Implicit Commitments

Introduction

We all have made explicit commitments. Even though most chess players may not be familiar with the term, explicit commitments are the direct commitments that can be proven correct through calculations. If you sacrifice a piece after seeing a forced sequence which leads to checkmate, that is an explicit commitment. If you give up the control of a certain square to win a piece after a forced sequence, that is an explicit commitment. These are commitments we all have made with complete awareness.

But implicit commitments, the unsaid battles, are much harder to see, let alone understand. If your opponent sacrifices a piece, you can see that they are committing themselves to a loss of material for something else. But when you move your pawn from e2 to e4, what is the commitment that you make? Before that, what commitment have you made by playing with the white pieces? What commitment do you make by trading your bishop for a knight? Understanding these commitments requires some knowledge, and analysing the consequences of these requires more logic than is required in calculations. But this is what separates the low-level masters from the elite. The following is a description made for all skill levels, from beginner to master, to begin or refine their understanding of implicit commitments.

Understanding the Pieces

Before we can understand implicit commitments, we need to understand each piece individually, how they move, how they coordinate with others, special properties, and best and worst cases for the piece in question.

Pawns

These are the pieces of least value, which makes them the best at defending against direct threats. They are the least mobile, and hence the easiest to target. Determines which way the game is going in positions of equal material, and which plan should be implemented by each player. Factors like activity, space and most of the time, the king's safety also depend on the pawn structure. The advantage of an extra pawn increases when more pieces come off the board due to their promoting ability.

Knights

Works better in closed positions because its path cannot be obstructed by barriers. It is vulnerable to attacks and pins because it can never attack the attacker while being attacked if the attacker is not a knight. Better at short-range attacks than a bishop, better at blockading in the endgame due to the ability to control both colour complexes to prevent infiltrations (by the king) while defending against pawn advancements (using a rook, king, or the queen would drastically reduce their potential to cause more damage). Better than a bishop in endgames where the bishop has less central mobility or when all pawns are on the same side.

Bishops

Works better in open positions when their path is not obstructed by pawns. Can be used as an attacking and a defensive piece at the same time (Example:- Catalan Bishop). Works better when they are in pairs due to the control of both colour complexes. Better than a knight in the endgame when pawns are positioned on both sides of the board due to their multitasking ability and the ability to switch between different tasks faster. Works better in the endgame when your pawns are positioned opposite the colour complex of the bishop, while the opponent's pawns are positioned on the same colour complex as your bishop, while not obstructing it. In the middlegame, the bishop works better when the opponent's pawns are positioned opposite the colour of the bishop due to the ability to dominate other pieces.

Rooks

Works better on open boards and are masters at stopping and capturing (not blockading) passed pawns. Good at both attack and defence, especially when open ranks and files are available. Mostly come into play in the endgame, but they are useful when attacking the king and other immobile targets in the middlegame and defending against the opponent's threats.

Queen

The most powerful piece. Works better in open positions. Only shows its full potential during an attack on the king in the middle game. Best piece to attack pawn weaknesses in the endgame, especially if there are multiple pawn weaknesses with a weak king for the opponent. Can be dominated by two rooks or three minor pieces in the absence of pawn weaknesses or in the case of having a weak king yourself.

King

Has to be kept safe in the opening and the middlegame, but comes into play to attack weaknesses in endgames. Usually ranked at 4 points in minor piece endings. Better to be kept in a corner in the middlegame due to the possibility of direct attacks on the centre, and also to increase the mobility of other pieces. Good at attacking fixed weaknesses, but bad at attacking mobile weaknesses due to its slow movement.

Example Position

Let's look at this from the perspective of implicit commitments:

So why was Bh2 a mistake?

If white moves to h2, he is hindering himself from the possibility of occupying the h6-c1 diagonal in exchange for the control of the h2-b8 diagonal. So he is committing himself to preventing my attack on the c3 pawn by controlling my territory, but he removes one of the potential defenders of the c3 pawn. In this case, leaving the c3 pawn undefended wasn't the right idea, because of black's plan to play f5-f4 to close down the bishop and take back the control of the vital square c7.

Why was Bh6 better?

With Bh6, white hindered himself from controlling the h2-b8 diagonal, but kept the option of defending the c3 pawn open. Furthermore, white keeps on having an effect on the black position by being active, attacking his rook and dominating his king.

How do these moves compare?

It is much easier to continue the attack on c3 due to the plan of f5-f4, hindering white's plan of stopping my attack by controlling the c7 square. But it's much harder to win the pawn even after lining my forces if white successfully protects it with the bishop, and there is no easy way of preventing him from doing so without making a commitment yourself to lose the a7 pawn and taking time to trade off the bishop with Bc7-Bf4. Since Bh6 offers more difficulties for black, it was the best move in the position.

Applications of Implicit Commitments

We can get some more information about implicit commitments from the above game:

1. Creating a positional weakness is always an implicit commitment.
2. The worthiness, or the degree of success of a commitment, depends on the strength of the play achieved afterwards.
3. An implicit commitment does not always change the objective evaluation of the position.
4. With every move, you are committing yourself to the loss of a move. To counter-balance that, it is required to have a purpose of a higher degree.
5. There are many good implicit commitments, but only one is the best.
6. Even though correct implicit commitments give you a better position, you can never checkmate an opponent without one or more explicit commitments.

Final words...

This is the first blog post I wrote after earning the FM title. It's been a while since I last wrote one, as I was on a hunt for knowledge. Now I am back to share the knowledge I have gained with all of you, while improving myself to the best of my ability. I have been playing many games against Stockfish, but I didn't write any blog posts about the games for the reason I mentioned earlier. I will certainly continue the Against Stockfish series, which many of you love, but you will have to be a little bit patient. Finally, I would like to thank all my readers and supporters who help to keep the blog and my team running and inspire me not to give up on the chance of the human race against machines. Thank you for reading, and I'll see you in my next article.

For further reading...

"Secrets of Practical Chess" - John Nunn
"Excelling at Positional Chess" - Jacob Aargard
"Strategic Play - School of Chess Excellence-3" Mark Dvoretsky
"Excelling at Chess Calculation" - Jacob Aargard