18 Sep 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThe former is also Tiger Hillarp Persson's approach and the latter was played by Ray Keene and named the Pterodactyl if black then plays Qa5. Nowt new in chess it seems.
The former is GM Davies' approach, while the latter is Charlie Storey's "Sniper" approach. I have his book, too, but I haven't started it yet.
I became interested in his approach after playing through some Accelerated Dragon games in Andrew Greet's book.
It seems one thing in chess leads to another, and they all transpose to king and pawn vs king or some other ending in the end!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by tomtom232As I said: "'changing off your only defender is not wise". That's just what you've described there.
Not true. For example a fianchetto structure (with the dark square bishop say) is not weak if you trade off your knight for their dark squared bishop you are doing well but if you swap off your dark square bishop now the structure is weak. Exchanges are almost equally vital as pawn structure.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34Possibly, but it is rarely denounced nearly as harshly as needless pawn moves. There has to be a reason for that.
The needless exchange "because I did not know what to do".
Is another comonn blunder.
As I said, up ^ there on page 1, the pawn rule should go for exchanges as well, but I've rarely seen it stated as such. So, why not?
Richard