- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

A Strategic Rule I've Never Seen Before

Daniel Narodistsky says this quite often: The queen is the worst defender. In general: The higher value a piece, the easier it can be deflected, the more its mobility suffers etc.

Daniel Narodistsky says this quite often: The queen is the worst defender. In general: The higher value a piece, the easier it can be deflected, the more its mobility suffers etc.

I've seen this written down (and heard it stated) all over the place, though off the top of my head I can't name where. It's probably stated somewhere in "Improve Your Chess" by Bill Hartston. It might be in "300 Most Important Chess Positions" by Engqvist, though I find that book too impractical to really use and for the same reason it's not a good reference. It might be stated in some form in the early chapters of "Soviet Middlegame Technique" by Romanovsky. And I think I first heard of it in a very little book devoted only to stating 50 guidelines to follow when playing chess.

It's a good rule for all the reasons you state, but there is one exception. Knights are good blockaders, but poor defenders: you want to use Knights as Knights, but unlike all the other (non-pawn) pieces, there's no way for a Knight to move while still defending a particular square. In this respect, it can be better to defend with a Bishop than with a Knight. This is best exemplified in endgames, when a Bishop and a pawn frequently combine to make a rock-solid unit in a way that a Knight and pawn just can't.

I've seen this written down (and heard it stated) all over the place, though off the top of my head I can't name where. It's probably stated somewhere in "Improve Your Chess" by Bill Hartston. It might be in "300 Most Important Chess Positions" by Engqvist, though I find that book too impractical to really use and for the same reason it's not a good reference. It might be stated in some form in the early chapters of "Soviet Middlegame Technique" by Romanovsky. And I think I first heard of it in a very little book devoted only to stating 50 guidelines to follow when playing chess. It's a good rule for all the reasons you state, but there is one exception. Knights are good blockaders, but poor defenders: you want to use Knights as Knights, but unlike all the other (non-pawn) pieces, there's no way for a Knight to move while still defending a particular square. In this respect, it can be better to defend with a Bishop than with a Knight. This is best exemplified in endgames, when a Bishop and a pawn frequently combine to make a rock-solid unit in a way that a Knight and pawn just can't.

I have seen this too, but dunno where. It is about the economy of the defense, use the least possible pieces to defend, and the pieces with the lowest value. If possible, place pieces in a position where they both defend and attack.

The little book mentioned could be "How Not to Play Chess" by Znosko-Borovsky?

Regarding the knight, it is said to be a good defender of the naked king, which I observe often. It takes away squares from a checking queen. Otherwise, I agree, the knight can easier be brought into Zugzwang than the bishop. Due to that, it feels like even knight endgames give better winning chances than even bishop endgames, where Zugzwang usually is not possible.

I have seen this too, but dunno where. It is about the economy of the defense, use the least possible pieces to defend, and the pieces with the lowest value. If possible, place pieces in a position where they both defend and attack. The little book mentioned could be "How Not to Play Chess" by Znosko-Borovsky? Regarding the knight, it is said to be a good defender of the naked king, which I observe often. It takes away squares from a checking queen. Otherwise, I agree, the knight can easier be brought into Zugzwang than the bishop. Due to that, it feels like even knight endgames give better winning chances than even bishop endgames, where Zugzwang usually is not possible.

I had a similiar thought for Rf7. The queen is the most active piece black has, the rook on f8 does not all that much. On f7 this rook performs not any duties less than on f8 - and now protects g7 and the king. The queen on d7 looses much much of its power compared to d5.
So another rule might be to use the less active piece to protect something.

In this case both rules would lead to the best move. If both rules would lead to different moves - i am unsure which rule might perform better. It might depend on the specific situation too much to make a clear call....

I had a similiar thought for Rf7. The queen is the most active piece black has, the rook on f8 does not all that much. On f7 this rook performs not any duties less than on f8 - and now protects g7 and the king. The queen on d7 looses much much of its power compared to d5. So another rule might be to use the less active piece to protect something. In this case both rules would lead to the best move. If both rules would lead to different moves - i am unsure which rule might perform better. It might depend on the specific situation too much to make a clear call....

