Quarterbackin'
Having the initiative is like having the ball in football. You get to call the shots, your opponent just sets up and tries to stop you. As long as you are making reasonable progress you get to keep the ball, unless you make a mistake and allow a turnover. But how can you tell whether to throw for the endzone or give it to your fullback for a few yards up the middle?
Obviously the coaching staff are the ones who are creating the overall structure and making the calls. The better they can read the situation the better chance they have to be able to score touchdowns on offense and force turnovers on defense. But the really exciting moments in chess and in football are when one side attempts to cash in on their advantage. Last Sunday as Eli was driving down the field he just kept doing the right things. He was just determined to score. And that's always exciting. Same as in chess when you watch an initiative begin to manifest itself and it just gets stronger and stronger and one side is forced to just wait and play very precise chess hoping to get it back. But then when they're against the goal line weird things happen.
I was thinking about some blitz games I had just played, which were all pretty crazy as I was pretty much just throwing pieces around looking for a winning tactic. Like this game:
He let me have a very pretty finish, but that game was just crazy. That game had a longer time control than the earlier ones that I was playing so it let me come up with some lines that are tough to deal with.
So I was thinking about these crazy positions where nothing makes sense because I have been reading Watson again and his focus is on the fact that there are no concrete rules, everything should be judged on a case by case basis. At this point in my experience it is pretty clear that the initiative is almost always the deciding factor in a game. Whoever has it basically gets to move over and over until there is a position where they can cash in. The best way to stop the initiative before you end up in your territory is to make a sacrifice of some sort and take it. The coaching staff may be able to keep the sacrifices from being big early in the game but towards the end they are forced to take more risks if they want to see a decisive result. And it is at the end when both teams are more prone to mistakes. So the question becomes what to give up for the initiative. What is too much? What is too little? Kasparov really liked to give pawns to gain the initiative and often times he would continue to give pawns in order to maintain the initiative. But if your opponent is up a touchdown, then he can always let you score because he will get the ball back in an even game. So you have to be able to score big. This is where the football analogy gets a little distant. In chess if you are able to trap the king you win, or usually get a huge material payoff. But how much are you willing to risk to actually achieve that goal? We see players like Morozevich take so many risks and then there are players like Kramnik who will only very rarely lose. I think it was Petrosian who once said something to the effect of 'to beat me five times would take six months' in response to a match that was a race to five wins. If you are willing to risk a losing endgame you must be able to restore the balance during the time which you have the initiative. If you do not risk enough, say just doubled pawns, then there is a chance your opponent maintains the tension and does not accept your offer. So the challenge is to find the right amount to give away that your opponent will accept while you retain good chances. The stronger you are the smaller the range of acceptable offers. Conversely, the shorter the time control the wider the range.
That was an unusual sicilian
I'm not sure the football analogy works in regards to giving back material to keep the initiative. I may sac back the piece I'm up because I'm going win a pawn, or be able to force the king out and a mate is imminant.
I can't see a football team willingly give up points to tie the score just knowing they'll get the ball back. Just because you have the ball back is no guarantee you'll get ahead again. That final drive of the Giants came close to ending prematurely if Eli doesn't wiggle free. Also there was an interception possibility.
In chess as long as we've worked out our analysis correctly there won't be a fatal sack, penalty or interception. When the Patriots got the ball back for those final 35 seconds I got nervous everytime Brady launched one. I was so afraid of pass interference or a successful Hail Mary.
polly - Yeah you can't do that stuff when you're just starting out. I just thought his pieces on the kingside were a little awkwardly placed so I tried to take some space over there.
As far as the football analogy, after the game Eli said something to the effect of we had the ball down a field goal with 3 minutes left, that's exactly the situation you want in a game like this. It is quite common for a team to try to give up points quickly rather than allow a long drive which will probably leave them down anyways just short on time. As far as a sack or interception, I think these 'turnovers' are lurking around the board at all times, especially in a game between weaker players (or very tired players).