Nuance.

Introduction

Looking over a game can be a daunting task, especially if you've already visualized it countless times in your mind while sitting at the board. Where was the opening deviation? What type of middle game should I have played for? How were my calculations in the endgame? Were they based on well-known positions or a cultivated plan? If it's any consolation, I find these kinds of questions posing themselves to me every game. Maybe excluding endgames, however, as I seem determined not to simplify into them.

Nuances are the differences determined by the comparison of static and dynamic options available between different candidate moves. While nuances exist for two separate goals (example: attacking the king vs strategically building pressure), I would like to focus on positions where only one objective is sought. This reduces the complexity of the topic. Understanding nuances in your own game is important as it builds the skill of calculation in a concrete compare and contrast methodology.

Piece Positioning

The first scenario considers the positioning of the bishop put to question by ...a7-a6. White has three main moves to consider including:

1. Bxc6 -- trading the bishop
2. Ba4 -- maintaining pressure along the a4-e8 diagonal.
3. Bd3 -- moving the bishop to support e3-e4.

To make this decision, we must understand two facts about the white position. First, the bishop on c1 is blocked in by both the b2 and e3 pawns. White will likely push one of these pawns to activate the bishop. Second, white is at a pawn advantage. This means we have more leniency in how we proceed. Each move will be considered with the goal of developing the bishop on c1 with e3-e4 and how each move contributes or fails in this regard.

1. Bxc6

White trades the bishop for the knight on c6. Black has two stellar bishops and an open file with which to position the rook against queen after ...0-0-0 or ...Rd8. White concretely doesn't need to worry about this as the bishop is targeted with Nd4 and should retreat to avoid positional damage to the queen side. The alignment of king and queen allows e3-e4.

2. Ba4

Here white wants to tactically play for development of the bishop with e3-e4. However, we now have an issue with the alignment of the queen and rook after ...Bg4. The presence of the knight on c6 requires white to allow the damaging of the kingside pawn structure with a move like Qe1.

3. Bd3

White seeks to solve the issues with the tactical operation of ...Bxh2+ while directly supporting the advance e3-e4. This, at a glance, seems to provide white with a decent position. However, looking a little deeper with the engine reveals that the knight on c6 becomes a menace for the white king side.

The differences we note in each position at the conclusion of calculation are the nuances of the position we need to address to determine best course of action. Here, the variations point towards a superior black position if pressure against the king side is generated by moves like ...Bg4 and the subsequent ...Nd4/Ne5. With this in mind, white should come to the conclusion that, albeit more tactical in nature, their best approach to the position is to simply trade the bishop for the c6 knight.

A similar approach could be taken with this information in determining how development of the bishop via b2/a3 would change the outcome of the position. This would remove the inclusion of e3-e4 for b2-b3. I have included the lines for this determination in the diagram below after 1. Bxc6 as we have already determined this to be the best course of action. I will refrain from heavy commentary as mulling through the variations is best.

Move Order

In the position, black wants to highlight the weakness of the dark squares by pressuring the knight with both ...Bc5 and ...Qd2. I didn't have enough time during the game to appreciate the difference between the two moves. I would encourage the reader to try and determine which is better by finding the refutation to one of these moves.

What happens with the immediate ...Bc5 is quite astonishing. White is given one move to secure e5 for the bishop (with e5-e6), which allows the defense of the knight on d4. Since Be5 was a check, white was allowed to sidestep the mate threat of ...Qf2+ Kh1 Qf1+ Rxf1 Rxf1# with Kh1. Since the knight is stable, the e2 square is unusable by the bishop. Quite a series of unfortunate events for black as white is clearly better.

After ...Qd2, white will again try to establish the bishop on e5 with e6. However, this allows the king to sidestep the check. Without the check, the bishop cannot move from g2 given the mate starting with ...Qf2+. Here there is a resource with Nf5 that secures an easy draw for white after the king tucks away into the corner. The black king will not be able to avoid continually being checked by the knight and is not safe on h8 due to Be5 with mate in 2.

The nuance here is very tactical by nature considering black is attempting to exploit the positioning of a piece on a weak color complex while attending to their own weaknesses. A simple change in move order is the difference between white easily thwarting the attack and the necessity of perpetual check.

Conclusion

Taking apart a position whether from the perspective of a plan or move order requires the understanding of concrete lines in nuanced positions. This can be accomplished with assistance of the computer or done by comparing/contrasting the changing position dynamics. We have considered how our plans demand an overview of how the position fundamentally changes. We then used the information gathered about these changes to determine what key moves hamper or strengthen our overarching goal. Move by move, we proceed through the middle game looking for how these slight changes in piece positioning affect our ability to dynamically or statically respond to pressure generated by our opposition.

A secondary example is provided with a more tactical focus which looks at the subtle changes in counter play offered by one move that is absent from the other. These changes demonstrated by the placement of each piece is invaluable for the development of critical calculation skills. I particularly find this example to be a nice display of piece coordination and the delicate balance between one's own attack and the sharp counterattack of an opponent. The perpetual check that results with best play is the balance between both sides executing maneuvers based on the weaknesses that had been allotted to them. Hopefully the ideas presented here will be of value or serve as entertainment in the complicated back and forth of chess nuances. I have found the exploration of this topic to be rather fruitful and frustrating at the same time. Take care and play chess.