Question on imbalances

I've been reading through a few of Silman's classic books, and it's really opened my mind up the realm of strategic possibility, however, there was one thing that I feel isn't adequately addressed, and that is learning to intuit when (and how) to convert imbalances... by that I mean, for example, knowing when it is OK to go ahead creating a negative imbalance in your camp for the sake of creating a more pressing positive imbalance in your opponents.

I have heard higher rated players speak of "exchanging" imbalances in this way, like swapping the bishop pair (negative) for a king-side doubled-pawn (positive).  To me this implies that there is an inherent value (or priority) that distinguishes one imbalance from the next, other than the obvious "static vs. dynamic" or "Dynamic vs. dynamic," and that this value is dictated by the player who more actively places his pieces, and therefore more easily eclipses his weaknesses by concentrating his strengths.

Of course this all follows logically from the principle of "imbalances," but the question to me remains, how does one prioritize one imbalance over another?  Is it a simple matter of whichever is the more threatening, or, initiative permitting, whichever is most readily exploited?  How does one learn when to abandon one imbalance to concentrate his efforts on another?  Is it a simple matter of caluclation, and the abillity to assess that, in the end, "My bishop pair and his swiss cheese pawns makes attacking his king inevitable."

There seems to be a very rich and diverse (albeit implicit) interplay between static and dynamic imbalances and this interests me greatly.  My instincts tell me that what I want to know has to be experienced via trial and error, but I'm actively supressing this thought.  Why reinvent the wheel, wasting precious minutes?

The following is a simple example of a static vs. a dynamic imbalance. You have an extra piece, that Ida static imbalance in the position. Your opponent's active counterplay in the position is the dynamic imbalance. If the opportunity presents itself you sacrifice your extra piece in order to KILL his COUNTERPLAY and transpose into a winning or won position.

But what about more subtle static advantages?  For example, how do you know if sacrificing a passed pawn for material is the way to go?  Would you first evaluate the position and determine the relative worth of that piece?  For example, sacrificing a passed pawn for a queen is a sweet deal... UNLESS your opponent has three other queens in a wide open position.  Perhaps I should be giving this less thought and actually gain some empirical data that is less subject to semantics.

It just seems that when you begin to truly evaluate a position, all of the principles that are touted by GM's essentially break down...  They become a hurdle that people like myself have to then circumvent or transcend.  Maybe dogmatism is the real enemy here.

In situations I've found it useful to just play with all of these thoughts in mind. Over time, many, if not all of them, will begin to fall in place.

There are alot of abstract things like this in chess. The only way to understand them is to see how fit or don't fit with your understandings of them.

Now that I read that last line, it sounds like some far-out Zen kinda thing.

Well there is certainly an otherworldly sort of grace when you see the true positional masters in full form, but I digress.

What you're talking about is technique.  Technique is about converting advantages into a win, Soltis' Turning Advantage into Victory in Chess is a great first book for this. Dvoretsky also has a book on technique. 

Your response reveals that you are peeking at the answer by peeking around the corner quickly and then pulling back.  You are right, analysis with the help of the guiding rules will get you to a good move.  There is an additional tool.

There are 5 visualization pattern memory banks which you must build into your brain.  They are:

1.Tactics visualization pattern memory bank

2.Mating Net Visualization pattern memory bank (this is the easest to and least time consuming to build into your brain.)

3 Endgame visualization  pattern memory bank

4. Openings visualization pattern memory bank (this one will take you 2-3 yars.)

5. Middlegame visualization pattern memory bank (this one you can do pretty much simultaneously with the openings one)

If you start with the tactics one doing 27 diagrams a day giving yourself with a timer 3 minutes per diagram.  What you will find happening to you after about a month of doing this, is that the correct move will jump up off the board and smack you on the forehead in a flash!

Eventually the same smacking on  the forehead will happen with all 5 memory banks.  But as the strong players say when you find a good move look for a better one.

@Yaroslavl, Is there any way to target these memory banks individually?  What would someone who wanted to do that need in order to do so efficiently?  A combination of theory, puzzles, and OTB experience to bring it all together?

