don't touch your pawns

Originally posted by philidor position
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.

He didn't buy it because in his mind 'to win' equals 'to mate',which is wrong.
You stopped reading Chernev because you didn't appreciate his 'serious obsession' with the h-pawn moves.Considering the aim of the book this is also wrong and makes both cases similar.

I don't know your chess strength,you may be well beyond Chernev's writings in which case you're,of course,right to quit reading his books.But if not,and you quit because of the emphasis he puts on useless h-pawn moves then I think you're making a mistake you will regret later.

Originally posted by woodworm
[b]New premise:
Avoid every lead in development,
touch 12 times a pawn in the first 16 moves
and your opponent will resign:[/b]

some other premises:

avoid castling, move the same piece twice in the opening, take your queen out early, make a looot of pawn moves and your opponent will resign 🙂

I remember this quote about Chernev.

"A chess library without a few of Chernev's books is like a wedding without a band."

Cannot recall who said it.

The book in question must have been Chernev's book on postions
with White to Play and win.

He wrote to educate and entertain I've never really seen him offer
any bad advice. You do go past him, but you can never ignore him.

Originally posted by Romanticus
He didn't buy it because in his mind 'to win' equals 'to mate',which is wrong.
You stopped reading Chernev because you didn't appreciate his 'serious obsession' with the h-pawn moves.Considering the aim of the book this is also wrong and makes both cases similar.

I don't want to sound stubborn, but I still don't see why. but let's not invade the thread. Chernev's books of course contain lots of valuable stuff.

to return to the topic, I'm no master, but I believe h3s and h6s are perfectly normal moves, I mean they aren't on the "avoid if possible" list like playing g3 when you don't have your light square bishop but the opponent does.

By sheer coincidence I played over a few Miles games last night.
He was a fantastic chess player.

His 1...a6 v Karpov is bound to get a mention soon.

When that was first played it caused a minor sensation.
I remember the 1...a6 games played getting played in league matches
and minor tournaments all over the country. I also recall all the 1-0's.

Good players know when to flaunt the rules of thumb, until then
we have to crawl, walk, run.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I remember this quote about Chernev.

"A chess library without a few of Chernev's books is like a wedding without a band."

Cannot recall who said it.

The book in question must have been Chernev's book on postions
with White to Play and win.

He wrote to educate and entertain I've never really seen him offer
any bad advice. You do go past him, but you can never ignore him.

OK. I looked up Chernev's logical chess move by move to find some examples.

in Game 1:


chernev's comment: A coffee-house move! Weak players make this move instinctively in dire dread of having a piece pinned. It is better to submit to the pin -a temporary inconvenience -than to prevent it by a move that loosens the position of the pawns defending the king and weakens the structure permanently. Playing h3 or g3 after castling creates an organic weakness that can never be remedied, as a pawn advanced cannot retreat, and the position, once altered, cannot be restored. The pawn that has moved forward itself becomes a target for direct attack, while the square it guarded earlier (here it is g3) becomes a landing field for the enemy's troops.

"you should never, unless of necessity or to gain advantage, move the pawns in front of the castled king", says Tarrasch, "for each pawn move loosens the position".

Alhekine expresses it even more strongly: "Always try to keep the three pawns in front of youyr castled king on their original squares as long as possible."

Black can now speculate on breaking up White's kingsie by removing the h3 pawn, even at the cost of a piece. The recapture tears open the g-file and exposes White's king to attack. This plan is of course not to be put into action until more pieces are brought into play.
--------------
Chernev goes on and on about this h3 move, but Rybka 3 Human thinks this move is perfectly fine. it evaluates it around 5 centipawns lower than the main line, and gives a =0.18 score, which means there's no harm done.
--------------
GAME 2:


Chernev's comment: To prevent black from pinning his knight by 9...Bg4, but as Publius Syrus observed some considerable time ago, "there are some remedies worse than the disease".

In disturbing the position of the pawns shielding his king, White weakens organically the structure of the knigside castled position and sets up the unfortunate h-pawn itself as a convenient target for direct attack.

