Scribd
Upload
87 views2 pages

Dorfman Method

The Dorfman method is a two-fold scheme for evaluating chess positions and determining whether to play dynamically or statically based on the static and dynamic elements of the position. The static elements include king safety, material balance, potential endgames, and pawn structure. The dynamic elements include sacrifices, threats, preventing castling, and changing pawn structures. The method involves comparing these static elements between the two sides to determine who has the static advantage, and then playing accordingly.

Uploaded by

Dario R
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views2 pages

Dorfman Method

The Dorfman method is a two-fold scheme for evaluating chess positions and determining whether to play dynamically or statically based on the static and dynamic elements of the position. The static elements include king safety, material balance, potential endgames, and pawn structure. The dynamic elements include sacrifices, threats, preventing castling, and changing pawn structures. The method involves comparing these static elements between the two sides to determine who has the static advantage, and then playing accordingly.

Uploaded by

Dario R
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Dorfman method is a two-fold scheme for finding good moves.

The static elements


The first fold is the static elements of the position. These are 4 elements in decreasing priority:

The king position: whose king is better positioned and protected.

Material correlation: material balance, and combination of pieces or various material correlations, like
Q+N vs. Q+B. Then also B+B+N vs. B+N+N, and which pieces you should aim to trade off. For instance,
Dorfman considers 2 knights + bishop as being often more effective than 2 bishops + knight since the
former can triply coordinate on the color of the bishop.

Which side will stand better after a potential trade of queens? This depends on which side has a more
active queen, and whose endgame play is favorable.

Pawn structure. Central outposts, number of pawn islands, pawn weaknesses, pawn majority, doubled-
pawns, domination of light/dark squares such as the grip provided with the Maroczy bind, etc.

Dynamic play
The second fold is short-term play provided by dynamic play, which roughly constitutes:

Being ready to opt for extreme measures, such as piece sacrifices,

Create threats,

Preventing a king from getting castled,

Drastic change of pawn structure, and liquidations,

Quick pawn advances on either flank.

etc.

Critical moments of a game


The scheme then is basically: At each critical moment of the game, each player has to decide whether to
play statically, i.e. to improve their long-term play, or play dynamically for short-term advantages to
possibly stir up the static balance of the position.

Critical moments are defined as moments when there can be:

a possible exchange of pieces,

a change in the pawn structure,

and the existence of forced sequences of moves.

The Method
At each such critical juncture in the game, the method says:

Study the static balance of the position in order to decide whether to play dynamically or not.
The balance constitutes comparing the 4 elements one-by-one between the two sides, starting from
highest priority.

One side is deemed statically better if it stands better in any of the higher priority elements. For
instance, if king positions are about the same, but one side has a stronger material correlation, then that
side stands statically better even though they might be worse in the 3rd and 4th elements of the static
balance.

The side with a favorable static balance should play slowly and find moves that further improve their
long-term static advantages.

Conversely, the side being statically worse, should opt for dynamic play and establish a short-term
advantage, in order to ultimately stir up the static balance in their favor.

Ideally, the dynamic play should aim to establish an advantage in terms of a higher priority static
element. For instance, if we are statically worse because our material correlation (2nd element) is
worse, then by playing dynamically we should try to worsen our opponent's king position relative to
ours, i.e., establish an edge in a static element higher in priority than the one we're doing worse in. So in
this example that higher priority would be the king position (1st element).

You might also like