dear reader, while perusing a copy of the illustrious Hans Kmochs legendary book,
pawn power in chess, on page nine we find this position, which he terms 'the ram',
two pawns diametrically opposite to each other.
He then states, and i quote, 'Rams cause immobility, They separate opposing
armies, thereby favouring the defender....for attacking purposes it is important to
avoid 'rams', as far as possible and strive for the dissolution of existing rams.
thus gentle reader there is a conflict in my mind, for we have the Nimzovitchian idea
of advancing the pawn as in say the advanced french, creating space for our pieces
to operate in and the Kmoch idea, that such pawn formations should be avoided
and we should strive for their dissolution, as in the exchange French etc
not striving for the dissolution of the ram but gaining space a la Nimzo
striving for the dissolution of the 'ram' a la Kmoch?
Am i understanding this correctly or am I missing something, if you can offer any
light on the subject i would be much obliged - kind regards Robbie
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe rams allow you to lock up one area of the board, thus freeing yourself of some worry about the opponent getting play in that area. Usually, when the center is locked, play transfers to the wings. If white has a kingside attack in mind, he may well want to close the center first so that he doesn't get distracted by central counterplay during the attack.
dear reader, while perusing a copy of the illustrious Hans Kmochs legendary book,
pawn power in chess, on page nine we find this position, which he terms 'the ram',
two pawns diametrically opposite to each other.
[fen]8/8/8/4p3/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
He then states, and i quote, [b]'Rams cause immobility, They separate opposing
armies, ...[text shortened]... if you can offer any
light on the subject i would be much obliged - kind regards Robbie[/b]
Originally posted by SwissGambitah yes my friend, this is a la Nimzo approach, the creation of space behind which your forces may manoeuvre through say the advancement of the pawn, however it is not striving for the dissolution of the ram which Kmoch talks about and which apparently favours the attacker, thus there is conflict in my mind betwixt the two. Is it a case of taste? of specifics in the position and that no generalities may be drawn?
The rams allow you to lock up one area of the board, thus freeing yourself of some worry about the opponent getting play in that area. Usually, when the center is locked, play transfers to the wings. If white has a kingside attack in mind, he may well want to close the center first so that he doesn't get distracted by central counterplay during the attack.
Hi Robbie, Long time no see.
Cannot recall all the book or the layout. Sold my copy years and years ago.
But in the bit about releasing the tension The French is discussed.
Does he not say 3.exd5 is a bad release of the tension, 3.Nc3 is better.
So you (as White have to avoid the Ram v e6 and c6 in 1.e4 openings)
and keep the tension. Force Black to play exd4.
If you play e5 that opens you up to Levers and Sealers and things.
(I think).
Been ages since I read it. Very rigid and did not finish it.
Cannot forget some of the terms though and still to this day use 'passer'
and 'candidate passer.'
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn my understanding the ram generally avoids play (attack) on the file were it is stationed. Since we see, in the french the position:
dear reader, while perusing a copy of the illustrious Hans Kmochs legendary book,
pawn power in chess, on page nine we find this position, which he terms 'the ram',
two pawns diametrically opposite to each other.
[fen]8/8/8/4p3/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
He then states, and i quote, 'Rams cause immobility, They separate opposing
armies, if you can offer any
light on the subject i would be much obliged - kind regards Robbie
You have to decide were you want there to be rams, and in this way decide which channel you want to use to attack. If you want to attack through the centre you have to avoid rams in the centre, as your pieces can't attack through your pawns. In this case you want to play the exchange.
If, on the other hand, you want to play on the kingside, you will have to strive to maintain the rams in the centre, in order to avoid your opponent using it to counter you. Remember you can't attack on the flanks if you don't have a secure centre, and the best way to do that is to lock it with pawns. Thus, if you want to attack on the flanks you will play the advanced variation.
Pawns block pieces, and play. If you want to avoid play by your opponents, lock his pawns and he can't advance. If you want to have play, avoid blockading pieces.
In terms of the French Advance position, I think it is important to reconcile Kmoch with Nimzovitch by looking beyond Kmoch's ram and thinking about Kmoch's lever.
In Kmoch's case, he would point out that it is the goal of each player to remove the opposing player's ram by attacking the pawn chain with a lever.
As it applies to the French Advance position, both players have levers which they will try to implement- and the more successful player will have the advantage, most likely.
For the Black player, his natural lever in the position is ...c5, attacking the d4 pawn and attempting to remove the support for the e5 pawn.
For White, his natural lever is f4-f5, with the idea of attacking e6 and indirectly attacking d5 by assaulting it's support base.
I hope this helps! It's a very fundamental and important concept that shows up in a variety of positions from many different openings.
Paul
Hi Paul
Black also has f6 as a lever, usually after 0-0.
I call it poking the centre. Though no doubt Kmoch will have a far superior
name for it.
I 'undermine' the last pawn in a pawn chain and 'poke' the front of a pawn chain.
I think Kmoch liked the Black postion because it had two active potential levers in it.
As I said I never finished reading it. The terms were doing nut in.
However I knew guys who would run back into a burning building to save
this book and a publishing house re-vamped it from desciptive to alebraic
and they tend to do that only with classics.
So stick it with Robbie, it won't do any harm.
Unless of course you start muttering about 'Seeler Sweeping Lever Rams.'
in your sleep. Then they will lock you up.
And as if on cue...
...Swiss Gambit has just finished a wee beauty which has all the levers
from the pawn formation above in action.
I love using examples played by lads on here - it proves these GM's and alike
are not the only ones who can play instructive games.
(The Black player's handle is a bit too close for comfort - I'll need to give
him some coaching if he going to run around on here with that tag. 😉)
thanks to all, greenpawn, orion, gambit and morphys maniacs very own Mr. Legget (peace be upon them), had i not jumped to conclusions and read the next section on levers, all would have become clear - many thanks for the examples and the explanations - regards robbie
Originally posted by greenpawn34sweet, rec'd for the game
And as if on cue...
...Swiss Gambit has just finished a wee beauty which has all the levers
from the pawn formation above in action.
I love using examples played by lads on here - it proves these GM's and alike
are not the only ones who can play instructive games.
(The Black player's handle is a bit too close for comfort - I'll need to give
h ...[text shortened]... 7g8 23. Be3xh6 gxh6 24. Qg6xh6 Qg8h7 25. Nh4g6 Kh8g8 26. Rf1xf8[/pgn]