Strategy: picking a role

How I got here

On the 26th of October 2026 I played a game on Lichess:

I came up with a plan to put pressure on h7, because after 11. fxe5 Ne8 there is no longer a Knight on f6 defending h7. But once my opponent started an attack with 12. ...Qg5 I defended poorly and lost quickly. According to Stockfish it was more important to strenghten my center with 12. d4(instead of Qc2). Stockfish gives an evaluation of +0.9 after 12. d4.

Better move was found, lesson learned, end of the story, right? The position below makes things a bit more nuanced.

Where does the other position come from?

A friend of mine plays the Bird longer than I do. When I mentioned a problem I came across during my analysis, he mentioned one of his own games in which he faced a similiar problem. I asked him to send me the game.

After 7. ...Nfd7 Stockfish recommended to either retreat the Knight to f3 or to further defend it with d4. 8. c4 was marked as an inaccuracy. I din't understand why. So played through a couple moves with the engine after 8. O-O to see if Black was threatening anything. In case he wasn't, I would know that something was wrong with 8. c4. One line went 8. O-O Nxe5 9. fxe5 Nc6 10. d4 Bd7 11. c4. After 11. c4 we reach the position I have shown at the end of the first section.

Comparing the positions

A one on one comparison

For your convinience I will display the postions I am talking about again and name them.
Position 1:

Position 2:

In both positions the white pieces are completely identical. And Blacks pieces are almost the same too. The only differences are Blacks minorpieces. Not only are they placed differently, but also in position 1 Black has a second Knight, and in position 2 a dark squared Bishop. I concluded that the dark squared Bishop is the main reason for the different evaluations. I tested my theory by creating a new position.

Testing the theory by analysing a new position

For the new position I took position 1 and exchanged the Knight on e8 for a Bishop on e7.
I analysed the position with White having the first move, then again with Black moving first.
Let's first see what happens if Black is to move:

Black had an overwhelming attack on Whites center, while White had trouble finishing his development.
It appears the position is terrible for White. Is it the same with White to move?

Takeaways

From our previous analysis we can derive a few facts:

1. Black wants to attack Whites center while disrupting his development
2. Blacks dark squared Bishop is an important part of the attack

We could also wittnes how White was looking to hold his position together, while Black was disturbing the peace. White has more space, and yet he is the one defending. That is because Black HAS to attack, or else his position is just worse. It is common knowledge that when your opponent has the center, you need to attack it. I don't know about you, but apparently I had to relearn this. From this I formulated the stratagem of picking a role. Right now I give two options: attacker or defender. In our examples Black was the attacker and White the defender.

Going back to the initial problem

The second point becomes more understandable when we look at the position with which it all started:

And the worse evaluation became more reasonable when keeping our findings in mind:

Black is pressing, but he cannot create a decisive advantage.

How roles can change

On October 28th(my birthday by the way) I played another game, in which I tried to use my stratagem of picking a role.

The game nicely illustrates how the role can change and the neccesity for the attack against the player with the center.

Conclusion

Attacking the center is old wisdom. So when your opponent gains a space advantage in the center, it is your duty to become the attacker. I had to relearn this the hard way. Let this be a lesson to you. Before you end up like me, spending hours analysing and comparing positions just to rediscover common knowledge.
Have a nice day