Step 1- Play 60-72 OTB tournament games per year/5 rounds per tournament times 12 months equals 60 games.  one OTB tournamnet per month

Step 2- (simultaneously with step 1) Practice the (K+Q vs. K, K+R vs. K, K+2Bs vs. K, and K+B+N vs. K) until you can do them in your sleep.  The tecnique for all of these is what I call the corralling method.  Doing this will cause mating nets in any position you are analyzing to jump up off the board and smack you on the forehead.

Step 3- (simultaneously with steps 1&2) Practice the tactics diagrams with the method I detailed in my previous post.  The best online tactics website i have found is www.emrald.net

Step 4- (simultaneously with steps 1,2, &3) Work endgame diagrams on same emrald website.

Step 5- (after 6 months wth steps 1,2, & 3) you will have to spend some money.  Purchase or download from torrent: Houdini 4 pro 64, Chess Base game database (5 million+ games) and GUI.  You will have to select to begin with 2 openings as Black and 2 openings as White.  The computer will build an opening tree by using the 4 openings you selected and the Chessbase games database.  You will have to practice with the computer and in your tournament games for 2-3 years until you become competent at playing your selected openings.  Select to begin with openings that make common sense to you.  That will be your first opening repertoire.  Your repertoire will change over the years.

Step 6- (simultaneously with step 5) Middlegame positions that can be studied on the same emrald website and in books like 500 Master Games of Chess, and Zurich 1953( GM tournament at Zurich in 1953.  All games analyzed by GM David Bronstein)

Step 7-  In your spare time read: 

My System, by Aaron Nimzowwitsch

Pawn Power In Chess(With this book begin with pg. 107 and read to the end of the book, then you can read pgs. 1 - 106.  DO NOT READ THIS BOOK FROM THE 1ST PG.

Capablanca's book on endgames

@roi_g11, excellent advice.  I've been really focused on learning the true value of the minor pieces, along with ~45 minutes of tactics puzzles daily, and at least one GM game analysis (with chessbase) in the opening I've been using, which I will stop doing as of now for what you mentioned. 

The problem I have with specifically targetting GM's who exemplify use of x imbalance is that I don't possess that level of knowledge about individual GM's... but I really wish I did.  How do I find out which GM's "have killer knights?"  Perhaps I misunderstand you. I sort of get by on assuming that they were all good at everything.  I did know that Capa was truly remarkable at the Endgame, but that's about it.  Can you suggest resources on this information?

@Yaroslavl, I'll be combining what I mentioned above with your approach as well for learning the endgames.  I'm a premium member on chesstempo, which is extremely useful.

Chesstempo is good too

There really is only three answers to your question:

Experience. Experience. Experience.

There is no sure-fire formula to knowing when one advantage will trump another. That is why they cannot yet build the perfect chess engine.

when Tal made all those crazy sacs, He didn't calculate them all the way to checkmate. He didn't know it was going to work. He guessed.

The trick was, he often guessed correctly. That is what made him great.

Countless amateurs like you and I have tried to emulate him, and mostly failed. Because we cannot time those sacs, the way he did.

Same goes with positional principles, too.

Play your games. Make the hard decisions. See what happens. 

But what Silman wants you to do is be aware of the decisions your making, while you make them.

Then, when you go over your game, if some decision you made didn't work out, try to understand why it didn't work out.

Here's an example: Say in a game, you take your opponents rook, but for a bishop and two pawns. Your position goes downhill, and you lose.

Now you look that game over. Why did you lose? Looking at it, you may notice that your extra rook wasn't so great. Then you may notice it was bad, because there were no open files for it to work! 

Well no wonrder you lost! Your opponent had and powerful bishop, against your useless rook. You were helpless!

Then take what you've learned, and move on to your next tournament, a little wiser.

Don't just take your scoresheet, stuff it in the glove compartment, and forget all about it. That is the path of never getting anywhere.

And that is the difference Silman is trying to make in you.

http://chess.emrald.net/

This is where i do my tactics. Very good free site.

Thanks again for the replies everyone.  Feel free to continue the discussion.  Tactics will of course remain my top priority, but your suggestions will be a close second.

@roi_g11, Thanks so much for the list of games.  I've actually found a copy of that book, so I'll work my way through each of the examples, even if it takes months to truly master the content, as you suggested.