And can you think of any exceptions?

the Damiano Defence, the Philidor (while sound, not best). imagine in the last example, the king is on g1 with pawns on g2 and h2, and black can get to g1-a7 diagonal. f3 doesn't look so great, eben though its the least worth piece

to understand why f3 is so good you can just go 'oh im defending with a pawn, must be good!'. There are concrete reasons behind f3.

  1. It gets ready for Black's only dangerous pawn preak - h5 (that's why Kf3 is unsound)
  2. It unties the knight from defending the pawn, and the knight isn't on it's perfect square.

and we can eliminate Re1, not because it doesn't allow Ne2-Ng3, as we can play Re3 before Ne2.

e1 is not the perfect square for the rook, it's b1

I'm not a fan of these 'chess principles' every coach seems to be obsessed with. They kill creativity, and make you rely on dubious rules, that if you can't apply, you are lost in the forest.

and the first example is more about defending with least active piece more than least worth. even if the piece on d5 was a knight or a bishop, and it could magically defend g7, you still would prefer Rf7. But the rule of defending with least active piece, is just a shortcut for looking for best squares for your pieces.

> And can you think of any exceptions? the Damiano Defence, the Philidor (while sound, not best). imagine in the last example, the king is on g1 with pawns on g2 and h2, and black can get to g1-a7 diagonal. f3 doesn't look so great, eben though its the least worth piece to understand why f3 is so good you can just go 'oh im defending with a pawn, must be good!'. There are concrete reasons behind f3. 1. It gets ready for Black's only dangerous pawn preak - h5 (that's why Kf3 is unsound) 2. It unties the knight from defending the pawn, and the knight isn't on it's perfect square. and we can eliminate Re1, not because it doesn't allow Ne2-Ng3, as we can play Re3 before Ne2. e1 is not the perfect square for the rook, it's b1 I'm not a fan of these 'chess principles' every coach seems to be obsessed with. They kill creativity, and make you rely on dubious rules, that if you can't apply, you are lost in the forest. and the first example is more about defending with least active piece more than least worth. even if the piece on d5 was a knight or a bishop, and it could magically defend g7, you still would prefer Rf7. But the rule of defending with least active piece, is just a shortcut for looking for best squares for your pieces.

In the second position, what jumps out is that Black is positionally lost as none of his pieces appear to have any freedom and specifically the Queen and Bishop are tied to the Kingside and can't get out easily. I agree that f3 should be the easy move to make here (not because of least valuable defender but because of prophylaxis and flexibility for future action!) but the main strategic idea for White seems to me not to get the Knight to f5 (White is not about to attack the Black King) but just to build up and win on the queenside (unhurriedly and with overwhelming force), given that Black struggles for any positive ideas.

In the second position, what jumps out is that Black is positionally lost as none of his pieces appear to have any freedom and specifically the Queen and Bishop are tied to the Kingside and can't get out easily. I agree that f3 should be the easy move to make here (not because of least valuable defender but because of prophylaxis and flexibility for future action!) but the main strategic idea for White seems to me not to get the Knight to f5 (White is not about to attack the Black King) but just to build up and win on the queenside (unhurriedly and with overwhelming force), given that Black struggles for any positive ideas.

I've heard this countless times from watching Naroditsky, thankfully!

I've heard this countless times from watching Naroditsky, thankfully!

Good rule of thumb ... although ... i would express something like "in the long run" with it, as the short-sighted application needs calculation to confirm it. If the least valuable defender is being used at the end of some transformation in the position, i would think of it as a good one. Still: confirmation through calculation is useful, which you put to good use in your blog.

Well done.

Good rule of thumb ... although ... i would express something like "in the long run" with it, as the short-sighted application needs calculation to confirm it. If the least valuable defender is being used at the end of some transformation in the position, i would think of it as a good one. Still: confirmation through calculation is useful, which you put to good use in your blog. Well done.

Excellent rule of thumb , I have never seen before. However, I think that one needs to be wary of any weaknesses that may be created by application of this rule.

Excellent rule of thumb , I have never seen before. However, I think that one needs to be wary of any weaknesses that may be created by application of this rule.