Chess Book discussing quadrants?
Sort:
Only thing that comes to mind is Bangiev Squares Strategy though I do not really really think it uses the ideas of quadrants or sectors but more of what part of the board you should play on based on positional factors. I do not have his cds so cant say much about it. From seeing comments on internet it deals with what color complexes to play depending on the pawn structure et and what targets to go for. Simple google search should bring you up a lot of discussion about Bangiev.
Folks who use board visualization software often look at the board in terms of quadrants. According to the makers of Chess Visualization Trainer, the approach was first suggested by Buckley in his book Practical Chess Analysis.
Two excellent leads.
Thank you both very much.
If anyone else has some tips, please let me know.
David
Yeah but I think he is more interested in the strategic idea of focusing on one part of the board and overloading it with attacks from his pawns and pieces and how to go about how to decide which sector of the board to focus on. Most tactics books and cds deal with the subect of overloading but do not use the terminogy of sectors or quadrants.
Most strategy books focus on the 'center', 'kingside' or 'queenside'. Eg, your pawns point here so you would do best to attack on the kingside. I don't recall anyone discussing quadrants from a strategic perspetive, just a visualization perspective.
What are quadrants?
Dekker> What are quadrants?
The four quadrants on a chessboard are the a1-a4-c4-c1 squares, the d1-d4-h4-h1 squares, the a5-a8-c8-c5 squares, and the d5-d8-h8-h5 squares.
I tend to think of the board in terms of the following areas:
- kingside/queenside halves
- center 4 squares
- Edge Squares
CzarWithinMoons wrote: Did this mentor say anything about memorizing? Its best to just forget about quadrants and focus on memorizing openings and famous games. Thats how we learn.
I don't believe in blunt memorization, for you never really learn the purpose of the ideas. I believe in understanding - from there, the ideas will flow, and you will have "memorized" the ideas - in a more concrete sense, the ideas will be like second nature to you, for you concretely understand them. If you blindly play the "best" opening moves, you are most likely to get yourself into a pickle, since you don't understand what you are doing anyway.
I like to look at openings and just stare at the board for a while, getting the position in my mind. I will make a few moves, and then put up the board, and sleep on it. When I come back, my understanding of the board is better. Maybe "sleeping" over a move will help you understand it, or at least get a fresh viewpoint on it.
Jun 23, 2008
0
#11
Hmm. I've never heard of quadrants, though it sounds rather interesting. I did come across an interesting book on the history of chess that discussed the visualization patterns briefly mentioned above. That seemed incredibly complicated to me and I sort of resigned it to an innate thing rather than a learnable one (could be wrong but I struggled with it).
I have participated in one live class taught by a master (I think). He told me to pick up Modern Chess Openings and play through every line and to extract my favorite ones onto index cards. The memorization method seems to be the most popular method. And commentary on this site appears to validate my observation of that. However, I came across Jeremy Silman's books and I like them very much.
- Reassess Your Chess
- The Amatuer's Mind
Both of these books teach the middle game portion, such as weak squares, ranks and files, bishops vs. knights, and pawn structure. What I find most valuable, rather than having to memorize hundreds of lines and possibilities and corresponding gimmicks, is to learn the basic principles, figure out how to widen my perspective and to then recognize better decisions based on those. (Still trying to figure that out, btw).
One other thing this master taught me. He said 1 (OTB) tournament game is worth a thousand skittles games. I think his reasoning was that if you play in tournaments you are probably working with a live coach and really talking a lot about a single game, whereas just playing around you have to learn from the school of hard knocks---have to rediscover the principles yourself---and that toakes a lot longer. As I'm still playing skittles games, my progress is frustratingly slow.
Jason
thanks!
StrategicTactikz wrote:
I tend to think of the board in terms of the following areas:
kingside/queenside halves center 4 squaresEdge Squares
I have always thought of it this way as well, along with light square/dark square when it comes to bishops and pawn chains.
I suspect he was leading me towards more visualization as he was specific about the "quadrant" and "sector" nomenclature. I'm going to follow-up on the suggestions above, because I think that it can't hurt to familiarize myself with something new that is chess-related.
To the above poster who suggested memorizing openings and famous games, I familiarize myself with openings more so that I know what I am facing rather than so I know what moves to commit to. I would rather play my openings with my own ideas. I familiarize myself with openings because it provides insight into what my opponents plans are, and so it is more to understand what my opponent is doing and it is less about putting my own game on automatic.
As for famous games, I have recently started looking at them more as a way to test my own understanding of what is going on. My opponents are far from that level of play and so am I. I really play coffee-house chess for fun.
David
If you find a particular book pass it on - I am always interested in different perspectives.
dhlesq wrote:
I had a couple of 30min games last week with a stranger from out of town.
After our third game it was clearly that he was many hundreds of rating points above me and I asked if we could play a 4th "teaching game". Where I could tell him my intended moves and he could critique my play and thought processes.
He agreed, and I really learned a lot during this game.
