'Verbal' Understanding

How Important is having a 'Verbal Understanding' of—for example—a given opening? Or of a chess idea overall? 

As a Nøøß, I really enjoyed Silman's article on Understanding Opening Basics. One of his insights: 

"I highly recommend that you make a point of knowing the verbal explanations behind every opening you play..."

I have been trying to make more notes as I play, but I don't really have the vocabulary to make valid comments. I have tried, but I find myself "Parrotting" chess teacher's styles rather than making incisive analytical points.

Does it make sense to try to improve in this area? Does a 'Verbal' understanding mean that you can write about your games in a meaningful way?

no i think he means the verbal strategical goals all masters teach you, at least thats my guess. Im too tired to read and understand the article.

I think he just means knowing the general principles and ideas, because it would not make sense to make moves you dont understand. I think that is what he means because if you can´t verbalize them you probably dont know them. Thats at least that what i can come up with. And yes it seems openings are really important, i hate to study them but i guess i have to.

I get the idea of understanding moves rather than simply memorizing or hoping for certain patterns to come up in play. But the idea of Verbal Understanding intrigues me.

In many cases, I thought I understood a given position, but when I tried to post about it, I got shot to pieces by superior players. 

Maybe I'm reading too much into the idea.... 

the idea is good, maybe you can also better memorise and recall it that way. If you get shot by superior players, its great you get valuable lessons.

I recently got this position (as Black) in an online game. Verbal understanding made it very easy to play (and win). My opponent played Bxf6 without much thought, and in the analysis afterwards he said he wasn't afraid of Bxc3+ bxc3 since "that's a typical Winawer pawn structure where White is fine". It's true that it's a typical Winawer pawn structure - but in the Winawer, White accepts the shattered queenside pawns because he is compensated by having the only dark-square bishop on the board. In this game, White has already given up his dark-square Bishop on f6 - so he has no compensation at all for the structural weakness on the queenside. (Then again, let's be honest: in a game between in-titled players that might be far, far, far from a decisive advantage, *but* surely the player who is aware of the ideas should have the better chances :P)

man i always thought the dark square bishop was a bad one, and the idea was that white accept the shatters pawn because he has strong play on the king side and has the strong center. 

Without Black's dark square Bishop, White can get a strong attack. The Kingside attacks and mating patterns are so powerful because Blacks dark squares are so weak. The whole Qg4-manuevre, hitting g7 (an unguarded dark square), often forcing g6 (dark holes now on f6 and h6) etc. If both players are iwthout that Bishop (or if both have them), there's very little to fear on the Kingside for Black. White simply "can't mate" unless Black mucks it up terribly, and the queenside weaknesses of particularly the a3/c3-complex ain't goin' anywhere :P

thank you very much lucky

Black's main problem in the French is the light-squared bishop, which sometimes reduced to passivity for extended periods in the game. The Winawer was occasionally referred to as the Nizmo-French loooong ago

True - but it's nowhere near as bad as non-French players tend to think :P The strength of the French is the solidity, the weakness is lask of mobility; and this affects the light-squared Bishop more than any other minor piece since the central pawn structure has pawns on light squares (f7 e6 d5 typically, sometimes even c4) *but* let's not forget that in locked central positions there is always a fair share of maneuvering pieces behind closed lines, *and* when Black has subjected the d4-pawn to as much pressure as he can, a common theme is to play the pawn push f7-f6, creating an exit point for the light-squared bishop. By that time, the bishop is often on d7 (having vacated c8 for a Rook) and can go e8-g6/h5 where it becomes an excellent piece. I tend not to think of it as a "passive" piece even in the opening, more of... power in reserve. Generally speaking, for the period of time it's not taking an active part in the game - it's kind of not really needed to :-P The center is closed and the other pieces are very active. (And if the center were to open, then that Bishop can become a monster.)

But yeah. I'm biased as hell; been playing the French for 30 years and am better with it than I am with any other opening, so ;)

but the white squared bishop can never attack whites central pawns in an endgame. wouldnt white be better because he can always attack blacks center pawns??

I agree with you, the French is very solid. But in 2300+ games, white can and will exploit the bishop if the black does not play accurately.

Having said that the French can be quite exciting sometimes (as you already know). Take for instance, the poisoned pawn variation.

I have used the French Defence in the past with good results, but I prefer the Sicilian or the  Closed Ruy Lopez.

Good point.

I would be suspicious of putting too much into a verbal understanding. Every position is different, one little pawn out of place can change the evaluation.

but maybe verbalising it for yourself you see the position in  another light, like walking around the chessboard. Maybe when you verbalise the reasoning you are less likely to make a mistake in thought.

Let me test the board insertion

Hmmm I can't get the ?? ? ! !? ?! to show up??