15 Oct 04
Hey people who know this stuff... is it correct to define "light [or dark] squared weaknesses" as "open diagonals leading into one's position, especially at the king, that are behind pushed pawns?"
I've been trying to figure this concept out for a while. A succession of games are finally making the point...
My opponent creates light-squared weaknesses, loses: Game 713916
I create dark-squared weaknesses (right at the end), lose: Game 718721
Is that a reasonable understanding of this weird strategic concept?
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaPersonally I don't know what's the big deal with the weakness to "dark squares or light squares". Yes, having a weakness of said squares may give your opponent a little room or maybe even a few knight maneuver tactical shots, but I've never lost a game, or won a game for that matter, due to weaknesses of said squares. The advantage seems so slight, to the point it's hardly an advantage at all. Definately not worth fussing over or even thinking about, there are other much more important positional concepts then this. . .
Hey people who know this stuff... is it correct to define "light [or dark] squared weaknesses" as "open diagonals leading into one's position, especially at the king, that are behind pushed pawns?"
I've been trying to figure this concept out for a while. A succession of games are finally making the point...
My opponent creates light-squared ...[text shortened]... , lose: Game 718721
Is that a reasonable understanding of this weird strategic concept?
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaHi Paul,
Hey people who know this stuff... is it correct to define "light [or dark] squared weaknesses" as "open diagonals leading into one's position, especially at the king, that are behind pushed pawns?"
I've been trying to figure this concept out for a while. A succession of games are finally making the point...
My opponent creates light-squared ...[text shortened]... , lose: Game 718721
Is that a reasonable understanding of this weird strategic concept?
Light and dark-square weaknesses do revolve around the diagonals a lot, but not always. And it doesn't always have to be a weakness of the kingside. It can also be a weakness in the center or queenside.
If you have a light-squared bishop and your opponent has a dark squared bishop, and your opponent starts pushing pawns that no longer can defend the light squares in his or her camp, then by all means you should be looking for a way to exploit that. Your bishop can now attack squares at those points that your opponent's bishop can't defend. It's almost like having an extra piece, but your extra piece only applies to the light squares and his extra piece only to the dark squares. Of course you have to be careful attacking because your opponent can do the same to you.
Anytime there are bishops of opposite color on the board it usually means the side that can attack first may be able to sieze and keep the initiative.
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by mateuloseI don't believe for a minute that you have not lost due to a weak color complex...e.g. fianchetto castled position where the bishop gets traded...now there are weak squares all around the king and many mates are possible.
Personally I don't know what's the big deal with the weakness to "dark squares or light squares". Yes, having a weakness of said squares may give your opponent a little room or maybe even a few knight maneuver tactical shots, but I've never lost a game, or won a game for that matter, due to weaknesses of said squares. The advantage seems so slight, to ...[text shortened]... r or even thinking about, there are other much more important positional concepts then this. . .
They are very important!!
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaIt's not a weird concept...it just means your opponent's pieces can control those squares (e.g. dark squares around your king) and you cannot contest them! e.g. the opponent can form a battery of queen and bishop on a diagonal and you cannot place ANY pieces there at all.
Hey people who know this stuff... is it correct to define "light [or dark] squared weaknesses" as "open diagonals leading into one's position, especially at the king, that are behind pushed pawns?"
I've been trying to figure this concept out for a while. A succession of games are finally making the point...
My opponent creates light-squared ...[text shortened]... , lose: Game 718721
Is that a reasonable understanding of this weird strategic concept?
15 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by mateuloseThis is so wrong I had to reply twice...to say this is so unimportant that you should not worry about or that it does not lead to an advantage of any sort is utter nonsense!! It may be that you have not been punished for allowing weak complexes and if this is the case it's only because of the weakness of your opponents e.g. many RHP players don't realize how to exploit it or don't even notice it.
Personally I don't know what's the big deal with the weakness to "dark squares or light squares". Yes, having a weakness of said squares may give your opponent a little room or maybe even a few knight maneuver tactical shots, but I'v ...[text shortened]... e are other much more important positional concepts then this. . .
I often play blitz with a master, Asa Hoffmann (who once beat Fischer in blitz) and he often points out how I've created a weak color complex and then proceeds to squash me directly because of it!
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by hypermo2001Game 679709
I don't believe for a minute that you have not lost due to a weak color complex...e.g. fianchetto castled position where the bishop gets traded...now there are weak squares all around the king and many mates are possible.
They are very important!!
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat's nice about this game is that it shows the real power of dominating a weak colour complex - it's easy to use that to attack the opposite coloured squares (Nxg3).
Game 679709
Nice game!