Lets say you were in a game with a really bad backwards d or e pawn and you know that you will inevitably lose it. Why don't the best of the best just sac the pawn there and then while trying to get the best compensation they can? Instead of trying to defend the pawn and end up with a cramped position?
If you can get something for the backward pawn then I would go for the sac. But often the only way to get rid of it is by giving your opponent a passed pawn and sometimes a protected passed pawn and that's even worse to guard against.
Often backwards pawns tend to be created somewhere after the opening - there are only one or two theoretical positions where a side willingly allows this.
Sicillians are the example that springs most readily to mind - black often plays d6 and e5 in the sicillian, giving himself a weak d6 pawn, and also allowing a white piece to land on the d5 square.
In compensation, he tends to get more activity with pieces - frequently it is sufficient for him to play d5 and free up his pawn. Also, activity on the queenside, and sometimes playing f5 gives some play up the f file. A good black player will not allow mass exchanges of pieces, otherwise the weakness is exploitable.
Secondly, some lines of the french (the tarrasch springs instantly to mind) give black a backwards pawn on e6. This is actually not as bad as it seems as it is relatively easy to protect, and black usually gets good counterplay up the f file.
So the lesson to be learned is that positional weaknesses in openings are a form of bait - you know white will have a go at exploiting them during the middlegame but as black you want to be creating tactical opportunities wherever possible to keep yourself in the game.
Originally posted by tomtom232 against other best of the best people they do...they aren't perfect!
I wouldn't get too worked up about it.
(a) He's rated 1271.
(b) His self-applied nickname is "Dr. Stupid" (see under user handle at message sidebar).
(c) His profile asserts "beagles rule" and he has seen fit to punctuate this vital opinion with an exclamation point.
The answer is the same here as in any other position.
It depends (on the position). There is no point in sacrificing a backward pawn without getting valid compensation that will free up the position and get counterplay.
If you are tied down to defending it and cannot generate counterplay or if it falls and your opponent creates a strong passed pawn then you are probably lost.
Why not post some example positions and get comments on the validity of possible sacrifices?
Originally posted by Dragon Fire The answer is the same here as in any other position.
It depends (on the position). There is no point in sacrificing a backward pawn without getting valid compensation that will free up the position and get counterplay.
If you are tied down to defending it and cannot generate counterplay or if it falls and your opponent creates a strong passed pawn ...[text shortened]...
Why not post some example positions and get comments on the validity of possible sacrifices?
Your second paragraph is the reason why I am asking this question...if they will become tied down defending the pawn and will still innevitably lose it then why not sac it for as much compensation as they can.
Originally posted by tomtom232 Lets say you were in a game with a really bad backwards d or e pawn and you know that you will inevitably lose it. Why don't the best of the best just sac the pawn there and then while trying to get the best compensation they can? Instead of trying to defend the pawn and end up with a cramped position?
Because you have to resist with all your might, unless of course the sacrifice creates dynamic counterplay. Usually, the central pawns are just to valuable to just give up.
11 Dec '07 02:51
Chess theory question
Back to Top