All chess theorists affirm the validity of the concept of leaving the kingside pawns unmoved, from Staunton, who said more than a hundred and forty years ago, "It is seldom prudent in an inexperienced player to advance the pawns on the side on which his king has castled," to Reuben Fine who said a century later, "The most essential consideration is that the king must not be object to attack. He is safest when the three pawns are on their original squares."
---------------
However, when we consult Rybka Human, h3 is actually considered to be the best move in the position, with the score =0.18.
---------------
GAME 4:


Chernev's comment: Apparently to prevent 10.Ng5 or 10.Bg5.

white, who is interested only in completing his development, has not the slightes intention of making either of these moves. The move ...h6 by black (or h3 by white) should be played only if the h-pawn is to form a base for an attack by pawns, i.e. if it supports an advance by the g-pawn. Defensively, the move does more harm than good, as it loosens the pawn structure and weakens its resistance to attack. It is especially dangerous if the king has castled on the kingside, as the pawn itself, standing out from the ranks, provides a convenient target. Also (as if the foregoing were not enough) it does nothing to further the cause of development and wastes time which should be devoted to the liberation of pieces which are still shut in.
-----------------
However, according to Rybka, Chernev is wrong once again: she thinks 9...h6 is the best move in the position by black, and evaluates the position as +=0.58, which would translate to "white has slightly better winning chances".
------------------
So:

I'm not trying to belittle Chernev, the chess gods would punish me, but I think 3 evaluations of h3s and h6s in 4 games, and all 3 of them being inaccurate, is good enough for my point.

(I also find the comment about "h3 and h6 moves being good only for attacking purposes" plain wrong, but of course I'm not going to say it like that in front of Chernev fans 🙂 )

Originally posted by philidor position
OK. I looked up Chernev's logical chess move by move to find some examples.

in Game 1:
[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Enter New Game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "17"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. O-O d6 6. d4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. a5 Ba7 9. h3 [/pgn]

chernev's comment: [i]A ...[text shortened]... t of Chernev fans 🙂 )

God (Rybka) has spoken.
The 11th commandment : thou shalt not read Chernev!

Go and repent we,misguided souls,must 😞

Originally posted by Romanticus
God (Rybka) has spoken.
The 11th commandment : thou shalt not read Chernev!

Go and repent we,misguided souls,must 😞

I don’t have a problem with Rybka. What I do have a problem with is someone who states that this move is better because Rybka says so. We must not fall into this trap. This thinking will only hold back our own chess improvement. I would much rather play a move I understand then play one I don’t understand because Rybka said it’s the right move in the position. My chess will improve faster as well.

Interesting post P.P.

Cannot see why you have to bring in Rybka to try to make a point.
(I always worry about people who call their computers 'she'.)

It's an it.

Any reasonable chess player can see there is no real harm by 9...h6
in game 4. The mistake in that game was 12...0-0 when the pawn
on h6 became a serious liability.

Chernev then uses that point to show how weak a castled position
is when one of the pawns have moved.

So why use Rybka?

And then the quote:
In Game 1 h3 is '5 centipawns lower'

Good grief man - speak Chess.

Why hit me with 5 centipawns?

I'm a friendly guy. Why cannot we do this with chess talk.

I cannot discuss a human writing a book published in 1957
containing a game played in 1891 when your only argument
is based on a computer assessment
(which may well change when Rybka Mark 6 comes out)

How about:

HI Handsome Green Pawn,

In game 4 in Logical Chess Chernev makes a big deal about Black
playing 9...h6. He does not suggest any alternative.
I think he is using the winners bias by writing the notes AFTER
seeing the result.

In Games 1 & 2 I also think he goes overboard condenming h3.

PP

Possibly Right about Game 4, I think the other two h3's are questionable,
there are better moves in the position and h3 becomes an attacking target for Black.

Think the instructive point Chernev was getting across was how in
all three games the pawns on h3 & h6 was the cause of the castled
positon getting ripped to shreds.

Remember he had set himself the task of writing anote after every move.

So he had to say something about the h3's and h6's - he could not
really praise them could he?

Also these examples do drive home how weak a pawn on h3 or h6
CAN BE in front of a castled position.

GP.

But all this is miles away from what I was saying about h3's and h6's.
I can see a point behind all h3's and h6's in Logical Chess.

The ones I'm talking about are the silly pawn moves - the time wasters.

So now out of curiosity.

How does 'she' evaluate this postion?

Is 3...h6 top of the shop in centipawns?

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]

Agreed!

Its rubbish.

TOUCH THEM!

Caress them and make them feel needed... heh

Move a couple out there so the rest feel like they are part of something great.

All that aside, the KEY FACTOR is ACTIVE PIECES. The more active your pieces are the better. So, when you move a pawn in the opening there should be one of two things happening, 1) You are freeing a piece, increasing its mobility, or, 2) you are restricting an enemies piece, decreasing its mobility.