At one point he was talking about mentally dividing the board into quadrants or sectors, and he was talking about overloading a particular area with forces.
I was wondering if there is a book or author who uses this concept, because I found it interesting, and I would like to learn more.
David
I'm not sure if this book is still available, but it's called Vortack Visualization System. The whole book is based on quadrants and diagonals. The company is Wisconsin Vortack, Inc. N7191 Eagle Hill Rd, Horican, WI 53032
Gary
likesforests wrote:
Dekker> What are quadrants?
Correction!!
The four quadrants on a chessboard are the a1-a4-c4-c1 squares, the d1-d4-h4-h1 squares, the a5-a8-c8-c5 squares, and the d5-d8-h8-h5 squares.
These are not quite correct.
The chess board can be divided into four quadrants (quads). The same corner pattern exists in the 4 corners of each of the quads as on the complete board; bottom right square is white. Looking at the chess board from white's side notice that a1 a4 d4 d1 form white's queenside quadrant and e1 e4 h4 h1 form white's kingside quadrant. From black's side a8 a5 d5 d8 form black's queenside, and e8 e5 h5 h8 form black's kingside.
The four main quads also include four mini quads. Look at the board and see that the four mini quad's bottom right corner is white. Queenside is b1,b3,d1,d3, White is right! For practice close your eyes and say the name and color of the white king's mini quads starting with h1 going clock wise. h1 white g1 black g2 white h2 black do this for all of the quads and you will soon have all of the square's name and color memorized.
Hope this clears up the concept of quadrants. Next, think of diagonals...
Gary
JasonVaughn wrote:
Hmm. I've never heard of quadrants, though it sounds rather interesting. I did come across an interesting book on the history of chess that discussed the visualization patterns briefly mentioned above. That seemed incredibly complicated to me and I sort of resigned it to an innate thing rather than a learnable one (could be wrong but I struggled with it).
I have participated in one live class taught by a master (I think). He told me to pick up Modern Chess Openings and play through every line and to extract my favorite ones onto index cards. The memorization method seems to be the most popular method. And commentary on this site appears to validate my observation of that. However, I came across Jeremy Silman's books and I like them very much.
Reassess Your ChessThe Amatuer's MindBoth of these books teach the middle game portion, such as weak squares, ranks and files, bishops vs. knights, and pawn structure. What I find most valuable, rather than having to memorize hundreds of lines and possibilities and corresponding gimmicks, is to learn the basic principles, figure out how to widen my perspective and to then recognize better decisions based on those. (Still trying to figure that out, btw).
One other thing this master taught me. He said 1 (OTB) tournament game is worth a thousand skittles games. I think his reasoning was that if you play in tournaments you are probably working with a live coach and really talking a lot about a single game, whereas just playing around you have to learn from the school of hard knocks---have to rediscover the principles yourself---and that toakes a lot longer. As I'm still playing skittles games, my progress is frustratingly slow.
Jason
I asked a chess teacher once; if he was ever stranded on an island, what chess book would he want? His reply was Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess your Chess. I tend to agree. A good choice!
See my comment below on quadrants.
Gary
This is old school.
4 quadrants. (Blacks Queenside, Blacks Kingside, Whites Queenside, Whites Kingside) People picked this up when reading books with descriptive notation, something players nowadays seem to "hate".
Center square. (4 squares in the middle)
Extended Center. (16 squares in the middle)
What you're talking about is the idea that for a kingside attack you need a superior number of forces on your kingside and an equal or superior number of forces in the extended center.
I can't remember where I picked that information up from though. It might have been books or it might have been one of the guys I played against when I used to play in the park. I do know the quadrant thing is oldschool though I'm sure I've read about it in a book, I just can't remember which one.
Hope that helps.
Thank you for reviving this thread.
I have not made progress on this idea, but this reminds me that I would probably benefit by applying some visualization techniques.
I've tried to find information on the Vortack system listed above but with no success.
If your goal's to visualize the board, you may be better off diving in and training to do that rather than chasing after an elusive book on one method. I've been using the Chess Visualization Trainer (free) method for the past couple weeks... and my vision of the board is gradually getting stronger. I'm training to see it in its entirety with rows, columns, and diagonals--no need for quadrants. This is mostly to aid calculation.
(A study of one ~2200 FIDE blindfold player showed he saw rows, columns, diagonals... instead of quadrants... there's more than one way to skin a cat.)
slygary> Correction!!
Yes, a1-d1 not a1-c1, good catch.
I had a couple of 30min games last week with a stranger from out of town.
After our third game it was clearly that he was many hundreds of rating points above me and I asked if we could play a 4th "teaching game". Where I could tell him my intended moves and he could critique my play and thought processes.
He agreed, and I really learned a lot during this game.
At one point he was talking about mentally dividing the board into quadrants or sectors, and he was talking about overloading a particular area with forces.
I was wondering if there is a book or author who uses this concept, because I found it interesting, and I would like to learn more.
David