The importance of the central squares seems to depend upon the opening you are playing if white, and the defence if black. For instance, in the Nimzo Larsen, (1.g3) usually followed by N.f3, Bg2, etc, the central squares are regarded from a distance, and as black with the Modern Defence with 1...g6 the same kind of reasoning applies. I suppose the central 4 squares are of strategic importance, but only if you are going to use them correctly...
Originally posted by johndxmurphyBasicly pieces are more active when centrally placed, also there may be times you want to lock the center, like when conducting an attack on the enemy king and dont want to worry about the opponents counter play else where.
All the books say you should control the middle four squares, but in practice no many seem to worry about it. What do you think?
Control of center 4 squares? I never heard about that myth although I have been playing chess since age 4. I always thought you should aim for the enemy king. Who cares about the 4 stupid squares in the middle of the board when you occupy all the squares around the enemy king? 😉
*edit* take my advice, do not listen those books. They can be very confusing sometimes *for some people*😀
Personally, I worry more about space then the actual 4 squares.
If you don't atleast have a stake in the center you will be giving up a large amount of space to your opponent...unless you compensate by taking control of the flanks.
I'm not Kasparov disclaimer: I'm not a GM and don't pretend to be one. All of the above is just my opinion and is possibly utter rubbish.
Originally posted by Saint NickI sometimes give quotes from Kasparov's books but that does not make me a GM, IM or NM too. Very good point that Santa makes.
Personally, I worry more about space then the actual 4 squares.
If you don't atleast have a stake in the center you will be giving up a large amount of space to your opponent...unless you compensate by taking control of the flanks.
I'm not Kasparov disclaimer: I'm not a GM and don't pretend to be one. All of the above is just my opinion and is possibly utter rubbish.
I just quote.
I also must agree Santa about space too. Another good point.
Kasparov describes modern chess as divided into 3 dimensions. Time, Space and Quality. So you have to evaluate the compensation that you are considering for yourself.
And Fischer talk about squares ''If you wanna get 'em, you gotta give em''
So, it all comes to one thing really in my opinon (I am not a GM, IM or NM myself so this might be complete rubbish information, do not take it so seriously)
...that is: Compensation in chess. You give material to get some time on the attack to the enemy king or as Santa said you give some senter stake to opponent for a dangerous flank attack.
I was joking earlier, I seriosly think that center is vital of importance and should not be ignored. (Always look out whether you have a pawn or piece in the center, do not ignore the tension in the center, try to influence the center with your pieces etc...)
As it is well known, if you have the firm control of the center it will be hard for your opponnent to generate a flank attack.
Regards,
Mr. Nic *I'm not Kasparov, just a stoner*
Originally posted by johndxmurphyThen the players you play are rubbish. You either own the centre or with the hypermodern school (which is pretty old) you control it. Ignore what they do and go and own the centre, and develop.
All the books say you should control the middle four squares, but in practice no many seem to worry about it. What do you think?
Here is a totally random game from my list of completed games.
Game 1266655
Note how the first eight moves on both sides involve fighting for the center. The only possible exceptions are the castling moves, which get the King away from the battleground - which is the center - and which actually free up Rooks to help fight for the center.
White's 9th move doesn't really involve the center, at least in any obvious way. It does however keep my Knight away from g4. If I got my Knight to g4, I could then play ...exd4 and then plant the g4 Knight on e5 maybe. In addition it allows the move ...f5 which does fight for the center while my Knight might end up on h6 supporting that Pawn push.
In the teens there's some flank play but before move 20 is reached White again starts pressuring the center.
Then I resign due to the fact that I lost my knight...in the center...and was unable to regain the material. Note that White's control of central files kept my Knight from escaping.
The center was the major area of combat in this game except for some brief but dramatic fighting on the Queens' wing. Also note that I was the one who initiated that skirmish, and it may have been a significant factor in my losing the game.
In this analysis I used a broad definition of center, while you specifically mentioned the central four squares. However those four squares definitely were far more critical factors in the game than say h1-2 and g1-2 or any other four squares in the corner of the board.
Originally posted by johndxmurphySometimes it's hard when you first start playing chess to discern the difference between direct control of the center squares, and indirect control of them. Often in many games there is intense maneuvering on the flanks, but more often than not, this maneuvering is jostling for indirect control of the center. There are also some opening strategies which encourage white to over-extend in the center, so that black can more easily take control later.
All the books say you should control the middle four squares, but in practice no many seem to worry about it. What do you think?
So, basically, even when it doesn't look like it, chances are good that it's all about the center.
Imagine the center of the chessboard to be like a hill. Even Sun-Tzu said that he who controls the high ground has already won the battle.