piece, but it is a good defender which holds together the position and gets compensated by other active pieces. As an example he gives the Najdorf bishop e7.

Begin tactical engagement with a pawn sacrifice.

That's not true. One may begin tactical engagement with any sacrifice or with none at all. Sacrifices are not required for tactical engagement. e.g. catching a queen can be called a tactical engagement. The queen does not have to take on b2 first.

think carefully about retreating moves.

That's half true. Always think carefully (but not necessarily long), also about attacking moves.

Retreating moves are a fundamental part of chess!

For example, to reorganize (consolidate) after a material win.

Or after provoking a weakness. E.g. a black bishop check on b4 and after the answer Bd2 the bishop retreats to e7. The Bd2 is then not well-placed. Or a bishop move to g5 in the King's Indian, and then the retreat to e3, in order to provoke h7-h6, which can, after h4-h5, even weaken e4!

Or to place a piece better, e.g. the f3 knight in King's Indian, which retreats to d2, in order to go to c4, or to e1 in order to go to d3. Or the d2 Knight in the Ruy Lopez, which retreats to f1 in order to go to g3 or e3. Or a d7 knight in a French structure, which retreats to b8 in order to go to c6, where it attacks d4. Or the slightly more mysterious retreat to b8 from c6 in the Ruy Lopez Breyer, in order to go to d7.

Retreating from a fork loses both tempo and material (literally "do not run from a fork").

That's a strange law ("do not run from a fork"). If the queen and rook are forked by a knight, the queen usually has to retreat. The meaning is, maybe, to search for tactical ways to escape from a fork?

Separate the king, rook, and bishop (or a fork will happen).

Is that so? Have you ever placed your pieces and thought, "Great, these will be well protected from future forks"? I do not think so. This is too blurry to consider it. And how would one do that? Is there a specific placement which is better than another?

A more useful rule is "check for forks", or more generally: "check for what the opponent can answer before you make the move". (trainers of children often call it "sit on your hands")

If the opponent's pieces are undefended, you won't be lost looking for an attacking move (forcing the opponent to retreat).

That has been formulated, e.g. "chess tactics from scratch" names hanging opponents pieces as an indicator to find tactics. Nunn has a chapter named "LPDO", "Loose pieces drop off" in one of his books, where he claims that most games are decided by such piece losses.

Therefore, shogi openings are both about activating your pieces (without hanging them) while securing your king in a castle (a shape where pieces and squares are defended).

It is called development in chess. Which is a special case of broader principles like "force accumulation", "force protection", "king safety", "restriction".

A threat is almost always stronger than its execution.

That's true. Has been said by Savielly Tartakower - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartakowerismen (first quote). A concrete example are checks. Beginner like to give them, but a check is actually not relevant, relevant is if the king can escape. So it is better to first restrict the king and threaten the checkmate.

@Schachgestalt said in #44:

That's a strange law ("do not run from a fork"). If the queen and rook are forked by a knight, the queen usually has to retreat. The meaning is, maybe, to search for tactical ways to escape from a fork?

Well it is Shogi proverb where time is way more important than in European chess and most pieces are not that valuable. Definitely not true for western chess.

@petri999 Yes, I just see, shogi doesn't have a queen, seems the rook is the strongest piece. (promoted bishop is probably equally strong as a promoted rook, as it can switch color)

Sorry. I ramble so much, that secretly I hope I will not be imposing it on anyone specifically. @coffeebeans.
If I introspect why. I know, it does not sound well reasoned through. I am not going to pretend all my threads come out reasoned through or already cooked. That is even if I knew all of them in any instant. You were right. Now I will read your response.

The heart emoji I manifested is to show my joy at some discussion that might keep going at least one exchange further, mostly in advance seeing that you are splicing my rambling, is cognate reassurance and mind food for my reading motivation. Thank you in advance. It is not necessary, if I get convinced or not, I will have some more insight to debate or to keep play ping pong in my echoing curiosity, or find out thoughts making it out of some black body (radiation) cavity (from physics, something that can bounce photons inside a lot, if I reminisce from long ago correctly (or never got it right, ever, despite calculating correctly).

I read. Tempted to keep going. I will refrain (limited creative energies, and like in chess, having a day pause between moves seem like a good or safe time period not to blurt or blur things in through one mind's ear and out through the other ear (also in mind, ok, that was rambling).

However, amateur chess. I thought I knew what that was. What else is there? asking anyone too.

I just played an interesting idea in a game, which is a good example for two retreats, which are actually active moves.

The first retreat (Nd1) prevents that black exchanges his pieces on c3 and prepares driving back the bishop b4 with a3.

The second retreat (Ne1) prepares driving back the Ne4 with f3, with the idea to prepare e4.

So, retreats can be good!

Edit: turns out this was not the first time this was played on Lichess. There are two games with 9.Ne1 and 10.Ne1, I like the idea 10...d5! most, which controls e4, like seen in this game:

I like that core chess can make its way through the 3-headed hellhound from the lobby...