Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 08 Jun '09 07:05
    I'm kind of struggling with the very premise of this advice. it's being mentioned now and then (also by greenpawn34 in one of my earlier posts). To me, it seems to contradict (to some extent) with some other advice given: "Do not obstruct your pawns by grouping your pieces directly in front of them; pawns and pieces must work together". If you're developing your pieces instead (i.e. following don't touch your pawns advice) quite inevitably so you end up blocking them (i.e. violating don't obstruct your pawns...). Now, that's some fuzzy logic. Any comments?
  2. 08 Jun '09 08:25
    New premise:
    Avoid every lead in development,
    touch 12 times a pawn in the first 16 moves
    and your opponent will resign:
    Quod erat demonstrandum.
  3. 08 Jun '09 09:55
    Originally posted by woodworm
    White pattSir
    Black Loverman
    Result 1-0
    WhiteElo 2433
    BlackElo 1442
    Most important rule: Make sure your opponent is rated 1000 points below you.
  4. 08 Jun '09 11:29
    read pawn structure in chess by andrew soltis.
  5. 08 Jun '09 13:12
    Originally posted by Renars
    I'm kind of struggling with the very premise of this advice. it's being mentioned now and then (also by greenpawn34 in one of my earlier posts). To me, it seems to contradict (to some extent) with some other advice given: [b]"Do not obstruct your pawns by grouping your pieces directly in front of them; pawns and pieces must work together". If you're devel ...[text shortened]... lating don't obstruct your pawns...). Now, that's some fuzzy logic. Any comments?[/b]
    What I know of the subject.

    "Don't touch your pawns unless you have a good reason"

    In the opening it depends on your openingchoice and the plan(s) involved.

    Take for example Petroff defense,main line:
    1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nf6 3.Nxe5,d6 4.Nf3,Nxe4 5.d4,d5 6.Bd3,Nc6 7.0-0,Be7 8.c4,Nb4 9.Be2,0-0 10.Nc3,Bf5


    White moved only 3 pawns in the first 10 moves,and so did Black.Both sides concentrate on developing (with tactical threats).
    "Occupy the center with pawns" - the classical approach.

    In contrast you have Alekhine's defense,4 pawns attack:
    1.e4,Nf6 2.e5,Nd5 3.d4,d6 4.c4,Nb6 5.f4


    White's first 5 moves are pawnmoves!!This is ok because his plan is to prove Black's opening idea inferior by building a big pawncenter while chasing Black's knight across the board.Black will try to prove White's idea wrong by undermining the pawncenter.This clash of ideas usually results in an interesting fight.
    "Control the center from a distance with pieces allowing the opponent to occupy the center with pawns which you can then attack" - the hypermodern approach.

    In the middlegame the rule applies to
    a.the pawns in front of your castled king (see below game for an example)
    b.when faced with a cramped position,or when simply lost for good ideas,many players start pushing pawns up the board in an attempt to create space,or a desperate try to get an attack going.This creates holes in their position and the enterprising pawns often become targets.It usually results in an easier win for the opponent.A remark an IM once made and that has always stuck with me:
    "I'm luring his pawns forward so I can get to them more easily"

    Spielmann-Wahle,1926


    Black's mistake was 9....,g6,weakening his dark squares.

    To conclude,always keep 2 things in mind:
    -in chess rules are not carved in stone.Sometimes they can,and must,be broken
    -pawns don't move backwards

    Hope this helps.
  6. 08 Jun '09 15:44
    It's the silly pawn moves that get played in the opening I was chasing.

    The h3's and h6's. or the false gains of tempo.

    Look at this played on here. The game last's 12 moves.
    White (1500) makes 7 pawn moves.
    Black (1800) makes 1 pawn move.



    Go to:

    http://www.timeforchess.com/gamesexplorer/

    A lot of the of the losses under 15 moves can be traced to silly pawn moves.

    You can learn a lot by skipping though these games.

    Pick any opening you wish and when given a choice of moves select
    to follow games with pawn moves.

    Every pawn push weakens squares on your third rank.

    Here is lovely example - Black tempts forward the c3 pawn with
    a 'silly' check. the weakness created on d3 by moving the c-pawn
    did not enter White's mind.


    Knight forks all over the place.

    Even good players sometimes slip up with a silly opening pawn move.

    I'm sorry Cimon, but let your loss be a guiding light to Renars.
    I'm not adverse to putting on a loss of mine if I think someone
    will gain something from it.

