p.7 positional understanding is the most important ingredient in
the recipe for sporting success... I recommend that you also study collections of games played by outstanding positional
players
25-26. It is non-sensical to map out an overly long plan - the very next move could totally change the situation
on the board and give it a completely different direction... So how do chess players plan in their games? Usually
they make only a general plan, noting the area and character of the approaching action.
p.57 As you can see, finding a positionally correct solution in a limited amount of time is in no
way easier than finding a combination or precisely calculating a long variation. This is probably because here you
have to display both the ability to make a precise evaluation of the position as well as an exact view of tactical resources.
The slightest shortcoming in either of these two factors impedes the search, demands an additional outlay of time and generally
leads us far from the right path.
p.87 Nimzowitsch [in the game being analyzed] made exceptional use of all his chances.
Note that at the board (as opposed to in his notes) he reasoned in a prophylactic way, evaluating his opponent's resources
and subsequently endeavouring to contain them.
p.106 [discussing a knight move to a certain square in a game being analyzed] The c6-square does
seem like a good post, but on closer inspection the knight attacks nothing, prevents nothing and is severely limited by the
enemy bishop... Black should have positioned his knight more actively, trying to exert pressure on the c4-pawn.
p.111 When we create simple threats our opponent is able to parry them without any particular difficulty.
The secret of success frequently lies in knowing how to create several threats at once... The idea of creating
two simultaneous threats will serve as a starting point for us in understanding the process of forming a plan. The
plans we have in mind pursue the aim of creating threats.
p.117 remember the sequence in which our strategy develops in situations like this:
1) Creating an initial weakness. This is probably the most difficult - you have to "catch"
your opponent at some point.
2) Attacking the weakness (not necessarily with the aim of destroying it, but in order
to tie the enemy pieces to its defence).
3) Creating a second weakness in another part of the board.
4) Breaching your opponent's defence.
p.120 A very interesting moment [in the game being discussed] has arrived. Here it is appropriate to recall
the method which Dvoretsky constantly uses. In unfavourable situations he recommends seeking a way of fundamentally transforming
the character of the position. It is sometimes possible to complicate the game by means of a positional sacrifice (for example,
of a pawn or the exchange) or by producing a position with an unusual material balance.
p.121 Imagine that you are an engineering designer, and that you are faced with perfecting a machine which
consists of a dozen components. Almost all of them are working at 90% of their capacity, but one is working at only 10%. It
is clear that finding a way to improve the productivity of the weakest component is the best way of improving the entire machine.
In chess terms, to obtain optimal performance from your position (your chess machine) you first have
to increase the productivity of the pieces which until now have taken little or no part in the game.
p.121 In positions of strategic manoeuvring (where time is not of decisive significance)
seek the worst-placed piece. Activating that piece is often the most reliable way of improving your position as a
whole.
p.127 It stands to reason that chess strategy does not consist only of the two principles we have examined
[improving the worst-placed piece and creating two simultaneous threats], but I hope that if you use them it will become easier
for you to plan and make accurate choices at the board.
p.128 The assessment of a position is determined by three basic factors: material, the placing of
pieces and pawns (the safety of the king, the presence of weaknesses, etc.), and time... In situations
of strategic manoeuvering the time factor is often less important.
p.271 When you know how to conduct your defence, supporting one weakness is usually not too difficult.
The correct strategy for the stronger side in such situations always consists of the search for or creation of another weakness
in the defender's position. By attacking this second weakness (and if the necessity arises by adding further pressure
to the first) we will crack and subsequently destroy our opponent's defence.