Just a little something I've picked up during my play.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Interesting post P.P.

Cannot see why you have to bring in Rybka to try to make a point.
(I always worry about people who call their computers 'she'.)

It's an it.

Any reasonable chess player can see there is no real harm by 9...h6
in game 4. The mistake in that game was 12...0-0 when the pawn
on h6 became a serious liability.

Chernev then u

[fen]r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 3[/fen]

oh boy, I never thought this could turn out like this. you people sound like you don't only love chernev, but you all absolutely hate computers. I mean not only dislike them, but hate them.

Rybka provides a pretty accurate evaluation of positions, and I quoted it. this is how grandmasters prepare their openings. obviously it doesn't tell the ultimate reality of positions, but it's good enough to tell if an h3 has ruined white's position or not.

So when I, (apparently a provisional rating player) say "I think this h3 is perfectly fine" it's OK, but when I say Rybka thinks this h3 is perfectly fine, it's a crime. I don't get this. really don't.

GP, yes, Rybka is a female. At least it's meant to be, as it's author has announced. Calling it a "she" is just a fun thing to do in the Rybka forums. you don't have to know that, but you don't have to make fun of that too.

and about the centipawns. I wonder if you get this mad when you hear anyone say centimeters instead of "it's a little longer than my arm".

well, whatever, I'll remind myself the anti-computer spirit on these forums next time. that's all I'm gonna say about Chernev and his ideas about h3. and I like the guy!

have fun, have nice chess.

Originally posted by philidor position
oh boy, I never thought this could turn out like this. you people sound like you don't only love chernev, but you all absolutely hate computers. I mean not only dislike them, but hate them.

Rybka provides a pretty accurate evaluation of positions, and I quoted it. this is how grandmasters prepare their openings. obviously it doesn't tell the ul ...[text shortened]... and his ideas about h3. and I like the guy!

have fun, have nice chess.

I'm not in love with Chernev,he's not my type.But as an author for clublevel players he's rivalled only by Euwe.As far as I know anyway.
I do not hate computers either.

But I give up.It's hopeless.

Hi PP

Don't blame the forum for their anti-computer attitude - blame me.

Your Quote:

"So when I, (apparently a provisional rating player) say "I think this h3
is perfectly fine" it's OK, but when I say Rybka thinks this h3
is perfectly fine, it's a crime. I don't get this. really don't. "

It's simply really.

I'll talk chess all day with anyone, but as soon as I see/hear;

"Frits says this, Rybka says that...." I despair.

You obviously felt strongly about the matter else why type out
all the Chernev notes. So who cares if we drift slightly off topic,
we can discuss Chernev and his writings.

We will call on Miss Rybka when the tactics and the forced moves
appear, THEN she is in a class of her own.

Good, I and agree with you to certain point.

Chernev was a great writer for the under 2000 but in 'Most Instructive'
and 'Logical Chess' he is guilty (though not a crime) of going way
over on the winner's moves and condenming the loser.
Notation by result as Purdy use to say.

Also he could not quite grasp the Black fianchetto - you find very few
in those two books.
So he kept quiet about them, he did not try to bluff his readers.

However in the games quoted what is main lesson that a novice will
take away from those games.

Don't push pawns in front of your castled position and he gives you
an excellent examples of what can happen if you do.

Looking at the three Chernev games,

Game 4: Black's h6 looks playable, he can use it to start a K-side pawnstorm if white castles K-side. Black still has the option of leaving his king in the centre if necessary.

Games 1,2: White's h3 in both cases is a loss of tempo and weakens his K-side defences. Black can delay/omit castling and plan for -

A pawnstorm with the g,h pawns
Dropping a knight on g3, the dream square for a black knight.
Sacrificing the light-square bishop on h3.
If black plays Bg5, then h6 and g5 drives it away and if Bxf6, gxf6 opens the g-file for the K-rook.

Game 4 as highlighted by PP, 9...h6 is OK as Black has NOT castled.

You can see why he played it - he wanted to develop the Knight
to e7 then to g6. He did not like the idea of the Bg5 pin so played 9...h6.

Then in this position.



He saw the planned Ng6 was dodgy because he had moved the h-pawn
so he 0-0. when Qd7 was possibly better and walked into Blackburne's attack.

I like to try and work out what went though a players mind prior to
a blunder. Knowledge of how players think in certain positions is a good
way of avoiding blunders or anticipating replies.

Here is the complete game.