Day 154 / 211 to go

Just the other day (on Day 143) I was mentioning the bishop pair´s value and Rowson´s analogy with Plato´s hermaphrodite being one way to get a better understanding of it. Today I read some interesting stuff about imbalances in Smith´s book, mainly in case of
- bishop versus knight
- rook versus knight or bishop + pawn
- rook versus knight + bishop
It actually also fit´s so nicely to Rowson´s  E=mc²

ONLY NOW (after todays session), I might (!) have a somewhat decent (but yet purely theoretical) understanding of a major concept introduced by my coach which is also part of my PAT: The concept of imbalances! I know that I sometimes find this sort of imbalances in some of my English-variations - but now I might finally be able to think about it more actively and, eventually, in a more helpful way...

Here are some interesting rules of thumb (which were actually new to me, except for the first one):

• opposite coloured-bishop favour the more active player
• an exchange sacrifice is somewhat more likely to be succesful with opposite-coloured bishops
• the side with more pieces (e.g. 2 pieces for the rook) has a static advantage; hence, the side with less pieces should look for dynamic play/advantage
• fighting passed pawns is often easier with a rook
• when being the exchange up, you should try to trade queens
• an exchange sacrifice is more likely to be favourable with your second rook still being on the board (vice versa: being an exchange up, you favour to trade the remaining pair of rooks)

The question is how to incorporate this sort of pure theory into my personal practice at the board?