08 Jun 09
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?
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by RenarsWhat I know of the subject.
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]
"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.
08 Jun 09
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.
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by Renarsmy rule of thumb is simply this: when considering a pawn move,
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]
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)
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by Big Orange Countrythat 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
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)
08 Jun 09
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!'.
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by orion25in 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.
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 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.
09 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34I 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.
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.
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.
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by philidor position"There's nothing wrong with timely h3s and h6s, "
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.
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.
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by philidor positionYou 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.
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.
Sometimes I remind him of this story.He still regrets not buying it at the time.
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by RomanticusI 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.
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.