  7. 08 Jun '09 15:52
    Originally posted by Renars
    I'm kind of struggling with the very premise of this advice. it's being mentioned now and then (also by greenpawn34 in one of my earlier posts). To me, it seems to contradict (to some extent) with some other advice given: [b]"Do not obstruct your pawns by grouping your pieces directly in front of them; pawns and pieces must work together". If you're devel ...[text shortened]... lating don't obstruct your pawns...). Now, that's some fuzzy logic. Any comments?[/b]
    my rule of thumb is simply this: when considering a pawn move,
    visualize the board with no pieces, just the pawns, for both sides.
    You want to place your pawns in a position such that, if all pieces were suddenly traded off, you stand at least equal chances in the endgame.
    you want to balance this concept with the idea that you want to maximize the utility of your pawns i.e. through tactics and development as wormwood showed in his example. (12 pawn moves in the first 16! haha)
  8. Standard member orion25
    Art is hard
    08 Jun '09 16:14
    Originally posted by Big Orange Country
    my rule of thumb is simply this: when considering a pawn move,
    visualize the board with no pieces, just the pawns, for both sides.
    You want to place your pawns in a position such that, if all pieces were suddenly traded off, you stand at least equal chances in the endgame.
    you want to balance this concept with the idea that you want to maximize ...[text shortened]... tactics and development as wormwood showed in his example. (12 pawn moves in the first 16! haha)
    that isn't entirly true because before the endgame comes the middle game and a good pawn structure in the endgame isn't always good pawn position in the middle game, as greenpawn showed in his examples
  9. 08 Jun '09 21:34
    All I wanted to stress was please give your pawn moves that
    extra bit of thought. If you put a piece on a dumb square you
    can always move back to whence it came.

    Pawn moves are forever.

    The other lesson in that trio of games is that even good players blunder.

    Weaker players think once you become a good player you don't
    blunder anymore.

    Once you start thinking you will never blunder again....'Clang!'.
  10. 09 Jun '09 04:41
    Originally posted by orion25
    that isn't entirly true because before the endgame comes the middle game and a good pawn structure in the endgame isn't always good pawn position in the middle game, as greenpawn showed in his examples
    in which case it is the player who must decide as early as possible whether he thinks the game will make it to an endgame or not and play accordingly.
    In a Caro-Kann main line it is usually likely that an endgame will be reached, thus black might want to think more about an endgame-favourable pawn structure, whereas, as you point out, if there are opportunities for an advantage to be squeezed in the middlegame, then those should definitally be pursued.
  11. 09 Jun '09 08:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    It's the silly pawn moves that get played in the opening I was chasing.

    The h3's and h6's. or the false gains of tempo.
    I never understood people who condemn h3s and h6s. I stopped reading Chernev after noticing his serious obsession about those moves. There's nothing wrong with timely h3s and h6s, and actually, they are necessary in a lot of (maybe even in the majority of?) openings.

    but I agree about being careful about pawn moves. whenever "there's nothing to do", one's hand itches to move a pawn, and that's one of those moments where you have to sit on it.
  12. 09 Jun '09 09:25
    Originally posted by philidor position
    I never understood people who condemn h3s and h6s. I stopped reading Chernev after noticing his serious obsession about those moves. There's nothing wrong with timely h3s and h6s, and actually, they are necessary in a lot of (maybe even in the majority of?) openings.

    but I agree about being careful about pawn moves. whenever "there's nothing to ...[text shortened]... s hand itches to move a pawn, and that's one of those moments where you have to sit on it.
    "There's nothing wrong with timely h3s and h6s, "

    Nothing at all - the key word being 'timely'.

    In this position.



    3...h6 has been played over 5,400 times it's actually 3rd. choice.
    Black then goes onto to lose the vast majority of the games.

    It's these silly h3's and h6's I'd like to see eradicated from novices.

    Of course a good player like Paval Blatny who played 3...h6 in this
    position v GM's & IM's can get away with it because he is a very good
    player. His wins usually come v players who try to 'punish' him.

    I think most good players eventually out grow Chernev.
    His writings are designed for the under 2000 player.

    After that you will have to move onto other writers to study who will
    assume that you know the basics regarding pointless pawn moves
    so will not harp on about them so much.
  13. 09 Jun '09 10:21
    doesnt Chernev demonstrate on numerous occasions, why the "little pawn moves" are bad, in that they can become targets for piece sacrifices and the like? I wish i had my copy so that i could post some of those very instructive games.
  14. 09 Jun '09 11:12
    Originally posted by philidor position
    I never understood people who condemn h3s and h6s. I stopped reading Chernev after noticing his serious obsession about those moves. There's nothing wrong with timely h3s and h6s, and actually, they are necessary in a lot of (maybe even in the majority of?) openings.

    but I agree about being careful about pawn moves. whenever "there's nothing to ...[text shortened]... s hand itches to move a pawn, and that's one of those moments where you have to sit on it.
    You remind me of a friend of mine.On a fleemarket he picked up a chessbook which had a position on the cover stating 'White to play and win'.He studied it for a minute and said 'White cannot mate here.This book sucks!' laid the book down and went on his way.

    Sometimes I remind him of this story.He still regrets not buying it at the time.
  15. 09 Jun '09 14:48
    Originally posted by Romanticus
    You remind me of a friend of mine.On a fleemarket he picked up a chessbook which had a position on the cover stating 'White to play and win'.He studied it for a minute and said 'White cannot mate here.This book sucks!' laid the book down and went on his way.

    Sometimes I remind him of this story.He still regrets not buying it at the time.
    I don't think our cases are similar. I never said something like that. I just think his comments about those h pawn moves were too general and a little overdone. I respect Chernev's admiration and huge contribution for chess.