light / dark square weaknesses

Hello,
I am interested in understanding the concept of same-color square weaknesses. I often hear chess players make statements like "with this move the player creates permanent dark square weaknesses...". Often this is accompanied by discussions on pawn structures and good/bad bishops, (and knights controlling squares). I think I understand what it is said, but only in a kind of vague or intuitive sense. But if I actually have to explain why a position has square weaknesses I don't think I would be able to do that.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any books, articles, videos that discuss this topic systematically? I see a bunch of youtube videos on "weak squares" and I will check them out, but I wondering if someone knows a good source that starts with the basic and provides an in depth discussion on the topic.

Thanks.

@LFSChess said in #1:

if I actually have to explain why a position has square weaknesses I don't think I would be able to do that.

I probably wouldn't be able to either. The point is that you have to be able to take advantage of such a thing for it to matter. ;)

That is a terrific question, and the standard texts do not give it much attention. Here are some I know of, but they only skim the surface: Dunnington (1999),101 Winning Chess Strategies, chapter 29, has a limited (2-page) discussion; Hansen (2004), Improve Your Positional Chess, chapter 8, has a 4-page section on color complexes; Nunn (2011), Understanding Chess Middlegames, chapter 74, has a limited (2-page) discussion.

For extended discussions of the related topic of strategies based on square complexes see Shereshevsky, Mastering the Endgame, volume 2. There he explores, in quite a lot of detail, the topics of dark-square strategy associated with the King's Indian Defense and of light-square strategy associated with the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian.

@LFSChess said in #1:

Hello,
I am interested in understanding the concept of same-color square weaknesses.

Its simple really. If you cant defend a square on your side of the board, its a weakness as any enemy piece can land there and you cant kick it out, because you dont control that square.

So if you trade your dark square bishop, and you advance your pawns so they dont control the squares the bishop was supposed to control, you have dark square weaknesses.

In some cases you could control those squares with the knight or the queen, but if the knight is guarding them, the knight its not attacking. If the queen is guarding them, but he is double defending that square, the piece is going to land anyways, since you wont trade your queen for a minor piece in most cases.

I took a minute and attempted to answer the question with a study. Let me know what new questions hit you after looking at this :p.

https://lichess.org/study/nhwv3hqQ/CqEJn6yi

From the commentary on the first game in the Bronstein book on the 1953 Zurich tournament:
"I have long suspected, whenever the books I have read began discussing darksquare weaknesses or an attack on the dark squares, that the subject under discussion was not only beyond my understanding, but beyond the author's as well. 'Certainly,', I would say to myself, 'it must be true that the enemy dark squares will be weak if his pawns stand on light squares and he loses his darksquare bishop. But if he then removes all of his pieces from the dark squares, what will be left for me to attack?'
Such was my line of reasoning, until the day I realized that a weakness of the dark squares is also a weakness of the pieces and pawns on the light squares. Lightsquare weaknesses are also possible, resulting in a weakening of the enemy pieces and pawns on the dark squares -- as occurred, for example, in the Geller - Najdorf game in round 13. The point is that, by placing my pawns and pieces on the dark, I attack my opponent's pieces and pawns on the light.
The Szabo - Geller game provides a clear example of the method of exploiting a darksquare weakness; and the combination which was possible after Black's 24th fairly begs to be included in a textbook, taking place as it does entirely on light squares.

1. c2-c4 Ng8-f6
2. g2-g3 e7-e6
3. Bf1-g2 d7-d5
4. d2-d4 d5:c4
5. Qd1-a4+ Nb8-d7
6. Ng1-f3 a7-a6
7. Qa4:c4 b7-b5
8. Qc4-c6 ...
   Having hatched a plan to weaken the enemy dark squares, Szabo undertakes a delicate maneuver aimed at bringing about the exchange of the darksquare bishops, which will further strengthen his grip on the dark squares.
9. ... Ra8-b8
10. Bc1-f4 Nf6-d5
11. Bf4-g5 Bf8-e7
12. Bg5:e7 Qd8:e7
13. 0-0 Bc8-b7
14. Qc6-c2 c7-c5
15. d4:c5 Nd7:c5
16. Rf1-c1 Rb8-c8
17. Nb1-c3 Nd5-f6 ..."
    http://store.doverpublications.com/0486238008.html
    https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1136788

@DrHack ... wow! Thank you so much for your response. That is so much more than I was hoping to get!

I have reviewed the game twice and I think I am starting to see the idea.

My first question was, why would I care about the c7, a5 or b6 squares as opposed to other squares on the board. Then I realized something a bit dumb, but I guess I have to start somewhere. When people talk about weaknesses they mean weaknesses in your own half of the board. It would make no sense to say black has a weak a1 square for example. Even if this is obvious, it does help me narrow down where I need to look when I think of weaknesses.

So focusing on only the 5-8 rows of the board for black, I can kind of draw some conclusions. As soon as you fianchetto a bishop on one side of the board, the other side has a tendency of becoming weaker on the corresponding colors. In the game, trading both knights further weakens the darks squares on the queen's side for black. Going after white's dark bishop was an attempt to make up for it, but having a bishop on g7 and no knights makes the dark squares weak on the queen side (I think of it as +1 point -3 points = -2 points of weakness for the dark squares).

Still with that knowledge, my first instinct was to suggest 16... a5 and the computer seems to agree. On the other hand 16... a6 and 17... b5 further create weaknesses by leaving a5 unprotected.

It looks like the fatal blow was 19... Rfd8. At this point the computer suggest 19...e6 or e5. The second option 19... e5 makes sense to me since white's pawn on d4 is what prevents black's dark bishop from entering the game.

Perhaps the weakness on the dark squares would not have meant immediate defeat without the 19....Rfd8 error, but I am starting to see how those weakness make the position extremely unpleasant for black and give white all the initiative.

I don't pretend to understand a lot at this point, and I am sure there is a lot more to analyze in this game. But I am very grateful for this example. The opportunity to look at the game and to think about these things is helping me see things more clearly. Thank you so much!

At the most basic level what I am taking out of this is that fianchetto-ing a bishop creates potential weaknesses on the other side of the board that needs to be counterbalanced with a good pawn structure and a well positioned knight. Or perhaps black could have tried for counter-play on the king's side (though I am just guessing).

Thank you again! This was very helpful!

@Alientcp
Cool! Thank you for the succinct definition. That seems easy enough to keep in mind! I appreciate it.

@kindaspongey
Cool quote! I'll have to look at the game in more details. I'll do that soon.

Understanding the Sacrifice (2002) by Angus Dunnington has a 14 page chapter on that. That may be the book that Willem-II was talking about.