04 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlebeetle this is just awesome, well make a chess player oh me yet, yon skallywag robbie ka bobbie - thanks so much!
Furthermore my trustee feer
you have to realise that the chessplayer is eager to get a pawn structure which it tolerates exchanges better, for this is the proper preparation for a good finale. The concept "Initiative-Activity-Complications" derives from this aspect; then you have to pick your advantage.
So you protect the strongest pieces of yours w ...[text shortened]... e there are no "good" and "bad" pieces; there are solely weel placed and bad placed pieces
04 Dec 08
1 edit
black beetle said, "The mutual relationship of your pieces is critical: so in the endgame you prefer to have R+B vs R+N, Q+N vs Q+B, 2B vs 2N, and 2B vs B+N."
As I'm sure you are aware, these are not so much rules as they are guidelines. If one searches a sufficiently large number of games, one can find many with endgames in which the 2N were superior to the 2B, R + N were superior to R + B, etc. Nevertheless, these guidelines do apply in a significant majority of endgames. My reason for quoting your post is that in his fine book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy", IM John Watson devotes a few pages to the "Q + N is superior to Q + B" guideline and comes to the conclusion that this particular guideline is more myth than fact and that if a game with this endgame ended with a decisive result (for either side), it was due to other factors and that if there are no other imbalances, this particular endgame is equal.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerOf course they are not rules my friend, I was speaking strictly about the mobility of the pieces.
[b]black beetle said, "The mutual relationship of your pieces is critical: so in the endgame you prefer to have R+B vs R+N, Q+N vs Q+B, 2B vs 2N, and 2B vs B+N."
As I'm sure you are aware, these are not so much rules as they are guidelines. If one searches a sufficiently large number of games, one can find many with endgames i ...[text shortened]... ther factors and that if there are no other imbalances, this particular endgame is equal.[/b]
In order to be specific and pass a rule, I would say for example that the Bishop at the phase of the engame is superior than Knight if the Knight is on the edge of the board, or when the pawns of the side with the Knight are fixed on squares where they may be attacked by the Bishop (coz then either the King or the Knight will be tied down to their defence); but when the side with the Bishop is saddled with pawns placed on squares of the same colour as the Bishop, the Knight is superior.
I have not read Watson's book, but I suppose that this is the kind of the conclusions you have in mind;
04 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsfor those who are wondering why karpov didn't pick up the pawn and instead played 27.h3,
[pgn][Event "Moscow-Wch I Unzicker,W"]
[Site "Moscow-Wch I Unzicker,W"]
[Date "1984.01.10"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Anatoli Karpov"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "0"]
[BlackElo "0"]
[EventDate "?"]
[ECO "D34"]
[PlyCount "139"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10. being exploited beautifully.
Let me have another look in my books. 🙂
27.Bxd5?! Nxd5 28.Nxd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Rxd5 30.Rxd5 Rc2! and kasparov gains the pawn back.
awesome play by karpov.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell, if you take for instance the King's Gambit, the point of 2.f4 is that if Black accepts the pawn, White can have an unopposed pawn duo of d4 e4 and eventually have an open f-file for the rook. On the other hand, Black can decline the pawn by playing Bc5, for example, to exploit the weak g1-a7 diagonal - a weakness created by f2-f4. As far as I see it, These plans are based on pawn formations.
actually my Canadian friend, it was not the opening that was of interest, no no, that could never be as i never play queens gambit or any of the 1.d4 openings, it was but the strategy that led to the creation of a weakness that was ultimately exploitable that was of interest, openings are openings and chess is chess!
however if you would like to ...[text shortened]... or how all openings are based on pawn formation then i will be really grateful - regards Robbie.
Another example could be the Scotch Game: 1e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4.
Here, White's e-pawn is unopposed and it controls key central squares whereas Black's d-pawn is still at home for the moment and doesn't control any key squares. Being on a disadvantage on that basis (although not a huge disadvantage per se), Black has to generate counterplay through, say, 4...Nf6 or 4...Bc5.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by badivan1yes ok, it is now understood! thanks, just by way of reference and to make the thought complete, consider the Sicilian defense. after the moves, 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
well, if you take for instance the King's Gambit, the point of 2.f4 is that if Black accepts the pawn, White can have an unopposed pawn duo of d4 e4 and eventually have an open f-file for the rook. On the other hand, Black can decline the pawn by playing Bc5, for example, to exploit the weak g1-a7 diagonal - a weakness created by f2-f4. As far as I see it ...[text shortened]... ge disadvantage per se), Black has to generate counterplay through, say, 4...Nf6 or 4...Bc5.
black has already obtained a half open c-file, a central pawn majority and the potential for a so called minority attack which may saddle white with a weak c-pawn, in the short term white has a lead in development and fine attacking chances, who is to say who is better?, whites attacking opportunities or blacks long term structural advantage?
can this be construed as planning, the creation of weaknesses with which to press home an advantage? or is it not simply an understanding of the thematic dynamics of which an understanding is vital but may or may not lead to an advantage?