Only Chess
22 Apr 09
22 Apr 09
Fairly often comes a situation in which the d-file is open for both sides and one Queen takes the other, forcing the opposing King to retake.
It's my opinion that this is a neutral move. It does not, in itself, change the balance of the game. It's beneficial to the player with more material, but not when material is even.
What do you think?
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf it makes my opponent to destroy his castling rights, then I think it's worth considering.
Fairly often comes a situation in which the d-file is open for both sides and one Queen takes the other, forcing the opposing King to retake.
It's my opinion that this is a neutral move. It does not, in itself, change the balance of the game. It's beneficial to the player with more material, but not when material is even.
What do you think?
22 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi always understood that in the opening, which one must assume is the reason why the king is still in the middle and as yet uncastled it may indeed be a neutral move, for the player making the exchange gives up a tempo in doing so while retaking with the King does not develop anything therefore it seems that nothing is gained nor lost, however the king may need to expend another tempo to get to safety, but this is not always the case and he may be perfectly safe sitting in an uncastled position, especially as the queens are now off the board. here is a petrosian game which well illustrates the principle.
Fairly often comes a situation in which the d-file is open for both sides and one Queen takes the other, forcing the opposing King to retake.
It's my opinion that this is a neutral move. It does not, in itself, change the balance of the game. It's beneficial to the player with more material, but not when material is even.
What do you think?
5...Kxd8 Chernev writes, Loss of castling privilege is no disadvantage once queens have been exchanged off the board. The king is in no danger of being mated and is well placed for the endgame.
i may add this is a beautiful game of chess, well worth playing through - regards robbie.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by highflier934what about the above game, Petrosian lost his 'castling rights', and it made not the slightest bit of difference! yes he had to expend an extra tempo to get his king to safety, but it was hardly decisive, was it?
Agreed. That has always been my reasoning.
22 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCorrect, but they were masters. The people I will play are not. I think it is definitely worth it.
what about the above game, Petrosian lost his 'castling rights', and it made not the slightest bit of difference! yes he had to expend an extra tempo to get his king to safety, but it was hardly decisive, was it?
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are no rules of thumbs in chess. When I wrote "worth considering" I meant just that, nothing more.
what about the above game, Petrosian lost his 'castling rights', and it made not the slightest bit of difference! yes he had to expend an extra tempo to get his king to safety, but it was hardly decisive, was it?
When given the opportunity to destroy my opponents castling rights, it's worth concidering. But if after the exchange I find my self in a worse situation, then I shouldn't exchange, even if I destroy his castling rights. Of course.
In some cases it's worth much to sacrifice a bishop or a knight to destroy my opponents castling rights, especially if I can lure his king out in the open, attracting a lethal combination leading to a mate.
I think Rudolf Spielmann goes through this in his book "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess." in one chapter.
22 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes yes, now that you qualify it with reference, however a game or two may prove to be very instructive, don't you think? just to illustrate the point. 🙂
There are no rules of thumbs in chess. When I wrote "worth considering" I meant just that, nothing more.
When given the opportunity to destroy my opponents castling rights, it's worth concidering. But if after the exchange I find my self in a worse situation, then I shouldn't exchange, even if I destroy his castling rights. Of course.
In some cases Spielmann goes through this in his book "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess." in one chapter.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by highflier934yes, its is, as the learned Fabians has also noted, but what are the conditions for making it worthwhile, whether our opponent is a master or not, is it not really helpful in helping us understand by providing some criteria to illustrate the point 🙂
Correct, but they were masters. The people I will play are not. I think it is definitely worth it.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will have to look at my games and find something. I'm not so good with the posting things as such. However, I do agree that it all depends on the situation. Nothing is always true.
yes, its is, as the learned Fabians has also noted, but what are the conditions for making it worthwhile, whether our opponent is a master or not, is it not really helpful in helping us understand by providing some criteria to illustrate the point 🙂
23 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, and so we're considering it. However with the Queens gone the mating opportunities have become far fewer. What good is ruining castling rights if you're thrown nearly into endgame immediately?
If it makes my opponent to destroy his castling rights, then I think it's worth considering.
23 Apr 09
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, this is not more than a rule of thumb. Every situation must be considered for itself. There are never any ultimate rules.
yes yes, now that you qualify it with reference, however a game or two may prove to be very instructive, don't you think? just to illustrate the point. 🙂
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes, and so we're considering it. However with the Queens gone the mating opportunities have become far fewer. What good is ruining castling rights if you're thrown nearly into endgame immediately?
Look at the game starting with 1. d4 d6 2. e4 e5 3. dxe5 dxe5 4. Qxd8+ Kxd8 (Pirc's opening, I think, perhaps I'm wrong)
Then we have the position
We have a symmetric position with no queens left. The only difference between white and black is that black has no castling rights anymore. Surely white has an advantage, small but still there? According to GamesExplorer 62% of the games are won by white, only 29% by black.
And I don't think we are near an endgame yet, are we?
23 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSurely white has an advantage, small but still there?
Well, this is not more than a rule of thumb. Every situation must be considered for itself. There are never any ultimate rules.
Look at the game starting with 1. d4 d6 2. e4 e5 3. dxe5 dxe5 4. Qxd8+ Kxd8 (Pirc's opening, I think, perhaps I'm wrong)
Then we have the position
[fen]rnbk1bnr/ppp2ppp/8/4p3/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/RNB1KBNR[/fen]
We have a symm ...[text shortened]... are won by white, only 29% by black.
And I don't think we are near an endgame yet, are we?
ummm, i don't mean to be rude or anything, but why has white got a small advantage? if its by virtue of having lost the right to castle, then i do not think that we can rightly call it an advantage, this is misleading, for it is yet to be demonstrated that whites 'advantage', is real! there are many games where black has forfeited the 'right to castle', and been at no 'real', disadvantage, i will post them for your perusal and consideration later, right now i gotta go to work!🙂