13 May 08
Originally posted by WriterAnathemaUsually "controlling a square" means attacking it. "Occupying" or similar would be used to describe a piece on a square.
Does this mean having a piece on the square or having a piece attacking it? I'm reading through a chess book and I'm unsure of the exact meaning. Can someone clarify please?
In a more involved context, you may attack a square but not control it. e.g. if you attack it with your queen but your opponent has a pawn attacking the same square too, then you don't control the square
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
13 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by WriterAnathemaHaving more pieces attacking the square than your opponent. A good example of this is Sveshnikov Siclian where white plays to control light squares and d5 inparticular.
Does this mean having a piece on the square or having a piece attacking it? I'm reading through a chess book and I'm unsure of the exact meaning. Can someone clarify please?
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8.
Na3 b5 9. Nd5 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. c3 O-O 12. Nc2 Bg5 13. a4 bxa4
A typical varition. You can see white trades his bishop for a knight early on, a lot of beginners might think this is a bad move but white really wants to control the light squares.
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamThis answer is probably more involved then WriterAnathema was asking for, but I think that the definition given by Varenka is more accurate. For example, consider the following position (black to move):
Having more pieces attacking the square than your opponent...text shortened
White has a slight material advantage, though that is not terribly relevant to our discussion. The question I would ask is: Who controls d5 ? If we go by Bedlam's definition, it is White, but that clearly is not the case. Admittedly, Black does not have absolute control of d5 (Re5 would be a mistake), but Black does have considerably more influence over d5 than White does. Consider that Black could even play Ra8 on this move and the following move Nd5 would still be playable.
14 May 08
I knight outpost in front of an isolated pawn would control the square of the pawn without attacking it. Nimzowitsch talked a lot about over-protection, but you don't read much about that anymore.
Controling a square is critical in rook + pawn vs bishop endings, and rook + bishop vs rook endings. I'm thinking about these in particular because in these endings many times a rook is used to control one or two squares. It's a whole lot harder to learn how to control one or two square with a rook than it is to control an open files.